Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The link between women entrepreneurship, innovation and stakeholder

engagement: A review
Suja R. Nair
Educe Micro Research, 269, Ideal Homes (Phase-2), 43rd Main Road, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru 560098, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While, women entrepreneurship is synonymous with women empowerment, tremendously contributing to
Women entrepreneurs growth of the economy, sustainable entrepreneurship calls for innovations and successful diffusion. Barriers like
Women entrepreneurial innovations lower entrepreneurial ability, lack of funds, etc., often inhibit women entrepreneurial innovations. The main
Stakeholder engagement process objective of this paper is to examine whether women entrepreneurship innovations can be fostered through
Sustainable entrepreneurship
stakeholders' involvement and engagement. For this prior studies were referred and a conceptual framework
Competitive advantage
involving proactive, interactive two-way stakeholder engagement process between women enterprises and
stakeholders; divided into three interconnected parts; along with institutional support is suggested. Stakeholder
engagement as a long term growth strategy to build competitive advantage calls for collaborative endeavors,
wherein stakeholders work-together to pursue mutually-beneficial, multitudinous goals, which should encourage
innovative women entrepreneurial initiatives. Furthermore, the suggested framework, as an interactive, two-
way, continuous process interlinking the variables, would help management to work at increasing collaborative
value creations through innovative women entrepreneurial ventures.

1. Introduction certain glitches that mar women entrepreneurship growth. In 63 of the

Given the growing importance of new business creation and in-
novations for economic development and sustainability (Singh & Gaur,
2018) and the increasing number of women entrepreneurs significantly
contributing to the economic growth, has kindled researchers' interest
in women entrepreneurship (Ahl, 2006; Brush, Carter, Gatewood,
Greene, & Hart, 2006; Henry, Foss, & Ahl, 2016; Jamali, 2009;
Langowitz & Minniti, 2007). However, while some researchers feel that
women-run enterprises have contributed to the economic growth and
development of the country through providing of jobs, creating wealth,
innovations, etc. (Brush et al., 2006), others feel there are gender (male
versus female) differences in entrepreneurship (Neumeyer, Santos,
Caetano, & Kalbfleisch, 2018; Tsyganova & Shirokova, 2010) with some
stating the need to remove barriers to women entrepreneurship to en-
able them capitalize on investment opportunities (Carter, Mwaura,
Ram, Trehan, & Jones, 2015).
Recent reports have provided more information on women-run en-
terprises. In 2016, an estimated 163 million women were found to be
running new businesses while, about 111 million were operating es-
tablished businesses across 74 economies (Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, Smith College, “Women's Entrepreneurship 2016/2017
Report”, 2017; American Express, 2017). However, they also pointed to
74 economies studied, the gender gap had reduced by 5% and the
overall female total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) rates increased by
10%, but women entrepreneurs seemed to have lower growth ex-
pectations, for, although during the period 2014–2016 entrepreneurial
intentions among women increased by 16%, this did not translate into
action, implying that probably more women entrepreneurs (than men)
had discontinued entrepreneurship during this phase (Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, Smith College, “Women's Entrepreneurship
2016/2017 Report”, 2017). These are pointers to the challenges faced
by women entrepreneurs in sustaining their businesses. Furthermore, in
the US although women entrepreneurs have come a long way since
1997, with 8% share in employment, 4.2% share in revenues and 39%
share of firms in 2017 respectively, women entrepreneurship has a long
way to go in order to create a much bigger impact on the economy
(American Express, 2017).
Prior studies have stated that entrepreneurship and innovation
management are imperative for sustainable growth and development
(Dahlstrand & Stevenson, 2010; Singh & Gaur, 2018). While, Nählinder,
Tillmar, & Wigren (2015) found no significant differences in innova-
tiveness between men and women entrepreneurs, Neumeyer et al.
(2018) reported on differences in the entrepreneurship ecosystem of
male and female entrepreneurs, with Chatterjee & Ramu (2018)

E-mail address: sujarnair269@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.038
Received 30 April 2018; Received in revised form 19 June 2019; Accepted 22 June 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Suja R. Nair, Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.038
S.R. Nair
referring to factors such as inadequate access to-better research op-
portunities, funding, laboratory equipment and facilities, opportunities
for knowledge exchange, etc., that inhibit innovations by women en-
trepreneurs. Nevertheless, given the great female-to-male gender ratio,
women entrepreneurs are 5% more likely than men (entrepreneurs) to
report that they are innovative, asserts the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, Smith College, Women's Entrepreneurship 2016/2017 Report
(2017, p.51). While, innovation is very important as it influences the
success of women entrepreneurs (Lai, Nathan, Tan, & Chan, 2010), the
quality of the entrepreneurial activity driven by innovation creates
value (Ferraris, Santoro, & Papa, 2018b; Saiz-Alvarez & Martínez, 2019)
and entrepreneurship with innovation will help in knowledge devel-
opment that can be used for cross-border entrepreneurship and value
co-creation (Nair, 2016b).
While, Pantić (2014) commented on lack of sufficient research that
focus on innovations among female entrepreneurs, Ascher (2012)
opined that obstacles to women entrepreneurship could be reduced if
policy makers frame policies aimed at encouraging innovation, crea-
tivity and growth. Prior studies like Liang, Yu, & Guo (2017) felt sta-
keholders strongly influenced the project's success, while, Ferraris,
Belyaeva, & Bresciani (2018a), and Dembczyk & Zaoral (2014) found
sustainable innovations would require in-depth stakeholders' integra-
tion and engagement. Whereas, Burga & Rezania (2016) suggested
application of the stakeholders (salience and social issue management)
models to facilitate integration of the entrepreneur's perception to the
different stakeholders, at the critical decision points.
Although, few studies have suggested stakeholders' engagement for
long term women entrepreneurship development (Grosser, 2009;
Todorović, Komazec, Jevtić, Obradović, & Marič, 2016; Vershinina,
Rodgers, Tarba, Khan, & Stokes, 2019), previous studies available on
innovation and stakeholder engagement are more from a general en-
trepreneurship perspective and, despite growing interest on women
entrepreneurship, the issue on how to increase women entrepreneurs
innovation activities has not been sufficiently explored noted, Marvel,
Lee, & Wolfe (2015) and Idris (2008). The main objective of this study
is to address this gap through a review of extant literature. The fol-
lowing research question has been framed for this purpose:
RQ. How to foster innovations among women entrepreneurs through
stakeholder engagement?
