Ecological engagement in small- and medium enterprises: the power of optimism

(1)

ECOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT IN SMALL- AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES: THE POWER OF OPTIMISM

ROELAND HENDRIK CAMPS 11923652

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. E. Masurel

VU University of Amsterdam School of Business and Economics

MSc Entrepreneurship August 16, 2018

Abstract

Small and medium enterprises comprise of a great portion of the Dutch economy and have a tremendous impact to influence climate change by implementing sustainable business practices. Entrepreneurs of these small businesses are driven to operate sustainably for a variety of reasons, both economic and intrinsic. As entrepreneurs are notably optimistic, this study examines how optimism influences one's well-being and locus of control, therefore driving one to operate sustainably. This study collects data on 43 bakeries in Amsterdam to quantitatively deepen the understanding of how an entrepreneur’s optimism inspires sustainable business practices.

Keywords

(2)

Dispositional Optimism | 1

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Roeland Hendrik Camps who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Dispositional Optimism | 2 Table of Contents Abstract 0 State of originality 1 Table of content 2 Introduction 3 Literature review 5

Corporate Social Responsibility 5

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 6

The Entrepreneur 7

Optimism 8

Hypothesis Development 9

Data and methodology 10

Data 10 Fieldwork 10 Descriptive statistics 11 Construction of Variables 12 LOT-R 13 Omitted variable 14 Ecological Engagement 15 Control Variables 16 Methodology 17 Models 17 Results 18 Optimism 18

Robustness Checks and Falsification Tests 19

Discussion 20 Limitations 21 Literary Contribution 24 Conclusion 24 References 25 Appendix 29

(4)

Introduction

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time (OECD, 2011). As small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, comprise more than 99% of all firms within Europe (Masurel & Rens, 2015; Choongo, Paas, Masurel, Van Burg, & Lungu, 2018), these firms have a huge impact on the environment and also affect the economy, and society, as these dimensions are indivisible (Tideman, 2016). Therefore, to drive an impact against climate change and sustainability, the owner-managers and entrepreneurs of these SMEs play an immense role against environmental damage (York & Venkataraman, 2000; Greco & De Jong, 2017).

In recent years, research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has gained increasing momentum (Greco & De Jong, 2017), particularly in the retail sector, in theory as well as in practice (Masurel & Rens, 2015). Businesses today stress the importance of environmentally friendly practices as it attracts customers and upholds a green image (Bianchi and Noci, 1998). As CSR is becoming increasingly indispensable, even if it might only be for the sake of being more competitive (Greco & De Jong, 2017), it is essential in both, keeping up with current trends and combating climate degradation.

Sustainable business practices stem from the business owner and their personal perceptions of how they can contribute to a better society (Carver & Scheier, 2014). As small business owners are the key to implementing these sustainable practices, understanding their motivations are of utmost societal and ecological importance.

As entrepreneurs or owner-managers usually pursue goals which they perceive most valuable (Carver & Scheier, 2014), ecological engagement of a firm should be high on every SME’s agenda when looking at the environmental degradation of recent decades. However, an individual entrepreneur must find motivation to act in an environmentally-friendly manner. In addition to the business case for sustainability (Masurel & Rens, 2015), entrepreneurs are willing to get involved in CSR despite uncertain outcomes (Moskowitz & Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002; Masurel, 2015). CSR, a vague term, which is used interchangeably with sustainable entrepreneurship (OECD, 2011; Greco & De Jong, 2017), is often focused on ecological

(5)

activities (Masurel, 2015). An entrepreneur must therefore be willing to engage in ecological practices voluntarily as it is not entirely financially driven (Dahlsrud, 2008; Masurel & Rens, 2015).

This raises the question to what motivates the voluntary nature of acting sustainably in SMEs. Stressing the importance of entrepreneurs’ motivations influencing their ecological engagement (Masurel & Rens, 2015) and personal values affectng CSR orientation (Choongo, Paas, Masurel, Van Burg, & Lungu, 2018), it becomes apparent that the “embarkation of SMEs on environmental management is still not promising” (Koe, Omar, & Majid, 2014, p. 65). This topic calls for further investigation regarding the ecological aspect of CSR and SMEs’ motivation. For example, entrepreneurs believe that they can control their own destinies (Berglund & Johnson, 2007) which likely correlates to an entrepreneur’s perceived ability to make an impact on climate change within their own SME’s practices. Additionally, it has been researched that one’s well-being has a positive effect on one’s sustainable (ecological) attitude (Ericson, Kjønstad, & Barstad, 2014), and, as a sustainable attitude positively affects behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Davidsson, 2005) it can be noted that all these factors correlate to optimism as a motivational construct (Carver & Scheier, 2014).

Entrepreneurs are generally known as optimistic (Åstebro, Herz, Nanda, & Weber, 2014) (Moskowitz & Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002), and act as a distinguishing factor within SMEs (Masurel & Rens, 2015). Despite the fact that optimism has garnered increasing interest from scientists during the last few decades (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012), it has been a much-debated topic in psychological research and a rather nascent topic in entrepreneurial research (Rauch & Frese, 2007). There are many different definitions and concepts debated in the field of optimism. Since personality is an important determinant of many kinds of behavior, and behavior is likely to be affected (Davidsson, 2005), it deserves a closer look (Carver & Scheier, 2014).

As is has been stated before that there is “more research needed regarding how optimism exerts its effects on psychological well-being” (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012, p.114), and well-being has appeared to affect sustainable attitude and behavior (Ericson, et al., 2014; Davidsson, 2005; Ajzen, 1991), this thesis facilitates the understanding whether optimism contributes to ecological involvement in SMEs.

(6)

The entrepreneur, also known as owner-manager within small- and medium-sized enterprises, acts as the main decision-maker in SMEs. Therefore, insight into an owner-manager’s individual differences can provide useful insights in SME research. Especially, as SMEs represent a great portion of the Dutch local economy (Masurel & Rens, 2017), the SMEs have a significant ability to influence the threat of climate change. As there is enough reason to believe, however the link of optimism and ecological engagement among SME never appeared in existing research as to yet, this thesis will examine this link between optimism and willingness to engage in CSR in SMEs through the following research question:

“To what extent does optimism influence the degree of ecological involvement in SMEs?”

Literature review

In this section, an overview of the research is given. First, an overview of the ecological dimension of CSR, or “ecological engagement” is presented from the perspective of individuals along with the broad range of theoretical and practical interpretations accompanying the concept. Subsequently, existing relevant research regarding small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will be presented. Finally, the most important facets of recent literature will be highlighted regarding the typical entrepreneurial trait, optimism, and how these facets interrelate.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Contemporary businesses are increasingly shifting towards environmentally friendly practices. Corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is a topic of debate rising in popularity (Greco & De Jong, 2017). This trend of consumers becoming more aware of environmental concern and well-being can therefore cause the increased organizational focus on CSR. Many businesses adopt CSR practices for branding purposes and increased profits (Greco & De Jong, 2017).

