Content uploaded by Matteo Cristofaro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matteo Cristofaro on Mar 11, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Venturing green: the impact of
sustainable business model innovation
on corporate environmental
performance in social enterprises
Leul Girma
Department of Management, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
Stephen Oduro
Faculty of Economics, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy
Nicola Cucari
Department of Management, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy, and
Matteo Cristofaro
Department of Management and Law, Facolta di Economia,
Universita degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to explore the potential of social enterprises (SEs) in promoting sustainable
practices, focusing on their role in reshaping corporate environmental performance (CEP) through sustainable
business model innovation (SBMI). Specifically, it examines the impact of SBMI on CEP and the moderating
effect of external collaboration (EC).
Design/methodology/approach –This study analyses the influence of SBMI on the CEP of 500 Canadian
SEs. Chi-square tests, structural equation modelling, correlation analysis and regression analysis were used to
assess the relationships between SBMI, CEP and EC.
Findings –Results reveal that SBMI positively influences CEP by enabling SEs to offer environmentally
sustainable products and services. In addition, collaboration with diverse stakeholders significantly enhances
the effectiveness of SBMI in achieving environmental objectives.
Originality/value –By incorporating ecological modernization theory and institutional theory, this study
provides fresh insights into the environmental impact of SEs. It underscores the importance of SEs addressing
regulatory, social and cultural factors to support their sustainability and legitimacy.
Keywords Social enterprises, Venture, Environmental performance,
Sustainable business model innovation, External collaboration
Paper type Research paper
© Leul Girma, Stephen Oduro, Nicola Cucari and Matteo Cristofaro. Published by Emerald
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for
both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication
and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/
legalcode
MRR
48,13
20
Received15 July 2024
Revised 4 November 2024
Accepted 20 January 2025
Management Research Review
Vol.48 No. 13, 2025
pp. 20-44
Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-07-2024-0534
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm
1. Introduction
Social enterprises (SEs) are ventures that operate with a distinct focus on social objectives,
generating economic value and quantifiable forms of value such as social and natural
environmental value (Chell, 2007;Battilana and Lee, 2014;Murphy et al., 2022;Bhatt, 2022).
SEs usually transform traditional business models by incorporating collaborative management
practices to ensure shared value for all stakeholders and enhance the quality of life within
communities (Klarin and Suseno, 2023;Hagedoorn et al.,2023;Weerakoon, 2024). In today’s
venture landscape, where companies are re-evaluating their operational and innovative
strategies in response to pressing environmental challenges, SEs find themselves at the
intersection of social and environmental responsibility (McInerney, 2012). A pragmatic
approach to sustainability involves focusing on the interplay between organizations and the
environment in the context of their business model (Pham et al.,2020). The ability to transition
to new business models quickly and successfully –called sustainable business model
innovation (SBMI) –is a strategic way to achieve significant positive outcomes and effectively
address environmental and social impacts (Geissdoerfer et al.,2018;Manninen et al.,2024). In
response to climate change, management objectives must shift towards maximizing social and
environmental benefits over short-term economic gains. However, the financial benefits of
SBMI may take time to materialize, so a long-term perspective and sustainability-focused
strategy are essential (Utaminingsih et al., 2024).
Recent attention within SEs has been directed towards improving their corporate
environmental performance (CEP), reflecting the organization’s responsibility to manage
interactions with the natural environment (Aragón-Correa and Sharma, 2003). This shift
highlights the evolving nature of SEs, emphasizing the importance of balancing social and
environmental objectives within their operational frameworks and necessitating restructuring
their business models to align with sustainable innovation strategies (Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013).
Existing studies mainly explore the fusion of economic and social objectives in SE
business models and examine how value is created, captured and shared in the SE context
(Scuotto et al.,2023). Efforts have been made to identify the essence of SE business models,
define their components and recognize their roots in business model innovation
(Bashir et al.,2022;Shakeel et al.,2020). Nevertheless, limited research has specifically
addressed the development of SBMI for emerging SEs and its impact on CEP (e.g.
Prihadyanti, 2023). In addition, given that SEs often face resource limitations, external
collaboration (EC) with other organizations and stakeholders can amplify SBMI’s impact,
foster resilience and create synergistic value, further enhancing SEs’ability to achieve their
sustainability goals. Therefore, the role of EC remains underexplored as a potential
moderating factor in the SBMI–CEP relationship.
The above gaps represent a missed opportunity for SEs to realize their full potential in
promoting positive environmental change, resulting in inefficient resource allocation, limited
strategic guidance, reduced competitiveness and potential policy risks. To answer the
mentioned research gaps, this study addresses these research questions:
RQ1. How does sustainable business model innovation impact the corporate
environmental performance of social enterprises?
RQ2. How does external collaboration act as a moderating factor in this relationship?
This study draws on ecological modernization theory (EMT) and institutional theory (INT)
to address these questions. EMT suggests that ecological sustainability can be achieved by
embedding progressive environmental technologies and practices within business models,
Management
Research Review
21
positioning SEs as drivers of sustainable innovation that actively raise environmental
standards (Mol and Spaargaren, 2000). Complementing this, INT examines how SEs gain
legitimacy by aligning their goals with institutional norms and pressures, establishing
themselves as credible actors within both social and business spheres. This dual alignment
allows SEs to implement meaningful, long-term changes that resonate with stakeholders and
foster shifts towards broader sustainable practices (Scott, 2017).
Data were collected and analysed through a structured survey, targeting a representative
sample of 500 social entrepreneurs across Canada. This study reveals that SBMI in SEs
significantly enhances CEP. By aligning economic and environmental goals, SEs exemplify
ecological modernization and actively drive institutional change, influencing regulatory and
social norms. The findings underscore the role of SBMI as a catalyst for both environmental
and institutional transformation, with EC amplifying its impact, offering valuable insights
for policymakers and positioning SEs as key agents of sustainable development.
This study has theoretical and managerial implications. The integration of EMTand INT
provides a comprehensive framework that promotes sustainable practices and strengthens
institutional resilience to long-term environmental and societal challenges. EMT drives SEs
towards ecological innovation, grounding their strategies in environmental imperatives that
prioritize sustainable practices and green technologies. Meanwhile, INT emphasizes the
importance of aligning these strategies within institutional structures, enabling SEs to gain
legitimacy and influence by operating within, yet reshaping, established norms and
expectations. This theoretical synergy positions SEs as pivotal agents of transformation,
bridging the gap between ecological goals and institutional standards. By embodying both
progressive environmental objectives and institutional legitimacy, SEs champion a path to
sustainability that goes beyond compliance, encouraging systemic change across the
business ecosystem. This study underscores how SEs can leverage this dual alignment to
foster sustainable innovation, catalyse industry-wide shifts and accelerate the diffusion of
green practices, setting new benchmarks for environmental responsibility within the broader
economy. Moreover, the findings highlight the capacity of SBMI to improve CEP, especially
when supported by EC. This underlines the importance of strategic partnerships in
amplifying the impact of SBMI and positions SE as a key actor in advancing sustainability
efforts across sectors.
Practically, integrating EMT and INT empowers SEs to address sustainability challenges
with both innovative and credible approaches. By embedding green technologies (as
emphasized by EMT) and aligning with institutional norms (as emphasized by INT), SEs can
strengthen stakeholder trust and broaden their influence. This dual approach not only
enhances SEs’capacity to implement sustainable practices effectively but also positions
them as leaders in driving industry standards towards environmental responsibility. As a
result, SEs gain a competitive edge while contributing to a resilient and sustainable business
ecosystem, inspiring other enterprises to adopt similar strategies.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1 Brief premises on ecological modernization theory and institutional theory
EMT is based on fundamental assumptions that underpin its perspective on achieving
environmental sustainability. One is that societies can transform their economic structures
and technological systems to meet ecological imperatives (Mol and Spaargaren, 2000). This
requires a belief in the adaptability and innovativeness of societal structures in response to
environmental challenges. EMT also posits a positive correlation between economic
development and environmental protection, arguing that economies naturally tend towards
greener practices as they develop (York et al.,2010). This theoretical framework finds
MRR
48,13
22
resonance in the strategies adopted by SEs to improve their environmental performance. As
SEs embrace cutting-edge technologies and integrate sustainable business practices into their
operations, they embody the fundamental principles embodied in EMT. Their unwavering
commitment to seamlessly integrate green solutions into their operational fabric reflects a
forward-looking ethos and a proactive stance in addressing and mitigating today’s
environmental challenges (Jänicke, 2008). However, EMTs also have challenges, as
expressed by York and Rosa (2003).Thefirst challenge is to go beyond simply
demonstrating that societies adapt their institutions in response to environmental problems
and establish a link between these changes and ecological improvements. In addition, EMT
needs to show that the later stages of modernization often lead to ecological transformation
of production and consumption. The second aspect to be addressed is the need for EMT to
demonstrate that industries or enterprises, while reducing their direct environmental impacts,
do not inadvertently exacerbate negative impacts by other industries or enterprises. In
addition, EMT needs to go beyond demonstrating that economies are becoming more
resource-efficient; it needs to demonstrate that the efficiency improvement exceeds the rate
of overall production growth.