To this end, to answer this question we propose to adapt from the
studies of: Jeffery (2009) who suggested a framework/roadmap for
creating meaningful stakeholder engagement, and Shams (2016b) who
proposed a framework wherein relational marketing (RM) and dynamic
capabilities (DCs) are said to mutually influence the relevant capacity
building (based on stakeholder relationship), to sustain the ‘enhanced
capacity’ competitive advantage over a period of time. By integrating
these two frameworks we propose to develop a strategic framework,
which is assumed would encourage more innovative women en-
trepreneurship. The process by which stakeholder engagement can be
used to initiate innovations among women entrepreneurs will be ex-
amined and incorporated into the proposed conceptual framework. This
study on women entrepreneurship innovations through stakeholder
engagement has practical significance as it would go a long way in
encouraging innovative women entrepreneurial behaviors. Alongside,
awareness on the obstacles or challenges marring effective stakeholder
engagement in women entrepreneurship would help managers to take
suitable remedial actions.
The paper is structured as follows: the next section will discuss the
concept of women entrepreneurship, the following section will discuss
women entrepreneurship and innovations, the section thereafter will
focus on interlinking women entrepreneurship, innovation and stake-
holder engagement and in the final section, a brief summary and con-
clusions drawn (along with implications and limitations) are discussed.
2
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2. Women entrepreneurship
Although prior studies have reported on women entrepreneurship as
an emerging economic force, contributing to the growth and develop-
ment of the economy (Brush et al., 2006; Brush, De Bruin, & Welter,
2009; Kelley, Singer, & Herrington, 2016; Kyaruzi, 2009), not much is
known on the gender wise influence and, on the experiences and con-
tributions of growth-oriented female entrepreneurs (Kyaruzi, 2009).
While some studies refer to this as a gender gap (Ahl, 2006; Brush et al.,
2009; De Bruin, Brush, & Welter, 2006), others (like Vossenberg, 2013)
argue that unless the ‘gender bias’ embedded into entrepreneurship is
addressed properly; efforts aimed at benefiting individual woman en-
trepreneurs (such as promotion policies) would not make much sig-
nificant macroeconomic or social impact, and that the gender gap could
even negatively affect entrepreneurship (Adachi & Hisada, 2017). Ad-
ditionally, Popescu (2012) observed that although the determinants
and factors influencing male and female entrepreneurship were similar
at the macro and micro levels, gender wise differential effects with
respect to unemployment and life satisfaction were seen.
Prior studies have indicated that entrepreneurship is a fast bur-
geoning area of research (Halabisky, 2017; Nair & Saiz-Alvarez, 2019;
Vossenberg, 2013), and that for conducive economic development to
take place, linkages between entrepreneurship and wealth creation,
human capital dynamics, labor market situations etc. need to be
brought out (Minniti & Naudé, 2010; Nair, 2016a,b; Nair & Saiz-
Alvarez, 2019). However, while studies have reported on lower en-
trepreneurial ventures by women, for example, Halabisky (2017) cited
the ‘OECD and European Commission–the Missing Entrepreneurs 2017
report’, that on an average, men were 1.7 times more likely to be self-
employed than women, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor/GEM,
involving 45 economies which participated in a survey conducted
during the 2013–2015 period found a year-to-year increase in ratios of
both female to male entrepreneurship participation and female to male
opportunity motivations, indicating more gender parity, states Kelley
et al. (2016). Nevertheless, in spite of the increased participation of
female entrepreneurs and rise in women entrepreneurship, there are
certain barriers and challenges such as lower entrepreneurial ability,
lack of funds, limited access to knowledge and technology, operational
inefficiency, and so on, which inhibit their entrepreneurial plunge and
further growth, opined Carter et al. (2015), Nair (2016a), and
Chatterjee & Ramu (2018).
Even though women display gender specific strategic decision
making capability (Alonso-Almeida & Bremser, 2015), significant gaps
are visible in the participation of women in innovation and en-
trepreneurship (Chatterjee & Ramu, 2018). Long back, Schumpeter
(1934), an advocator of entrepreneurial profit, had suggested en-
trepreneurs to use the process of innovation to create new wealth. In
fact this is also emphasized by other researchers. For instance, Lai et al.
(2010) demonstrated the positive effect of innovation on the success of
female entrepreneurs; Gundry, Kickul, Iakovleva, & Carsrud (2014)
found that innovation orientation among women entrepreneurs not
only added value at the marketplace but also strongly influenced the
firm's sustainability. Whereas, Nählinder et al. (2015) found no sig-
nificant difference in innovativeness between men and women en-
trepreneurs, and hence, suggested more attention be paid towards
correcting the prevailing gender bias in innovation studies.
3. Women entrepreneurship and innovation
Regarding the link between women entrepreneurship and innova-
tion, researchers report mixed findings. Idris (2008) reported of an
association between women entrepreneurial innovativeness and their
age, education, location and type of business, annual income and the
number of employees. A broad conclusion based on the VRI-program,
Norway (Ljunggreen et al., 2010) found that innovation studies are
strongly male gendered and suggested that future research-agenda
S.R. Nair
should focus on gender and innovation. Ljunggreen and Alsos (cited in
Ljunggreen et al., 2010) argue that different perspectives on gender
when applied to innovation studies would help to contribute to the
innovation research field. Ambles (cited in Ljunggreen et al., 2010)
whose study dealt with innovation in relation to women, suggested
implementation of a ‘gender mainstream’ focused strategic policy.
Ljunggreen and Kvidal (cited in Ljunggreen et al., 2010) observed very
little is discussed on the involvement of gender in innovation projects
and processes, and suggested to hold discussions through activities to
raise awareness, that help in dealing with the issue of gender and in-
novations at the regional and national levels. Whereas, Wiik, Ervik and
Solheim (cited in Ljunggreen et al., 2010) report masculine dominance
when entrepreneurs make strategic choice of sectors; although both
(men and women) are unable to express the extent to which gender
balance affected innovation. Thus, based on different studies conducted
by Ljunggreen et al. (2010) it was concluded that there is a need to
deconstruct the ‘innovation concept’, with the researchers suggesting to
use ‘gender’ in innovation studies so as to understand the complex
phenomenon of innovation.
Another study, Vossenberg (2013) noted that gender differences
(bias) continued to exist in the context in which entrepreneurship is
embedded. However, Nählinder et al. (2015) opined that, given there is
no significant difference in the innovativeness among men and women
entrepreneurs, calls for correcting the gender bias in innovation studies.
Furthermore, Idris (2008) observed, although women entrepreneurs
grapple with similar business issues as their male counterparts (in-
cluding the need to continuously change and innovate), very little is
known on their innovative practices. Meanwhile, using a multilevel
approach, Marvel et al. (2015) found that individual education, inter-
firm network ties and regional location of the firm mediated the en-
trepreneur gender-firm innovation relationship.
