Senior entrepreneurship in Australia: Active ageing and extending working lives

As populations live longer, healthier lives in countries like Australia the growing population of older people is increasing the strains on social security and pension systems. Yet many seniors are healthy and want to remain active during the later years in life. Whilst there is significant research on seniors, ageing and the employment of mature-aged people there is scant research on seniors creating jobs as opposed to seeking jobs as employees. This is the first empirical research specifically on senior entrepreneurship in Australia. Seniors often have the skills, financial resources and time available to contribute to economic activity, which leads to the growing prevalence of senior entrepreneurship. Senior entrepreneurship is the process whereby people aged 50+ participate in business start-ups; however, despite representing the fastest growing segment of entrepreneurship little is known about this phenomenon. This research seeks to answer the following questions: What is the scope of senior entrepreneurship in Australia? What are the impacts of senior entrepreneurship in Australia? What perceptions do seniors hold about entrepreneurship as a career option? What policy implications and recommendations can be derived to enhance active ageing, and extend working lives through senior entrepreneurship?

Sri Lankan entrepreneurs in Australia: Chance or choice?

Purpose Ethnic entrepreneurship is, and always has been, a means of survival. However, there is limited literature on ethnic entrepreneurship in Australia and therefore, an understanding of ethnic entrepreneurs’ motivations to become self-employed. The purpose of this paper is to report the influential factors in the decision to engage in self-employment through case studies of members of Melbourne’s Sri Lankan community informed by the mixed embeddedness approach. Design/methodology/approach The mixed embeddedness approach frames the study where the authors examine the motivations for business of five Sri Lankan entrepreneurs. Narratives are used to construct individual case studies, which are then analyzed in terms of the motivations for, resources used and challenges faced on the entrepreneurial journey. Findings For these ethnic entrepreneurs, their entrepreneurial activity results from a dynamic match between local market opportunities and the specific ethnic resources available to them at the time of founding. The self-employment decision was not prompted by a lack of human capital but an inability to use that human capital in alternative means of employment at specific points in time. Moreover the authors highlight the importance of social and cultural capital as resources used to overcome challenges on the entrepreneurial journey. Originality/value In this community, entrepreneurship was not a result of a lack of human capital but how it was utilized in combination with social and cultural capitals in the given opportunity structure. The mixed embeddedness approach enables the uncovering of how ethnic network ties were used in light of the opportunities available to build entrepreneurial activity.

The status of entrepreneurship education in Australian universities

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical overview of the current state of entrepreneurship education (EE) in Australia; placing emphasis on programs, curricula and entrepreneurship ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a contextual review of the literature by delineating entrepreneurship education programs, the entrepreneurial ecosystem and EE learning and teaching. The review was enhanced by a systematic collection of data from higher education institutions web sites, depicting the prevailing situation of entrepreneurship programs, courses, subjects and their ecosystems. Findings A number of interesting findings emerged from this study. From a curricular perspective, Australian universities offer 584 subjects related to entrepreneurship. This includes dominance at undergraduate level, representing 24 minors/majors and specializations in entrepreneurship. In total, 135 entrepreneurship ecosystems were identified. Research limitations/implications This paper presents findings from university web sites and as such requires introspection to validate individual university offerings. Practical implications The study provides the status of EE in Australia, and may guide academic and policy decision makers to further develop entrepreneurship initiatives. Originality/value This paper provides the first analytical overview of EE in Australia and paves the way for further evaluation.

Female Entrepreneurship in Australia: Revisited

This paper is a ten-year follow-up on a study conducted in 1995 that profiled women entrepreneurs in Australia (Bennett and Dann 2000). The aim of the paper is to identify changes in demographic profile, motivation and personality traits of women entrepreneurs over the past ten years by replicating a study from1995 and reporting the results.