On a parallel trajectory, INT highlights the pervasive role of institutions in shaping
organizational behaviour and strategic orientations (Scott, 2017). In the realm of SEs, the
intricate dance with institutional pressures and norms becomes a central force shaping their
approach to environmental performance. These pressures, which emanate from diverse
sources such as stringent government regulations, industry standards and societal
expectations (Dart, 2004), catalyse SEs to align their strategies with institutional norms. This
alignment serves as a pragmatic response to external pressures and becomes a strategic
imperative for SEs seeking to enhance their legitimacy and gain broader social acceptance
(Iskandar et al.,2022). By seamlessly weaving sustainable practices into their operational
fabric, SEs manage external pressures and proactively contribute to shaping the institutional
landscape, setting pioneering standards and inspiring a cascading effect within their sector
(Spanuth and Urbano, 2024). There are also some relevant challenges for INT to address, as
expressed by Suddaby (2010). The limitations identified in institutional theory revolve
around the theoretical homogenization dilemma and the monitoring of individual agency and
institutional work. The former warns against adopting a single theoretical framework,
especially institutional theory, as it may oversimplify the complex reality of organizational
phenomena. While seemingly convenient, pursuing a common paradigm risks reducing the
diversity of perspectives, thereby hindering a comprehensive understanding of
organizational dynamics. The latter limitation highlights the crucial role of individual agency
in institutional processes, emphasizing that existing approaches tend to neglect the impact of
entrepreneurs on the institutionalization, creation, maintenance and destruction of
institutions. By failing to account for individual agency, the current paradigm misses
valuable insights into the nuanced operation of institutions within organizations, highlighting
the need for a more comprehensive analytical approach.
2.2 Ecological modernization theory, institutional theory and sustainable practices
EMT and INTacknowledge the interconnected nature of economic, social and environmental
issues, offering complementary approaches to fostering sustainable practices (Table 1).
Each theory brings unique insights to the sustainability debate. EMT focuses on
integrating environmental concerns into economic and technological progress, pushing for
innovations such as green technologies as key drivers of sustainable development
(Pushpakumara et al.,2018;York et al.,2010;Pataki, 2009). On the other hand, INT
examines how social institutions –through their established rules, norms and routines –shape
Management
Research Review
23
behaviour and provide legitimacy to environmental practices (Jennings and Zandbergen,
1995;Thomas and Lamm, 2012).
As shown in Table 1,EMT’s focus on technological and economic progress can trigger
institutional change by embedding environmental norms within existing structures. INT, on
the other hand, highlights how social frameworks gradually normalize and institutionalize
sustainable practices over time. This complementary relationship addresses the weaknesses
of each theory: while EMT can sometimes miss the nuances of social inequalities and power
dynamics, INT offers a more grounded, contextual perspective. At the same time, EMT’s
proactive stance on green innovation compensates for INT’s often slower adaptation to
environmental change. In combination, EMT and INT provide a holistic framework that
promotes sustainable practices and enhances institutions’ability to respond to long-term
environmental and societal challenges.
2.3 Social enterprises, sustainable business model innovation and environmental
performance
In the context of SEs, the simultaneous pursuit of social and commercial goals often leads to
challenges related to mission drift and commercial failure (Tykkyläinen and Ritala, 2021).
These enterprises operate in multiple domains, focusing on economic, social and
environmental values (Murphy et al.,2022). SEs have explored SBMI, a strategic way to
achieve significant positive outcomes and effectively address harmful environmental and
social impacts (Geissdoerfer et al.,2018), to address these challenges and effectively align
their goals. According to Ciulli et al. (2022), sustainable business models (SBMs) are the
result of a process of innovation, labelled by some as “business model innovation for
sustainability”(Bocken et al.,2014), i.e. the designed, novel and non-trivial changes to the
key elements of a business model and/or the architecture linking these elements (see also Foss
and Saebi, 2017) aimed at furthering environmental and/or social value creation. The SBMI
Table 1. EMT and institutional theory
Aspect
Ecological modernization
theory (EMT) Institutional theory Interconnections
Core
concept
Integrates environmental
concerns into economic and
technological development
Examines how institutions
(rules, norms and routines)
shape social behaviour
EMT norms can become
embedded within
institutional frameworks
Strengths Promotes sustainable
innovations and green
technologies
Provides insights into how
institutions influence
behaviour and societal change
Sustainable norms from
EMT can drive institutional
change
Limitations May overlook social inequalities
and power dynamics
Can be slow to explain rapid
environmental changes or
innovations
Integration of EMT norms
into institutions can address
these limitations
Examples of
norms
Adoption of green technologies,
sustainable production methods
Regulatory frameworks,
organizational practices,
cultural norms
Sustainable practices from
EMT get institutionalized
Application Used in policymaking,
corporate strategies and
environmental governance
Applied in analysing
organizational behaviour,
policy implementation and
social practices
EMT policies and strategies
influence institutional
structures
Source: Authors’elaboration
MRR
48,13
24
archetype framework proposed by Bocken et al. (2014) provides different options in the
context of SBMs, emphasizing the importance of environmental, social and economic
impacts (Schaltegger et al.,2016). Furthermore, SBMI incorporates inclusive value creation,
highlighting the prevalence of peer-to-peer and sharing models (Bocken et al.,2019). SEs use
SBMI to introduce environment-friendly products, adopt sustainable production techniques,
disseminate green technologies and advocate for policy changes that support conservation
efforts (Neessen et al.,2021). Understanding the role of SEs business models in signalling
legitimacy for new ventures is crucial in contemporary discussions on sustainable
entrepreneurship (Bunduchi et al.,2023). Their business models are intricately designed to
generate social value while ensuring economic viability, thus signalling to stakeholders their
commitment to addressing societal challenges.
CEP represents an organization’s proactive commitment to managing its impact on the
natural environment, going beyond mere compliance with legislation to include the broader
environmental consequences of its operations, products and resource use, particularly in the
context of SEs (Aragón-Correa and Sharma, 2003;Singh et al., 2020). CEP is a
multidimensional construct commonly assessed using metrics such as pollutant emissions,
environmental investments, and pollution-related costs, which provide a comprehensive
view of an organization’s environmental footprint (Clarkson et al., 2011). The literature
shows that investments aimed at reducing environmental costs improve environmental
performance and contribute positively to overall profitability, as they often lead to process
efficiencies and resource optimization (Guiffrida et al., 2011;Porter and Van der Linde,
1995). This alignment with profitability highlights the potential for CEP to create shared
value, a concept central to SBMI, which emphasizes the design of business models that
integrate environmental goals with economic outcomes. Furthermore, this proactive attitude
is consistent with EMT, which advocates the integration of environmental considerations
into organizational practices and innovation. EMT posits that organizations can achieve
long-term sustainability and competitive advantage by adopting environmentally responsible
behaviours that not only comply with, but also exceed regulatory standards (Longhofer and
Jorgenson, 2017). This approach is particularly relevant for SEs, whose mission-driven focus
provides an ideal platform for implementing SBMI to achieve sustainable environmental
outcomes. We, therefore, propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Sustainable business model innovation is positively related to corporate environmental
performance in social enterprises.