(7)

Despite the increasing adoption of CSR within SMEs, the concept of CSR has been stressed by many as an unclear phenomenon and can take many forms (Greco, 2017). As aforementioned, CSR is often confused with, intended as, or used interchangeably with ‘sustainable entrepreneurship’ (OECD, 2011; Masurel & Rens, 2015; Weber, 2008). SMEs do not commonly use the term ‘CSR’ when describing their sustainability activities. Instead, they describe their sustainable practices often as community involvement or environmental management (Choongo, Paas, Masurel, Van Burg, & Lungu, 2018). However, the distinctions must be noted. CSR generally applies to business oriented organizations, while ‘sustainable entrepreneurship’ can target all different types of organization (Greco & De Jong, 2017). In other words, CSR is accompanying the core business of an organization, making its process green, rather than ‘sustainable development’, wherein the sustainability concept is embedded within the core business, such as making ‘green’ products (Greco & De Jong, 2017). The focus is therefore upon the former, as CSR, or ecological engagement, both accompany the core business operations. This process of ‘making the business green’ is also referred to as ‘the process approach’ in defining green business (OECD, 2011).

CSR is broken down further into CSR itself, the social component, and ‘Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER), its significant other (Greco & De Jong, 2017). Recent literature regarding entrepreneurs’ motivation to act ecologically has appeared a somewhat neglected field of research. Masurel & Rens (2015) recently shed light onto motivational factors of entrepreneurs as to what motivates them to act on the behalf of the environment. However, what drives individuals within SMEs toward their ecological enterprising efforts has not yet become clear. Despite extensive research about individual differences, more research regarding this dispute is necessary.

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are commonly depicted as a fundamental engine for economic development by triggering job creation and improving products and services (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Koe et al., 2014; Greco & De Jong, 2017).

Until recently, literature on CSR focused primarily on large businesses. However, research regarding SMEs is growing, and there is consensus among many that a small business is not

(8)

simply a “little big business” (Greco & De Jong, 2017; Masurel & Rens, 2015; Gumpert, 1981, p.18). That CSR has long been a neglected topic within SME research can be supported by Bianchi & Nochi (1998), stating that pressure for having a ‘green image’ is much lower for SMEs than for larger firms (Greco & De Jong, 2017). Since this is a reason for the underexposed field of research about small and medium-sized enterprises and CSR, it is still noteworthy as SMEs cover such a great part of a nation’s economy. In particular, 99% of all businesses in Europe are SMEs (Masurel & Rens, 2015). This supports the need for investigating the insufficiently highlighted topic further, building on the underrepresented field of ecological engagement of SMEs.

The Entrepreneur

When highlighting the interest of SMEs’ ecological engagement, an important factor within these firms must be noted: its owner-managers. It is stated that the dominant role of the entrepreneur, or owner-manager in the regard of SMEs, “may be the most qualitative distinguishing characteristic of SMEs” (Masurel & Rens, 2015, p.334). The entrepreneur is seen as the ‘innovator’ and ‘engine’ of economic growth (Van Praag, 1999; Berglund & Johansson, 2007. In other words, owner-managers and the SMEs they own and manage are important drivers of economic growth, employment, innovation, productivity and sustainable activities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Koe, Omar, & Majid, 2014; Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2013; Masurel & Rens, 2015).

Thus, as CSR initiatives are driven by entrepreneurs themselves, these individuals’ ecological initiatives embody their personal values, rather than mere adherence to CSR standards (Choongo et al., 2018). Entrepreneurs simply pursue the goals which are most important to them according to their confidence in the goals’ attainability (Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom, 2010). In other words, the positive and optimistic expectation regarding the potential acquaintance of a certain outcome can direct one’s motivation towards that goal (Masurel & Rens, 2015).

Åstebro et al. (2014) brought up that entrepreneurs may not only be driven by the preference for autonomy and control, but also the type of business. They derived this from research by Hurst and Pugsley (2011), stating that “individuals primarily motivated by non pecuniary factors do not necessarily sort into high growth sectors”, but are rather “satisfied by

(9)

consuming desirable job characteristics in low-growth sectors” (Åstebro et al., 2014, p.64). In such, the individual differences relating to one’s motivation of engaging in CSR becomes an interesting topic to investigate (Åstebro et al., 2014).

In line with this, optimism as an affective, motivational, and cognitive construct, is believed a major driver for one’s actions (Rauch & Frese, 2007; Carver & Scheier, 2014; Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). In addition, as optimism is stated a substantial contributor to one’s constructive problem-solving propensity (Carver & Scheier, 2014) the construct is believed to affect one’s perception of goal attainment and therefore a driver of one’s actions.

Optimism

Optimism is believed to be a typical entrepreneurial characteristic, and argued as a construct enlarging an individual’s probability to enter the entrepreneurial field (Moskowitz & Vissing-jørgensen, 2002; Åstebro et al., 2014). It leads to one’s expectation to occur good and favorable things in one’s life and promotes positive thoughts and feelings about the future (Carver, Scheier, & Fulford, 2012; Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). In particular, dispositional optimists expect that “good, as opposed to bad, outcomes will generally occur when confronting problems across important life domains” (Tomakowsky, Lumley, Markowitz & Frank, 2001, p.578). Optimistic individuals may have the perception that goal attainment is within one’s behavioral control (Carver et al., 2012) since the construct is inversely related to hopelessness by definition (Carver et al., 2010; Alloy et al. 2006),

Optimism is associated with various behavioral and cognitive tendencies (Carver et al., 2010). According to the theory of planned behavior, intention is the result of the subjective norm and one’s attitude, ultimately leading to one’s actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Davidsson, 2005). As optimism is likely to have an effect on one’s attitude in combating climate change (Greco & De Jong, 2017), an optimist exerts effort, whereas a pessimist disengages from effort when facing difficult challenges (Carver & Scheier, 2014). Since owner-managers generally possess a favorable attitude towards sustainability (Masurel & Rens, 2015), we assume that optimistic owner-managers, as constructive problem-solvers (Carver & Scheier, 2014), are more likely to engage in efforts to act in favor of the environment.

(10)

Hypothesis Development

This chapter contains a hypothesis development that seeks to build on the previously discussed literature review. From this literature, a hypothesis will be derived, which will be tested in chapter five.

As is described above, entrepreneurs, or owner-managers, pursue goals that are valuable to them (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). They believe they can control their own destinies (Berglund & Johansson, 2007) and are widely known optimists (Åstebro et al., 2014; Moskowitz & Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002). In particular, optimism is said to be “adversely related to hopelessness” (Carver et al., 2010, p.880). Therefore, optimism as a motivational and cognitive construct, is likely to affect one’s feasibility perception of goal-attainment, particularly in the field of entrepreneurship (Koe et al., 2014; Greco & De Jong, 2017).

