Ethics and entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review

Pham

et al. 2020

SSRN Journal

Financing issues play essential roles in the survival and development of entrepreneurial firms. The current study, employing the bibliometric analysis of 6,903 articles from 1970 to 2019, extracted from Web of Science database, aims to provide an overview of the discipline's landscape and major scientific domains to facilitate scientific development within the field. Entrepreneurial finance is a young and growing field with exponential growth in the number of publications (with 19.54% per year) and rising collaboration tendency among authors. Journal of Business Venturing is the most prestigious journal, while Sustainability is noteworthy for its rapid contribution to the field. We also note a sign of Western ideological homogeneity from the collaboration networks and lists of top authors, institutions, and countries. Besides, using keyword co-occurrence analysis, seven major research domains are identified: "venture capital", "crowdfunding", "SMEs finance", "social entrepreneurship finance", "financial risk", "microfinance", and "human-social-financial capital". Based on these findings, we raise the concern of lacking diversity in entrepreneurial finance research and provide several recommendations for future potential research directions.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the 50-Year Research Landscape of Entrepreneurial Finance: A Sign of Western Ideological Homogeneity?

Pham

et al. 2020

SSRN Journal

“…Based on prior bibliometric studies about entrepreneurship (Aparicio et al 2019 ; Vallaster et al 2019 ), we utilize the keyword search with the following words: “entrepreneur*” (entrepreneur, entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial, and entrepreneurship), “start-up*”, “new enterprise*”, and “new firm*”. For finance, we review studies of Padilla-Ospina et al ( 2018 ), Xu et al ( 2018 ), Zhang et al ( 2019 ), and Cumming and Groh ( 2018 ), and determine to use the following search keywords: “financ*” (finance, financing, financial, financer, and financier), “debt*”, “venture capital*” (venture capitalist and venture capitalists), “trade credit*”, “crowdfund*” (crowdfunding, crowdfunded, crowdfunding, and Crowdfunder), “angel invest*”, “private equit*” (private equity and private equities), and “IPO*”.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the social and conceptual structure of the 50-year research landscape in entrepreneurial finance

Pham

et al. 2020

SN Bus Econ

In recent decades, drastic changes in global social-economic situations have led to significant shifts in the financial market for entrepreneurial firms, thus resulting in changes in entrepreneurial finance discipline. The current body of literature, despite its significant growth, has not provided an overview landscape of this research area. Consequently, this study aims to fill this gap by employing the bibliometric analysis of 6902 articles from 1970 to 2019 extracted from the Web of Science database. By doing so, this paper attempts to provide an overview of the discipline's research output, social and conceptual structure, and offer strategies facilitating the scientific development within the field. The findings indicate that entrepreneurial finance is a young and growing field with an exponential increase in the number of publications (approx. 19.75 percent per year) and rising collaboration tendency among authors. The 1991–2000 period is a crucial milestone of the field thanks to the remarkable growth and impact of studies during this period as well as simultaneously occurring historical events. We also notice a sign of Western ideological homogeneity from the collaboration networks and lists of most productive authors, institutions, and countries. Additionally, using thematic mapping, five major research domains are identified: “venture capital”, “crowdfunding”, “SMEs finance”, “social entrepreneurship finance”, “IPO and corporate governance”. Based on these findings, we raise the concern of lacking diversity in entrepreneurial finance research and propose strategies for authors, journals, and policymakers to diversify the literature.

“…The term CSR encompasses several dimensions but is always rooted in the normative idea of a company's responsibilities for its impacts (Moratis, 2016). The lack of consensus on its definition is attributable to the fact that research approaches to CSR for many years have been narrowed to the corporate duties, and thus, separated from other research concerned with ethics (De Bakker et al, 2005;Vallaster et al, 2019). While the recent literature has witnessed a re-focus on CSR and entrepreneurship at both large and small organizational scales (Hammann, Habisch, & Pechlaner, 2009;Hemingway, 2005), there seems to be disagreement still on the types of behavior and action that are deemed socially responsible in society.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 a Moral Dimension: From Being Aware Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the moral–practical gaps in corporate social responsibility missions of Vietnamese firms: An event‐based analysis of sustainability feasibility

Vuong

La²,

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

et al. 2020

This research was conducted in Vietnam in 2019 to support the establishment in 2018 of the Vietnam Business for Environment (VB4E) Platform by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Vietnam. The case of Vietnam is then used to bring attention to how businesses in a developing country are dealing with environmental problems and engaging in both ecological conservation and social responsibilities. A structured dataset on selected keywords and news sources was built to systematically track all major environment-related events in Vietnam. The findings, which were extracted from 344 news reports and 75 environmental events, highlight the lack of engagement on Vietnamese businesses in sustainability initiatives, with existing corporate activities still driven by practical concerns, i.e., profitability. Notably, a minimum of one governmental agency was involved in 86% of the events categorized as environmentally damaging. This result hints at a systemic problem of government-business collusion in bypassing environmental guidelines.