2.4 The moderating role of external collaboration
In the field of SBMI and CEP, the importance of EC cannot be overstated. Collaboration
means partnering with entities outside an organization, such as other companies, research
institutions, non-profits and governmental bodies, to achieve common goals, share resources
and leverage each other’s expertise and capabilities (Ciulli et al.,2022). Collaboration is
essential for SBMI, as it enables resource and knowledge sharing, mitigates risks and
provides access to new markets and technologies. By working together, firms can address
complex sustainability challenges more effectively, align with regulatory standards and build
supportive ecosystems (Schaltegger et al., 2016). This collaborative approach fosters
comprehensive and innovative solutions, offering a competitive advantage by differentiating
companies with advanced and sustainable offerings. Studies have consistently highlighted
collaborative efforts between organizations and industries in co-creating environmental
value (Lashitew et al., 2020;Bocken et al., 2014). These partnerships require the active
participation of external stakeholders, which is essential for a functioning SBM. Such a
Management
Research Review
25
model is defined as a streamlined representation of the components, their interconnections,
and interactions with stakeholders that an organizational unit uses to create, deliver, capture
and exchange sustainable value (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Such partnerships often require
the development of new competencies, changes in roles within the value chain and
adjustments in organizational goals, all of which are essential components of SBMI
(Suškevičset al.,2018;Tykkyläinen and Ritala, 2021).
From an INT perspective, collaboration is shaped by institutional norms, policies and cultural
expectations that influence how SEs adopt EC practices in their pursuit of SBMI (Bansal and
Clelland, 2004). INT emphasizes that organizations, as social entities, seek legitimacy to access
essential resources and to conform to societal expectations, as legitimacy can enhance reputation,
facilitate innovation and improve environmental performance (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;
Scott, 2008). Achieving environmental legitimacy offers benefits such as improved access to
resources, positive employee relations and reduced innovation risks, thereby supporting the
sustainable expansion and effective implementation of SBMI. SEs navigate and adapt to their
institutional environment by forming alliances that serve various purposes, including conforming
to norms, acquiring resources, establishing legitimacy and responding to stakeholder and
regulatory demands (Ball and Craig, 2010).
Achieving coherence between companies and stakeholders is essential for the success of
SBMI, yet it presents considerable challenges (Guo et al., 2022;Velter et al., 2022). By adopting
sustainable practices, SEs respond to external pressures and influence the institutional landscape
by introducing innovative policies such as carbon offsetting, waste reduction and fair-trade
practices and motivating others in the sector to emulate these practices (Spanuth and Urbano,
2024). Moreover, integrating inter-organizational collaboration theory into this framework
underscores how collaborations facilitate knowledge transfer, generate new ideas and promote
interactive learning among stakeholders (Pouwels and Koster, 2017;Hagedoorn, 2002).
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. External collaboration positively moderates sustainable business model innovation
and environmental performance in social enterprises.
The conceptual model in Figure 1 guided our study. The dependent variable of the model is
CEP, the independent variable is SBMI, and EC is a moderator variable. We expect SBMI to
positively influence CEP and EC to moderate the relationship between CEP and SBMI.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
The sample for this study consists of Canadian social entrepreneurs selected through
purposive and convenience sampling to ensure representation across different industries
(Taherdoost, 2016). According to the Global Data on Social Enterprises Report by the World
Economic Forum (2024), it is estimated that approximately 18,200 social enterprises are
currently operating in Canada. The study focuses on newly established SEs –founded within
the last three years –in education, healthcare, food services, retail, financial services and
media sectors. Data were collected from Ontario and British Columbia, regions with a high
SE concentration, allowing for nuanced subgroup analyses (Vergouwe et al., 2005).
This study uses a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the relationship
between SBMI and CEP in emerging SEs. Cross-sectional designs capture data at a single point,
facilitating examining how SBMI influences CEP without the complexities of longitudinal data
collection (Setia, 2016).
Data analysis used chi-square tests, structural equation modelling (SEM), correlation and
regression analysis, which were selected to address the research questions across categorical
MRR
48,13
26
and continuous variables. Chi-square tests assessed the relationship between categorical
SBMI strategies and CEP (Field, 2024). Correlational analysis measured the strength and
direction of relationships between SBMI and CEP (Cohen, 2013;Pallant, 2020), while
multiple linear regression assessed the predictive relationship between SBMI and CEP,
controlling for EC (Pallant, 2020). Finally, SEM allowed for a detailed examination of direct
and indirect effects between SBMI, CEP and EC, providing a robust analysis of latent
constructs and complex relationships.
3.2 Survey instrument
A specific questionnaire was developed for this study to ensure accurate and relevant data
collection (Taherdoost, 2021). Details of the questionnaire items are provided in the variable
measurement subsection, and the design of the questionnaire was informed by an extensive
literature review on SEs, SBMI,CEP and EC to ensure alignment with current research.
Data was collected using the Google online survey platform, which was chosen for its
convenience and accessibility, allowing the questionnaire to be efficiently distributed to a
diverse group of SE entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs were invited to participate in the
study via email and were provided with detailed explanations of the research objectives,
privacy protections and guidelines for completing the online survey. Ensuring the reliability
and accuracy of the study results was of paramount importance, which required a focus on
maintaining data quality (Sürücü and Maslakci, 2020). A pilot testing phase was conducted
with 56 Canadian SE entrepreneurs (29 male, 27 female) to identify potential problems or
areas for improvement.
The data collection took place from January 2023 to March 2023, targeting a sample of
SEs (founded within the prior three years). Automated reminders were sent every two weeks
to encourage respondents to participate. The study included entrepreneurs in managerial
positions. The online questionnaire was distributed to 621 entrepreneurs, of which 507
responses were received. Seven incomplete responses were identified after checking the
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Management
Research Review
27
instruments for completeness and missing data, leaving 500 complete responses for data
analysis.
Tab le 2 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the entrepreneurs, which were
also used as control variables. Of the respondents, 50.97% (263 entrepreneurs) identified as
male, 48.64% (251 entrepreneurs) identified as female and 0.39% (two entrepreneurs) chose
not to disclose their gender. These results indicate a balanced gender representation within
the study sample, suggesting that entrepreneursfeel comfortable sharing their gender identity
and are willing to engage openly.
The age distribution of the entrepreneurs, as shown in Tab le 2 , shows that 241 entrepreneurs
(46.62%) were between 35 and 44 years old, 189 entrepreneurs (36.56%) were between 25 and
34 years old, 66 entrepreneurs (12.8%) were between 45 and 54 years old, 7 entrepreneurs
(1.4%) were between 55 and 64 years old, and 14 entrepreneurs (2.7%) were between 18 and
24 years old. Notably, the age group between 35 and 44 had the highest number of
entrepreneurs, suggesting an increased interest and engagement in social entrepreneurship and
environmental management among entrepreneurs aged 35–44.
In terms of educational background, the data presented in Tabl e 2 shows that 43.33% (224
entrepreneurs) have a bachelor’s degree, 36.17% (187 entrepreneurs) have a trade school
diploma, 12.19% (63 entrepreneurs) have an associate degree, 8.12% (42 entrepreneurs)
have a master’s or higher degree, and 0.19% (1 participant) have a high school diploma/
GED. This diversity of educational backgrounds within the participant pool indicates that the
entrepreneurs in the study possess relevant academic qualifications, skills and knowledge
essential to the research.
3.3 Measurement
The questionnaire was structured into four sections, each designed to capture key dimensions
of the study. Section 1 gathered demographic data on the entrepreneurs. The remaining
sections focused on SBMI, CEP and EC.
Table 2. Sample characteristics
Sample characteristics Frequency %
Gender
Male 263 50.9
Female 251 48.5
I prefer not to say 2 0.4
Age group
18–24 years old 14 2.7
25–34 years old 189 36.6
35–44 years old 241 46.6
45–54 years old 66 12.8
55–64 years old 7 1.4
Education level
Bachelor’s degree 224 43.3
Master’s degree or higher education 42 8.1
Associate degree 63 12.2
Trade school certification 187 36.2
High school diploma/GED 1 0.2
Source: Authors’elaboration
MRR
48,13
28
For SBMI, we used the Novelty-Centred Business Model Design Theme Scale (Zott
and Amit, 2008), a six-item, five-point Likert scale (α= 0.87) that measures four core
aspects: task leadership, relational leadership, change leadership and micropolitical
leadership orientations. This scale captures entrepreneurs’perceptions of SBMI
practices.
CEP was assessed using a five-item, five-point Likert scale (α= 0.82) based on Zhang
et al. (2022), focusing on environmental acknowledgment, emission reduction, renewable
energy use, green policy implementation and support for environmental innovation. This
scale reflects entrepreneurs’perceptions of their firms’environmental performance.
