Sustainable entrepreneurship of small businesses in Uganda: A confirmatory factor analysis

Full text

1
Vol. 15(5), pp. 139-151, May, 2021
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM2021.9207
Article Number: F6C160B67008
ISSN: 1993-8233
Copyright© 2021
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
African Journal of Business Management
Full Length Research Paper
Sustainable entrepreneurship of small businesses in
Uganda: A confirmatory factor analysis
Kimuli Saadat Nakyejwe1*, Sendawula Kasimu2 and Humphrey M. Sabi3
1Department of Entrepreneurship, Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda.
2Department of Marketing and Management, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University,
Kampala, Uganda.
3Information Systems Department, ICT University, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Received 3 February, 2021; Accepted 27 May, 2021
This paper examines specific constructs for sustainable entrepreneurship as perceived in the Ugandan
context using confirmatory factor analysis. This study is cross-sectional. Data were collected through a
face to face survey of 384 small businesses in Kampala selected through stratified and simple random
sampling. Data were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and descriptive statistics using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23. The
study revealed that the constructs for sustainable entrepreneurship as perceived in the Ugandan
context are production management, people and skills, ecosystem management, stakeholder, finance,
strategy, marketing and sales. This suggests that seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one were
identified, accounting for 63.23% of the total variance explained in sustainable entrepreneurship. This
study presents initial evidence on the constructs of sustainable entrepreneurship that apply to the local
context from the perspective of the business owners as opposed to the experts in the field. Implications
on policy and practice were discussed.
Key words: Sustainable entrepreneurship, confirmatory factor analysis, Uganda.
INTRODUCTION
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seek to
encourage businesses across the globe to prioritize both
environmental and economic growth. This has resulted in
the emergence of sustainable entrepreneurship as a new
field of study that allows entrepreneurs to balance the
social, environmental, and economic aspects of their
businesses (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2017). Accordingly,
the government of Uganda is currently promoting
sustainable entrepreneurship through industrialization as
a catalyst for inclusive growth, employment and wealth
creation in Uganda (Uganda National Planning Authority,
2020). As such, sustainable entrepreneurship is of a
growing interest among academicians, practitioners, and
policy makers (Muñoz and Cohen, 2018; Ploum et al.,
*Corresponding author. E-mail: ksaadah@mubs.ac.ug.
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License

2
140 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
2018; Gast et al., 2017). This is because it is estimated
that about 90% of such businesses have focused on
profit maximization rather than conserving the
environment and societal values (Chege and Wang,
2020). This has resulted in environmental degradation,
pollution, resource scarcity, and social challenges (Alani
and Ezekiel, 2016; Baden and Prasad, 2016; Belz and
Binder, 2017).
Extant evidence shows that most small businesses in
Uganda pose both social and environmental challenges
(Sendawula et al., 2020; Komakech et al., 2016). Such
businesses are in the manufacturing, hotel and restaurant
trade sector, for example, small businesses deal in
firewood and charcoal to satisfy over 90% of Ugandans
who have no access to electricity (UBOS, 2016). It is a
common practice that such businesses cut trees without
replacement, resulting in climate change and
environmental degradation. Socially, small businesses in
the agricultural sector use rudimentary technologies such
as the excessive use of pesticides that pose health
threats to the population (Oltramare et al., 2018).
In addressing these challenges, a new concept of
sustainable entrepreneurship has emerged in
entrepreneurship research. Sustainable entrepreneurship
involves entrepreneurs pursuing profits while making a
positive, sustainable impact on the environment and
society. It also pertains to creating profitable enterprises
and achieving certain environmental and social
objectives; and pursuing and achieving what we often
refer to as the triple bottom-line (Sarango-Lalangui et al.,
2018). Scholars (Hussain et al., 2018; Sargani et al.,
2020; Gu et al., 2020) have used the triple bottom line
model to explain sustainable entrepreneurship. They
developed it on the assumption that entrepreneurs should
develop new “win-win-win” approaches. It argues that
businesses should show the rapid increase of sustainable
standards in their practices by balancing the three
sustainability aspects. Every business whether small,
medium or large has an obligation to the society in terms
of economic, social or environmental aspects. To this
extent, this model is relevant for this study because
practicing sustainable entrepreneurship requires
balancing the three sustainability aspects.
Existing sustainable entrepreneurship literature (Kimuli
et al., 2020; Konys, 2019; Gast and Gundolf, 2017;
Hernández-Perlines and Rung-Hoch, 2017; Mei et al.,
2017; Muñoz and Dimov, 2017) has focused on its
antecedents. Constructs of sustainable entrepreneurship
undertaken by small businesses to maximize profits
without affecting the natural environment and the values
of the society remain unclear. We differ from these
scholars by examining the constructs for sustainable
entrepreneurship that are perceived relevant using
evidence from 358 small business in Uganda. We
postulate that understanding sustainable entrepreneurship
constructs as perceived from the Ugandan perspective
facilitates uptake of actions that have a disposable
constructive effect on the environment and the society.
This paper makes several contributions to existing
literature on sustainable entrepreneurship, as we used
principal component analysis with varimax to extract the
constructs of sustainable entrepreneurship that are more
relevant in the Ugandan context. Our results show that
seven constructs, namely production management,
people and skills, ecosystem management, stakeholder,
finance, strategy, marketing and sales, explain
sustainable entrepreneurship in the Ugandan context
unlike social responsibility and innovation. This suggests
that seven factors with Eigen values greater than one
were identified, accounting for 63.23% of the total
variance explained in sustainable entrepreneurship. We
based study results on the understanding and experience
of the Ugandan entrepreneurs operating small business
as opposed to gathering response from experts. We are
confident that entrepreneurs are in a better position to
offer valuable information about what is practically
happening.
Triple bottom line (TBL) theory suggests the dynamic
balance between its three major aspects: environmental,
social, and economic dimensions. These aspects form
the major dimensions of sustainability thus, the triple
bottom line (Elkington, 1997). According to Elkington,
TBL is a sustainability related theory with the aim to
search for a better way to express sustainable actions.
