Nature Environment and Pollution Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Developing a Conceptual Framework on Ecopreneurs and Sustainability Using ISM and MICMAC Methodology


Affiliations
1 Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Survey No 231, Near Lunkad Goldcoast, Pune-411 014, India
 

This paper explores the establishment of relationships between sustainability and ecopreneurship. The researchers have done a systematic literature review which is considered as a base for deriving the Interpretative Structural Model (ISM) and further MICMAC analysis is used to examine the driving power and dependence power of the variables. ISM is an approach which drives the researchers to study various aspects and relate variables. It highlights the important variables which have been arrived at, based on a systematic literature review, coupled with the interrelationship between the varied elements of the concept of ecopreneurship and sustainability. A conceptual framework has been developed to evoke debate and provide directions for future research. The framework proposed in this paper can be utilized to develop strategies toward sustainable development which are focused, practical and effective. A strong link is identified between entrepreneurialism and environmentalism.

Keywords

Ecopreneurs, Sustainability, Interpretive Structural Model, MICMAC.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ahuja, V., Yang, J. and Shankar, R. 2009. Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption for building project management. Construction Innovation: Information, Process Management, 323-340.

  • Anderson, A.R. 1998. Cultivating the garden of Eden: environmental entrepreneuring. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2).

  • Arnold, H.E., Cohen, F.G. and Warner, A. 2009. Youth and environmental action: perspectives of young environmental leaders on their formative influences. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3): 27-36.

  • Bandura, A. 1969. Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, 213-26.

  • Bansal, P. 2002. The corporate challenges of sustainable development. The Academy of Management Executive, 122-131.

  • Berle, G. 2005. The green entrepreneur: business opportunities that can save the earth and make you money. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania.

  • Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A. and Pastor, P. 2005. Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision-making groups. Management Decision, 43(6): 877-895.

  • Buller, P.F. 1989. Determinants of the institutionalization of planned organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 3350.

  • Castor, R.G. 2014. Exploring Education for Sustainable Development through Ship Youth Programmes: A Stakeholder Approach.

  • Cherrier, H., Russell, S.V. and Fielding, K. 2012. Corporate environmentalism and top management identity negotiation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4): 518-534.

  • Choi, D.Y. and Gray, E.R. 2008. The venture development processes of “sustainable” entrepreneurs. Management Research News, 31(8): 558-569.

  • Cisek, James and Anthea George 1985. Teaching success skills to young people. New Designs for Youth Development, 1-4.

  • Cogliser, C.C. and Brigham, K.H. 2004. The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: mutual lessons to be learned. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 771-799.

  • Coleman, J. 1972. Youth: Transition to Adulthood. University of Chicago Press.

  • Deif, A.M. 2011. A system model for green manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(14): 1553-1559.

  • Dixon, S.E.A. and Clifford, A. 2007. Ecopreneurship-a new approach to managing the triple bottom line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3): 326-345.

  • Dubey, R. and Gunasekaran, A. 2015. Shortage of sustainable supply chain talent: an industrial training framework. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(2): 86-94.

  • Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Singh, S. and Singh, T. 2015. Building theory of sustainable manufacturing using total interpretive structural modelling. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 1-17.

  • Gorane, S. J. and Kant, R. 2013. Modelling the SCM enablers: an integrated ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(2): 263-286.

  • Harley, C., Metcalf, L. and Irwin, J. 2014. An exploratory study in community perspectives of sustainability leadership in the Murray Darling Basin. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3): 413-433.

  • Henderson, K.A. 2007. Quality of life and leisure education: implications for tourism economies. World Leisure Journal, 49(2): 8893.

  • Hess, P. 2010. A sustainable development metric based on youth. Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 542-551.

  • Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. 2005. IT-enablement of supply chains: understanding the barriers. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 11-27.

  • Kannan, G., Pokharel, S. and Kumar, P. S.2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(1): 28-36.

  • Kohl, J. 1982. Sociological research in social policy, the case of Germany. Sociological research and social security. Proceedings of the European Institute of Social Security, 83: 105-123.