For EC, we adapted Jap’s (2001) five-item, five-point Likert scale (α= 0.51) to evaluate
the extent and quality of external partnerships. Key elements included external collaboration,
contributions from external partners, potential future partnerships, benefits and risks of
collaboration, and interactions with NGOs and government entities.
3.4 Data analysis
The study used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyse the collected
data. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations,
were calculated to summarize key characteristics of SBMI and CEP in the context of
Canadian SMEs. Business models’perceived effectiveness and impact were assessed by
calculating mean scores. In addition, the study used path diagram analysis and model fit
analysis.
As depicted in Figure 2, the path diagram illustrates the relationships between SBMI, EC
and CEP, enabling an assessment of both direct and moderated relationships among the
variables. Model fit analysis evaluates how well the model aligns with the collected data,
enhancing the interpretation and understanding of complex relationships between the
measured variables.
Figure 2 represents the relationship between SBMI and CEP in SEs, with four main
components. The diagram starts with SBMI on the left, indicating it as the primary factor
investigated for its impact on other components. An arrow from SBMI to CEP suggests a
causal influence. The rectangular nodes in the centre –labelled SMB1, SMB2 and EC4 –
represent the study’s moderating variables, which are specific dimensions of SBMI that
affect CEP. SMB1 denotes sustainable value proposition, defined as “the way a firm defines
the benefits it offers to its customers and other stakeholders”(Bocken et al., 2014). SMB2
stands for sustainable value delivery, described as “the way a firm designs and manages its
processes, resources, and capabilities to deliver the value proposition”(Bocken et al., 2014).
EC4 represents environmental capabilities, defined as “the skills, routines, and systems
that enable a firm to manage its environmental impacts and opportunities”(Hart, 1995). The
arrows connecting the nodes depict paths of influence between the study’s variables. The
numbers on these arrows represent the strength of influence, indicated by standardized
regression coefficients. For example, an arrow from SBMI to SMB1 with a coefficient of
0.82 indicates a strong positive influence, while the arrow from SMB1 to CEP, marked by
0.71, reflects a moderate positive impact. The arrow from SBMI directly to CEP has a
coefficient of 1, indicating a positive, unmoderated influence on CEP.
4. Results
4.1 Perception and sampling of SEs and CEP
Tab le 3 shows some key findings regarding assessing SBMI in SEs. The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) result shows a coefficient of 0.500 within the 0.6-factor loading, indicating a
possible limitation in the sample size used to assess perceptions of the impact of SBMI on
Management
Research Review
29
Figure 2. Path diagram model
Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s test
Test Approx. Chisquare-df-Sig. Value
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.500
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-square 2.420
df 6
Sig. 0.877
KMO and Bartlett’s test Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.495
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-square 5.953
df 3
Sig. 0.114
SBMI and SEs impacts Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.571
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-square 630.157
df 10
Sig. 0.000
Source: Authors’elaboration
MRR
48,13
30
SEs. Bartlett’s test, with a result of 0.877, indicates a statistically significant relationship
between perceived SBMI development and CEP factor loadings measuring the perception of
SBMI development in SEs are all greater than 0.7, indicating the potential for SEs to improve
CE through SBMI implementation.
Tab le 3 shows that sample adequacy (KMO = 0.571) and Bartlett’s test (p= 0.000)
confirm the data’s suitability for factor analysis and the suitability of the data set for
extracting meaningful factor structures. The analysis reveals a strong positive factor loading
of 0.919 for the influence of SBMI on CEP, highlighting the central role of SBMI in
promoting sustainable outcomes within SEs. Conversely, the analysis also reveals a negative
factor loading of −0.744 for market demand, indicating the challenges SEs face in achieving
widespread customer adoption of SBMI-based products. This result is in line with Klarin and
Suseno (20–23), who attribute these challenges to higher prices and the need to adapt
customer behaviour to sustainable practices, which may limit market uptake. The factor
loadings of 0.72 and 0.727 for coalition building and stakeholder involvement, respectively,
highlight the critical role of the EC in SBMI implementation. As noted by Fobbe and
Hilletofth (2023) and Bocken et al. (2014), partnerships –particularly with NGOs and
government agencies –provide SEs with essential resources and extensive networks,
increasing the effectiveness and reach of SBMI efforts. Cross-sector relationships, as
evidenced by the high factor loading of 0.93 for social entrepreneur networks, are critical for
overcoming operational and financial barriers while promoting community engagement
strategies that support SBMI. These collaborations enable SEs to mobilize support and
broaden their impact, leveraging shared resources and expertise to overcome challenges in
adopting and implementing sustainable models.
4.2 Factor loadings model
Tab le 4 shows the component matrix, highlighting the variables’correlations using varimax
rotation and principal component analysis. The factor loadings illustrate the direction and
degree of the association between the factors SBMI on CEP (Q17) and EC (Q24 and Q15),
each with a factor loading of 0.953. The three criteria are substantially linked to SBMI
implementation and CEP. The socially oriented business model is extended to environmental
Table 4. Component matrix
Item
Component
1234
15. We foster collaboratively with other organizations due to our SBMI
implementation 0.953
17. Our SBMI has a notable impact on corporate environmental performance 0.953
24. Our evaluation shows that the level of available external collaboration is
significantly important 0.953
12. Our social-oriented business model has been extended to environmental
sustainability 0.886
14. We overcome the reluctance to embrace change to develop SBMI 0.886
21. Our corporate environmental performance increased the venture’s
competitive advantage 0.839
24. Our environmentally friendly products and services address specific
environmental challenges 0.850
20. We are complying with environmental regulation 0.980
Source: Authors’elaboration
Management
Research Review
31
sustainability (Q12), with a factor loading of 0.886. The assessment of CEP for organizational
shame of SBMI (Q14) resulted in a factor loading of 0.886. The component analysis shows
that SBMI, collaborative engagement, and managerial flexibility are interrelated and critical
for supporting environmental goals in SEs. Because of this interdependence, SEs must use
tactics that encourage external collaboration and ease internal alignment to incorporate
environmental sustainability into their socially conscious missions.
The feasibility of SE CEP (Q21) was investigated. The factor loading is 0.839. The
substantial positive link suggests that social firms have higher CEP than typical corporations.
Khan et al. (2023) found that environmentally conscientious companies increase stakeholder
trust and customer loyalty. It highlights their significant advantage over conventional
corporations in gaining shareholder loyalty, which should convince and support our belief in
their potential. More importantly, it shows how they motivate us with their potential and
accomplish CEP objectives via socially conscious activities. Their clear and unambiguous
goal of environmental sustainability (Q16) is linked to increasing SBMI implementation.
The factor loading is 0.85, demonstrating a significant relationship between SEs and SBMI
in the CEP (Du et al., 2013).
4.3 Confirmatory factor analysis
The confirmatory factor analysis in Tables 5 and 6elucidates the links between EC, SBMI,
CEP and customer motivation in SE. The link between EC and SBMI has a high, statistically
significant correlation, as shown by the chi-square value of 343.997 (p< 0.000), suggesting
that EC is essential for adopting SBMI and improving CEP. This conclusion is consistent
with the study of Bos-Brouwers (2010), who found that EC increases an organization’s
ability to successfully execute sustainableinnovations.
There is a strong association between consumer behaviour and SBMI, as seen by the
considerable chi-square value in Table 6 . It highlights SBMI’s ability to impact client choices
about eco-consciousness. This aligns with Zhou et al. (2023), who highlight that the successful
combination of SBMI and Green Technology Innovation can enhance company sustainability and
engage customers by establishing a shared value system centred on environmental consequences.
The final analysis in Table 6 shows low, non-significant positive correlations between SE, CEP
and SBMI. The SE-CEP relationship (coefficient 0.056, p=0.211)andthepoorcorrelations
Table 5. Goodness of fit between SBMI and EC, SBMI and advocacy chi-square tests
Test Value df
Asymptotic significance
(two-sided)
Exact sig.
(two-sided)
Exact sig.
