Are there differences in social capital related to corporate regional engagement in dynamic and less dynamic non-core regions?

Abstract

This article explores corporate regional engagement and the structure of related social capital in non-core regions. Corporate regional engagement comprises various activities of firms to influence regional contexts, which are challenging in non-core regions (e.g. on account of their organizational or institutional thinness). Corporate regional engagement engenders positive effects for regional development when firms collaborate among themselves (bonding social capital) and with other actors (bridging social capital) to improve regional endowments. We assume that dynamic regions have at their disposal higher levels of inclusive social capital in terms of collaboration for regional concerns, while less dynamic regions have more exclusive and fragmented social capital. Consequently, less dynamic regions in particular appear to have potential to develop in a more social sense by activating the endogenous potential of region-wide collaboration. Those assumptions are tested based on a survey with CEOs from the manufacturing industry from three dynamic and three less dynamic Swiss regions. The findings show that in dynamic regions, more firms are members of regional crossindustry associations, favouring regional collaboration; in less dynamic regions, meanwhile, more firms are members of industry-specific associations and service clubs, where benefits seem to be higher for individual firms than for the regional business environment.

Re-thinking non-core regions: planning strategies and practices beyond growth

“…Pro-activeness and commitment of local agents which is manifested as the local engagement of firm owners and entrepreneurs is in the focus in the study presented by Bürcher and Mayer (2017). The authors highlight the role of inclusive social capital, which enables cross-industrial regional collaboration to facilitate joint learning and knowledge spillovers, based upon trustful inter-actor relationships, thereby benefitting the peripheral region that hosts such entrepreneurs.…”

Corporate Spatial Responsibility and Sustainable Development Goals

“…The "spatial" expresses an explicit commitment to locations, places, or landscapes at various scales, be it local or regional, and urban or rural (Knieling et al 2012). Therefore, CSpR can be understood as a collective term for the related concepts of "corporate regional responsibility" (CRR) (Schiek 2017), "corporate urban responsibility" (CUR) (Albers 2011;Albers and Hartenstein 2017), and "corporate regional engagement" (CRE) (Bürcher and Mayer 2018). In general, CSpR follows principles also evidenced in CSR practices, including corporate ethics, social enterprise, corporate civic leadership, intra-or intercorporate and voluntary self-commitment and sometimes even corporate citizenship.…”

State of the field: Data and metrics for geographic analyses of entrepreneurial ecosystems

“…Culture can also influence entrepreneurial practice, and research has demonstrated how this impacts mentorship practices at the regional level (Spigel, ). More recent work in peripheral regions using survey data has also highlighted that culture can impact entrepreneurial engagement (Bürcher & Mayer, ).…”

“…More recent work in peripheral regions using survey data has also highlighted that culture can impact entrepreneurial engagement (Bürcher & Mayer, 2017).…”