Highlighting on the key influencers of innovation, Gundry et al.
(2014) posited that cognitive/psychology factors; risk taking and in-
tensity among women entrepreneurs were critical for subsequent op-
portunity recognition, innovation, and, sustainability of the firm. This is
also indicated in the study by Lago, Delgado, & Branco (2018) which
found gender differences in risk propensity (willingness to commit re-
sources to projects, ideas, or processes, for which the outcomes are
uncertain and the cost of failures likely to be high) were less solid, than
what is usually claimed by entrepreneurs. Hence, the study concluded
that differences between men and women entrepreneurs (when docu-
mented for the general population) tend to be smaller or did not exist.
Although innovations are the catalysts to bring about structural
changes and growth in an economy, innovation management is quite
challenging; needing creative and inventive employees to generate
new/novel ideas of paramount importance to the organization's ex-
istence and continued future success, felt Shavinina (2003). In-
cidentally, the study by E E C (GHK Technopolis, 2008) demonstrated
that women lag behind when it came to innovative entrepreneurship as
they faced specific challenges, broadly characterized as contextual ob-
stacles (lack of visibility of women innovative entrepreneurship), eco-
nomic obstacles (insufficient finance/grants or funds available to sup-
port women innovative entrepreneurship) and soft obstacles (lack of
self confidence in developing and marketing their business ideas, a
forum that brings together organizations which deal with women en-
trepreneurship and innovations specific to them). A plausible way to
address this concern is through stakeholder relationships which could
lead to sustainable innovation and firm growth report Vershinina et al.
(2019).
The positive effect of coopetition (the simultaneous perusal of co-
operation and competition) on revolutionary innovation is visible when
SMEs integrate their partners' knowledge through in-learning
(Bouncken & Kraus, 2013), with innovative SMEs more likely to export
than non-innovative ones, albeit, depending upon type of innovation
and the degree of novelty (Saridakis, Bochraldris, Hansen, & Dana,
2019). Similarly, other studies state that organization's overall success
3
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
depend upon the organizational integration of innovation into the
corporate structure that help build competitiveness (Brem & Viogt,
2007; Shin, 2017; Srivastava, Sultan, & Chashti, 2017), along with the
involvement of top management and the decision makers (Brem &
Viogt, 2007) and through engagement with external partners/stake-
holders (Ayuso, Rodríguez, García-Castro, & Ángel Ariño, 2011; Brem &
Viogt, 2007; Shams, 2017). Moreover, given that the issue of sustain-
ability is a vital part of the business strategy (Shams, 2016a,b), studies
point to the pivotal role of stakeholders' engagement and relationships
in sustaining competitive advantage (Shams, 2016b,c, 2017).
While, the discussions above illustrate studies that commented on
insufficient research available on women innovative entrepreneurship,
some researchers feel involvement and engagement with stakeholders
can foster innovations among women entrepreneurs (e.g. Vershinina
et al., 2019). In line to this, E E C (GHK, Technopolis, 2008) had re-
commended formulation of policies that promote women inventors/
innovators' entrepreneurship and, also suggested to raise awareness
among national stakeholders on the women specific needs in innovative
entrepreneurship. These aspects will be discussed in the following
section.
4. Building a link between women entrepreneurship, innovation
and stakeholder engagement
Prior studies have referred to the impact of women entrepreneur-
ship on society and its contribution to the economic growth (e.g.
Ascher, 2012) with some indicating that it enhances women empow-
erment, which can act as a catalyst for further innovation. For example,
Marvel et al. (2015) found there are multi-level constructs that mediate
gender-innovation relationships, Lai et al. (2010) and Pantić (2014)
found women entrepreneurs' attitude towards innovation, their moti-
vation to put into practice the innovation and enthuse subordinates and
workers, play an important role in the success of the business venture.
Incidentally, Gould (2012) noted that organizational efforts at in-
novation are driven by the need and the opportunity to improve pro-
ducts and processes according to the changes occurring in the external
environment. In line to this, an interesting observation made by
Swanson (cited in Chatterjee & Ramu, 2018) revealed that women in
the 19th century were actively engaged in entrepreneurial activities;
patented their innovations using the same networks as their male
counterparts, and subsequently used the patents as the foundation for
future flourishing businesses.
However, while Alonso-Almeida & Bremser (2015) found women
entrepreneurs' decision making and organizational performance were
on par with male entrepreneurs, Keisu, Abrahamsson, & Rönnblom
(2015) commented on lack of strategies that merge gender equality into
the agenda of entrepreneurship and innovation. A plausible way to
strategize the agenda of women entrepreneurship and innovation could
be through stakeholder engagements suggest the following studies.
Brem & Viogt (2007) opined that integration of all (internal and ex-
ternal) stakeholders would help in making the innovation process more
capable and successful, Ayuso et al. (2011) felt knowledge sourced from
engagement with all stakeholders would help in the firm's sustainable
innovation orientation, albeit, it is internally managed such that the
knowledge gets converted to new ideas for innovation purposes, while
Sonck, Asveld, Landeweerd, & Osseweijer (2017) specifically suggested
stakeholder involvement during research and development to mobilize
the potential of innovation products. In fact, from a long term per-
spective, Jeffery (2009) emphasized on the relevance of ‘stakeholder
engagement’ stating it is integral to the concept of corporate responsi-
bility, very important in running the organization responsibly, and that
if stakeholder engagement relationships are well established and
managed, it could pave the way for more innovations, help to build
trust among all the stakeholders, and alongside increase the possibility
of creating successful relationships.
Incidentally, Yang, Shen, Bourne, Ho, & Xue (2011) observed the
S.R. Nair
Table 1
Differences between stakeholder management and stakeholder engagement.
(Source: Jeffery (2009) Stakeholder Engagement: A Road Map to Meaningful Engagement, Yang et al. (2011) A Typology of Operational Approaches for Stakeholder
Analysis and Engagement.)
Stakeholder management
Stakeholder management process is the systematic identification, analyzes, planning and
implementation of actions to engage with stakeholders for the successful delivery of
the project.
Stakeholder management would require identifying the key stakeholders, and establish
strategies for engagement and collaboration with them, with the purpose of meeting
the project/program/activity goals.
Stakeholder management would require organizations to be proactive and anticipate how
the economic and/or other changes could impact their performance; establish
relations with the stakeholders to be able to manage the impact of the changes.
