Browse by title

This chapter discusses how responsible start-ups are met in the health sector. Through following three companies, Voco, Cora and Medicus, we acquire insight into the world of challenges the entrepreneurs have when they introduce their technology/service to the healthcare sector. Using institutional theory, we look at the regulative, normative and cognitive dimension of the institutional framework. We use the term ‘institutional wall’ to denote a dense network of formal laws and regulation, informal norms and knowledge and beliefs that act as barriers for the entrepreneurs to access the market. We find that while there is a positive development in the regulative dimension: both the regulative and the normative dimension are set up to favour larger companies. The founders’ responses to the cognitive dimension indicate a lack of belief in Norwegian technology and thus tough access to finance.

Initiatives to improve working conditions in developing country supplier facilities of global production networks (GPNs) have failed to demonstrate promising impacts. While extensive research has been done to understand the underlying reason, most of it adopts a GPN perspective and fails to take into account a small business perspective. In contrast, by drawing on both the small business and GPN literatures, I develop a multi-level conceptual model of factors shaping working conditions in small businesses in developing countries that are part of GPNs. I ague that working conditions in developing country small businesses that are part of GPNs are shaped by the totality of external contextual factors, internal dynamics and owner-manager-specific aspects, and the interactions between them.

This chapter presents a case study of a food and drink cluster in England, referred to as the South Midlands Food and Drink Group (SMFDG) for reasons of confidentiality. This is a purposefully formed grassroots cluster organisation primarily comprising small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), many of them small stockists and producers. Specifically, this study challenges Michael E. Porter’s and Mark R. Kramer’s notion that clustering can ‘create shared value’ (CSV) by using empirical data to determine if clusters can create economic and social value simultaneously. To differentiate this concept from CSV, it is referred to as ‘cluster shared value’ here. Fieldwork was conducted with 34 SMEs, larger firms and partnering institutions of the SMFDG, primarily on businesses sites in the form of semi-structured interviews, and observation of SMFDG related events and meetings. Results indicate that clustering can create economic and social benefits for SMFDG members but these benefits are not inclusive to clustering. Many firms act independently to create positive social impacts in their community. This is indicative of the notion that many SMEs practise corporate social responsibility without recognising it, viewing it as the ‘right thing to do’ while the economic benefits of their collaborations and knowledge sharing can be seen throughout the organisation’s members. However, the interactions between members are not all positive. For example, competition between similar businesses was expressed negatively and some businesses experienced resistance from communities.