Optimism can be understood as ‘how goals are turned into behavior from an expectancy viewpoint (Carver et al., 2014). Therefore, climate change, as “one of the greatest challenges of our time” (Ericson 2013; OECD, 2011; Greco & De Jong, 2017, p.4) can be assumed more likely to be faced by optimists, as they are more constructive problem-solvers (Carver & Scheier, 2014; Neff & Geers 2013) and have a different approach (Carver et al., 2012). This is enforced by results which indicate that perceived feasibility has a positive association with ‘propensity for sustainable entrepreneurship’ (Koe et al., 2014). As an individual’s attitude leads to one’s intention and behavior, according to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Hakkert & Kemp, 2006; Ajzen, 1991; Davidsson, 2005), it is reasonable to assume that their behavior will follow accordingly. Therefore, optimism is perceived as a motivational construct, helping to achieve one’s goals.

The aim of this paper is to provide quantitative data about optimism and to investigate the effect of optimism on the extent of ecological engagement of them within their SMEs. As literature suggests that optimism is a versatile construct (Carver & Scheier, 2014; Forgeards & Seligman, 2012) affecting an individual’s reasoning and ultimate behavior, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: Optimistic owner-managers are more likely to be ecologically engaged within their small and medium-sized enterprises

(11)

Data and methodology

Data

Before being able to answer the research question, first the process of gathering the data will be discussed. This will then be followed by an explanation of the methodology used in this research. First, the process of the data gathering will be adduced. Second, the descriptive statistics are discussed, in order to outline the data which is going to be used. Third, to investigate whether optimism indeed exemplifies an effect on ecological engagement or not, the key variables are explained as well as how these the constructs are transformated to fit the hypothesis. Fourth, in order to make a more robust regression, the essential control variables will be discussed. And finally, some data modifications are stressed.

Fieldwork

In order to test the hypothesis described above, a survey was distributed among owner-managers of independently owned bakeries in the retail market of Amsterdam, that qualify as an SME. 106 bakeries were selected via ‘DeTelefoongids.nl’, ‘Google Maps’ and ‘Yelp’, which is a smartphone application, and via bakeries that were coincidently passed while doing the fieldwork.

This sector is chosen as the Dutch retail sector is typically a small-scale sector. As data had to be gathered and reflected within a three-month time-span, an important contributing factor was that the firms had the owner-manager present in the store. In particular, focus was upon the sub sector ‘bakeries’. As these SMEs are well represented in a city and convenience sampling was managed by cycling and walking around, it was expected to an effective and convenient method of sampling. Additionally, as Dutch firms are relatively committed to CSR (Uhlaner, Berent-Braun, De Wit & Jeurissen, 2012; Masurel & Rens, 2015), it can be stated as appropriate to conduct research in Amsterdam, the main capital city of the Netherlands.

As the ‘convenience sampling’ method was used, in particular, by cycling around, 15 bakeries were perceived as too remote to be visited. This ultimately left the pool entailing 91 potential respondents. Of these 91 respondents, 4 bakeries appeared to be closed for construction or holiday, 24 eventually turned out non-existing or had quit recently, 5 bakeries shared a common owner, 6 bakeries did eventually not meet the retail criterion as they were

(12)

defined as lunchrooms and 9 did not want to cooperate. This ultimately resulted in a response rate of 47.25%.

The data was gathered within 2.5 weeks. Before starting the fieldwork, the route was planned in order to make the available time as efficient as possible. While doing the fieldwork, they were given information about the purpose of the research. They were also told to expect questions about their (dispositional) optimism and ecological engagement within the firm, as well as some demographic requirements. In addition, it was emphasized that the data obtained was processed anonymously and held private. In this manner, thorough and personal information was acquired, which contributed to a better interpretation of the data and will provide this thesis with some useful explorative features.

The surveys were often left at the store to give owner-managers some time for filling out the questionnaires at a convenient time. These printed questionnaires were retrieved later. The firms that were aimed for were (1) economical active bakeries and (2) bread- and banquet firms (entailing an SBI-code 1071 and 47241 respectively). SBI-codes are codes which the business registries use for distinguishing firms according branch. However, these questions were left out of the questionnaire for simplifying the survey for the respondents.

Descriptive statistics

In the first two parts of the questionnaire, as shown in Appendix A, general information was acquired in order to distinguish groups within the sample. Consistent with the European definition of an SME, all respondents had less than 250 employees (Masurel & Rens, 2015).

The data in Table 1 shows that a few remarks must be made. First, the low number of respondents (n=43) is limiting the terminal results. One reason for the small pool of participants may be that it seemed as if many bakeries has shifted more towards a lunchroom, or even going out of business. As providing lunch is a well-known ancillary for bakeries, lunchrooms had to requirement to sell normal bread for take-away as requirement to take part of the research. This decreasing number of bakeries was especially noteworthy as a substantial amount of respondents brought it up as a result of supermarkets and other increased competition. Second, it was remarkable that 79.1% of all respondents appeared

(13)

male. Also, half of the respondents had the age of 45 and older (60.5%; M= 45.81; SD= 11.51) and 67.5% of the respondents had successfully completed intermediate vocational education or higher. Extensive descriptives of the full dataset can be found in Table 1. Despite the low number of respondents, the data was deemed usable as 43 bakeries represents a substantial number of bakeries within the borders of Amsterdam.

Table 1: Descriptive of demographic variables

Variable Complete dataset

Respondents 43 Age 45.81 (11.51) Gender 79.1% male Education 44.2% MBO Baking years 23.12 (2.29) Founder 55.8% Founded in year 1980.02 (32.979)

General mark of life 7.958 (0.6342)

Construction of Variables

In the following section, the establishment of the two main variables ‘optimism’ and ‘ecological engagement’ will be elaborated upon. Before the ten items could be constructed into one variable, for both constructs, the appropriateness of the items were intensively checked, adapted and tested. The items that are used from recent literature will be discussed next. However, these items were translated to fit the Dutch retail market. The first translation of the questions was read by two professionals, who checked them on understandability. After some minor revisions, the final version was obtained. Subsequently, five experts were asked to assess the feasibility of answering these questions. After adjusting this minor feedback, the questionnaire was tested on the first few participants in advance of starting the real fieldwork. As no issues in interpretation appeared, this finite version was personally disseminated.

(14)

LOT-R

For the ‘Optimism’ construct, 10 statements were initially used in order to form a construct. The respondent was asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale to indicate to what degree the owner-manager perceived himself to be engaged with the item (1- highly disagree’ to ‘5- highly agree’).