The theory considers three aspects in measuring
business performance, practices and success of the
organizations. These three aspects include; economic,
social and environmental. The theory has been further
developed into “3P formulation” which include; people,
planet and profits (Elkington, 2006). The bottom line of
businesses is profit or loss. However, in pursuit of profit,
enterprises should integrate the social and environmental
aspects of their operations in equal proportions. TBL also
enables small business owners to take longer
perspectives to evaluate future consequences of their
decisions.
Many scholars have widely used the triple bottom line
theory to explain sustainable development (Shepherd
and Patzelt, 2017). It does not limit the use of TBL to
explain sustainable development conceptually. We
acknowledge that small businesses play a vital role in
preserving the environment, society and attaining
economic gains, and the TBL is an important concept that
is enabling small businesses to do so (Muñoz-Pascual et
al., 2019; Liang et al., 2018). Existent studies have
adopted the TBL theory in explaining sustainable
entrepreneurship (Matthews et al., 2019; Choongo et al.,
2016; Shepherd and Petzelt (2017) have conducted one
of the most important works on TBL to explain
sustainable entrepreneurship. The authors developed a

3
model based on the TBL aspects of the social, economic
and environmental dimensions showing that
entrepreneurs can operate their businesses, maximizing
profits while conserving the environment and the values
of the society.
The economic aspect deals with the flow of money in
and out of the business (Rossi et al., 2020).
Entrepreneurs are not doing charity work; they cannot
survive without financial resources hence for sustainable
entrepreneurs to operate successfully, they need to
balance financial, social and environmental aspects.
Entrepreneurs who heavily emphasize economic gains
are known as conventional or commercial entrepreneurs
(Das and Rangarajan, 2020). This implies that such
economic entrepreneurs exploit opportunity and use
resources for profit gains and therefore are not
sustainable entrepreneurs since their primary goal is
economic gains. The economic line of TBL refers to the
business practices that impact on the economic system
(Arsić et al., 2020; Elkington, 2004). In addition, it refers
to the ability of the economy as the sub-system of
sustainability to continue in order to support future
generations (Niaki et al., 2019). It focuses on the
economic value in terms of consistent economic growth,
risk management, saving, research and development,
wages, taxes and employment. Thus, small business
owners in Uganda undertake entrepreneurial actions
purposely to maximize profits. This implies that the
majority of them are seemingly not sustainable
entrepreneurs. Therefore, this study sought to investigate
sustainable entrepreneurship constructs as perceived in
the Ugandan context.
Businesses are globally responsible to contribute to
social development through job creations and tax
payment to the government. However, businesses have
currently changed their attitude toward social
responsibility of the business because of emergence of
corporate social responsibility that is like sustainable
entrepreneurship. Gupta et al. (2020) revealed that a
sustainable entrepreneur is one who fulfills people and
community needs. Thus, the social line of the TBL refers
to business practices that benefit the community or
society (Elkington, 1997). These practices should value
the society by considering the community in pursuit of
profits. Such practices include; employment, education,
social care, health, community investment, recreation,
cultural investment and public awareness. Leaving out
the social aspect may lead to increased economic costs
in terms of security and market share (Sahasranamam
and Nandakumar, 2020). It is important to note that social
entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurship are
different. This is because both concepts have different
agendas. For example, social entrepreneurs focus on
social aim, welfare, and unity. On the other hand,
sustainable entrepreneurship should not focus on social
Kimuli et al. 141
aspects only but balancing the economic, environmental
and social aspects in equal proportions. Therefore, small
business owners in Uganda should practice sustainable
entrepreneurship through undertaking activities that
improve the welfare of the society while making profit and
conserving the environment.
The environmental aspect is the most widely
recognized dimension of sustainable entrepreneurship in
literature. Shepherd and Patzelt (2017) acknowledged
that the ecological system is the foundation of
environmental sustainability because resources such as
air, water and energy are part of the environment. Such
resources are scarce and non-renewable; thus, they
should be preserved to benefit the current and future
generations. Therefore, the environmental aspect in TBL
refers to engaging in practices that do not compromise
the environmental resources for future generations
(Elkington, 1997). It pertains to the efficient use of energy
resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
minimizing the ecological footprint (Sun et al., 2020;
Adedoyin et al., 2020). Hence, small business owners-
managers in Uganda should undertake entrepreneurial
actions that are preserving natural resources for the
benefit of the current and future generations.
Concept of sustainable entrepreneurship
Sustainability comes from sustainable development,
which simply means development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987).
Scholars have defined sustainability differently, with
complicated meanings and interpretations. According to
Purvis et al. (2019), sustainability is a rise in the
standards of living of the poor in terms of food, access to
education, healthcare, water and actual income. In
addition, Salas‐Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz (2019) view
sustainability as the capacity to stand for a period of time.
Furthermore, Elkington (1994) defines sustainability as
the balancing of the environment, social and economic
aspects. This is also known as the triple bottom line
(TBL). John Elkington coined triple bottom line in 1994.
Triple bottom line has been the emphasis of sustainability
in business. In another study, they extended triple bottom
line to include five domains; economic, social, ecological,
cultural and ethical aspects (Nuringsih et al., 2019). The
impact of the triple bottom line is viewed in terms of
“Economic (break-even point), self-defined social and
self-defined ecological value-creation goal reached”
(Farny and Binder, 2021). We conclude the sustainable
entrepreneurship journey with attaining financial
breakeven point and the enterprise‟s own social and
environmental goals.
In recent times, the United Nations has come up with

4
142 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
sustainable development goals that include; ending
poverty and hunger, improving health and education,
making cities more sustainable, combating climate
change and protecting oceans and forest (Leal, 2020).
These goals require entrepreneurs to go out in search of
opportunities to create value while keeping in mind
sustainable use of resources. Entrepreneurship is an
important conduit for a more sustainable economy.
Entrepreneurs pass on sustainable products, process,
and start-ups in order to solve social and environmental
problems (Belz and Binder, 2017). This kind of process
has been termed as sustainable entrepreneurship
(Shepherd and Patzelt, 2017).