(one-sided)
Pearson chi-square 343.997
a
1 0.000
Continuity correction
b
192.746 1 0.000
Likelihood ratio 22.393 1 0.000
Fisher’s exact test 0.000 0.000
Linear-by-linear association 343.332 1 0.000
No. of valid cases 517
Value df Asymptotic
Significance (two-sided)
Pearson chi-square 6.639
a
2 0.036
Likelihood ratio 2.799 2 0.247
Linear-by-linear association 1.580 1 0.209
No. of valid cases 517
Source: Authors’elaboration
MRR
48,13
32
between SE–SBMI and SBMI–CEP indicate a limited direct influence. Bridoux and Stoelhorst
(2014) suggest that the complexities intrinsic to SEs derive from their unique combination of
social and financial objectives, which can sometimes dilute the environmental impact of SBMI. In
contrast, Peng et al. (2024) offer an alternative view, suggesting that while the direct impact of
SBMI on CEP may be limited, its indirect benefits –such as enhanced brand reputation and
customer trust –may contribute positively to CEP. Finally, Baquero and Monsalve (2024)
emphasize the benefits of tailoring SBMI strategies to specific local market and environmental
contexts, as these adaptations can strengthen the link between SBMI and CEP.
4.4 Hypotheses testing
SEM was used to test the study hypotheses with direct and indirect effects. In addition, the slop
test through the Hayes process macro was used to test the moderating effect (Conboy et al., 2020).
The results show a significant and positive effect of SBMI on CEP, see Figure 3. The impact
estimate is quantified with a coefficient of 0.14 and is statistically significant at the p<0.001
level. This convincing result supports H1, which states that SBMI has a positive effect on CEP.
These results underscore the significant impact of SBMI on improving CEP, and reinforce the
central role of SBMI in promoting environmentally responsible practices in our study.
Table 6. Correlation between SEs and CEP, SEs and SBMI, SBMI and CEP correlations
Variable SEs CEP
SEs
Pearson correlation 1 0.056
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.211
N515 503
EP
Pearson correlation 0.056 1
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.211
N503 505
SEs SBMI
SEs
Pearson correlation 1 0.050
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.262
N515 512
SBMI
Pearson correlation 0.050 1
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.262
N512 514
SBMI CEP
SBMI
Pearson correlation 1 0.008
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.862
N514 502
EP
Pearson correlation 0.008 1
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.862
N502 505
Source: Authors’elaboration
Management
Research Review
33
According to Table 7, EC moderates the indirect relationship between EC, CEP and
SBMI, suggesting that SBMI has a stronger positive effect on CEP as EC increases.
Partnerships contribute to CEP improvements by sharing knowledge, resources and expertise
(Wan g et al., 2012). The moderation analysis shows how different levels of EC affect the
relationship between SBMI (independent variable) and CEP (dependent variable). Tian and
Wang (2024) emphasize that stakeholder engagement is essential for environmental
sustainability, and EC can help SBMIs overcome both market and internal challenges
(Yi et al., 2023). Our findings show that SEs with high levels of EC are better positioned to
improve their sustainability models, thereby enhancing CEP. Collaboration strengthens the
indirect relationship between SBMI and CEP, providing SEs with a strategic advantage. As
noted by Peng et al. (2024), the moderating role of EC helps SEs align their environmental
strategies with customer expectations and regulatory requirements, thereby supporting
competitive advantage and sustainable growth.
The findings in Table 8 show a positive correlation between SBMI and CEP, which
becomes more robust with higher levels of EC. At the same time, this relationship is not
statistically significant at all levels. It reveals that although EC may increase the effect of
Figure 3. The moderation effect of external collaboration
Table 7. Test of hypotheses (indirect effect) relationship
Relationship
Total effect Direct effect
Relationship
Indirect effect
95% Confidence
interval
β-value SE β-value SE Beta SE LLCI ULCI
EC
SBMI!CEP
0.42*** 0.029 0.13*** 0.062 H2-EC !SBMI !
!CEP
0.078 0.071 0.004 0.067
Source: Authors’elaboration
MRR
48,13
34
SBMI on CEP, it does not guarantee considerable improvement on its own. The steeper slope
of Figure 1 at higher EC levels supports this pattern, as reported by Tian and Wang (2024),
demonstrating that EC provides considerable resources but requires internal alignment for
significant results. Weerakoon (2024) highlights that EC helps sustainability, but SEs must
commit to it. When SEs fully incorporate SBM innovation into their operations, relationships
with NGOs and government organizations promote environmental activities (Baquero and
Monsalve, 2024).
Several variables impact the successful implementation of SBMI inside SEs, notably the
resources, experience and relationships provided by EC. Successful integration of SBMI
within SEs requires a careful balance between strategic internal alignment and selectively
chosen external partnerships. Sahoo et al. (2023) emphasize that while external resources
such as expertise and collaborations can enhance SBMI, the quality of these partnerships is
critical. SBMI thrives when collaborations are optimized, and partnerships are aligned with
sustainability goals. To illustrate the tangible benefits of such alliances, Osmanovic et al.
(2024) introduce the concept of “uncaptured value”within SBMI and recommend that
partnerships should be evaluated on their ability to contribute measurable environmental and
social value. However, EC does not always amplify the impact of SBMI on environmental
performance. This aligns with Esposito et al. (2023), who explore the challenges SEs face in
balancing economic, social and environmental objectives, often leading to “mission drift”
where economic priorities become more important than environmental objectives.
5. Discussion and implications
This study explores the positive influence of SBMI on CEP in SEs and emphasizes the
moderating role of EC. Our findings support the integration of EMT and INT for interpreting
these dynamics, shedding light on SEs’unique contributions to sustainability. SEs,
characterized by their dual mission of achieving social impact and financial sustainability,
face unique challenges related to mission drift and operational viability (Tykkyläinen and
Ritala, 2021). By examining how SBMI enhances CEP within SEs, this study offers
empirical evidence supporting the positive relationship between innovative business models
and environmental outcomes (Dahan et al.,2010).
The observed positive relationship between SBMI and CEP affirms EMT’s premise that
environmental sustainability can be achieved through green technologies and innovative
practices (Mol and Spaargaren, 2000;Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). SEs, by adopting SBMI,
exemplify EMT’s call for embedding ecological goals into economic activities, positioning
them as transformative agents within the green economy (Manninen et al., 2024). Through
sustainable practices, such as resource efficiency and green technology adoption, SEs drive
meaningful ecological changes in line with EMT’s emphasis on progressive environmental
adaptation (Yor k et al., 2010). However, challenges in consumer demand for sustainable
products reflect EMT’s discussions on the economic and societal constraints of adopting
sustainable practices (Jänicke, 2008;Utaminingsih et al.,2024). This tension highlights the
Table 8. Regression analysis for SBMI predicting CEP at different levels of EC
EC level Unstandardized coefficients (B) Standardized coefficients (beta) Sig.
Low 0.0450 0.0320 0.284
Medium 0.0650 0.0550 0.192
High 0.1020 0.0820 0.112
Source: Authors’elaboration
Management
Research Review
35
barriers SEs face in creating immediate financial returns from SBMI, requiring a long-term
outlook that aligns with EMT’s call for sustainable market transformation. The findings
support the notion that while SBMI can yield positive environmental outcomes, SEs must
address financial and consumer behavioural barriers, confirming EMT’s perspective on the
gradual nature of ecological modernization (Yor k et al.,2010).
INT provides a vital lens for understanding how EC enhances SEs’environmental impact
by strengthening institutional legitimacy and aligning practices with societal expectations
(Scott, 2017;DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The study’s results indicate that EC positively
moderates the relationship between SBMI and CEP, especially when SEs engage deeply with
partners aligned with sustainability goals. This reinforces INT’s assertion that organizational
success, particularly for SEs, relies on conformity to institutional norms and acquiring
legitimacy through credible collaborations (Spanuth and Urbano, 2024). Strategic
collaborations, particularly with NGOs, government entities and industry allies, are critical
for SEs to access resources and meet regulatory expectations, enhancing the impact of SBMI
on environmental performance (Ball and Craig, 2010;Hagedoorn, 2002).
However, while EC generally enhances the impact of SBMI on CEP, our findings reveal
that its influence varies across different levels of engagement. The moderation analysis
suggests that EC has a stronger positive effect when collaborations are deeper, indicating that
the depth and quality of partnerships play a pivotal role in achieving environmental outcomes.
This variability likely stems from differences in partner alignment, resource sharing and
commitment to sustainability goals (Ciulli et al.,2022;Lashitew et al.,2020). At higher levels
of collaboration, SEs benefit from more strategic alignment and resourceintegration, allowing
them to implement SBMI practices more effectively and achieve greater CEP improvements.