Dispositional optimism, is usually assessed using self-report questionnaires, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012; Scheier, Carver & Bridges, 1994; Carver & Scheier, 2014). The construct of dispositional optimism,versus pessimism, is reviewed by several researchers by using the Life Orientation Test - Revised. This is a revised version of the original LOT (Scheier & Carver, 1992), a two-correlated factor model, namely optimism and pessimism, which asks people whether they expect outcomes in their lives to be good or bad (Carver & Scheier, 1992; Carver et al., 2010). Also, regarding the LOT-R, “the item response theory (IRT) confirmed the accuracy of the scale in measuring the underlying construct and provided item severity and discrimination” (Chiesi, Galli, Primi, Borgi, & Bonacchi, 2013, p. 524). Having incorporated existing literature regarding this test, it was perceived legitimate to choose to conduct the LOT-R. The theoretical definition of the construct optimism is described as continuum, and not as separate dimensions (Chiesi et al. 2013). As these results increase the confidence in the assessment accuracy of the LOT-R and gives support to the large body of works that employed the scale in the field of psychological well-being (Chiesi et al., 2013), this continuum is also used in this thesis. Of the 10-items within the LOT-R, 3 measure optimism, 3 items measure pessimism, and 4 fillers are incorporated. As there was no empirical necessity for hypothesizing that the dispositional optimism construct must be split into optimism plus pessimism (Vautier, Raufaste and Cariou, 2003; Chiesi et al., 2013). The items measuring pessimism were recoded and measured along the optimism continuum, for verbal simplicity (see table in appendix B).

To justify a factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and Bartlett’s test for sphericity were carried out for both. These tests reflected satisfactory reliability and appropriateness (Bartlett, 1950) to construct the items into variables. The result of the former, the KMO-test, illustrates inadequate overlap between the variables, while the significance level of the latter, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, implies whether there are sufficient intercorrelations to conduct a factor analysis. In such, a small remark is on its place (KMO=.496; p-value <.01 and

(15)

KMO=.487; p-value <.01 respectively), as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values were not optimal (KMO < .5). However, taken into account the low number of respondents, still having a KMO-value being close to 0.5, it indicates unlikely to produce spurious results. Additionally, as the constructs show a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha (α > .5), the results are concluded of sufficiently consistent to make a construct. Following these statistics, it is perceived correct to conduct a factor analysis. These values are shown in appendix C.

Past studies, for example, recent research by Chiesi et al. (2013) found a good internal consistency (α=.80) of the LOT-R. In this sample, the internal consistency appeared rather low, possibly due to the marginal number of respondents. When having deleted the fillers shown in appendix B and C (items 2,5,6 and 8), this reliability remains inadmissible (CA=.224, see table 2). The bad internal consistency of the recoded items 3 and 9, signify a poor internal consistency, and should thus be left out the construct (.071 and -.551 respectively, shown in appendix C). Therefore, after having omitted all 6 items (fillers 2, 5, 6 and 8 and the recoded items 3 and 9), a better internal consistency is exemplified (N=4; α=.546). Subsequently, for improving the variable optimism, the lowest factor loading of the recoded item 7 (.393) was left out too. In such, a more valid internal consistency of the construct (ca= .735) appeared as a result.

Omitted Variable

A remarkable finding after having conducted the OLS, appendix F exemplifies that the omitted item in the second construct genuinely harms the effect on the dependent variable ecological engagement. As omitting this item increased the coefficient, as shown in Appendix F, as well as the significance level and Pearson correlation, it can be concluded that this reverse statement has caused difficulties among respondent’s interpretations.

Table 2: Construction of variables

N Cronbachs alpha KMO Bartletts Test of Spiricity

Opt_6 6 .224 .478 P=.000

Opt_4 4 .546 .496 P=.000

Opt_3 3 .647 .487 P=.000

(16)

Therefore, to construct the variable for optimism, two constructs are made: one construct is made with 4 items (M=14.90; SD=2.497; α=.546) and one with 3 items (M=11.31; SD=2.101; α=.647), depicted in Appendix C. The cronbach’s alpha stated for both justifies the utility of both constructs of optimism (N=3 and N=4), but remarks caution, as the circumstances are not ideal

Ecological Engagement

For the ecological engagement, 10 statements and activities have been given. The respondents were asked, like in the previous construct, to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale to what extent the items were applicable to his firm’s situation (‘1 - not at all applicable’ to ‘5 - very applicable’).

Masurel & Rens (2015) have introduced 8 items to determine the ecological activities of SME-owners in the retail market. In their sample, they distinguish two groups: front-runners, which scored a 3.5 average or higher, and followers, the remaining respondents. There was a clear distinction between the mean scores of front-runners and followers regarding ecological activities (M=4.08 and M=3.32 respectively). Of these aforementioned items, six are used, as they were ought applicable in the retail market among SMEs for the specific sub sector. Additionally, four other items were added to this list to increase the number of items of the ecological engagement construct, in order to increase the likeliness of a reliable construct.

Research of Masurel (2015), regarding ecological engagement and economic performance, provided statements and activities which were also applicable to the context of the retail market under investigation here. For example: “taking measures to limit waste”, “turn down thermostat after business hours” and “limit transport movements”. These items used by Masurel (2015) all showed a cronbach’s alpha above α=0.6 for both groups separately. This provided enough ground to belief that the utility of these reliable items was justified to incorporate.

The 10 items used in this thesis were evaluated by the same experts as the LOT-R described above. When conducting the reliability analysis, the 10 items showed a valid internal consistency (M=35.58; SD=6.063; α=.739). Also, with a sufficient value of the

(17)

Kaiser-Dispositional Optimism | 16

Meyer-Olkin test (KMO=.600), it exactly met the standard of .6, debated by Cerny and Kaiser (1977). As the reliability analysis exemplified a sufficient internal consistency, as depicted in table 2 above, a factor analysis was considered appropriate. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity exemplified an equally justified factor analysis (p-value < .01). Thus, it was perceived appropriate of doing a factor analysis, as shown in table 2.

When conducting the factor analysis, demonstrated in appendix D, omitting the items (2, 7 and 10) did not lead to any substantial improvements of the construct (N=7; α=.754; KMO= .659). Because omitting items had so few impact on the reliability and internal consistency, which was already sufficient (α=.739), as shown in Appendix E, there is chosen not to omit any items, as they were all believed to be useful.

Control Variables

In order to enhance the robustness of the models used in this study, control variables are added; there might be potentially confounding variables that can be controlled for, which will be discussed in the following section. First, gender is a chosen to incorporate as a control variable, as gender has been found to influence one’s environmentally ethical behavior (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). Second, a control variable for founder is added. As it could be argued that “some founders begin their entrepreneurial journey to lead a sustainable enterprise” (Picken, 2017, p.7), this could be an important contributor to one’s ecological engagement. Also, the control variables ‘baking years’, which can be interpreted as ‘years of experience’, and ‘founded in year’ are in line with this variable. These variables can be thought of as the degree of prior knowledge and skills, indicating prior knowledge in the business. As “entrepreneurs’ prior knowledge is important for explaining CSR engagement of their firms” (Masurel, 2015, p.336), these are included. Third, education is incorporated as a control variable, as one’s schooling might explain one’s disposition about what is ought important. In this regard, different levels of education can have an effect on the degree to which one perceives the environment high on their priority list. Lastly, the general mark one gives to its life in general is added. This general belief of one’s well-being is expected to exemplify a certain degree of optimism, and therefore to have an effect on the ecological engagement.