  • Kopnina, H. 2011. Consumption in environmental education: developing curriculum that addresses cradle to cradle principles. Factis Pax, 5(3): 374-388.

  • Kothari, R. 1996. Youth Participation in Youth Development.

  • Libby, M., Sedonaen, M. and Bliss, S. 2006. The mystery of youth leadership development: the path to just communities. New Directions for Youth Development, 109: 13-25.

  • Luthra, S., Garg, D. and Haleem, A. 2015. An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources Policy.

  • Matthews, M.S. 2004. Leadership education for gifted and talented youth: a review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 77-113.

  • Malone, D.W. 1975. An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 397-404.

  • McEwen, T. 2008. Environmental scanning and organizational learning in entrepreneurial ventures. The Entrepreneurial Executive, 13(1).

  • Mebratu, D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6): 493-520.

  • Melay, I. 2012. Green Strategic Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Configuration Approach (Doctoral dissertation).

  • Minola, Tommaso, Giuseppe Criaco, and Lucio Cassia 2014. Are youth really different? new beliefs for old practices in entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(2/3).

  • Mishra, S., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. 2012. Interrelationship of drivers for agile manufacturing: an Indian experience. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 35-48.

  • Moghavemmi, S. et al. 2012. The entrepreneur’s perception on information technology innovation adoption: An empirical analysis of the role of precipitating events on usage behavior. Innovation, 14(2): 231-246.

  • Mosher, R.L.(Ed.) 1979. Adolescents’ Development and Education. McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley, California.

  • Moser, J. 1980. Geometry of quadrics and spectral theory. The Chern Symposium, 147-188.

  • Morgado, E.M., Reinhard, N. and Watson, R.T. 1999. Adding value to key issues research through Q-sorts and interpretive structured modeling. Communications of the AIS, 1(3).

  • Olsen, K.H. 2007. The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature. Climatic Change, 84(1): 59-73.

  • Pittman, Karen 1991. Promoting youth development: strengthening the role of youth serving and community organizations. Paper prepared for USDA.

  • Schaltegger, Stefan 2002. A framework for ecopreneurship: leading bioneers and environmental managers to ecopreneurship. Greener Management International, 38(1): 45-59.

  • Schensul, J.J. 2009. Community, culture and sustainability in multilevel dynamic systems intervention science. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3): 241-256

  • Sen, A. 2013. The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1):6-20.

  • Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C. and Bone, L.R. 1998. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research, 87-108.

  • Singh, A.K. 2013. Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 250-275.

  • Tilbury, D. 2011. Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress. Higher Education in the World, 4: 18-28.

  • Volery, T. 2002. An entrepreneur commercialises conservation. Greener Management International, 109-119.

  • Warfield, J.N. 2003. A proposal for systems science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 507-520.


Abstract Views: 126

PDF Views: 0




  • Developing a Conceptual Framework on Ecopreneurs and Sustainability Using ISM and MICMAC Methodology

Abstract Views: 126  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Nehajoan Panackal
Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Survey No 231, Near Lunkad Goldcoast, Pune-411 014, India
Archana Singh
Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Survey No 231, Near Lunkad Goldcoast, Pune-411 014, India
Adya Sharma
Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Survey No 231, Near Lunkad Goldcoast, Pune-411 014, India

Abstract


This paper explores the establishment of relationships between sustainability and ecopreneurship. The researchers have done a systematic literature review which is considered as a base for deriving the Interpretative Structural Model (ISM) and further MICMAC analysis is used to examine the driving power and dependence power of the variables. ISM is an approach which drives the researchers to study various aspects and relate variables. It highlights the important variables which have been arrived at, based on a systematic literature review, coupled with the interrelationship between the varied elements of the concept of ecopreneurship and sustainability. A conceptual framework has been developed to evoke debate and provide directions for future research. The framework proposed in this paper can be utilized to develop strategies toward sustainable development which are focused, practical and effective. A strong link is identified between entrepreneurialism and environmentalism.

Keywords


Ecopreneurs, Sustainability, Interpretive Structural Model, MICMAC.

References