Success of stakeholder management greatly depends on the art of optimizing the long
term benefits of the organization, along with giving due consideration to the needs
and wants of all the key stakeholders.
terms ‘stakeholder management’, ‘stakeholder engagement’ and ‘sta-
keholder analysis’ have interrelationships, and hence, are used in the
same vein by different authors. They further explain the terms, stating
‘stakeholder management’ is a process of identifying, analyzing, com-
municating, decision-making, and the other activities involved in
managing stakeholders, ‘stakeholder analysis’ is the process of identi-
fying stakeholder's, their varied interests and, assessing stakeholders'
influence and relationships, and ‘stakeholder engagement’ is the process
of communication, involvement and developing relationships with
stakeholders (Yang et al. (2011), p. 3). Based on this, ‘stakeholder
analysis’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’ are said to be interlinked and
part of the ‘stakeholder management process’, which implies that var-
ious methods of ‘stakeholder engagement’ could be applied for com-
munication purposes during stakeholders' analysis.
As shown, Table 1 briefly illustrates the differences between sta-
keholder management and stakeholder engagement.
Given the importance of sustainability in entrepreneurship, many
researchers refer to stakeholder engagement practices as the positive
involvement of stakeholders in organizational activities and decisions
(Corus & Ozanne, 2012; Greenwood, 2007; Shams, 2016a,c), such that
it helps to overcome challenges and co-create sustainable en-
trepreneurial innovations (Ayuso et al., 2011; Dembczyk & Zaoral,
2014; Gould, 2012; Pedrosa, 2009), and obtain a social license to op-
erate fair and trustworthy stakeholders engagement practices that in-
creases the market success of eco-innovations (Provasnek, Sentic, &
Schmid, 2017). Moreover, involved engagements with all stakeholders
in a transparent, trustworthy and mutually beneficial environment
would facilitate successful completion and delivery of the project,
opined Brem & Viogt (2007).
Similarly, for women-owned enterprises while researchers (like
Pantić, 2014) mandated the need to focus on specific strategies that aid
women entrepreneurial innovations, others (e.g. Grosser, 2009;
Todorović et al., 2016) suggested to identify stakeholders' activities in
women business infrastructure which would facilitate carrying out the
projects as per the strategic framework. Incidentally, Addo (2017)
while exploring whether non-economic forms of capital were crucial to
the survival of women-run micro-enterprises, found most of the patrons
and proprietors of micro-women enterprises were highly skilled and
educated, practiced innovative business moves embodied into the ex-
isting processes of reciprocity and exchange, and alongside had the
ability to control the social and culturally rich capital. However, sur-
prisingly, all this often went undetected by the customers, who chose to
patronize businesses they trusted, and extended support only to pro-
prietors with whom they identified and shared values. A recent study
(Vershinina et al., 2019) also emphasized on the critical role played by
stakeholder relationships in women-owned enterprises that help to
acquire resources needed for sustainable innovation and growth. The
above studies have illustrated women entrepreneurs need to involve
4
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement is the process of communication, involvement and
developing relationships with stakeholders.
Stakeholder engagement can be referred to as collaborative endeavors, which provide
the platform for all stakeholders to work together, in pursuit of mutually-beneficial,
diverse or manifold goals.
It is an iterative process wherein the organization encourages developing relationships
of mutual respect with stakeholders, and learns to improve on its ability to perform
meaningful stakeholders' engagement.
Success of stakeholder engagement will depend upon the organization culture,
leadership, engagement plan involving discussions and viewpoints of all key
stakeholders, transparency and the built-in trust among all involved.
and engage with all stakeholders (including customers) in their en-
terprise related activities, which would help in communication and
promotion of the businesses and acquire the needed resources that help
in the sustainability of the enterprise in the long run.
The discussion thus far has demonstrated a link that exists between
women entrepreneurship, innovations and stakeholder relationship.
Furthermore, given that prior studies find women entrepreneurial
ventures organizational performance to be as sustainable as male-
owned enterprises (Alonso-Almeida & Bremser, 2015; Halabisky, 2017;
Marvel et al., 2015), and the many benefits of stakeholder involvement
and engagement in sustaining competitive advantage illustrated by
prior researchers (Shams, 2016a,b,c; Todorović et al., 2016; Vershinina
et al., 2019), this study attempted to develop a framework showing the
interlinking of the concepts of women entrepreneurship, stakeholder
engagement process and innovation, and use it to answer the research
question: How to foster innovations among women entrepreneurs
through stakeholder engagement?
4.1. The conceptual framework
For developing the framework prior studies on stakeholder en-
gagement/management conducted from a strategic point of view were
referred. Burga & Rezania (2016) found integration of two stakeholder
models used by social entrepreneurs, wherein the first model helped to
identify key stakeholders and their importance to the firm, and the
second (a commercial business) model, to manage and maintain the
primary social mission and concerns. For developing the framework in
the current study, two previous studies (Jeffery, 2009; Shams, 2016b)
were referred. Jeffery (2009) argues that given stakeholder engagement
is an integral part of the concept of CSR and plays an important role in
running the organization responsibly, it is necessary to plan for mean-
ingful engagement, vital for the success of stakeholder engagements.
While, Shams (2016b) suggests using a different approach wherein the
focus is on capacity building through the development of innovative ca-
pacities with stakeholder's relationship to sustain competitive advantage
in a market that witnesses rapid changes due to business competition.
The researcher further proposed a framework involving relationship
marketing (RM) and dynamic capabilities (DCs) which mutually influ-
ence the relevant capacity building, and driving and mediating forces,
based on stakeholder relationship centered DCs, which is felt would
help to sustain competitive advantage in the long run. The conceptual
framework based on the models developed by Jeffery (2009); Shams
(2016b) is illustrated in Fig. 1.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the framework shows how the concepts of
women entrepreneurship and innovation are interconnected through
the influence of the stakeholder engagement process and the external
factor, comprising-the regulatory and other support systems. In the
framework, the main focus is to be on the ‘stakeholder engagement
S.R. Nair Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

STAKEHOLDER term (sustainable) perspective, Shams (2016b) framework which refers

ENGAGEMENT PROCESS to the interrelationships among RM, DCs and capacity building, aimed
at uniquely satisfying stakeholders' needs and in the creation of sus-
W 1st Part: tainable competitive advantage, was referred. For this study, ‘capacity
o To develop: building’ is considered as “a social process of interdependent relation-
m Stakeholders’ ships to build an organization's future to pursue its mission, attain its
e Engagement Plan vision and goals and sustain its existence,… pushing boundaries – de-
n I
(SEP): Examine veloping and strengthening an organization and its people so it's better
E critical success N able to serve not only its target population but to consider the impact of
Regulatory
n
N all stakeholders” (Stavros, 1998, p. 320), and ‘dynamic-capabilities’/
and
tr
Institutional DCs refer to “constituting a firm's managerial and organizational (large
e 2nd Part: O and complex) processes that is premeditated by the assets' positions and
p support
r Develop Stakeholder systems and V pursued by the strategic paths followed by the firm” (Shams &
e Engagement networks for Belyaeva, 2018, p. 1724). According to Shams (2016b) the concept of
Strategies (including women A
n perceived DC building and competitive advantage are to be used on the
e capacity building, entrepreneurs T same continuum to satisfy individual stakeholder's value expectation;
u RM, DCs, stakeholder
I
which may vary from stakeholder to stakeholder when diverse stake-
r relations)
holder's relationships are involved. Furthermore, the influence of RM
s O on strategic organizational DCs could help sustain competitive ad-
h
i N vantage over time when individual stakeholder's value expectations are
p satisfied, adds the researcher. In view of the above discussion, in the
S
3rd Part: current study context of women entrepreneurship, it is suggested that
female entrepreneurs analyze their business environment with regards
Implement
Stakeholder to the market drivers in the industry, collaborate with the key stake-
Engagement holders (including targeted customers and competitors), examine the
Strategies. existing socio-economic setting, and then allocate all the resources
using a proactive strategic approach; such that it helps to competitively
sustain the enhanced capacity built, over time.