(18)

Methodology

Previously published empirical evidence in psychological as well as entrepreneurial research has provided ground to believe that optimism might have an effect on ecological engagement. In order to test this likely derived proposition, an ordinary least squares regression (OLS) will be performed. Significant values from this regression will reveal whether the key variable optimism is related to ecological engagement in the field of SMEs. However, as this does not explain the mechanism behind this relationship whatsoever, the control variables are incorporated to provide insight into the explanatory variables on the dependent variable ecological engagement.

Models

In order to be able to test the method described above, a simple Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is used. Following this model, first of all, the total effect can be found by regressing the construct optimism with four items (Opt_4), on the dependent key variable ecological engagement (Eco1). The control variables (C) are also incorporated in this model.

Eco1 = α1 + β1Opt_4 + δ1C + + ε (1)

Subsequently, a regression (OLS) will be conducted for the construct optimism on the ecological engagement (Eco2), entailing 3 items. Likewise, the control variables are

incorporated.

Eco2 = α2 + β2Opt_3 + δ2C + ε (2)

(19)

Results

In the following section, the results of the previously announced models will be discussed. First, the direct effect of the key variables will be discussed for the first construct, followed by the results of the key variables when incorporating the control variables. Secondly, the direct results of the second construct of optimism and ecological engagement will be elaborated. In the last section, the effect of the control variables when adding them in the OLS will be discussed. Finally, the chapter ends with a brief discussion regarding the robustness of the results.

Optimism

The first construct of optimism, the variable comprised of four items, has been tested, and will be discussed next.

When conducting the OLS for the first construct of optimism, as shown in appendix F, in the first column, the variable appears to have a significant impact on ecological engagement (p-value < 0.1). However, as the control variables are added (column 2), this appears no longer the case. This finding implies that the significant contributions to ecological engagement cannot be solely ascribed to this variable (Opt_4). Our formulated hypothesis (H1) that

optimism explains the degree of ecological engagement must therefore be rejected. As shown in appendix F, the effect of the variable Ecological engagement is not merely explained by the variable optimism. In fact, ecological engagement is only explained by 7.8% by this variable of optimism (R2= .078). Subsequently, when adding the control variables, the

explained variance increases substantially (R2=.228).

Also, a Pearson correlation test was conducted. This test maps the relatedness of the variables, leaving out any causality. As the hypothesis also inherently revealed, this was expected to be positive. The variables Opt_4 and Ecological engagement have a significant correlation (.279; p-value = 0.086) against a 10% interval (p-value < .10).

The second variable, the construct comprising of three items has been tested and exemplified some interesting findings, which will be clarified in the following section. This variable, in which the negative and recoded statement “I rarely expect things are going my way” is omitted, shows a better fit than the previously discussed variable. Like the variable discussed above, as shown in appendix F in column 3, the variable optimism (Op_3) significantly

(20)

explains the ecological engagement (p-value < .01). Subsequently, when adding all control variables, it becomes clear that the independent variable remains significant at a 10 per cent level (p-value < .10). Therefore, we can conclude that the formulated hypothesis (H1) can be

perceived true. Therefore, we can confidently state that there is a significant effect of optimism (Opt_3) on one’s ecological engagement.

As also shown in appendix F, when only inserting Opt_3 in the regression, 16.8% of the variance can be explained to this variable (R2=.168). However, when adding the other control

variables, this explained variances increases remarkably (R2=.228). This implies a substantial

effect of all control variables on the ecological engagement, but states that the variable alone is a good predictor on this independent variable alone.

Also for this variable, a Pearson correlation test in conducted. The variables of Opt_3 and ecological engagement have a significant correlation (0.410; p-value = 0.010) against the 5% interval (p-value < .05). These results imply, that the omitted reversed item 7, that appeared to cause interpretation issues, substantially increased the correlation, and increased the significance level from 5% to 1%. Therefore, this variable is more trustworthy than the one initially described.

Robustness Checks and Falsification Tests

The sample size of the dataset is relatively small compared to other studies. Therefore, it is relevant to check whether the findings can be interpreted as it is. These are elaborated in the following section. The regression used show that there is not multicollinearity present. This multicollinearity, referred to as VIF-value (Variance Inflation Factor) and shown in appendix F, is perceived acceptable as it signifies no linear relationship among the independent variables between 1 and 10.

Having conducted the analyses, the model depicted above state that we may speak of a homogeneous group of respondents, as the control variables are not showing extraordinarily impactful betas, affecting the dependent variable. The consistency within the group implies that the results do not lead to any difficulties regarding their interpretation.

(21)

The results discussed above can be interpreted as it is. However, due to a reasonably low number of respondents, it was expected that problematic phenomena was to be the result regarding the hypothesized outcomes. However, the group appeared to be more homogenous than initially expected.

Discussion

Recent literature shows that the crucial role of the entrepreneur in the sustainable activities of the firm is acknowledged (Cassels & Lewis, 2011; Masurel & Rens, 2015). Through a

quantitative perspective, this paper contributed insight to what extent optimism affects the ecological engagement within SMEs. However, due to the methodology of the data gathering, there was a lot of personal qualitative contact with owner-managers, causing a insights of explorative research too.

Regarding the control variables, the regression of Eco2 shows a remarkable result. As shown

in appendix F, column 2 and 4 depict a significant effect of ‘Founded in year’ in both columns (2 and 4). Strikingly, the year a SME has been founded, has a significant impact on the ecological engagement of a firm. In other words, the year in which an enterprise is founded has a positive effect on the degree to which a firm is ecologically engaged (β= .00549; p-value < .1, see appendix F). This implies that younger organizations are more eager to adopt ecological practices. Despite that this effect is minimal, possibly due to the small sample size, it means that this construct of optimism is relevant, especially as the construct remains significant after adding control variables. This implies being a good predictor of the model. This is in line with research by Markman & Baron (2003), stating that young and mature firms often use different operations, strategies and tactics to achieve distinct and contrasting goals (p.285).

