MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY BUI THI THANH MAI COMPASSION AND SUSTAINABLE DECISION MAKING OF KEY LEADERS IN SMES AND STARTUPS PHD DISSERTATION IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (E-PHD PROGRAM) HANOI - 2024 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY BUI THI THANH MAI COMPASSION AND SUSTAINABLE DECISION MAKING OF KEY LEADERS IN SMES AND STARTUPS Specialization: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (E-PhD Program) Specialization code: 9340101 PHD DISSERTATION Superviors: DR. VU TUAN ANH HANOI - 2024 DECLARATION I have read and understood the University’s policy on plagiarism. I hereby declare on my honor that this PhD dissertation is my own work and does not violate the regulations on good academic practices. PhD candidate Bui Thi Thanh Mai i TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION.
i TABLE OF CONTENTS .ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. v LIST OF FIGURES. vi LIST OF TABLES. 1 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW.
Sustainability in Economy. Sustainable Decision Making. Theoretical Contexts of Sustainable Decision Making. The Concept of Sustainable Decision Making.
Research on Sustainable Decision Making. Theory Streams on Sustainable Decision Making. Limitations of these Theory Streams. Relevant Context and Definitions.
Hard Life Experiences. The Concept of Compassion. The Concept of SME and Startup. The Concept of Key Leaders.
33 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1. 34 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT. Philosophical Background to Behaviourist Approach. Behaviourist Approach to Sustainable Decision Making.
Sustainability Mindset to Decision Making. The Interrelationship of Factors Under Sustainability Mindset Perspective. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development. Compassion for Sustainable Decision Making.
Buddhism for Compassion. Buddhism for Sustainable Decision Making. Past Acute Hardship for Compassion. Past Hardship for Sustainable Decision Making.
46 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2. 49 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS. Data Collection and Analysis. Sustainable Decision Making Scales.
Hard Life Experience Scales. 70 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3. 71 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH. Assessment of Reliability Of The Measurement Scale.
Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis Results. Exploratory Factor Analysis. Confirmatory Factory Analysis of the measurement scale. Assessment of Reliability of the Structural Model.
Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. Hypothesis Testing Results. 85 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4. 87 iii CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS.
Discussion of The Research Findings. Influences of Buddhism and Compassion on Sustainable Decision Making. Negative and Null Impact in Unsupported Hypotheses. Limitations and Future Research Direction.
96 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 5. 99 LIST OF WORKS THAT THE PHD CANDIDATE HAS PUBLISHED. 137 APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION). 137 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION).
147 APPENDIX 3: CONVERTING SECTION OF HARDSHIP IN THE PAST OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE VERSION). 158 APPENDIX 4: EFA RESULTS FOR ASSESSING MEASUREMENT SCALES OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES. 160 APPENDIX 5: EFA RESULTS FOR ASSESSING MEASUREMENT SCALES OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES. 162 APPENDIX 6: EFA RESULTS FOR ASSESSING MEASUREMENT SCALES OF MEDIATING VARIABLES.
164 APPENDIX 7: EFA RESULTS FOR ASSESSING MEASUREMENT SCALES OF ALL VARIABLES. 166 APPENDIX 8: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING OF MEASUREMENT SCALES. 169 APPENDIX 9: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING OF FACTORS. 170 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations Full form AHL Acute hard life experience BUD Buddhism BudP Buddhist lifestyle BudT Buddha’s teachings CEO Chief executive officer CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis CHL Chronic hard life experience EFA Explanatory Factor Analysis ISO International Organization for Standardization KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MN Majjhima Nikaya OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development SDM Sustainable decision making SEM Structural equation models SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SN Samyutta Nikaya UN United Nations v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.
Survey Questionnaire Development Process. Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability. The Contexts of Sustainable Decision Making of Key Leaders. Iterative Sequence of Knowing, Being and Doing.
The Interrelationship of Factors Under Mindset Perspective. The Conceptual Framework. The procedure of scale development. Significant Effects on Research Framework.
86 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3. The Position of Key Leaders. The Province or City of Key Leaders. The Industries of Key Leaders' Companies.
The Age of Key Leaders' Companies. Education Profile of Key Leaders. Comparative Analysis of Sampled Key Leader Structures. Considered items of hard life experience measurement.
Result of orthogonal rotation method. Measurement Scale of Hard Life Experiences. Measurement Scale of Buddhism. Reliability of Measurement Scale .2: Goodness of Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Validity and Reliability Test Results. Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Model Analysis. Structural Equation Modeling Results. Goodness of Fit Indices for Equation (3)’s Structural Model Analysis.
Comparation of Explored Structural Model Analysis. Hypothesis Testing Results. Reason for Choosing the Topic In recent decades, we have borne witness to an unceasing succession of natural disasters, ranging from hurricanes and wildfires to torrential rains, droughts, floods, and extreme temperature fluctuations. These events pose threats to the well-being of humans, animals, and plants alike.
One significant contributor to these extreme weather patterns is the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are emitted throughout the operational processes of businesses across various industries (Mikhaylov et al. In addition, beyond these environmental concerns, there are urgent global issues to contend with, including disease outbreaks, poverty, hunger, and exploitative working conditions (World Health Organization, 2015). Addressing these issues relies not only on political development and refinement but also on the substantial influence of economic decisions made by key executives within businesses. Moreover, key leaders assume a crucial role in managing businesses through the execution of strategic planning, which has a broad influence on markets or industries and engages with economic activities (Stewart et al.