Sustainable entrepreneurship is a new concept of the
entrepreneurship literature that has no consensus on the
definition. All the definitions have emphasis on five
aspects like its process, a goal, source of entrepreneurial
opportunities, to whom, balancing TBL, transition of
future goods and services, recognition, developing and
exploiting opportunities (Binder and Belz, 2015). In
addition, Sustainable entrepreneurship is defined as “the
focus on the preservation of nature, life support, and
community in pursuing perceived opportunities to bring
into existence future products, processes, and services
for gain, where gain is broadly construed to include
economic and non-economic gains to individuals, the
economy, and the society” (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2017).
In this study, we view sustainable entrepreneurship as
a concept that endeavors to balance the economic, social
and environmental aspects. In other words, they should
pursue economic gains while keeping the environmental
and social impact at the minimum. Sustainable
entrepreneurship research is still in its infancy stage with
so many conceptual studies. Quantitative and empirical
studies are still few. Therefore, there is a need to examine
specific constructs for sustainable entrepreneurship as
perceived in the Ugandan context using confirmatory
factor analysis.
We should pursue sustainable entrepreneurship with
the growing benefits. Small business owners could use it
as a competitive advantage in terms of reputation,
customer satisfaction, organizational commitment,
financial performance, motivation of employees, risk
management, market opportunities and improvement in
internal business dynamics (Cantele and Zardini, 2018;
Alani and Ezekiel, 2016). However, taking on
sustainability is costly for entrepreneurs in the short term
though with multiple benefits in the long term (Kimanzi
and Gamede, 2020).
In addition, social and environmental problems have
created potential business opportunities which
entrepreneurs can exploit, thereby balancing the social,
economic and environmental aspects of their businesses
to benefit the stakeholders (Belz and Binder, 2017). As
such, sustainable entrepreneurship may attract funding
from the public, which suggests that sustainable
enterprises have a better market position. Though the
market is top end and most often not available, it is
tedious which increases the chances of failure. Other
scholars like Soto-Acosta et al. (2016) found out that
sustainable entrepreneurship influences long term
business performance in terms of sustainability and may
lead to market share growth of the firm.
Previous studies have focused on competences,
institutional framework, risks and barriers, entrepreneurial
environment, altruism towards others, knowledge,
government regulations, sustainable entrepreneurship
practices, value and future orientation of sustainable
entrepreneurs (Alani and Ezekiel, 2016; Fichter and
Tiemann, 2018; Hoogendoorn et al., 2019; Ahmad et al.,
2020; Thelken and de Jong, 2020), with less attention on
the dimensions of sustainable entrepreneurship. This
motivated the researchers to conduct this study to
examine the specific dimensions of sustainable
entrepreneurship as perceived in the Uganda context
using evidence from small businesses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study's research design was cross-sectional and correlational.
The study population is made up of 108,534 small businesses in
Kampala (UBOS, 2016). Using Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sampling
table, 384 small businesses were selected. We selected small firms
from the trade, hospitality and manufacturing business sectors
using stratified and simple random sampling techniques. We
categorized small businesses according to the number of
employees and capital investment (MTIC, 2015). Accordingly,
businesses that employ between 5 and 49 and have a capital
investment of UGX: 10 million but not more than 100 million were
included in this study (MTIC, 2015). Out of the targeted sample size
of 384 small businesses, we received 358 usable questionnaires
back from small business owners who completed the
questionnaires, giving a response rate of 93%. The researcher's
face-to-face engagement with the respondents and maintaining of
frequent communication with respondents during the data collection
process resulted in the high response rate. We chose small
businesses as the unit of research for this study because they
contribute significantly to the growth of the Ugandan economy by
creating jobs, distributing wages, and generating government
revenue (Orobia et al., 2020). We chose small business owners or
managers as the unit of inquiry because they possess pertinent
knowledge about the businesses under investigation.
A questionnaire using six-point Likert scale ranging from Very
often to Never was designed and used to collect the data by
measuring the opinions of respondents. We used a face-to-face
administration of questionnaire to enable interaction between the
researcher and the respondents, and to improve the quality of
responses and response rate. The questionnaire design was
based on reviewing extant literature on sustainable
entrepreneurship (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2017). Sustainable
entrepreneurship was measured using Soto-Acosta et al. (2016)
and Elkington (1997) items that include; environmental
sustainability (ecosystem management, production management,
resource management), social sustainability (social responsibility,
people and skills, stakeholders) and economic sustainability

5
(strategy, finance, marketing, innovation).
We use factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and content
validity index to test for the validity and reliability of the research
instrument. The content validity index (CVI) was computed and had
a CVI value of 0.80. Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient was measured to
test reliability of how closely related a set of items are as group and
the Cronbach alpha values for all the study variables were above
0.7 which is acceptable (Nunnally, 1967).
Data analysis
SPSS was used to summarize the data and facilitate the analysis of
the findings. Specifically, quantitative data derived from the
questionnaire was analyzed using data coding to get exploratory
factor analysis results in order to classify components of
sustainable entrepreneurship as viewed by Ugandans (Field, 2013).
Additionally, frequencies were developed to document the many
activities that exemplify sustainable entrepreneurship in small
businesses. This was followed by a confirmatory factor analysis
using AMOS to validate the constructs of sustainable
entrepreneurship using data from Uganda's small businesses (Hair
et al., 2014).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study revealed that majority of the respondents were
females (52%), and the majority were in the 29-39 years
age bracket (38%), followed by those in the 18-28 years
age group (28%), clearly showing that on average, those
in business are below 40 years old. In addition, majority
of the respondents had either a diploma or bachelor‟s
degree (27%), showing that they have enough knowledge
to take part in the study. This is followed by masters‟
degree holders (20%), showing that the respondents
were knowledgeable as far as the issues under study are
concerned. However, majority of the small business
owners and managers had got training on sustainability
concerns (53%) while 47% had no form of training on
sustainability concerns. The results further show that
most of the businesses were between 2-5 years old
(55%). This is followed by those that have been around
for a period between 6-10 years (30%), showing that
most of the businesses were fairly new in their operations.
The purpose of this study was to examine sustainable
entrepreneurship construct in order to identify its
components as perceived in the Ugandan context. This
section starts with exploratory factory analysis results,
followed by descriptive statistics using frequencies.