Regarding the control variables, another few remarkable findings are revealed. First, the control variables have a low effect on the dependent variable. However, these results should be interpreted carefully. Due to the low number of respondents incorporated in the research, there is an increase in the variance explained. However, the explained variance reaches upto a 33.4%, which is rather low. Second, it has appeared that ‘founded in year’ shows a significant contribution to the variance explained of the construct ecological engagement. This can be explained as younger organization have a smaller customer base, less loyal customers and

(22)

therefore increased competition. In such, younger firms are more aware of competition on the market. Also, this variable can be argued an indicator for the increased attention of balancing economic health (profit) and environmental resilience (planet) (Greco & De Jong, 2017) among young SMEs, stressing the importance of SMEs’ economic and ecological motivations (Masurel & Rens, 2015) once more. In addition, as “scholars have explored the existing linkages between sustainability and competitive advantage” (Santini, 2017, p.492), this customer base can play a significant role. However, further research should investigate the role of a firm’s loyal customers, also known as their installed base.

The control variable ‘age’, however, shows a positive sign, implying an opposite effect as age is reversely measured. In other words, the older a respondent is, the more ecologically engaged he or she becomes, which is contradictory to the results of the the firm’s age.

Limitations

Despite the prescribed constituencies within this paper, some limitations were exposed. In the following section, shortcomings regarding this thesis will be addressed.

First of all, the validity is discussed. For the investigation of the retail market of Amsterdam, the methodology used is convenience sampling. Given the time constraint of doing research in a time-span of three months, there is chosen to gather respondents in the form of management by cycling around. Although, the act of visiting the bakeries in person itself is very time-consuming, this method of data gathering is characterized with face-to-face contact with owner-managers of SMEs themselves, therefore resulting in a high response rate. However, due to the convenience sampling, the external validity is very limited as the field of research extends no further than the city of Amsterdam. Therefore, only owner-managers of independent bakeries, living in Amsterdam, are incorporated. This makes that generalization across the country should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, as the entrepreneur and his/her competencies and traits such as optimism play a role, market factors and conditions play an important role too (Markman & Baron, 2003), stressing the importance taking caution when generalizing across industries once more. In order to be able to extrapolate these findings to a broader geographical area, further research should incorporate a broader variety of respondents.

(23)

Regarding the internal validity, one substantial remark is into place: it is apparent that we may speak of a substantial low number of respondents which eventually filled out the survey. However, the reliability and group consistency was intensively checked by conducting the above mentioned analysis and falsification checks. In such, we can confidently state that, despite the number of respondents, which will be elaborated in the next paragraph, the findings in this thesis remain robust.

Secondly, before conducting the research, the potential number of respondents was investigated online. However, the anticipated number of respondents (the number of potential bakeries) varied significantly from the ultimate number of respondents incorporated in the research. There are multiple explanations for this phenomenon. First, the management by walking around approach limited the range of feasible visits. in other words, bakeries that were perceived too remote to visit, were not incorporated (n=15). Second, many other bakeries were dropped for multiple reasons. Some bakeries appeared to have the same owner-manager, others were closed; on holiday; did not meet the criteria or did not want to cooperate. And third, during the fieldwork, owner-managers often indicated that they had few time. It could very well be the result of the fact that the fieldwork was conducted by the end of May and the start of June, just before Eid festival, a feast in celebration of the ramadan. Future research regarding this sub sector, should incorporate the varying seasonal occupation. Also, one should notice that the number of bakeries does not imply an equal amount of owner-managers.

Third, bakeries with only production locations are not taken into account, as the criterion for participation was to bake in-house. However, the city of Amsterdam is rather dense. Having noted this, a respondent came up with an apparent restriction, imposed by the municipality, that the number of production locations are restricted to prevent pollution and smell-externalities. This puts additional limitations on the only requirement of baking and selling bread themselves. Also, as the SBI codes are not incorporated, no hard distinction between the production locations (SBI 1071), stores (SBI 47241), and lunchrooms can be made.

As briefly mentioned, self-report questionnaires are used. This accompanies the possibility for individual interpretation and favorable bias, this means that people have the tendency to

(24)

fill out questionnaires, in this case, more optimistically and ecologically as it is a favourable outcome. Most people are optimistic, but to varying degrees (Carver et al., 2010). Therefore, the literature should be interpreted in this light. Additionally, owner-managers often appeared unknowing in the regard of what was meant by ‘required by law’. Therefore, these statements might be filled in very differently.

Fifth, this research has not taken into account the situational states of individuals in the regard of mood swings or negative feelings. to diminish this effect, it is chosen to use the LOT-R, which is relatively stable construct. However, it does not incorporate the factor that human behavior is dependent on moods and feelings, which causes variations in optimism (Carver et al., 2012). Additionally, in regards the LOT-R to measure the variable of dispositional optimism, it appeared consistent and reliable by several authors (Carver & Scheier, 2014; Chiesi et al., 2013). However, the LOT-R appeared to have some difficulties when constructing the variables. As mentioned above, for making a reliable construct of the items, only 4 items could be incorporated eventually. This slight deviation in regard to existing research, incorporating 6 items, is highly likely the result of the small sample under investigation. For further research, the incorporation of a larger pool of respondents is strongly believed to solve or diminish this deviation, as earlier literature included a significant larger amount of respondents.

In line with the entrepreneur’s motivation, the engagement of CSR can be constituted due to an increased consumer awareness towards environmental products and processes (Santini, 2017). Therefore, stressing this as an economic motive, the underlying reason of why a firm is ecologically engaged, remains uncovered. In other words, a firm which reduces its water utility appears ecological in this research, while in fact, the mere motive could have been a lower water bill.

(25)

Literary Contribution

As multiple researchers already have argued that more research on CSR, as practiced by SMEs, is still needed (Masurel & Rens, 2015), it appears as still a neglected field of research (Greco & De Jong, 2017).

As the embarkation of small and medium enterprises on environmental management is still not promising (Koe, Omar, & Majid, 2014), it calls for further investigation regarding the ecological aspect of CSR and a SME owner-manager’s motivation. Optimism is such a motivational construct (Carver & Scheier, 2014). It enhances one’s expectancies of the future, and therefore one’s perception of goal attainment (Carver et al., 2012). As this

motivation affects someone’s attitude, which in turn influences one’s intention to act in some sort of sustainable behavior (Cassels & Lewis, 2011; Ajzen, 1991; Davidsson, 2005; Hakkert & Kemp, 2006; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010) and "studying the drivers of sustainable

entrepreneurs is necessary to understand how sustainable behavior could be triggered and fostered” (Greco & De Jong, 2017, p. 24), this study seeks to explain ecological engagement among SMEs’ by individual’s motivations. In other words, one’s optimistic and progressive perceptions in feasibility of goal attainment, may motivate an entrepreneur to act

ecologically.

Conclusion

To an optimist, “every cloud has a silver lining,” (Tomokowsky et al., 2001, p.578). This study states that it is greatly accepted that owner-managers are constructive problem-solvers (Carver et al., 2014) and therefore, more ecologically engaged. These optimists are more capable and willing to act on behalf of the planet as they are likely to take on the challenge to combat ‘one of the greatest challenges of our time, climate change, with their optimistic perseverance (Carver et al., 2012).