ACE research briefing paper 005: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) - Australia 2011 National Report

This report maps the current state of entrepreneurship in Australia using data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for the year 2011. Entrepreneurship is regarded as a crucial driver for economic well-being. Entrepreneurial activity in new and established firms drives innovation and creates jobs. Entrepreneurs also fuel competition thereby contributing indirectly to market and productivity growth along with improving competitiveness of the national economy. Given the economic landscape that exists as a result of the global financial crisis (GFC), it is probably more important than ever for us to understand the effects and drivers of entrepreneurial activity and attitudes in Australia. The central finding of this report is that entrepreneurship is certainly alive and well in Australia. With 10.5 per cent of the adult population involved in setting up a new business or owning a newly founded business as measured by the total entrepreneurial activity rate (TEA) in 2011, Australia ranks second only to the United States among the innovation-driven (developed) economies. Compared with 2010 the TEA rate has increased by 2.7 percentage points. Furthermore, in regard to employee entrepreneurial activity (EEA) rate in established firms, Australia ranks above average. According to GEM data, 5 per cent of the adult population is engaged in developing or launching new products, a new business unit or subsidiary for their employer. Further analysis of the GEM data also clearly shows that Australia compares well with other major economies in terms of the ‘quality’ of entrepreneurial activities being pursued. Indeed, it is not only the quantity of entrepreneurs but also the level of their aspirations and business goals that are important drivers for economic growth. On average, for each business started in Australia driven by the lack of alternatives for the founder to generate income from any other source, there are five other businesses started where the founders specifically want to take advantage of a business opportunity that they believe will increase their personal income or independence. With respect to innovativeness, 31 per cent of Australian new businesses offer products or services which they consider to be new to customers or where very few, or in some cases no, other businesses offer the same product or service. Both these indicators are higher than the average for innovation-driven economies. Somewhat below average is the international orientation of Australian entrepreneurs whereby only 12 per cent aim at having a substantial share of customers from international markets. So what drives this high quantity and quality of entrepreneurship in Australia? The analysis of the data suggests it is a combination of both business opportunities and entrepreneurial skills. It seems that around 50 per cent of the Australian population identify opportunities for a start-up venture and believe that they have the necessary skills to start a business. Furthermore, a large majority of the Australian population report that high media attention for entrepreneurship provides successful role models for prospective entrepreneurs. As a result, 12 per cent of our respondents have expressed the intention to start a business within the next three years. These numbers are all well above average when compared to the other major economies. With regard to gender, the GEM survey shows a high proportion of female entrepreneurs. Approximately 8.4 per cent of adult females are actually involved in setting up a business or have recently done so. Although this female TEA rate is slightly down from 2010, Australia ranks second among the innovation-driven economies. This paints a healthy picture of access to entrepreneurial opportunities for Australian women.

ACE research briefing paper 009: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: GEM Australia - 2014 National Report

Most policymakers and academics agree that entrepreneurship is critical to the development and wellbeing of society. Entrepreneurs create jobs. They drive and shape innovation, thereby speeding up structural changes in the economy. By introducing new competition they contribute indirectly to increased productivity and overall economic activity. Entrepreneurship is thus a catalyst for economic growth and national competitiveness. In 2014, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)conducted its 15th annual survey of the rate and profile of entrepreneurial activity around the globe. GEM interviewed over 206,000 adults aged 18–64 in 70 economies, spanning diverse geographies and a range of development levels. The Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research (ACE) participated as the Australian GEM partner, surveying 2,177 Australian adults. This report provides a summary of entrepreneurship in Australia as measured by GEM, and benchmarks this against other countries. We compare the level of entrepreneurship in the population across different phases of the entrepreneurial process, and provide a profile of some key characteristics of entrepreneurs and the businesses they are starting. We also report on some of the institutional and framework conditions that support entrepreneurship.

Comparing the conditions for small business and entrepreneurship in Sweden and Australia: Lessons for the European Charter for Small Enterprises

A growing body of literature is concerned with explaining cross-national performance of small business and entrepreneurs in advanced economies. This literature has considered a range of policy and institutional variables which create an environment supportive of small firms and entrepreneurial activities including macroeconomic variables such as taxation, labour market regulation, social security and income policy; regulatory factors such as establishment legislation, bankruptcy policy, administrative burdens, compliance costs, deregulation and competition policy; and cultural factors such as social and cultural norms that support entrepreneurship. However, this literature has not always distinguished between the policy environment of small firms operating in different industry sectors. The purpose of this paper is to examine the institutional and policy environment of small firms in knowledge intensive sectors. The characteristics of the business environment of particular relevance to knowledge intensive firms are somewhat different from the conditions for entrepreneurship and small business success more generally. This paper compares the science, technology and industry infrastructure of Australia, Denmark, Sweden with other OECD countries. The purpose of the paper is to identify cross-national differences in the business environment of small knowledge intensive firms. The paper seeks to explore whether particular institutional environments appear to be more supportive of small firms in knowledge intensive sectors.