This underscores INT’s emphasis on institutional alignment and legitimacy as essential for
sustainable innovation, where partnerships provide crucial resources and institutional support,
especially when aligned with SEs’environmental missions (Spanuth and Urbano, 2024;
Fobbe and Hilletofth, 2023). Conversely, at lower levels of EC, partnerships may lack the
comprehensive support or resource integration necessary to significantly impact CEP. This
differentiation highlights the importance of cultivating purpose-driven collaborations that
align with SEs’sustainability objectives. Future research could examine these variations
further, exploring how different types and intensities of collaboration influence SBMI and
CEP outcomes (Hagedoorn, 2002;Sahoo et al.,2023).
The convergence of EMT and INT in this study emphasizes that SEs require ecological
innovation and institutional legitimacy to succeed in sustainability endeavours. SEs integrating
SBMI into their core operations embody EMT by advancing sustainable practices and fostering
ecological innovation (Pushpakumara et al., 2018). Simultaneously, by navigating and shaping
institutional norms, they fulfilINT’s framework, positioning SEs as agents capable of achieving
social and environmental legitimacy (Scott, 2017;Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995). This dual
alignment, which combines EMT’s emphasis on green technology with INT’s focus on
legitimacy, allows SEs to overcome resource constraints and gain stakeholder trust. SEs are thus
well-positioned to act as sustainable exemplars, driving both ecological progress and
institutional change through SBMI (Khan et al.,2023;Klarin and Suseno, 2023). Specific
SBMI activities, such as waste reduction, green supply chains, and community engagement,
exemplify these dual priorities and support sustainable outcomes while aligning with regulatory
and social expectations (Schaltegger et al.,2016;Weerakoon, 2024).
Our analysis emphasizes that specific sustainability-driven activities within SBMI –such
as resource efficiency, waste reduction and community engagement –directly complement
and reinforce environmental objectives. These activities build resilience and position SEs to
deliver sustainable environmental benefits in the long term. However, it is important to
MRR
48,13
36
recognize that sustainable competitiveness does not automatically equate to improved
environmental performance. As Klarin and Suseno (2023) highlight, companies can achieve
competitive advantage through sustainable practices without necessarily improving their
CEP. This distinction allows our framework to focus more precisely on the direct and indirect
pathways through which SBMs contribute to CEP, thereby addressing the limitations of
assuming that all sustainable competitive strategies lead to positive environmental outcomes.
5.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between SBMI and
CEP within SEs, addressing a significant gap in quantitative research on this topic
(Snihur and Bocken, 2022). By examining the dynamics of SBMI in SEs, our findings
make distinct theoretical contributions that advance both EMT and INT, providing
insights into how SEs function as transformative agents within the sustainability
landscape.
First, this study substantiates EMT’s core assertion that economic and environmental goals
can align, demonstrating that SEs –driven by dual social and economic missions –are uniquely
positioned to act as test cases for EMT. By implementing SBMI, SEs contribute to market-
driven environmentalism, illustrating how sustainable business practices can foster economic
benefits alongside environmental progress (Shakeel et al.,2020). This offers a nuanced
extension of EMT by showing that emerging SEs, through innovative business models, serve as
catalysts for environmental modernization. Notably, our findings provide empirical support for
EMT’s premise of ecological innovation, highlighting how SEs can facilitate the gradual
incorporation of sustainable practices into mainstream markets, as evidenced by their ability to
align market viability with environmental responsibility (Ringvold et al.,2023).
Second, our research extends INT by illuminating the ways SEs actively shape both formal
and informal institutions, influencing regulatory frameworks and social norms through their
sustainability practices. By embedding SBMI into their operations, SEs not only comply with
existing institutional expectations but also drive institutional change, setting new standards
and norms that challenge traditional business practices. This study reveals how SBMI can act
as a mechanism for institutional change, helping to explain how new sustainable practices
gain legitimacy, acceptance and even disrupt existing structures (Scott, 2017;Meyer and
Rowan, 2006). This insight enriches INT’s perspective on institutional adaptation, suggesting
that SEs are not merely passive recipients of institutional pressures but are proactive actors in
institutional evolution (Dart, 2004;Peralta and Gismera, 2021).
Third, the study underscores the importance of SEs in achieving broader environmental
policy objectives, demonstrating that SEs, through SBMI, offer valuable insights for
policymakers aiming to promote sustainable business practices. Previous research has shown
that the diffusion of green innovations is often facilitated by regulatory support, market
competition and technological advancements (Leitner et al., 2010). Our findings suggest that
policies promoting SBMI can enhance CEP by encouraging SEs to integrate sustainable
practices within their models. This alignment with Manninen’s (2024) conclusion on
strategic sustainability actions further positions SEs as critical players in shaping sustainable
value networks, providing a theoretical framework that links policy incentives directly with
sustainable impact.
Fourth, the study proposes a theoretical framework that positions SBMI as a lever for both
environmental and institutional transformation, with EC as a critical moderating factor. By
framing SEs as hybrid entities that drive both ecological modernization and institutional change,
our study provides a dual-theory perspective that encourages future research on how different
levels and types of collaboration influence SBMI outcomes across various institutional contexts.
Management
Research Review
37
This framework invites further exploration of SEs as models for balancing social, environmental
and economic goals in a way that reinforces both EMT and INT.
In sum, this study contributes novel insights into EMT and INT, positioning SEs as active
agents in both ecological and institutional transformations. By bridging these theories
through the lens of SBMI, our findings open pathways for future research to examine SEs’
roles in broader societal shifts towards sustainability.
5.2 Managerial implications
This study provides practical recommendations for SE managers and entrepreneurs seeking to
integrate social missions with environmental sustainability through SBMI. For SEs, aligning social
and environmental objectives depends on meaningful stakeholder engagement. Key stakeholders,
including local communities, NGOs and government agencies, not only support SE managers in
building networks and accessing critical resources but also play an important role in advancing
environmental goals (Evans et al., 2017;Hagedoorn et al., 2023). Their involvement fosters a
sense of ownership and inclusivity, making them integral to the mission of the SE. By adopting this
collaborative approach, SEs can better address complex environmental challenges through
effective EC, creating the basis for sustainable partnerships and long-term impact (Hagedoorn
et al., 2023). This integrated method enables SEs to address environmental complexity while
building resilience and fostering community-driven commitment to sustainable practices.
Another critical aspect for SE managers is a commitment to ecologically responsible
sourcing, manufacturing and distribution procedures, which is essential for developing green
supply chains. This commitment is essential for creating sustainable product alternatives and
significantly enhancing CEP by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Singh et al., 2020).
Adopting green supply chains strengthens SEs’environmental impact and enhances their
reputation and brand value, positioning them with a competitive advantage as they transition
to sustainable manufacturing practices (Hagedoorn et al., 2023). This approach reinforces
stakeholder trust and aligns with a broader commitment to sustainable growth and resilience.
6. Conclusions
Our research sheds light on the complex relationship between SBMI and CEP within SEs.
The findings underscore the importance of SBMI as a driver of environmental sustainability
and highlight the need for strategic collaborations and innovative approaches in the business
landscape. In considering the implications of our study, it is clear that emerging SEs,
equipped with innovative models and a focus on environmental performance, have the
potential to make meaningful progress in addressing pressing environmental challenges.
These findings provide valuable guidance for social enterprises and researchers and highlight
the importance of integrating sustainable practices into the core of social enterprise
operations. The path to a greener future requires practical action, and this research offers
tangible strategies for social enterprises to make a meaningful contribution to environmental
protection.
As with any scientific study, our research has certain limitations that create opportunities
for further exploration. Firstly, this study examines the relationship between SBMI and CEP
in SEs within the specific context of Canada. While this focus provides valuable insights, the
findings may not fully generalize to SEs operating in other geographic or regulatory
environments. Future research could extend this inquiry across various regions to explore
how differences in regulatory frameworks, social pressures and resource availability impact
the SBMI–CEP relationship. For future research, we also recommend focusing on specific
industries where government policies actively promote sustainability, particularly creative
industries that have become focal points for economic development. Such a targeted
MRR
48,13
38
approach would provide more nuanced insights into how government-backed initiatives and
industry characteristics influence SBMI practices and CEP outcomes. This industry-focused
approach could reveal how different sectors respond to sustainability imperatives and
government support, thereby enriching the understanding of SBMI’s role in economic
resilience and environmental stewardship.