(26)

References

Åstebro, T., Herz, H., Nanda, R. & Weber, R. (2014). Seeking the Roots of Entrepreneurship: Insight from Behavioral Economics. American Economic Association. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 28(3), 49-70.

Alloy, L.B., Abramson, L.Y., Whitehouse, W.G., Hogan, M.E., Panzarella, C. & Rose, D. (2006). Prospective incidence of first onsets and recurrences of depression in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

Baden, D., Harwood, I.A. & Woodward, D.G. (2011). “The effects of Procurement policies on 'downstream' corporate social responsibility activity: Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME entrepreneurs”. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 259-277. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and

Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85.

Bianchi, R. & Noci, G. (1998). " Greening" SMEs' Competitiveness. Small Business Economics, 11(3), 269-281.

Berglund, K., & Johansson, A. (2007). Constructions of entrepreneurship: a discourse analysis of academic publications. Journal of enterprising communities: people and places in the global economy, 1(1), 77-102.

Burnes, B. & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure in Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133–162.

Cassels, S. & Lewis, K. (2011), “SMEs and Environmental Responsibility: Do Actions Reflect Attitudes?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(3), 186-199.

Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.C. (1984). Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, (9)2, 354-359.

Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2014). Dispositional Optimism. Elsevier. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(6), 293-297.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F. & Segerstrom, S.C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, (30), 879–889.

Carver, C., Scheier, M. & Fulford, D. (2012). Optimism. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2 ed.).

Cerny, B.A. & Kaiser, H.F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factoranalytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43-47.

(27)

Chiesi, F., Galli, S., Primi, C., Borgi, P. I., & Bonacchi, A. (2013). The Accuracy of the Life Orientation Test–Revised (LOT–R) in Measuring Dispositional Optimism: Evidence From Item Response Theory Analyses. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(5), 523–529. Choongo, P., Paas, L.J., Masurel, E, Van Burg, E. & Lungu, J. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ personal

values and CSR orientations: Evidence from SMEs in Zambia. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. (conditionally accepted for publication).

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.

Davidsson, P. (2005). Researching Entrepreneurship. International Studies of Entrepreneurship, Springer, 2-196.

Ericson, T., Kjønstad, B.G. & Barstad, A. (2014). Mindfulness and sustainability. Elsevier, Ecological Economics, (104), 73-79.

Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(9), 935-957. Forgeard, M.J. & Seligman, M.E. (2012). Seeing the glass half full: A review of the causes and

consequences of optimism. Elsevier, Pratiques psychologiques, 18, 107–120.

Frese, M. & Gielnik, M.M. (2014). The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, (1), 413–38.

Gartner, W.B. (1988). "Who Is an Entrepreneur?" Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 11-32.

Greco, A. & De Jong, G. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: definitions, themes and research gaps. University of Groningen, Centre for Sustainable Entrepreneurship, 3-35.

Gumpert, D. (1981). Growing Concerns: Topics of particular interest to owners and managers of smaller businesses. Harvard Business Review, 18-44.

Hakkert, R. & Kemp, R.G. (2006). An ambition to grow: A multidisciplinary perspective on the antecedents of growth ambitions. Zoetermeer.

Henrekson, M. & Sanandaji, T. (2013). Billionaire Entrepreneurs: A Systematic Analysis. IFN Working Paper, (959).

Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, Springer Science and Business Media, 36, 135-150.

Koe, W., Omar, R. & Majid, I. A. (2014). Factors Associated with Propensity for Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Social and Behavioral Sciences, (130), 65-74.

(28)

Kuckertz, A. & Wagner, M. (2010). “The Influence of Sustainability Orientation on Entrepreneurial Intentions: Investigating the Role of Business Experience”. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524-539.

Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J. & van Praag, M. (2015). Why Do Entrepreneurial Parents Have Entrepreneurial Children? Journal of Labor Economics, 33(2), 269-296.

Markman, G.D. & Baron, R.A. (2003). Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 281-301. Masurel, E. (2015). Social and ecological engagement and economic firm performance: correlated or

not? CSR evidence from SMEs in two Dutch retail sectors. Amsterdam Centre for Entrepreneurship, 1-32.

Masurel, E. & Rens, J. (2015). How Is CSR-Intensity Related to the Entrepreneur’s Motivation to Engage in CSR? Empirical Evidence from Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Dutch Construction Sector. International Review of Entrepreneurship, Senate Hall Academic

Publishing, 333-348.

Moskowitz, T. J. & Vissing-Jørgensen, A. (2002). The Returns to Entrepreneurial Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle? National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper, 8876.

Neff, K. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. University of Texas, Austin, Self and Identity, Psychology Press, 85-101.

Neff, L.A. & Geers, A.L. (2013). Optimistic expectations in early marriage: a resource or vulnerability for adaptive relationship functioning? Journal of personality and social psychology, 105(1), 38-60.

OECD. (2011). Entrepreneurship at a Glance. OECD Publishing. Retrieved at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264097711-en.

Picken, J.C. (2017). From founder to CEO: An entrepreneur’s roadmap. Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Business Horizons, 60, 7-14

Prandelli, E., Pasquini, M. & Verona, G. (2016). In user's shoes: An experimental design on the role of perspective taking in discovering entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 287–301.

Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2007). Born To Be An Entrepreneur? Revisiting The Personality Approach To Entrepreneurship.

Santini, C. (2017). Ecopreneurship and Ecopreneurs: Limits, Trends and Characteristics. Department of Human Sciences and Quality of Life Promotion, Universita San Raffaele, 9(492).

(29)

Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S. & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management, 25(1), 217-226.

Soland, R. (2013). ”Relax... Greentech will solve the problem!”: Socio-psychological models of environmental responsibility denial due to greentech optimism. University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts, 1-113.

Stern, P., Diez, T, Kalof, L. & Guagnano G.A. (1995). “Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation toward Emergent Attitude Objectives,” Journal of Applied Psychology 25, 1611-1636.

Tideman, S. (2016). Gross National Happiness: lessons for sustainability leadership. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, (5)2, 190-213.

Tomakowsky, J., Lumley, M.A., Markowitz, N. & Frank, C. (2001). Optimistic explanatory style and dispositional optimism in HIV-infected men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51, 577–587.

Uhlaner, L.M., Berent-Braun, M.M., De Wit, G. & Jeurissen, R.J.M. (2012). “Beyond Size:

Predicting Engagement in Environmental Management Practices of Dutch SMEs”. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 411-429.

Van Praag, M. (1999). Some Classic Views on Entrepreneurship. De Economist, 147 (3), 311-335. Vautier, S., Raufaste, E., & Cariou, M. (2003). Dimensionality of the Revised Life Orientation Test

and the status of the filler items. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 390-400.

