Search results

Entrepreneurship-related research in management and organizational journals has experienced rapid growth, particularly in the last several years. The purpose of this study is to identify the researchers and universities that have had the greatest influence on entrepreneurship research since the turn of the century. Using a systematic and comprehensive study identification protocol, the authors delve into the individual and institutional actors contributing to scholarship in entrepreneurial studies for the period from 2000 to 2015. Examination of top-tier management and organizational journals revealed that a total of 371 entrepreneurship-related articles were published during this period by 618 authors from 303 different institutions. Rankings for the most prolific individuals as well as institutions, adjusted and unadjusted for journal quality, are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations and implications of the research undertaken here.

Academic inquiry into entrepreneurial phenomena has had a rich history over several decades and continues to evolve. This editorial draws attention to the classics: seminal articles that make profound contributions to the development of an academic field in entrepreneurship studies. We focus on the formative years of entrepreneurship research, specifically the 1970s and 1980s, to identify classics using a key informant approach that surveys members of the journal editorial board. Each nominated classic is introduced and discussed by an editorial board member, with particular focus on research opportunities that may be pursued going forward. Analyzing classics allows for the recognition of substantive advances in entrepreneurship research and provides an opportunity to delve into the academic progress achieved in understanding entrepreneurial phenomena.

The study aims to explore migrant entrepreneurship in a hitherto overlooked demographic, namely, migrants who have moved away from core-states and towards an economically less developed area. In particular, the study aims to critically evaluate to what extent mainstream theories and findings regarding migrants' ethnic division of labour are applicable in such an “upside down” migratory context.

The study qualitatively analyses 41 privileged core-state (UK, USA and Germany, among others) migrant entrepreneurs who have migrated to Wroclaw, Poland, and positions these findings against a second subject group of 24 migrant entrepreneurs from periphery-states (namely, Ukraine and Belarus).

The study finds that, while the situations of the periphery-state subject group largely lend support to the mainstream literature of migrant entrepreneurship, for those from the core-states subject group it is an altogether different story, whereby these migrants were found to be less likely to employ co-ethnic labour and, instead, were more likely to opt for native, Polish labour.

The study's findings begin to question the universality of migrant entrepreneurship theories which have been formulated within mainstream (semi-)periphery-to-core dominant-subordinate contexts. This, in turn, carries implications for policymakers outside of core-states who may need to carefully consider if such theories are applicable to their specific contexts.

This study not only helps to address a gap in the literature surrounding migrant entrepreneurship within Poland but also a gap within the wider literature in terms of migrant entrepreneurship outside of core-state contexts.

This article advances a conceptual typology delineating the differences and similarities between business- and social-sector new venture creators. Our classification scheme differentiates business and social entrepreneurs, considering characteristics of social entrepreneurs in a larger entrepreneurial context.Within a conceptual 2x2 typology based on two dimensions: drive (passion vs. business) and desired return (financial ROI vs. social ROI), we identify and classify 80 examples of new venture creators into one of the quadrants of an enterprise model of entrepreneurs. Preliminary results reveal similarities between social and traditional entrepreneurs and differentiate social entrepreneurs in terms of traits, goals, tendencies, and motivational sources.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

The purpose of this paper is to report on research into the impact of two sequential dimensions of strategic purchasing – purchasing recognition and purchasing involvement – on the development and deployment of dynamic capabilities. The authors also examine how such dynamic capabilities impact on both cost and innovation performance, and how their effects differ for service as opposed to manufacturing firms.

The authors test hypotheses using structural equation modeling of survey data from 309 manufacturing and service firms.

From a dynamic capability perspective, the analysis supports the positive relationships between purchasing recognition, purchasing involvement, and dynamic capability in the form of knowledge scanning. The authors also find support for the positive impact of knowledge scanning on both cost and innovation performance. From a contingency perspective, data supports hypothesized differences caused by industry, whereby service-based firms experience stronger positive linkages in our model than manufacturing-based firms. Finally, emerging from the data, the authors explore a re-enforcing effect from cost performance to purchasing involvement, something that is in line with the dynamic capabilities perspective but not typically addressed in operations management (OM) research.

The research offers a number of theoretical and managerial contributions, including being one of a relative few examples of empirical assessment of dynamic capability development and deployment; examining the enablers of dynamic capability in addition to the more commonly addressed performance effect; assessing the contingency effect of firm type for dynamic capabilities; and uncovering a return (re-enforcing) effect between performance and enablers of dynamic capabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to study the effectiveness of the risk management system in the European context, especially with regard to the risk management committee, the uncertainty of the environment and company performance. In summary, it evaluates European companies listed on the stock exchange in France, Germany and the United Kingdom to determine how risk management systems influence financial companies' performance.

To study the effectiveness of risk management systems and their influence on performance, the large companies selected in our sample are fairly representative of the European market, according to the Dutch indices of each country (SBF 120 in France, HDAX 110 in Germany and FTSE 100 in United Kingdom).The empirical evidence is based on an international quantitative analysis, using a data set involving 320 companies listed on the stock exchange over a ten-year period from 2005 to 2014.

The results indicate that the establishment of a risk management and control system by a company positively influences its management, and its performance level and value creation also improve. The results of this study demonstrate a significant strengthening of the role of the risk management committee in the three countries. The surveillance function is reinforced, and in particular, the internal control system is accentuated.

This study has some limitations that can form leads for future research. One of these limitations is the sample size. The authors have represented the European context by three countries that certainly constitute great European powers, but have regulations different from other countries. The company size is also a possible research element. Indeed, risk management system varies between large, small and medium-sized enterprises, so it is important to study each type of company well.

This study identifies the risk management committee as a mechanism of control that is highly important in the company, and it proposes an international framework that comparatively and empirically evaluates how the risk management system used in large European companies can improve their financial performance.