Another limitation lies in the study’s emphasis on EC as a moderating factor in the SBMI–
CEP relationship. Although our findings highlight the positive impact of EC, future studies
could explore other potential moderators, such as organizational ambidexterity, intellectual
capital and technological readiness. These internal factors might uniquely interact with SBMI
to influence environmental performance, providing a more comprehensive view of the
conditions that optimize SBMI outcomes. Future research could delve into how various types
of collaborators (e.g. government agencies, non-profits and corporate partners) differentially
affect SEs’environmental achievements. Exploring these aspects could deepen our
understanding of SEs’internal dynamics and provide managers with actionable insights for
enhancing environmental impact through strategic innovation.
Moreover, this research has contributed significantly to the scientific development of
EMT, advancing current thinking by integrating SBMI and institutional factors to explain
SEs’environmental performance. However, future studies could extend this theoretical
framework by considering technology-based innovation as a core component to drive
environmental improvements. Integrating technology-based solutions into SBMI practices
could further enhance the capacity of SEs to achieve sustainable outcomes and adapt to
ecological imperatives. Comparative studies could explore how the integration of advanced
technologies varies across different institutional contexts, shedding light on the role of
technology in ecological modernization within SEs.
Finally, our study’s cross-sectional design limits its ability to capture the long-term effects of
SBMI on CEP. Longitudinal studies would provide richer insights into the durability and
cumulative impact of SBMI practices over time. Tracking the environmental performance of
SEs that adopt SBMI could reveal how these models evolve, scale and adapt to changing
conditions. In addition, such studies could investigate how sustained SBMI practices influence
organizational resilience, providing a more holistic understanding of the transformative
potential of sustainable business models within the SE sector.
References
Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate
environmental strategy”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Ball, A. and Craig, R. (2010), “Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental
accounting”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 283-293.
Bansal, P. and Clelland, I. (2004), “Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and
unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 93-103.
Baquero, J.E.G. and Monsalve, D.B. (2024), “From fossil fuel energy to hydrogen energy:
transformation of fossil fuel energy economies into hydrogen economies through social
entrepreneurship”,International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 54, pp. 574-585.
Bashir, M., Alfalih, A. and Pradhan, S. (2022), “Sustainable business model innovation: scale
development, validation and proof of performance”,Journal of Innovation and Knowledge,
Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 100243.
Battilana, J. and Lee, M. (2014), “Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of
social enterprises”,Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 397-441.
Management
Research Review
39
Bhatt, B. (2022), “Ethical complexity of social change: negotiated actions of a social enterprise”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 177 No. 4, pp. 743-762.
Bocken, N., Boons, F. and Baldassarre, B. (2019), “Sustainable business model experimentation by
understanding ecologies of business models”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208,
pp. 1498-1512.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans,S. (2014), “A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 42-56.
Boons, F. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013), “Business models for sustainable innovation: state- of-the-art
and steps towards a research agenda”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 9-19.
Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J. (2010), “Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: evidence of themes
and activities in practice”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 417-435.
Bridoux, F. and Stoelhorst, J.W. (2014), “Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: managing stakeholders
with heterogeneous motives”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Bunduchi, R., Smart,A.U., Crisan-Mitra, C. and Cooper, S. (2023), “Legitimacy and innovation in
social enterprises”,International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 371-400.
Chell, E. (2007), “Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: towards a convergent theory of the
entrepreneurial process”,International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Ciulli, F., Kolk, A., Bidmon, C.M., Sprong, N.and Hekkert, M.P. (2022), “Sustainable business model
innovation and scaling through collaboration”,Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, Vol. 45, pp. 289-301.
Clarkson, P.M., Overell, M.B. and Chapple, L. (2011), “Environmental reporting and its relation to
corporate environmental performance”,Abacus, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 27-60.
Cohen, J. (2013), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, New York, NY.
Conboy, K., Mikalef, P., Dennehy, D. and Krogstie, J. (2020), “Using business analytics to enhance
dynamic capabilities in operations research: a case analysis and research agenda”,European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 281 No. 3, pp. 656-672.
Dahan, N.M., Doh, J.P., Oetzel, J. and Yaziji, M. (2010), “Corporate-NGO collaboration: co- creating new
business models for developing markets”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 326-342.
Dart, R. (2004), “The legitimacy of social enterprise”,Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 411-424.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”,American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-160.
Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A. and Sen, S. (2013), “The roles of leadership styles in corporate social
responsibility”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 155-169.
Esposito, P., Doronzo, E. and Dicorato, S.L. (2023), “The financial and green effects of cultural values
on mission drifts in European social enterprises”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E.A. and Barlow, C.Y.
(2017), “Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a unified perspective for creation
of sustainable business models”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 597-608.
Field, A. (2024), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Sage publications, London.
Fobbe, L. and Hilletofth, P. (2023), “Moving toward a circular economy in manufacturing
organizations: the role of circular stakeholder engagement practices”,The International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 674-698.
MRR
48,13
40
Foss, N.J. and Saebi, T. (2017), “Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have
we come, and where should we go?”,Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 200-227.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D. and Evans, S. (2018), “Sustainable business model innovation: a
review”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198, pp. 401-416.
Guiffrida, A.L., Datta, P., El Saadany, A.M.A., Jaber, M.Y. and Bonney, M. (2011), “Environmental
performance measures for supply chains”,Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 11,
pp. 1202-1221.
Guo, L., Cao, Y., Qu, Y. and Tseng, M.L. (2022), “Developing sustainable business model innovation
through stakeholder management and dynamic capability: a longitudinal case study”,Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 372, p. 133626.
Hagedoorn, J. (2002), “Inter-firm rand D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since
1960”,Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 477-492.
Hagedoorn, J., Haugh,H., Robson, P. and Sugar, K. (2023), “Social innovation, goal orientation, and
openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 60 No. 1,
pp. 173-198.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”,The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Iskandar, Y., Joeliaty, J., Kaltum, U. and Hilmiana, H.(2022), “Systematic review of the barriers to
social enterprise performance using an institutional framework”,Cogent Business and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 2124592.
Jänicke, M. (2008), “Ecological modernisation: new perspectives”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 557-565.
Jap, S.D. (2001), “Pie sharing in complex collaboration contexts”,Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 86-99.
Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995), “Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional
approach”,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1015-1052.
Khan, A., Li, C., Shahzad, M. and Sampene, A.K. (2023), “Green effectual orientations to shape
environmental performance through green innovation and environmental management initiatives
under the influence of CSR commitment”,Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 2205-2217.
Klarin, A. and Suseno, Y. (2023), “An integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research:
mapping the literature and future research directions”,Business and Society, Vol. 62 No. 3,
pp. 565-611.
Lashitew, A.A., Bals, L. and van Tulder, R. (2020), “Inclusive business at the base of the pyramid: the
role of embeddedness for enabling social innovations”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 162
No. 2, pp. 421-448.
Leitner, A., Wehrmeyer, W. and France, C. (2010), “The impact of regulation and policy on radical eco-
innovation: the need for a new understanding”,Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 11,
pp. 1022-1041.
Longhofer, W. and Jorgenson, A. (2017),“Decoupling reconsidered: does world society integration
influence the relationshipbetween the environment and economic development?”,Social
Science Research, Vol. 65, pp. 17-29.
McInerney, P.B. (2012), “Social enterprise in mixed-form fields: challenges and prospects”,Social
Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan,London, pp. 162-184.
Manninen, K., Laukkanen, M. and Huiskonen, J. (2024), “Framework for sustainable value creation: a
synthesis of fragmented sustainable business model literature”,Management Research Review,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 99-122.
Meyer, H.D. andRowan, B. (2006),“Institutional analysis and the study of education”,The New
Institutionalism in Education, State University Press of New York, NY, pp. 1-13.
Management
Research Review
41
Mol, A.P. and Spaargaren, G. (2000), “Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review”,
Environmental Politics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 17-49.
Murphy, P.J., Kornetskyy, A. and Nixon, J.T. (2022),“Delineating novel aspects of social enterprise
theory”,Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 364-382.
Neessen, P.C., de Jong, J.P., Caniëls, M.C. and Vos, B. (2021), “Circular purchasing in Dutch and
Belgian organizations: the role of intrapreneurship and organizational citizenship behavior
towards the environment”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 280, p. 124978.