A principal component analysis (PCA) was utilised to
reduce the number of variables under investigation and
highlight groups of interrelated variables. All the
assumptions of the PCA model were satisfied as
suggested by Field (2013). Table 1 shows that seven
factors with Eigen values greater than one were
identified, accounting for 63.23% of the total variance
explained in sustainable entrepreneurship.
Kimuli et al. 143
Except for items under resource management and
strategy, each variable had its highest loadings (above
0.5) on the component it conceptually belongs to showing
convergent validity is adequate. Reliability tests relating
to each component scale were satisfactory, with reported
Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient of 0.07 or higher. Seven
items were extracted as opposed to the ten
conceptualised factors. It eliminated all items under social
responsibility and innovation, while all items under
resource management loaded on the production
management construct. The seven factors were labelled
as production management, people and skills, ecosystem
management, stakeholder, finance, strategy and
marketing, respectively. Furthermore, it was established
that production management explained more of the
variance in sustainable entrepreneurship (12.5%),
followed by people and skills (11.8%), ecosystem
management (10.7%), stakeholder (8.9%), finance
(7.9%), strategy (6.6%) and marketing (4.9%)
respectively. This implies that production management
more than the other factors causes variability in
sustainable entrepreneurship.
Further analyses were conducted to establish the
frequency of undertaking the various activities that reflect
sustainable entrepreneurship among small businesses,
and we report the results for each construct of
sustainable entrepreneurship in the following section.
Frequency distribution on ecosystem management
Results in Table 2 show that on average, the identified
activities under ecosystem management are often
undertaken by the small businesses, thus reflecting
evidence of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on ecosystem management
Results in Table 2 show that on average, the identified
activities under ecosystem management are often
undertaken by the small businesses, thus reflecting
evidence of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on production management
Results in Table 3 show that on average, the identified
activities under production management are often
undertaken by the small businesses, thus reflecting
evidence of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on people and skills
Results in Table 4 show that on average, the identified
activities under people and skills are often undertaken by

6
144 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Table 1. EFA results on sustainable entrepreneurship.
Item
code
Statements
Prodn
Mgt
People
and skills
Ecosys
mgt
Stakeholder
Finance
Strategy
Mktg and
sales
pm7
Control the quality of the products/service using
cultural/mechanical methods rather than relying on the use
of chemicals
0.750
pm6
Make a plan that helps to maintain and improve the quality
of supplies and natural resources
0.691
pm8
Maintain a written record of all activities relating to the use of
chemicals and preservatives
0.671
pm3
Undertake fertilization/use of artificial ingredients/chemicals
when and where absolutely necessary
0.667
pm9
Use Chemicals in the production process when and where it
is absolutely necessary
0.631
pm2
Routinely undertake sample analysis to improve the quality
of products/services
0.623
rm1
Write a plan that specify targets and actions for reducing
energy usage
0.611
pm5
Use technology to monitor and improve production efficiency
0.602
rm2
Take into account energy efficiency when purchasing new
plant and equipment
0.590
pm1
Develop a management plan to support the production of
quality products/services
0.582
rm3
Review energy usage in all aspects of the business (office,
production, transport)
0.544
ps4
Give constructive feedback to employees about their
performance
0.744
ps8
Regularly identify training needs (e.g. Legal, technical,
management skills)
0.743
ps6
Provide health and safety training to staff
0.730
ps2
Undertake training
0.719
ps5
Write a well-defined job descriptions for the employees
0.697
ps3
Give credit to someone who goes out of their way to improve
the performance of our business
0.686
ps7
Have an effective employee induction program (e.g. Roles
and responsibilities, health and safety)
0.680
ps1
Have employees understand where the business will be in
three years’ time
0.597
em7
Write environmental and sustainability policy
0.814
em5
Operate a recycling policy covering all parts of your business
0.760
em9
Document waste management plan
0.742
em2
Review and up-date plans to reduce and to recycle wastes
0.732
Collect information on waste generated in all parts of the
business
0.704
em8
Commit to protecting and conserving the local ecosystem
0.673
em6
Use a variety of measures to monitor the impact on the
environment
0.660
s3
Understand how environmental performance impacts on the
business
0.768
s4
Network with other local business owners
0.720
s1
Fully understand customers’ views on environmental issues
0.713

7
Kimuli et al. 145
Table 1. Cont‟d
s2
Promote environmental and sustainability policies to customers
0.692
s5
Participate in one or more business associations
0.643
s6
Take time to communicate regularly with the key stakeholders
0.620
f2
Monitor income and expenditure monthly against formal budgets
0.760
f1
Identify the resources needed to achieve business objectives
0.755
st5
Review and up-date the performance against written business objectives
0.714
f3
Have a cash flow forecast for both this year and next year
0.642
st1
Have a clear, well thought out written business plan
0.733
st2
Clear where you want the business to be in three years from now
0.713
ms2
Evaluate the threats and opportunities facing the business within the past 12
months
0.613
ms1
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the business
0.572
st3
Prioritize profit growth and not just turnover growth
0.526
ms4
Review and up-date customers’ database in the last 12 months
0.713
ms5
Update the website of the business
0.673
ms8
Review and up-date the promotional materials within the past 24 months
0.616
Total variance explained
Percent
2.46
11.77
10.74
8.96
7.78
6.59
4.93
Cum percent
12.46
24.23
34.97
43.93
1.71
58.30
63.23
Eigen value
5.61
5.30
4.83
4.03
3.50
2.96
2.22
Scale reliability analysis; Cronbach's alpha; Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.852; Bartlett test for sphericity = 11487.43,
significance level =0.000. Source: Primary data.
the small businesses, thus reflecting evidence of
sustainable entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on stakeholders
Results in Table 5 show that on average, the identified
activities under stakeholders are often undertaken by the
small businesses, thus reflecting evidence of sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on finance
Results in Table 6 show that on average, the identified
activities under finance are often undertaken by the small
businesses, thus reflecting evidence of sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Frequency distribution on strategy and marketing
Results in Table 7 show that on average, the identified
activities under two constructs–strategies and marketing
are often undertaken by the small businesses, thus
reflecting evidence of sustainable entrepreneurship.