The final part (3) of the strategic engagement process is related to
implementation of the stakeholder engagement strategy, which (as in-
dicated in Fig. 1) should be linked to the first part (SEP). This would
help to garner support through communications, consultations and in-
Fig. 1. The conceptual framework. volvement of all stakeholders in a transparent, trustworthy and mu-
tually beneficial environment, which would also help in the successful
completion and delivery of the project. Enright, McElrath & Taylor
process’, which bridges the link between women entrepreneurship and
(2016) reports the study by BSR on future of stakeholder engagement
women entrepreneurial innovations in a proactive and interactive two-
which found innovative enterprises could transform stakeholder en-
way process. The stakeholder engagement process is carried out in three
gagements across three dimensions: 1) consult and collaborate to
(interconnected) parts that facilitate the flow of communication, opi-
pursue opportunities by engaging on challenges of mutual concern, 2)
nions and proposals in both ways/directions. The stakeholder process
engage with stakeholders of greatest strategic importance, as well as
flow should be interactive and inclusive, wherein the organization
with diverse stakeholders affected by the consequences of business
learns and improves upon its ability to perform meaningful stakeholder
operations, and 3) integrate stakeholder engagement more deeply into
engagement and alongside also develops relationships of mutual re-
corporate strategy across all functional levels. Benefits of stakeholders'
spect.
engagement are also enunciated in prior studies (e.g. Ferraris et al.,
The first part (1) of the stakeholder engagement process calls for
2018a; Ferraris et al., 2018). Thus, in view of the many benefits of
developing a meaningful stakeholder engagement plan (SEP) with the
stakeholders' engagements, the current framework suggests a two-way
main objective of understanding the stakeholder engagement require-
link between the stakeholder engagement process and women en-
ments and providing the necessary guidance to enable this. In other
trepreneurship.
words, one will be required to examine the ‘critical success factors’
Additionally, given that prior researchers (e.g. Ascher, 2012; Nair,
stated by Jeffery (2009) that help to work out meaningful stakeholder
2016a) felt insufficient institutional and other supportive systems, in-
engagement plans. For this study, this implies women entrepreneurs
hibit innovative women entrepreneurship, the current framework has
would have to work out the plan; examine whether the stage is set to
addressed this concern and indicated the interlinking of the stakeholder
hold meaningful engagements with their stakeholders. Typically, the
engagement process, through regulatory, institutional, etc. supportive
SEP would involve: identifying the key stakeholders, their roles and
networks, to innovations. Moreover, we also go by the assumption that
responsibilities; determine the most effective methods to disseminate
institutional support such as private-government/public partnerships,
information to all stakeholders in an accessible and transparent way;
incubation cells to encourage innovation startups, accessibility to funds,
and guide the organization to build mutually respectful, beneficial and
establishment of regulatory environment/system, interface/linkage
long lasting relationships with their stakeholders.
with universities to encourage further education and build networks
Once the SEP is developed, the second part (2) of the process calls for
among women entrepreneurs, incentives to encourage women-en-
developing stakeholder engagement strategies. Generally, when devel-
trepreneurial innovations, etc. would not only reduce many of the
oping a stakeholder engagement strategy, the organization would be
barriers faced by women entrepreneurs but also encourage en-
required to have in place the stakeholders' framework with the annual
trepreneurial innovations. In fact, this perspective is endorsed by Saiz-
review plan linked to the organizational goals, ensure that the system or
Alvarez & Martínez (2019) who observed regulatory and institutional
process integration has sustainability, and also work at the cultural
support through targeted policy measures such as public-private col-
integration of all-internal and external stakeholders. Given that
laboration, etc. encourages creativity and growth, when the necessary
working out the stakeholder engagement strategy means taking a long
support to foster entrepreneurial innovations is provided.

5
S.R. Nair
The conceptual framework (Fig. 1) proposes that to foster innova-
tions among women entrepreneurs, interlinking of women en-
trepreneurship to an integrated three-part stakeholder engagement
process; to the regulatory and institutional support measures would be
required. Moreover, in light of many studies in literature review that
reiterated the importance of new women entrepreneurial businesses for
the economic growth and development, it is felt that interlinking of the
concepts of women entrepreneurship, the integrated three-part stake-
holder engagement process, and the external regulatory and institu-
tional support measures should be an on-going, continuous process.
This is illustrated in Fig. 1, using of a double-headed arrow to represent
interface between the concepts of women entrepreneurship and in-
novation through a strong stakeholder engagement process should pave
the way for increased innovative women entrepreneurial ventures, is
indicated.
5. Summary and conclusions
While many studies have reported on the increasing number of
women entrepreneurs who are making significant contribution towards
growth and economic development through jobs and wealth creation,
others(e.g. Chatterjee & Ramu, 2018) felt insufficient access to better
research opportunities, funding, laboratory equipment and facilities,
opportunities for knowledge exchange, increased professional visibility
and reputation, etc. affect women entrepreneurial innovations, which,
Lai et al. (2010) feel plays a pivotal role in the success of women en-
trepreneurship. Given the lack of sufficient research on innovations by
female entrepreneurs, Pantić (2014) sought to analyze the innovation
capacity of female SMEs in enhancing business performance and com-
petitiveness, while, Ascher (2012) suggested policy makers to frame
public policies aimed at encouraging innovation, creativity and growth,
so that obstacles to women entrepreneurship would reduce. Meanwhile,
some researchers suggest of long term development of women en-
trepreneurship through stakeholders' engagement relationships
(Grosser, 2009; Todorović et al., 2016). However, given that businesses
exist in a rapidly changing market environment, a big challenge before
women entrepreneurs will be to strategically work at innovative ven-
tures and alongside focus on building sustainable competitive ad-
vantage through stakeholder engagement practices.