A sustainable model for supporting entrepreneurship in developing countries

Principal Topic Small and micro-enterprises are believed to play a significant part in economic growth and poverty allevition in developing countries. However, there are a range of issues that arise when looking at the support required for local enterprise development, the role of micro finance and sustainability. This paper explores the issues associated with the establishment and resourcing of micro-enterprise develoment and proposes a model of sustainable support of enterprise development in very poor developing economies, particularly in Africa. The purpose of this paper is to identify and address the range of issues raised by the literature and empirical research in Africa, regarding micro-finance and small business support, and to develop a model for sustainable support for enterprise development within a particular cultural and economic context. Micro-finance has become big business with a range of models - from those that operate on a strictly business basis to those that come from a philanthropic base. The models used grow from a range of philosophical and cultural perspectives. Entrepreneurship training is provided around the world. Success is often measured by the number involved and the repayment rates - which are very high, largely because of the lending models used. This paper will explore the range of options available and propose a model that can be implemented and evaluated in rapidly changing developing economies. Methodology/Key Propositions The research draws on entrepreneurial and micro-finance literature and empirical research undertaken in Mozambique, which lies along the Indian ocean sea border of Southern Africa. As a result of war and natural disasters over a prolonged period, there is little industry, primary industries are primitive and there is virtually no infrastructure. Mozambique is ranked as one of the poorest countries in the world. The conditions in Mozambique, though not identical, reflect conditions in many other parts of Africa. A numebr of key elements in the development of enterprises in poor countries are explored including: Impact of micro-finance Sustainable models of micro-finance Education and training Capacity building Support mechanisms Impact on poverty, families and the local economy Survival entrepreneurship versus growth entrepreneurship Transitions to the formal sector. Results and Implications The result of this study is the development of a model for providing intellectual and financial resources to micro-entrepreneurs in poor developing countries in a sustainable way. The model provides a base for ongoing research into the process of entrepreneurial growth in African developing economies. The research raises a numeber of issues regarding sustainability including the nature of the donor/recipient relationship, access to affordable resources, the impact of individual entrepreneurial activity on the local economny and the need for ongoing research to understand the whole process and its impact, intended and unintended.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : a case study in growth and survival

Entrepreneurial marketing has gained popularity in both the entrepreneurship and marketing disciplines in recent times. The success of ventures that have pursued what are considered non-traditional marketing approaches has been attributed to entrepreneurial marketing practices. Despite the multitude of marketing concepts and models, there are prominent venture successes that do not conform to these and have thus been put in the ''entrepreneurial'' box. One only has to look to the ''Virgin'' model to put this in context. Branson has proven for example that not ''sticking to the knitting'' can work with the ways the Virgin portfolio has been diversified. Consequently, an entrepreneurial orientation is considered a desirable philosophy and has become prominent in such industries as airlines and information technology. Miles and Arnold (1991) found that entrepreneurial orientation is positively correlated to marketing orientation. They propose that entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic response by firms to turbulence in the environment. While many marketing successes are analysed in hindsight using traditional marketing concepts and strategies, there are those that challenge standard marketing textbook recommendations. Marketing strategy is often viewed as a process of targeting, segmenting and positioning (STP). Academics and consultants advocate this approach along with the marketing and business plans. The reality however is that a number of businesses do not practice these and pursue alternative approaches. Other schools of thought and business models have been developing to explain differences in orientation such as branding (Keller 2001), the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and effectuation logic (Sarasvathy 2001). This indicates that scholars are now looking to cognate fields to explain a given phenomenon beyond their own disciplines. Bucking this trend is a growing number of researchers working at the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing. There is now an emerging body of work dedicated to this interface, hence the development of entrepreneurial marketing as an alternative to the traditional approaches. Hills and Hultman (2008:3) define entrepreneurial marketing as ''a spirit, an orientation as well as a process of passionately pursuing opportunities and launching and growing ventures that create perceived customer value through relationships by employing innovativeness, creativity, selling, market immersion, networking and flexibility.'' Although it started as a special interest group, entrepreneurial marketing is now gaining recognition in mainstream entrepreneurship and marketing literature. For example new marketing textbooks now incorporate an entrepreneurial marketing focus (Grewal and Levy 2008). The purpose of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurial approaches are used by entrepreneurs and their impact on the success of marketing activities. Methodology/Key Propositions In order to investigate this, we employ two cases: 42Below, vodka producers from New Zealand and Penderyn Distillery, whisky distillers from Wales. The cases were chosen based on the following criteria. Firstly, both companies originate from small economies. Secondly, both make products (spirits) from locations that are not traditionally regarded as producers of their flagship products and thirdly, the two companies are different from each other in terms of their age. Penderyn is an old company established in 1882, whereas 42Below was founded only in 1999. Vodka has never been associated with New Zealand. By the same token, whisky has always been associated with Scotland and Ireland but never been with Wales. Both companies defied traditional stereotypes in marketing their flagship products and found international success. Using a comparative a case study approach, we use Covin and Slevin's (1989) set of items that purport to measure entrepreneurial orientation and apply a qualitative lens on the approaches of both companies. These are: 1. cultural emphases on innovation and R&D 2. high rate of new product introduction 3. bold, innovative product development 4. initiator proactive posture 5. first to introduce new technologies and products 6. competitive posture toward competitor 7. strong prolictivity for high risk, high return projects 8. environment requires boldness to achieve objectives 9. when faced with risk, adopts aggressive, bold posture. Results and Implications We find that both companies have employed entrepreneurial marketing approaches but with different intensities. While acknowledging that they are different from the norm, the specifics of their individual approaches are dissimilar. Both companies have positioned their products at the premium end of their product categories and have emphasised quality and awards in their communication strategies. 42Below has carved an image of irreverence and being non-conformist. They have unashamedly utilised viral marketing and entered international markets by training bartenders and hosting unconventional events. They use edgy language such as vodka university, vodka professors and vodka ambassadors. Penderyn Distillery has taken a more traditional approach to marketing its products and portraying romantic images of age-old tradition of distilling as key to their positioning. Both companies enjoy success as evidenced by industry awards and international acclaim.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