For instance, when company key leaders opt to establish a production facility in a particular area, it wields a profound impact on local living conditions. The welfare of a society can be significantly altered by the operation of local firms, underscoring the pivotal role that businesses play in addressing sustainability challenges from the perspective of company leadership. Furthermore, the adoption of sustainable practices is imperative for organizations' long-term viability and success, owing to a range of associated benefits (Silvestre and Fonseca, 2020). Firstly, integrating sustainable practices can significantly elevate an organization's potential to gain a competitive edge over its counterparts in the marketplace (Dai et al.
Secondly, sustainable decision making empowers organizations to broaden their market share and explore new markets (Carvalho et al. Additionally, when key leaders prioritize sustainability, organizations can cultivate a positive brand reputation (Ahmadi et al., 2017), fostering increased customer loyalty and attracting high-caliber talent to the company. In light of these advantages, sustainable decision making has become increasingly crucial for diverse stakeholders, including investors, employees, and notably customers, who now expect organizations to demonstrate a more responsible approach towards the environment and society. The realm of sustainable business has been a focal point for both scholars and practitioners for an extended period, and recently, there has been a growing interest in 1 sustainable decision making (Wu and Pagell, 2011).
As articulated by Eccles et al. (2014), a sustainable approach entails the integration of social and environmental considerations into business strategies and processes. Sustainable decisions are characterized by their commitment to safeguarding life support systems, communities, and the natural environment (Muñoz, 2017; Markman et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2013; Flannery and May, 2000). These decisions prioritize actions essential for business success while steering clear of causing harm to the "ecological and social environments" in which the business operates (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011).
Moreover, they emphasize activities with the potential to nurture or restore the overall environment, seeking to reestablish a balance between economic activity, society, and nature (Parrish, 2010). Sustainable decision making serves as the cornerstone for sustainable businesses and, ultimately, a sustainable economy. In this dissertation, the perspectives of key leaders have been utilized to delineate three global concerns: environmental, social, and economic. These foundational issues collectively constitute the three dimensions of a central concept—sustainability in the realm of decision making.
The sustainable decision making process, involving key leaders making choices about business activities while considering economic, social, and environmental implications both in the present and future, requires a deeper understanding. Prior research has delved into diverse factors influencing the sustainable decision making of key leaders, yielding somewhat inconclusive findings. The initial set of determinants considered the institutional perspective, encompassing factors like stakeholder or institutional pressure (e., Mair and Martí, 2006; Meek et al., 2010; Ervin et al. However, in specific contexts, stakeholder or institutional pressure exhibited a negative association with key leaders' sustainable decision making, as evidenced in instances such as supplier selection (e., Reuter et al.
Conversely, the second cluster of drivers for key leaders' sustainable decision making centered on cognitive factors like prior knowledge and experience (e., Muñoz and Dimov, 2015), motivation (e., Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010), or self-efficacy (e., Shepherd et al. Nonetheless, it was found that key leaders' sustainability-related knowledge, skills, or past sustainability experiences did not entirely predict their sustainable decision making (Muñoz, 2017; Ahmad et al. These inconsistent findings suggest that relying solely on institutional pressure or cognitive factors may not be sufficient to entirely motivate key leaders' sustainable decision making. Therefore, conducting additional research on the motivation of key leaders is crucial to understand which factors prompt them to make sustainable decisions.
2 The approach of this dissertation is grounded in the behaviorist approach and sustainability mindset that highlight a tendency towards sustainable values and the cultivation of a sustainability mindset. This has garnered growing interest among scholars in recent years, underscoring the importance of fostering a mindset centered around sustainability to advocate for sustainable practices, as demonstrated in studies like that of Griswold (2017). However, the understanding of how such a mindset, grounded in behaviorist approach, impacts the ability of key leaders to make sustainable choices is still limited. Consequently, there is a recognized need for research to explore potential predictors emerging from the decision making process associated with this mindset.
This exploration seeks to prioritize the protection of environmental and social well-being over economic benefits in the decision making processes of key leaders, as emphasized in the research conducted by Shepherd and Patzelt (2011). This study is based on cognitive and emotional elements of mindset (Kuratko et al. Taking emotional elements as the focal point is considered a source of enduring positive emotions, akin to compassion arising from cognitive factors stemming from religious beliefs such as Buddhism and hard life experiences, which are predicted to significantly impact behaviors that benefit others and the environment. Experiences, including hard life experiences, provide individuals with the opportunity to reflect on them, reconsider their goals and values, and cultivate cognitive and emotional self- regulation (Calhoun and Tedeschi, 1999; Janoff-Bulman, 2004; Schaefer and Moos, 1998).
Experiences of adversity and hardship can instill compassion and influence sustainable decision making (Lilius et al., 2008; Frost et al., 2000; Dutton et al., 2002; Coke et al. At the same time, religion (such as Buddhism) provides a socially shared set of cognitions which supply an interpretation of reality, a definition of self, and a source of directions for behaviour (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). These behaviors are characterized by other-orientation and an empathetic connection to those facing hardships (Atkins and Parker, 2012; Goetz et al., 2010; Miller et al. Compassion fosters heightened sensitivity to others' pain and needs (Ortony et al., 1988; Nussbaum, 1996), creating connections with suffering communities as a social emotion (Nussbaum, 1996, 2001; Lazarus, 1991; Goetz et al.
In terms of sustainability, compassion for the suffering of nature may translate into robust environmental attitudes and moral obligations to alleviate environmental distress (Berenguer, 2007). Empirically, compassion has been shown to promote various sustainable actions, such as protecting animals (Shelton and Rogers, 1981) and conserving nature (Berenguer, 2007; Sevillano et al.