Given the above discussion, this study purported to examine usage
of stakeholder engagement as a long term growth strategy to initiate
innovations among women entrepreneurs, and suggested a framework
to facilitate this. The studies of Jeffery (2009) and Shams (2016b) were
referred for this purpose. While Jeffery (2009) emphasized on holding
meaningful stakeholders engagement, Shams (2016b) referred to the
influence of RM on strategic organizational DCs and, felt it significant
to focus on specific capacity building to satisfy diverse stakeholder's
value expectations, such that it helps to sustain the enhanced capacity's
competitive advantage over time. Giving due consideration to these two
studies, the main focus of the conceptual framework is on interlinking
of the three part stakeholder engagement process that consists of SEP,
development of stakeholder engagement strategies and implementing
the stakeholder engagement strategy, which is further, linked to reg-
ulatory and institutional support systems and networks, to innovations
and to women entrepreneurship. Suggesting the whole framework is
viewed as an interactive, two-way, on-going process interlinking the
variables which would pave the way for increased collaborative value
creations through innovative women entrepreneurial ventures is in-
dicated as an answer to the research question. A brief summary of the
study's main findings is given in Table 2.
5.1. Implications
There are practical implications to this study which sought to ex-
amine an issue not sufficiently explored ‘how women entrepreneurs can
increase innovations’? The conceptual framework suggesting a two way
6
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
interactive link between all variables, with the main focus being on the
stakeholder engagement process implies that the success of innovative
women enterprises will depend upon individual stakeholders and their
collaborative endeavors in pursuit of mutually-beneficial goals.
Accordingly, women entrepreneurs would have to plan the engagement
process built on common values and vision, after conducting analysis
and giving due consideration to the preparation, implementation, re-
porting, evaluation, monitoring and the follow up system, so as to have
fruitful and meaningful engagements with all the stakeholders.
Furthermore, going by the term ‘strong leadership’ (as stated by Jeffery,
2009), women entrepreneurs should demonstrate capable leadership so
that stakeholder engagement behavior is embedded into all levels
within the organization (and among all stakeholders), reflected and
supported by the organizational culture, which would help in having
successful, meaningful stakeholder relationships.
Another challenging implication on developing stakeholder en-
gagement strategy would be to consider variations in diverse stake-
holders' characteristics with respect to their needs and wants, gender,
education, role, level of hierarchy, involvement, etc. (Jeffery, 2009).
This implies that to hold meaningful stakeholder engagements, women
entrepreneurs would have to buildup the basic profile of the stake-
holders and understand their characteristics so as to gauge their be-
havior and involvement during the stakeholder engagement process,
and manage relationships in a conducive way to initiate innovative
women entrepreneurial ventures.
Given the importance of stakeholder engagement process in the
framework where interconnections of the concepts-capacity building,
RM, DCs and stakeholder relationships is suggested (Shams, 2016b), is a
call to enhance transparency among stakeholders. This implies if
transparency is embedded into the systems across all levels of stake-
holder interactions, it would help in initiating innovative en-
trepreneurial ventures. Furthermore, keeping in mind the influence of
variables such as gender, education, innovation activity, etc. (Marvel
et al., 2015), women entrepreneurs should strive for transparency in all
dealings and build-up trust among all stakeholders such that it aids in
capacity building, RM, DCs and enhanced stakeholders' relationships
that facilitate sustainable competitive advantage over time.
This study also contributes to the existing theory/knowledge on
women entrepreneurship innovations. First, by suggesting inclusion of
the term ‘strong women leadership’ into the adapted Jeffery (2009)
framework, this study is extending the knowledge on stakeholder en-
gagement towards ‘strong’ women entrepreneurship. Second, this study
has extended the knowledge on effectiveness of stakeholder engage-
ment by stating that women entrepreneurs should understand stake-
holders' characteristics and use it to involve, engage and manage such
that it initiates innovative women entrepreneurial ventures. Thirdly,
another contribution is the suggestion to include the variable ‘trans-
parency/trust’ to further enhance stakeholders' relationships that fa-
cilitate sustaining competitive advantage over time, in addition to ca-
pacity building, RM, DCs and stakeholder relationships mentioned by
Shams (2016b).
5.2. Limitations
No doubt this study contributes to the literature on women-en-
trepreneurship-innovations and diverse stakeholders relationships for
sustainable competitive advantage. However, there are few limitations
which could be addressed through further research. This study has only
suggested a framework to foster women entrepreneurial innovations
with the help of an integrated-stakeholders' engagement process. The
practical application of the framework needs to be tested. Furthermore,
given there are differences in factors affecting women entrepreneurship
in developed and developing markets, a comparative study to explore
whether the framework holds well in both types of market could be
conducted, which could throw up interesting (comparative) insights on
the functioning of these markets.
S.R. Nair
Table 2
Summary of main results.
Study result
1. Even though women entrepreneurs are contributing to the economy growth and
development, there are challenges and barriers, which inhibit female entrepreneurial
plunge and further growth.
2. Studies show very small differences between men and women entrepreneurs, and yet the
latter seem to be lagging behind in innovative entrepreneurship.
3. From a long term sustainable perspective, women innovative entrepreneurial ventures
would require stakeholders' involvement and stakeholder engagement relationships.
While the conceptual framework indicates the need of institutional
support for women entrepreneurs to encourage them initiate innovative
entrepreneurship, Kazumi & Kawai (2017) found that formal institu-
tional support did not have any correlation with women en-
trepreneurial self-efficacy. This contradiction to prior findings (Ascher,
2012; Chatterjee & Ramu, 2018; Halabisky, 2017; Pantić, 2014) is
worth investigating, probably in line to the above limitation; com-
parative study (developed versus developing markets) would throw up
more information on the reasons for or against institutional support
affecting innovative women entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, while the current study tries to buildup the link be-
tween stakeholder engagement, women entrepreneurship and innova-
tions, a recent study (Jonas, Boha, Sörhammar, & Moeslein, 2018) es-
tablished the impact of stakeholder engagement on an innovation
process, in service ecosystem, over a certain time. This implies the need
for empirical studies (like a longitudinal study) to understand the im-
pact of stakeholders engagement (including institutional support) on
women entrepreneurial innovations, which could yield new and inter-
esting perspectives for managerial practices.