CFA measurement model for sustainable
entrepreneurship
We measured sustainability entrepreneurship using
environmental sustainability, social sustainability and
economic sustainability. Nonetheless, environmental
sustainability was measured in terms of ecosystem
management, production management and resource
management; we measured social sustainability in terms
of social responsibility, people and skills and
stakeholders; while we measured economic sustainability
in terms of strategy, finance, marketing and sales and
innovation, resulting in 10 factors. However, these factors
were reduced to 7 factors during the EFA and subjected
to a CFA. The initial CFA results showed that although
the standardized parameter estimates were all significant
(p<0.001), the fit-indices were below the acceptable level
signifying a poor measurement model fit. This caused a
re-specification by iteratively removing items that did not
meet the acceptable criteria. The purpose of repeating
the filtering process was to remove as few items as
possible, considering the need to derive a more
parsimonious model. Examination of the modification
indices (MIs) revealed mis-specifications affiliated with 22
items. 22 out of 44 items in total were iteratively removed

8
146 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics on ecosystem management (valid percent).
How often do you …
1
2
3
4
5
6
Collect information on waste generated in all parts of the business
11.7
20.5
18.7
13.3
13.6
22.3
Review and up-date plans to reduce and to recycle wastes
13.0
14.5
14.8
20.2
21.1
16.6
Write environmental and sustainability policy
19.0
12.0
21.4
11.4
17.5
18.7
Commit to protecting and conserving the local ecosystem
4.8
9.6
15.4
28.6
19.3
22.3
Document waste management plan
18.1
8.4
15.7
20.2
15.7
22.0
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often, 6‟always‟.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics on production management (valid percent).
How often do you …
1
2
3
4
5
6
Develop a management plan to support the production of quality products/services
7.2
9.9
17.8
21.1
17.2
26.8
Routinely undertake sample analysis to improve the quality of products/services
6.3
9.3
15.7
18.4
29.5
20.8
Undertake fertilization/use of artificial ingredients/chemicals when and where absolutely necessary
15.7
7.5
12.3
16.0
23.2
25.3
Make a plan that helps to maintain and improve the quality of supplies and natural resources
8.1
9.0
15.4
19.0
22.3
26.2
Control the quality of the products/service using cultural/mechanical methods rather than relying on the use of
chemicals
11.4
7.8
13.9
23.2
21.7
22.0
Maintain a written record of all activities relating to the use of chemicals and preservatives
12.0
4.5
13.9
20.2
19.9
29.5
Use Chemicals in the production process when and where it is absolutely necessary
7.2
10.2
13.0
15.1
23.8
30.7
Write a plan that specify targets and actions for reducing energy usage
14.8
6.3
8.7
20.5
22.6
27.1
Take into account energy efficiency when purchasing new plant and equipment
6.9
9.6
12.7
16.0
28.0
26.8
Review energy usage in all aspects of the business (office, production, transport)
9.0
6.0
15.4
16.6
26.2
26.8
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often‟, 6‟always‟.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics on people and skills (valid percent).
How often do you …?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Have employees understand where the business will be in three years’ time
6.3
2.7
15.4
21.7
26.2
27.7
Undertake training
5.4
3.9
15.1
22.6
27.4
25.6
Give credit to someone who goes out of their way to improve the performance of our business
5.1
4.5
12.7
19.9
25.9
31.9
Give constructive feedback to employees about their performance
5.4
5.7
9.3
21.1
28.9
29.5
Write a well-defined job description for the employees
4.8
6.3
14.2
15.1
30.7
28.9
Provide health and safety training to staff
5.1
11.4
12.0
14.2
23.2
34.0
Have an effective employee induction program (e.g., Roles and responsibilities, health and safety)
0.0
8.7
11.7
23.2
24.7
31.6
Regularly identify training needs (e.g., Legal, technical, management skills)
8.4
4.2
10.5
19.6
30.7
26.5
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often‟, 6‟always‟.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics on stakeholders (valid percent).
How often do you …
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fully understand customers‟ views on environmental issues
4.2
7.8
19.3
17.8
22.3
28.6
Promote environmental and sustainability policies to customers
0.0
11.7
10.8
20.2
35.5
21.7
Understand how environmental performance impacts on the business
0
8.4
15.1
15.1
30.4
31.0
Network with other local business owners
3.9
4.2
13.9
19.9
18.1
40.1
Participate in one or more business associations
5.4
3.0
15.7
23.2
25.3
27.4
Take time to communicate regularly with the key stakeholders
4.5
6.6
15.1
17.5
22.3
34.0
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often‟, 6‟always‟.

9
Kimuli et al. 147
Table 6. Descriptive statistics on finance (valid percent).
How often do you …
1
2
3
4
5
6
Monitor income and expenditure monthly against formal budgets
0
12.0
5.1
17.8
26.5
38.6
Identify the resources needed to achieve business objectives
7.5
4.5
9.6
12.7
31.9
33.7
Review and up-date the performance against written business objectives
3.3
8.7
12.0
19.9
26.2
29.8
Have a cash flow forecast for both this year and next year
0
2.4
14.5
24.7
31.6
26.8
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often‟ , 6‟always‟.
Table 7. Descriptive statistics on strategy and marketing (valid percent).
How often do you …
1
2
3
4
5
6
Have a clear, well thought out written business plan
0
8.4
11.7
22.3
26.8
30.7
Clear where you want the business to be in three years from now
0
9.6
14.2
22.9
29.8
23.5
Evaluate the threats and opportunities facing the business within the past 12 months
0
4.5
9.9
16.3
41.9
27.4
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the business
0
1.5
8.7
18.4
31.3
40.1
Prioritize profit growth and not just turnover growth
0
4.8
14.8
25.6
28.6
26.2
Review and up-date customers‟ database in the last 12 months
0
5.7
15.7
21.7
28.3
28.6
Update the website of the business
7.2
7.2
16.6
16.3
26.2
26.5
Review and up-date the promotional materials within the past 24 months
1.5
3.9
25.3
15.1
28.6
25.6
Legend – 1 „never‟, 2 „rarely‟, 3 „somewhat rarely‟, 4 „somewhat often‟, 5 „often‟, 6‟always‟
in the ultimate model prior to further analysis. While the
number of deleted items was relatively high compared to
the total, their removal did not change the content of the
construct as it was conceptualized. This is so because
the retained items were significant and had standardized
factor loadings higher than the recommended level of
0.50 thus, the meanings of the factors were preserved.