Osmanovic, S., Barth, H. and Ulvenblad, P. (2024), “Uncaptured value in sustainable business model
innovation: the missing link”,Technological Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 262-285.
Pallant, J. (2020), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide toData Analysis Using IBMSPSS,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Pataki, G. (2009), “Ecological modernization as a paradigm of corporate sustainability”,Sustainable
Development, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 82-91.
Peng, J., Zhou, M., Yi, M. and Fu, S. (2024), “Unveiling the impact of digital industrialization on
synergistic governance of pollution and carbon reduction in China:a geospatial perspective”,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 31 No. 25, pp. 36454-36473.
Peralta, A. and Gismera, L. (2021), “Sustainable business model innovation and ethics: a conceptual
review from the institutional theory addressing (un) sustainability”,International Journal of
Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 397-415.
Pham, H., Sutton, B.G., Brown, P.J. and Brown, D.A. (2020), “Moving towards sustainability: a
theoretical design of environmental performance measurement systems”,Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 269, p. 122273.
Porter, M. andVan der Linde, C.(1995), “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate”, in Wubben,
E.F.M. (Ed.), The Dynamics of the Eco-Efficient Economy: Environmental Regulation and
Competitive Advantage, Edward Elgar, Cheltenam, pp. 120-134.
Pouwels, I. and Koster, F. (2017), “Inter-organizational cooperation and organizational innovativeness.
A comparative study”,International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 184-204.
Prihadyanti, D. (2023), “Sustainable business model innovation within a complex environment”,
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management’, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 2350039.
Pushpakumara, H., Atan, H., Khatibi, A., Azam, S.F. and Tham, J. (2018), “Contribution of green
orientation for organizational performance: a review of stakeholder relationships and ecological
modernization perspectives on sustainability”,International Journal of Business and
Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 56-72.
Ringvold, K., Saebi, T. and Foss, N. (2023), “Developing sustainable business models: a
microfoundational perspective”,Organization and Environment, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 315-348.
Sahoo, S., Kumar, A. and Upadhyay, A. (2023), “How do green knowledge management and green
technology innovation impact corporate environmental performance? Understanding the role of
green knowledge acquisition”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 551-569.
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016), “Business models for sustainability:
origins, present research, and future avenues”,Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 3-10.
Scott, W.R. (2008), “Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory”,Theory and Society,
Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 427-442.
Scott, W.R. (2017), “Institutional theory: onward and upward”,The Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism, SAGE, London, pp. 853-869.
Scuotto, A., Cicellin, M. and Consiglio, S. (2023), “Social bricolage and business model innovation: a
framework for social entrepreneurship organizations”,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 234-267.
MRR
48,13
42
Setia, M.S. (2016), “Methodology series module 3: cross-sectional studies”,Indian Journal of
Dermatology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 261-264.
Shakeel, J., Mardani, A., Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A. and Klemeš, J.J. (2020),“Anatomy of sustainable
business model innovation”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 261, p. 121201.
Singh, S.K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R. and Graziano, D. (2020), “Green innovation and
environmental performance: the role of green transformational leadership and green human
resource management”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 150, p. 119762.
Snihur, Y. and Bocken, N. (2022), “A call for action: the impact of business model innovation on
business ecosystems, society and planet”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 55 No. 6, p. 102182.
Spanuth, A. and Urbano, D. (2024), “Exploring social enterprise legitimacy within ecosystems from an
institutional approach: a systematic literature review and research agenda”,International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Suddaby, R. (2010), “Challenges for institutional theory”,Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 14-20.
Sürücü, L. and Maslakci, A. (2020), “Validity and reliability in quantitative research”,Business and
Management Studies:An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 2694-2726.
Suškevičs, M., Hahn, T., Rodela, R., Macura, B. and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2018), “Learning for social-
ecological change: a qualitative review ofoutcomes acrossempirical literature in natural
resource management”,Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 61 No. 7,
pp. 1085-1112.
Taherdoost, H. (2016), “Sampling methods in research methodology: how to choose a sampling
technique for research. How to choose a sampling technique for research”,International Journal
of Academic Research in Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 18-27.
Taherdoost, H. (2021), “Data collection methods and tools for research; a step-by-step guide to choose
data collection technique for academic and business research projects”,International Journal of
Academic Research in Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 10-38.
Thomas, T.E. and Lamm, E. (2012), “Legitimacy and organizational sustainability”,Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 191-203.
Tian, L. and Wang, Q. (2024), “Improving mineral mining enterprises environmental performance
through corporate social responsibility practices in China: implications for minerals
policymaking”,Resources Policy, Vol. 88, p. 104442.
Tykkyläinen, S. and Ritala, P. (2021), “Business model innovation in social enterprises: an analysis”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 125, pp. 684-697.
Utaminingsih, A., Widowati, S.Y. and Witjaksono, E.H. (2024), “Sustainable business model
innovation: external and internal factors on SMEs”,International Journal of Innovation Science,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 95-113.
Velter, M.G.E., Bitzer, V. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2022), “A boundary tool for multi-stakeholder sustainable
business model innovation”,Circular Economy and Sustainability, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 401-431.
Vergouwe, Y., Steyerberg, E.W., Eijkemans, M.J. and Habbema, J.D.F. (2005), “Substantial effective
sample sizes were required for external validation studies ofpredictive logisticregression
models”,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 475-483.
Wang, M., Han, J., Dunn, J.B., Cai, H. and Elgowainy, A. (2012), “Well-to-wheels energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use”,
Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 45905.
Weerakoon, C. (2024), “A decade of research published in the journal of social entrepreneurship: a
review and a research agenda”,Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 377-399.
World Economic Forum (2024), “Global data on social enterprises report”, available at: https://
initiatives.weforum.org/global-alliance-for-social-entrepreneurship/state-of-the-sector (accessed
27 October 2024).
Management
Research Review
43
Yi, H., Meng, X., Linghu, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2023), “Can financial capability improve entrepreneurial
performance? Evidence from rural China”,Economic research- Ekonomska Istraživanja, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 1631-1650.
York, R. and Rosa, E.A. (2003), “Key challenges to ecological modernization theory: institutional
efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency”,Organization and
Environment, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 273-288.
York, R., Rosa, E.A. and Dietz, T. (2010), “Ecological modernizationtheory: theoretical and empirical
challenges”, in Redclift, M.R. and Woodgate, G. (Eds), The International Handbook of
Environmental Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Zhang, W., Luo, Q. and Liu, S. (2022),“Is government regulation a push for corporate environmental
performance? Evidence from China”,Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 74, pp. 105-121.
Zhou, N., Pan, L., Tian, Y., Zhu, N., Cai, X. and Gao, J. (2023), “How sustainable business model
innovation and green technology innovation interact to affect sustainable corporate
performance”,Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 11, p. 104929.
Zott, C. and Amit, R. (2008), “The fit between product market strategy and business model:
implications for firm performance”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Further reading
Albertini, E. (2013), “Does environmental management improve financial performance? A meta-
analytical review”,Organization and Environment, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 431-457.
Godfrey, P.C. (2005), “The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk
management perspective”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 777-798.
Gold, S., Seuring, S. and Beske, P. (2010), “Sustainable supply chain management and inter-
organizational resources: a literature review”,Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 230-245.
Mao, D., Zhang, J., Lu,H. and Guo, R. (2024),“Assessment and analysis of the balance between
economic development and ecological environment protection and its implementation strategy
derived from spatial planning—take three heterogeneous and representative provinces in China
as an example”,Heliyon, Vol. 10 No. 3.
Mol, A.P. and Spaargaren, G. (1993), “Environment, modernity and the risk-society: the apocalyptic
horizon of environmental reform”,International Sociology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 431-459.
Powell, W.W. and Colyvas, J.A. (2008), “Microfoundations of institutional theory”, in Greenwood, R.,
Oliver, C., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin, K. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 276-298.
Robson, P.J. and Bennett, R.J. (2000), “SME growth: the relationship with business advice and external
collaboration”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 193-208.
Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Sherer, P.D. and Lee, K. (2002), “Institutional change in large law firms: a resource dependency and
institutional perspective”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 102-119.
Spaargaren, G. and Mol, A.P. (1992), “Sociology, environment, and modernity: ecological modernization
as a theory of social change”,Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 323-344.
Corresponding author
Matteo Cristofaro can be contacted at: matteo.cristofaro@uniroma2.it
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
MRR
48,13
44