Business Creation Processes in Australia : What Start-Up Attempts Get Up and Running, and Why? - A Preliminary Assessment

The Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) is the largest study of new firm formation that has ever been undertaken in Australia. CAUSEE follows the development of several samples of new and emerging firms over time. In this report we focus on the drivers of outcomes – in terms of reaching an operational stage vs. terminating the effort – of 493 randomly selected nascent firms whose founders have been comprehensively interviewed on two occasions, 12 months apart. We investigate the outcome effects of three groups of variables: Characteristics of the Venture; Resources Used in the Start-Up Process and Characteristics of the Start-Up Process Itself.

Small Business and entrepreneurship policy

There are two key approaches to entrepreneurship, each of which has different implications for small business policy (Danson 2002). The first conceives of entrepreneurship as an economic process and can be traced to the work of Joseph Schumpeter who developed the concept of creative destruction to describe the entrepreneurial process that led to the simultaneous elimination of old industries and activities and the creation of new activities through the commercial application of new ideas. While entrepreneurship as a process of creative destruction might include start up activity amongst small firms, it does not exclusively involve small firms as large firms may contribute to the entrepreneurial process through the generation of new knowledge and by assisting in financing the development of new ideas amongst small firms. Although innovation occurs in large as well as small firms, the literature on small enterprise innovation draws heavily on Schumpeter’s depiction of the central role of the entrepreneur in the process of creative destruction, whereby the economic system is transformed from within and new cycles in economic life emerge in which new industries and markets replace old industries and markets. Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs drove the process of innovation and that innovation was a stimulus to economic development and involved the development of new products, processes, methods of production or new forms of commercial or financial organisation (Schumpeter 1911). At a time when technological development and structuraleconomic change are occurring at a rapid pace, small firm innovation is seen to be critically important because empirical evidence, although not undisputed, indicates that SMEs make an important contribution to radical innovations in new industries (Nooteboom 1994). The second view of entrepreneurship focuses on the individual entrepreneur more than the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneur is depicted as an owner of small businesses, and is regarded as having particular personal characteristics such as self-reliance, individual initiative and self-motivation. Entrepreneurs are also considered to have a behavioural orientation towards the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities. They are the risk takers who are able to see an opportunity and pursue it commercially despite the uncertainty of rewards. The capacity to plan, manage and lead is also seen to be identifying characteristics of entrepreneurs. Different small business policy approaches arise from these different perspectives on entrepreneurship. Small business policy approaches that emphasise the process by which new ideas are generated and applied commercially arise from the first and broader view of entrepreneurship. Policies designed to generate a population of risk taking and self-motivated individuals with highly developed management and commercial skills are more in keeping with the second approach, which is focused on the individual entrepreneur rather than the entrepreneurial process.