The findings confirmed the validity of the ultimate model
with excellent model fit statistics for this construct
measure as reported in Table 8 and Figure 1. Given that
the model fit the data well and the correlation between
the underlying factors was less than 0.85, no further
adjustments were required.
DISCUSSION
The study results show that seven constructs that include;
production management, people and skills, ecosystem
management, stakeholder, finance, strategy, marketing
and sales explain sustainable entrepreneurship in the
Ugandan context. This suggests that seven factors with
Eigen values greater than one were identified, accounting
for 63.23% of the total variance explained in sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Firstly, looking at the exploratory factor analysis results,
it was established that seven factors that make up
sustainable entrepreneurship were extracted, as opposed
to the ten factors fronted by the triple bottom line
scholars. Specifically, all items under social responsibility
and innovation were eliminated, while all items under
resource management loaded on the production
management construct. The seven factors were labeled
as production management, people and skills, ecosystem
management, stakeholder, finance, strategy and
marketing, respectively. Environment sustainability
remained with ecosystem and production management,
Social sustainability remained with people and skills and
stakeholders, while financial sustainability remained with
finance, strategy and marketing. This has implications for
future studies on sustainable entrepreneurship in
Uganda, in that such factors should employ the seven
factors and not necessarily the original ten factors. Social
responsibility items may not measure sustainable
entrepreneurship in Uganda because, the profit margin of
these businesses does not permit them to undertake
such activities as compared to big companies that have
enough resources to support social activities as one of
the marketing strategies. As such, small businesses
rarely engage in social responsibility activities, except for
helping the traditional extended families. The elimination
of innovation as a factor of sustainable entrepreneurship
can be explained by the fact that most businesses in
Uganda are the “me-too” businesses. The copy-cat
syndrome does not provide room for development of new
ideas, products and processes. Basing on these
arguments, social responsibility and innovation are
inconsequential in constructing sustainable entre-

10
148 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Table 8. CFA- Sustainable entrepreneurship.
Paths
Constructs
Unstandardized coefficient
P
Standardized
Est
Estimate
S.E.
C.R.
PM3_1
<---
PdnMgt
1.00
0.74
PM8_1
<---
PdnMgt
0.96
0.07
13.01
***
0.75
PM9_1
<---
PdnMgt
1.03
0.07
14.15
***
0.85
PS1_1
<---
PplSk
1.00
0.63
PS2_1
<---
PplSk
1.08
0.11
9.97
***
0.70
PS6_1
<---
PplSk
1.20
0.12
9.92
***
0.69
PS7_1
<---
PplSk
1.05
0.10
10.32
***
0.73
SH2_1
<---
StkHold
1.00
0.75
SH4_1
<---
StkHold
1.14
0.09
12.42
***
0.76
EM2_1
<---
EcoSys
1.00
0.75
EM5_1
<---
EcoSys
1.14
0.07
15.27
***
0.85
EM6_1
<---
EcoSys
1.02
0.07
13.82
***
0.77
EM7_1
<---
EcoSys
1.08
0.08
13.49
***
0.76
F3_1
<---
Fin
1.00
0.68
F2_1
<---
Fin
1.64
0.12
13.27
***
0.91
F1_1
<---
Fin
1.57
0.13
12.60
***
0.77
ST3_1
<---
Strat
0.95
0.07
13.38
***
0.76
ST2_1
<---
Strat
1.15
0.08
14.35
***
0.85
ST1_1
<---
Strat
1.00
0.75
MS4_1
<---
Mktg
1.00
0.70
MS8_1
<---
Mktg
1.10
0.13
8.46
***
0.73
SH5_1
<---
StkHold
1.04
0.09
11.96
***
0.72
Achieved Fit Indices
CMIN/DF
RMSEA
GFI
CFI
TLI
NFI
2.3
0.063
0.903
0.932
0.913
0.887
(416/181)
preneurship among small businesses in Uganda.
These results are consistent with Soto-Acosta et al.
(2016), who reported that business owners‟ approaches
towards the social, environmental and economic aspects
promote businesses performance in terms of increased
turnover and market share and customer satisfaction and
retention. This is further echoed by Hosseininia and
Ramezani (2016). They showed that social and
environmental factors of customer orientation, recycling,
and the need to conserve the future significantly
promotes sustainable entrepreneurship of SMEs in Iran's
food industry. However, our results disagree with Mayanja
et al. (2019), who reported that there is a positive
relationship between entrepreneurial networking and
ecologies of innovation of small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in Uganda. This suggests that SMEs innovate
their products, services, markets and operations to meet
the changing customer needs.
Secondly, it was evident that environmental
sustainability explains more variance (23.3%) in
sustainable entrepreneurship followed by social
sustainability (20.7%) and economic sustainability
(19.4%) respectively. When investigating sustainable
entrepreneurship among small businesses, emphasis
should be put on environment and social factors than
economic factors. No wonder, it is frequently reported
that such businesses rarely survive beyond three years
because they lack the financial muscle which is the
oxygen of any business as blood is for humans. This
deduction resonates well with Namagembe et al. (2019).
They reported that eco-design and internal environmental
management practices positively and significantly
influence the ecological performance of manufacturing
small and medium enterprises in Uganda. Li et al. (2020)
also add that industries exhibit clean production
behaviour and green supply chain management practice.
This implies that businesses that undertake their
production and supply chain operations while considering

11
Kimuli et al. 149
Figure 1. CFA measurement model for Sustainable entrepreneurship.
the natural environment usually supports the uptake of
environmental sustainability practices in their operations.
In another study conducted by Piyathanavong et al.
(2019) on adopting organizational environmental
protection methods in Thailand's manufacturing sector, it
was revealed that manufacturing firms consider the
impact on the environment and benefits from adopting
these operational approaches as the company's policy
and initiative, environmental awareness, and cost saving
as the primary reasons for adopting environmental
sustainability practices in Thailand.