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D.B. & Gartner, W.B. (2017). Everyday Entrepreneurship - A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Sage Publications, 311-321.

(30)

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Voor een onderzoek aan de Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, doe ik onderzoek naar verschillende aspecten van ondernemerschap, zoals optimisme en milieuvriendelijkheid. De ‘warme bakker’ leek mij interessant omdat hier de besluitvormer vaak aanwezig is op de werkvloer en omdat brood al decennia lang een belangrijke rol speelt in de maatschappij. Ook blijkt uit recentelijk onderzoek dat het midden- en kleinbedrijf zeer betrokken is bij verduurzaming - vaak meer dan men zelf denkt.

Zou u alstublieft zo eerlijk en nauwkeurig mogelijk deze vragenlijst willen invullen? Het invullen van deze vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Gelieve de verschillende vragen en antwoorden zo onafhankelijk mogelijk te behandelen. Het onderzoek wordt anoniemafgenomen en verwerkt en er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Geeft u alstublieft antwoord naar eigen ingeving, en laat u niet afleiden door wat anderen wellicht zouden invullen.

Algemeen bakker

1. Wat is uw leeftijd? ____________Jaar

2. Wat is uw geslacht? M / V

3. Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?

4. Hoelang bent u al werkzaam als bakker? ____________Jaar

5. Ik ben de oprichter van deze bakkerij. Ja / Nee

6. Ik ben een franchisenemer of lid van een andersoortige commerciële organisatie.

7. Namelijk: …

Ja / Nee

________________

8. Mijn bedrijf toont door middel van de

“Barometer Duurzame Bakkerij en Zoetwaren” zijn mate van duurzaam ondernemen aan.

9. Indien ja, Namelijk:

Ja / Nee

Brons / Zilver / Goud

(31)

Algemeen bakkerij

1. Welke typering is het meest van toepassing op uw bakkerij? (omcirkelen wat van toepassing is)

2. Anders, …

Ambachtelijk; Bake-off; Banket; Brood

Te weten: _____________ 3. Hoeveel personeel en/of werkzame eigenaren telt de bakkerij op dit

moment (in totaal)?

4. Wanneer is de bakkerij opgericht? In het jaar: ____________

5. Wat is de postcode van de bakkerij? __ __ __ __

Graag leg ik u een tiental stellingen voor die uw verwachtingen en perspectief in kaart zullen gaan brengen. Gelieve omcirkelen wat u het beste omschrijft.

Optimisme:

Schaal: 1-5

1 = Heel erg mee oneens 2= Redelijk mee oneens 3 = Neutraal 4 = Redelijk mee eens 5 = Heel erg mee eens 1. In onzekere tijden verwacht ik meestal het beste. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

2. Ik vind het makkelijk om me te ontspannen. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

3. Als er iets fout kan gaan, gaat het fout. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

4. Ik ben hoopvol over mijn toekomst. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

5. Ik geniet erg van mijn vrienden. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

6. Ik vind het belangrijk om bezig te blijven. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

7. Ik verwacht nauwelijks dat dingen gaan zoals ik dat wil. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

8. Ik raak niet snel overstuur. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

9. Ik verwacht niet snel dat mij goede dingen toekomen. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

10. In het algemeen verwacht ik dat mij meer goede dingen dan nare dingen overkomen. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

(32)

Ecologische betrokkenheid

Schaal: 1-5

1 = Helemaal niet van toepassing 2= Nauwelijks toepassing 3 = Neutraal 4 = Redelijk van toepassing 5 = In sterke mate van toepassing

1. Bij vertrek zet ik de thermostaat laag. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

2. Mijn bedrijf doet meer aan energiebesparing dan wettelijk verplicht is. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

3. Mijn bedrijf doet meer aan recycling dan wettelijk verplicht is. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

4. Mijn bedrijf doet meer aan waterbesparing dan wettelijke verplicht is. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

5. Mijn bedrijf doet meer dan wettelijk verplicht is om afval te minimaliseren. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

6. Ons assortiment bevat veel ecologisch verantwoorde producten. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

7. Onze grondstoffen komen uit lokale bronnen. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

8. Mijn bedrijf optimaliseert zijn transportstromen (leveringen; bundeling leveranciers, etc.).

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

9. Oud brood gaat naar sociale instellingen of wordt hergebruikt. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

10. Mijn bedrijf gebruikt enkel UTZ gecertificeerde grondstoffen en hulpbronnen. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Afsluiting

1. Welk cijfer zou u het leven in het algemeen geven? ____

2. Eventueel aanvullend: Ik ben ecologisch verantwoord omdat: ____________________________________________________________

3. Ik ben erg benieuwd naar de eindresultaten. Mijn e-mail adres is:

________________________________@__________________________

(33)

Appendix B: Summary statistics

Variable N Mean Std. Dev.

Opt_4 42 3.7262 .62423 Opt_3 42 3.7698 .70032 Eco_All 40 3.5575 .60633 Opt_1 42 3,43 ,966 Opt_2 (filler) 43 3,35 ,948 Opt_3 (-) 42 3,14 1,095 Opt_4 43 4,00 ,976 Opt_5 (filler) 43 3,70 1,103 Opt_6 (filler) 43 4,37 ,725 Opt_7 (-) 43 3,56 1,098 Opt_8 (filler) 42 3,76 1,122 Opt_9 (-) 43 2,02 1,205 Opt_10 43 3,93 ,799 Eco_1 42 4,14 1,241 Eco_2 42 3,31 ,897 Eco_3 43 3,28 ,934 Eco_4 43 3,42 1,096 Eco_5 42 3,76 1,031 Eco_6 42 3,74 ,989 Eco_7 43 3,19 1,277 Eco_8 42 3,71 ,944 Eco_9 43 3,98 1,205 Eco_10 42 3,14 1,299

(34)

Appendix C: Factor loading Optimism (for N=6)

Item Factor load

Opt_1 .632 Opt_2 Filler NA Opt_3 (-) .071 Opt_4 .835 Opt_5 Filler NA Opt_6 Filler NA Opt_7 (-) .393 Opt_8 Filler NA Opt_9 (-) -.551 Opt_10 .670

Italics = Opt_4; Bold = Opt_3; Underlined = Omitted item

Appendix D: factor analysis Ecological engagement (Eco)

Item Factor load

Eco-_1 .594 Eco-_2 .179 Eco-_3 .510 Eco-_4 .550 Eco-_5 .746 Eco-_6 .771 Eco-_7 .446 Eco-_8 .678 Eco-_9 .600 Eco-_10 .389

(35)

Appendix E: Construct measurements: ecological engagement.

N Omitted item Cronbach’s

alpha

KMO Bartlett’s test of sphericity

10 - .739 .600 P = .000

9 Eco_10 .740 .596 P = .000

8 Eco_10; Eco_7 .760 .595 P = .000