References
Adachi, T., & Hisada, T. (2017). Gender differences in entrepreneurship and in-
trapreneurship: An empirical analysis. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 447–486.
Addo, P.-A. (2017). Is it entrepreneurship, or is it survival?: Gender, community, and
innovation in Boston's black immigrant micro-enterprise spaces. Societies, 7(3), 20.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc7030020.
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., & Bremser, K. (2015). Does gender specific decision making
exist? EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(1), 47–65.
American Express (2017). The 2017 state of women-owned businesses report. https://
about.americanexpress.com/sites/americanexpress.newshq.businesswire.com/files/
doc_library/file/2017_SWOB_Report_-FINAL.pdf.
Ascher, J. (2012). Female entrepreneurship – An appropriate response to gender dis-
crimination. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 8(4), 97–114.
Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. A., García-Castro, R., & Ángel Ariño, M. (2011). Does stake-
holder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417.
Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The
double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.
Brem, A., & Viogt, K.-I. (2007). Innovation management in emerging technology ventures
– The concept of an integrated idea management. International Journal of Technology,
Policy and Management, 7(3), 304–321.
Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (Eds.). (2006). Growth-oriented
women entrepreneurs and their businesses: A global research perspective. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women's
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.
Burga, R., & Rezania, D. (2016). Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: A de-
scriptive case study. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(4), https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40497-016-0049-8.
Carter, S., Mwaura, S., Ram, M., Trehan, K., & Jones, T. (2015). Barriers to ethnic min-
ority and women's enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled
questions. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 49–69.
Chatterjee, C., & Ramu, S. (2018). Gender and its rising role in modern Indian innovation
and entrepreneurship. IIMB Management Review, 30(1), 62–72.
Corus, C., & Ozanne, J. L. (2012). Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and
deliberative spaces in subsistence markets. Journal of Business Research, 6(12),
1728–1735.
Dahlstrand, A. L., & Stevenson, L. (2010). Innovative entrepreneurship policy: Linking
innovation and entrepreneurship in a European context. Annals of Innovation &
Entrepreneurship, 1(1), https://doi.org/10.3402/aie.v1i1.5845.
7
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Indication
1. There is a need to address the challenges and barriers to women entrepreneurship
and take suitable remedial actions to encourage more women entrepreneurs.
2. There is a need to raise awareness among all stakeholders on women specific
needs in women entrepreneurship.
3. An integrated stakeholder engagement process interlinked to women
entrepreneurship, to innovation along with institutional support could encourage
women innovative entrepreneurial ventures, is suggested.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Towards
building cumulative knowledge on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 30(5), 585–593.
Dembczyk, A., & Zaoral, J. (2014). Stakeholder engagement in sustainable en-
trepreneurship and innovation: An exploratory study on start-ups from Germany and
Sweden in renewable energy and energy efficiency (Dissertation). Retrieved from
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-89926.
E E C (GHK, Technopolis) (2008). Evaluation on policy: Promotion of women innovators and
entrepreneurship. DG Enterprise and Industry European Commissionhttps://docplayer.
net/11403576-Evaluation-on-policy-promotion-of-women-innovators-and-
entrepreneurship.html.
Enright, S., McElrath, R., & Taylor, A. (2016). The future of stakeholder engagement.
Transformative engagement for inclusive business. Research reportBSR. Retrieved
from https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Future_of_Stakeholder_Engagement_Report.
pdf.
Ferraris, A., Belyaeva, Z., & Bresciani, S. (2018a). The role of universities in the Smart
City innovation: Multi stakeholder integration and engagement perspectives. Journal
of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.010 In press.
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2018b). The cities of the future: Hybrid all projects
for open innovation projects. Futures, 103, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.
2018.03.012.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Smith College (2017). Women's entrepreneurship
2016/2017 report. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/conway_research/1.
Gould, R. W. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology
Management & Innovation, 7(3), https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
27242012000300001.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate re-
sponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
Grosser, K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and gender equality: Women as sta-
keholders and the European Union sustainability strategy. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 18(3), 290–307.
Gundry, L. K., Kickul, J. R., Iakovleva, T., & Carsrud, A. L. (2014). Women-owned family
businesses in transitional economies: Key influences on firm innovativeness and
sustainability. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1186/
2192-5372-3-8.
Halabisky, D. (2017). 5 ways policy could close the gender gap in entrepreneurship.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/five-ways-policy-could-close-the-
gender-gap-in-entrepreneurship/.
Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2016). Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of
methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal, 34(3), 217–241.
Idris, A. (2008). A profile of innovative women entrepreneurs. International Business
Research, 1(2), 3–10.
Jamali, D. (2009). Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in devel-
oping countries: A relational perspective. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 24(4), 232–251.
Jeffery, N. (2009). Stakeholder engagement: A road map to meaningful engagement.
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/3801/Stakeholder_
engagement-2009.pdf?sequence=3.
Jonas, J. M., Boha, J., Sörhammar, D., & Moeslein, K. M. (2018). Stakeholder engagement
in intra- and inter-organizational innovation: Exploring antecedents of engagement in
service ecosystems. Journal of Service Management, 29(3), 399–421.
Kazumi, T., & Kawai, N. (2017). Institutional support and women's entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 345–365.
Keisu, B.-I., Abrahamsson, K., & Rönnblom, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship and gender
equality in academia – A complex combination in practice. Nordic Journal of Working
Life Studies, 5(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v5i1.4766.
Kelley, D., Singer, S., & Herrington, M. (2016). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2015/16
global report. file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/gem-2015-2016-report-print-ver-
sion-smaller-1481623410.pdf.
Kyaruzi, I. S. (2009). Setting the stage: Female entrepreneurship in transitional econo-
mies. In I. S. Kyaruzi, & M. R. Markovic (Eds.). Female ENTREPRENEURSHIP and local
economic growth. USA: Outskirts Press.
Lago, M., Delgado, C., & Branco, M. C. (2018). Gender and propensity to risk in advanced
countries: Comparison between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. PSU Research
Review, 2(1), 24–34.
Lai, K. P., Nathan, R. J., Tan, K. S., & Chan, B. B. (2010). Effect of innovation to the
success of female entrepreneurs. Journal of Innovation Management in Small and
Medium Enterprises, 2010, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5171/2010.369877https://
ibimapublishing.com/articles/JIMSME/2010/369877/369877.pdf.
Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women.
S.R. Nair
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 341–364.
Liang, X., Yu, T., & Guo, L. (2017). Understanding stakeholders' influence on project
success with a new SNA method: A case study of the green retrofit in China.
Sustainability, 9(10), 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101927.