Thirdly, the descriptive statistics revealed that
respondents were regularly involved in activities related
to economic, social and environment sustainability. On
the face, the results seem to contradict the earlier
motivation of the study. Nonetheless, a deeper analysis
revealed that most of these actions are done in a
rudimentary manner. For instance, most small businesses
do not have well prepared plans let alone strategic plans.
But they have something sketchy which often is kept as
„memory records‟. On training employees and creating
awareness to customers about sustainability matters,
they do so subconsciously without forethought. They do
not have written policies to this effect. In addition, most of
the businesses have waste disposal mechanisms in
place to ensure that they try not to litter their waste. In a
nutshell, these activities are undertaken in a rudimentary
way and when compared to formal procedures, such
activities would pass as non-existent. This is supported
by the findings of Orobia et al. (2020) that revealed that
youth and women entrepreneurs undertake social,
environmental and economic practices in their
businesses. This is further strengthened by Sendawula et
al. (2020), who showed that manufacturing small and
medium enterprises undertake waste management, eco-
friendly packaging, energy efficiency and water

12
150 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
conservation as practices that have to conserve the
natural environment and the values of the society while
catalyzing economic development.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has shown that sustainable entrepreneurship
in small businesses is best understood from the lens of
the small business owners. On understanding sustainable
entrepreneurship among small businesses in Uganda,
the study revealed that there is evidence of practice of
economic, environmental and social sustainability thus
sustainable entrepreneurship. This finding was not
surprising because Uganda is a collectivist economy and
therefore sustainability issues are a major concern to
most citizens. In Uganda, all businesses, customers and
other stakeholders in the society jointly used certain
resources, for example, free education at the primary and
secondary levels and roads are used freely. In addition,
Uganda faces many social problems such as poverty,
unemployment, prostitution, corruption, crimes, poor
health, drug abuse, child labour and poor education
facilities. This implies that social sustainability comes at
the forefront. Similarly, environmental concerns like
pollution, deforestation are a major call by Ugandans of
recent.
Our findings imply that policymakers should develop
and closely monitor production management, people and
skills, ecosystem management, stakeholder, finance,
strategy, marketing and sales aspects of small businesses
if sustainable entrepreneurship is to be embraced in
Uganda. Small-business owner-managers should also
integrate the social, environmental and economic aspects
in their businesses to catalyze sustainable development
in Uganda.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests
REFERENCES
Adedoyin FF, Alola AA, Bekun FV (2020). An assessment of
environmental sustainability corridor: the role of economic expansion
and research and development in EU countries. Science of the Total
Environment 713:136726.
Ahmad NH, Rahman SA, Rajendran NLKA, Halim HA (2020).
Sustainable entrepreneurship practices in Malaysian manufacturing
SMEs: the role of individual, organisational and institutional factors.
World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development 16(2):153-171.
Alani F, Ezekiel O (2016). Critical Success Factors for Sustainable
Entrepreneurship in SMEs: Nigerian Perspective. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing 7(3):2039-9340.
Arsić M, Jovanović Z, Tomić R, Tomović N, Arsić S, Bodolo I (2020).
Impact of logistics capacity on economic sustainability of SMEs.
Sustainability 12(5):911.
Baden D, Prasad S (2016). Applying behavioural theory to the
challenge of sustainable development: Using hairdressers as
diffusers of more sustainable hair-care practices. Journal of Business
Ethics 133(2):335-349.
Belz FM, Binder JK (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent
process model. Business Strategy and the Environment 26(1):1-17.
Binder JK, Belz FM (2017). Developing Sustainable Opportunities:
Merging Insights from Social Identity and Structuration Theory. In
Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 14167).
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Binder JK, Belz FM (2015). Sustainable entrepreneurship: what it is. In
Kyrö P (ed.): Handbook of entrepreneurship and sustainable
development research pp. 30-75.
Brundtland GH (1987). World Commission on Environment and
Development: our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cantele S, Zardini A (2018). Is sustainability a competitive advantage
for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in
the sustainability–financial performance relationship. Journal of
Cleaner Production 182:166-176.
Chege SM, Wang D (2020). The impact of entrepreneurs' environmental
analysis strategy on organizational performance. Journal of Rural
Studies 77:113-125.
Choongo P, Van Burg E, Paas LJ, Masurel E (2016). Factors
influencing the identification of sustainable opportunities by SMEs:
Empirical evidence from Zambia. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8(1):1-
24.
Das M, Rangarajan K (2020). Impact of policy initiatives and
collaborative synergy on sustainability and business growth of Indian
SMEs. Indian Growth and Development Review 13(3):607-627.
Elkington J (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line:
Does it all add up 11(12):1-16.
Elkington J (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win
business strategies for sustainable development. California
Management Review 36:90-100.
Elkington J (1997). Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks : The Triple
Bottom line of 21st Century Business. Environmental Quality
Management 199:37-51.
Elkington J (2006). Governance for Sustainability. Corporate
Governance. An International Review 14(6):522-529.
Farny S, Binder J (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurship. In World
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fichter K, Tiemann I (2018). Factors influencing university support for
sustainable entrepreneurship: Insights from explorative case
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 175:512-524.
Field A (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics,
Statistic.
Gast J, Gundolf K (2017). Doing business in a green way : A systematic
review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and
future research. Journal of Cleaner Production 147:44-56.
Gast J, Gundolf K, Cesinger B (2017). Doing business in a green way:
A systematic review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship
literature and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner
Production 147:44-56.
Gu W, Wang J, Hua X, Liu Z (2020). Entrepreneurship and high-quality
economic development: based on the triple bottom line of sustainable
development. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal 17(1):1-27.
Gupta P, Chauhan S, Paul J, Jaiswal MP (2020). Social
entrepreneurship research: A review and future research
agenda. Journal of Business Research 113:209-229.
Hair JF, Gabriel M, Patel V (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural
equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a
marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing 13(2):44-45.
Hernández-Perlines F, Rung-Hoch N (2017). Sustainable
entrepreneurial orientation in family firms. Sustainability (Switzerland)
9(7):1-16.
Hoogendoorn B, Van der Zwan P, Thurik R (2019). Sustainable

13
entrepreneurship: The role of perceived barriers and risk. Journal of
Business Ethics 157(4):1133-1154.
Hosseininia G, Ramezani A (2016). Factors influencing sustainable
entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran: A
case study of food industry. Sustainability 8(10):1010.
Hussain N, Rigoni U, Orij RP (2018). Corporate governance and
sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line
performance. Journal of Business Ethics 149(2):411-432.
Kimanzi MK, Gamede VW (2020). Embracing the role of finance in
sustainability for SMEs. International Journal of Economics and
Finance 12(2):453-468.
Kimuli SNL, Orobia L, Sabi HM, Tsuma CK (2020). Sustainability
intention: mediator of sustainability behavioral control and sustainable
entrepreneurship. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development 16(2):81-95.
Komakech AJ, Zurbrügg C, Miito GJ, Wanyama J, Vinnerås B (2016).
Environmental impact from vermicomposting of organic waste in
Kampala, Uganda: Journal of Environmental Management 181:395-
402.
Konys A (2019). Towards sustainable entrepreneurship holistic
construct. Sustainability 11(23):6749.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30:607-610.
Leal FW (2020). Viewpoint: accelerating the implementation of the
SDGs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
21(3):507-511.
Li X, Du J, Long H (2020). Understanding the green development
behavior and performance of industrial enterprises (GDBP-IE): scale
development and validation. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 17(5):1716.
Liang X, Zhao X, Wang M, Li Z (2018). Small and medium-sized
enterprises sustainable supply chain financing decision based on
triple bottom line theory. Sustainability 10(11):4242.
Matthews RL, Tse YK, O‟Meara Wallis M, Marzec PE (2019). A
stakeholder perspective on process improvement behaviours:
delivering the triple bottom line in SMEs. Production Planning and
Control 30(5-6):437-447.
Mayanja S, Ntayi JM, Munene JC, Kagaari JRK, Waswa B (2019).
Ecologies of innovation among small and medium enterprises in
Uganda as a mediator of entrepreneurial networking and opportunity
exploitation. Cogent Business and Management 6(1):1641256.
Mei H, Ma Z, Jiao S, Chen X, Lv X, Zhan Z (2017). The sustainable
personality in entrepreneurship: The relationship between Big Six
personality, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
intention in the Chinese context. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(9):5-8.
MTIC (2015). Uganda Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME)
policy. Available at: http://www.ugandainvest.go.ug/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Final-MSME-Policy-July-2015.pdf
Muñoz P, Cohen B (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research:
Taking stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the
Environment 27(3):300-322.
Muñoz P, Dimov D (2017). Moral intensity as catalyst for opportunities
for sustainable development. In: The world scientific reference on
entrepreneurship. Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship 3:225-
247.
Muñoz-Pascual L, Curado C, Galende J (2019). The triple bottom line
on sustainable product innovation performance in SMEs: A mixed
methods approach. Sustainability 11(6):1689.
Namagembe S, Ryan S, Sridharan R (2019). Green supply chain
practice adoption and firm performance: manufacturing SMEs in
Uganda. Management of Environmental Quality 30(1):5-35.
Niaki MK, Torabi SA, Nonino F (2019). Why manufacturers adopt
additive manufacturing technologies: The role of sustainability.
Journal of Cleaner Production 222:381-392.
Nunnally JC (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nuringsih K, Nuryasman MN, IwanPrasodjo RA (2019). Sustainable
entrepreneurial intention: The perceived of triple bottom line among
female students. Journal of Management 23(2):168-190.
Kimuli et al. 151
Oltramare C, Weiss FT, Atuhaire A, Staudacher P (2018). Impact of
pesticide use by smallholder farmers on water quality in the Wakiso
District: Uganda. EGU General Assembly 19, 19228.
Orobia AL, Tusiime I, Mwesigwa R, Ssekiziyivu B (2020).
Entrepreneurial framework conditions and business sustainability
among the youth and women entrepreneurs. Asia Pacific Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship 14(1):60-75.
Piyathanavong V, Garza-Reyes JA, Kumar V, Maldonado-Guzmán G,
Mangla SK (2019). The adoption of operational environmental
sustainability approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. Journal of
Cleaner Production 220:507-528.
Ploum L, Blok V, Lans T, Omta O (2018). Toward a validated
competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship.
Organization and environment 31(2):113-132.
Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in
search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14(3):681-695.
Rossi E, Bertassini AC, dos Santos Ferreira C, do Amaral WAN,
Ometto AR (2020). Circular economy indicators for organizations
considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and
electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production 247:119137.
Sahasranamam S, Nandakumar MK (2020). Individual capital and
social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of
Business Research 107:104-117.
Salas‐Zapata WA, Ortiz‐Muñoz SM (2019). Analysis of meanings of the
concept of sustainability. Sustainable Development 27(1):153-161.
Sarango-Lalangui P, Santos JLS, Hormiga E (2018). The development
of sustainable entrepreneurship research field. Sustainability
10(6):2005.
Sargani GR, Zhou D, Raza MH, Wei Y (2020). Sustainable
entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector: The nexus of the triple
bottom line measurement approach. Sustainability 12(8):3275.
Sendawula K, Bagire V, Mbidde CI, Turyakira P (2020). Environmental
commitment and environmental sustainability practices of
manufacturing small and medium enterprises in Uganda. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy. Available at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEC-07-2020-
0132/full/html
Shepherd DA, Patzelt H (2017). Researching entrepreneurships‟ role in
sustainable development. In Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship:
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 149-179.
Soto-Acosta P, Cismaru DM, Vătămănescu EM, Ciochină R (2016).
Sustainable Entrepreneurship in SMEs: A Business Performance
Perspective. Sustainability 8(4):342.
Sun H, Mohsin M, Alharthi M, Abbas Q (2020). Measuring
environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. Journal of
Cleaner Production 251:119519.
Thelken HN, de Jong G (2020). The impact of values and future
orientation on intention formation within sustainable
entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production 266:122052.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) (2016). Statistical abstract. In
Uganda Bureau of Statistics Statistics.
Uganda National Planning Authority (2020). Third national development
plan (NDPIII) 2020/21 – 2024/25. Available at:
https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2020/third-national-development-
plan-ndp-iii-202021-202425-6988