Ljunggreen, E., Alsos, G. A., Amble, N., Ervik, R., Kvidal, T., & Vilk, R. (2010). Gender and
innovation. Learning from regional VRI-projects. https://www.academia.edu/
23898241/Gender_and_innovation._Learning_from_regional_VRI-projects.
Marvel, M. R., Lee, I. H., & Wolfe, H. T. (2015). Entrepreneur gender and firm innovation
activity: A multilevel perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
62(4), 558–567.
Minniti, M., & Naudé, W. A. (2010). What do we know about the patterns and determi-
nants of female entrepreneurship across countries? The European Journal of
Development Research, 22(3), 277–293.
Nählinder, J., Tillmar, M., & Wigren, C. (2015). Towards a gender-aware understanding
of innovation: A three-dimensional route. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 66–86.
Nair, S. R. (2016a). Women entrepreneurship across nations: Challenges and opportu-
nities. In N. Baporikar (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in the
Contemporary Knowledge-Based Global Economy (pp. 189–216). USA: IGI Global.
Nair, S. R. (2016b). Entrepreneurial co-creation and cross-border manifestos. In H. R.
Kauffman, & S. M. R. Shams (Eds.). Entrepreneurial Challenges in the 21st Century
Creating stakeholder value co-creation (pp. 200–221). New York, USA: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Nair, S. R., & Saiz-Alvarez, J. M. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of Research on Ethics,
Entrepreneurship, and Governance in Higher Education. USA: IGI Global.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship
ecosystems and women entrepreneurs: A social capital and network approach. Small
Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9996-5.
Pantić, S. P. (2014). An analysis of female entrepreneurship and innovation in Serbia in
the context of EU competitiveness. Economic Annals, LIX(200), 61–90. https://doi.
org/10.2298/EKA1400061P.
Pedrosa, A. (2009). DecemberMotivating stakeholders for co-created innovation. Open
Source Business Resourcehttp://timreview.ca/article/311.
Popescu, S. (2012). Women and men in entrepreneurship. Journal of Knowledge
Management, Economics and Information Technology, 2(4), 60–69.
Provasnek, A. K., Sentic, A., & Schmid, E. (2017). Integrating eco-innovations and sta-
keholder engagement for sustainable development and a social license to operate.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(3), 173–185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1406.
Saiz-Alvarez, J. M., & Martínez, A. C. (2019). Entrepreneurial quality and economic crisis
in the Eurozone countries driven by innovation. In S. R. Nair, & J. M. Saiz-Alvarez
(Eds.). Handbook of Research on Ethics, Entrepreneurship, and Governance in Higher
Education (pp. 414–432). USA: IGI Global.
Saridakis, G., Bochraldris, B., Hansen, J. M., & Dana, L. P. (2019). SMEs' inter-
nationalisation: When does innovation matter? Journal of Business Research, 96,
250–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.001.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development; an inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard economic studies, 46. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Shams, S. M. R. (2016a). Sustainability issues in transnational education service: A
conceptual framework and empirical insights. Journal of Global Marketing, 29(3),
139–155.
Shams, S. M. R. (2016b). Capacity building for sustained competitive advantage: A
conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(5), 671–691.
Shams, S. M. R. (2016c). Branding destination image: A stakeholder causal scope analysis
Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
for internationalisation of destinations. Tourism Planning & Destination, 13(2),
140–153.
Shams, S. M. R. (2017). Transnational education and total quality management: A sta-
keholder centred model. Journal of Management Development, 36(3), 376–389.
Shams, S. M. R., & Belyaeva, Z. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, strategic management and
competitive advantage: a debate and research trend. In Vrontis, Weber, & Tsoukatos
(Eds.). 11th annual conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business: Conference readings
book proceedings (pp. 1724–1727). Malta: EuroMed Press.
Shavinina, L. (2003). The international handbook on innovation (1st ed.). Kidlington, UK:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Shin, D. I. (2017). An exploratory study of innovation strategies of the internet of things
SMEs in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(2),
171–189.
Singh, S. K., & Gaur, S. S. (2018). Entrepreneurship and innovation management in
emerging economies. Management Decision, 56(1), 2–5.
Sonck, M., Asveld, L., Landeweerd, L., & Osseweijer, P. (2017). Creative tensions: Mutual
responsiveness adapted to private sector research and development. Life Sciences,
Society and Policy, 13(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0058-6.
Srivastava, S., Sultan, A., & Chashti, N. (2017). Influence of innovation competence on
firm level competitiveness: An exploratory study. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation
and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 63–75.
Stavros, J. M. (1998, May). Capacity building: An appreciative approach. Doctoral dis-
sertation). Retrieved from https://www.taosinstitute.net/Websites/taos/files/
Content/5694664/JacquelineStavrosDissertation.pdf.
Todorović, I., Komazec, S., Jevtić, M., Obradović, V., & Marič, M. (2016). Strategic
management in development of youth and women entrepreneurship-case of Serbia.
Organizacija, 49(4), 197–207.
Tsyganova, T., & Shirokova, G. (2010). Gender differences in entrepreneurship: Evidence
from gem data. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 1(1), 120–141.
Vershinina, N., Rodgers, P., Tarba, S., Khan, Z., & Stokes, P. (2019). Gaining legitimacy
through proactive stakeholder management: The experiences of high-tech women
entrepreneurs in Russia. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.12.063.
Vossenberg, S. (2013). Women entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries: What
explains the gender gap in entrepreneurship and how to close it? (working paper no. 2013/
08). file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/MSM-WP2013-08.pdf.
Yang, J. R., Shen, P. Q. G., Bourne, L., Ho, C. M. F., & Xue, X. (2011). A typology of
operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement: Findings from
Hong Kong and Australia. Construction Management and Economics, 29(2), 145–162.
Dr. Suja R. Nair holds Ph.D, MBA and BA(Hons.) degrees and has 25 years of work
experience, which includes Corporate, Academics and Research. She is an Independent
Researcher and Author since 1999, and has also been handling Strategic Marketing as a
Co-entrepreneur at Educe Micro Research, Bangalore, India, since 2002. As a prolific
writer she has written many text-books in the areas of Marketing Research, Consumer
Behavior, Retail Management and Organizational Behavior, which are widely read and
recommended by leading universities/institutes in India. Her papers/chapters have been
published in referred International and Indian Journal publications. She is the Editor of
“Handbook of Research on Ethics, Entrepreneurship and Governance in Higher Education”,
Associate Editor of “International Journal of Big Data Management” and an Editorial board
member of “IAFOR Journal of Education”. Her major fields of research interest include
Ethics, Education Management, Women-Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Stakeholder en-
gagement, Retail-Marketing and Consumer Behavior.