Normative Environmental Configuration of SMEs within the Sustainable Development Discourse in South Africa: An Empirical Study

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of normative environmental configuration forces on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adopting sustainable development practices in South Africa. A research survey was performed, and data were gathered from SMEs utilizing owners and managers as respondents. Non-probability sampling at the hand of the convenience method was utilised and 220 respondents constituted the final sample. The analysis of data constituted factor analysis and hypotheses were tested through the structural equation modelling technique. The study hypothesised that normative forces have an impact on the participation of SMEs in the extents of sustainability practices, namely social, environmental and economic. The results led to the supporting of all the hypotheses postulated in the study. Thus, the major recommendation was to support the training, networking and professional affiliations of SMEs in sustainable development issues in order to ensure proliferation of sustainable development amongst these firms.

Institutional pressures and sustainability practices of manufacturing firms in Uganda

“…This shows that manufacturing firms can easily adopt SP if training programs, networks, and professional associations are supported. This is congruent with Masocha (2019)‘s research on SMEs’ normative contextual configuration in South Africa, which showed that normative factors affect SP participation. However, Sendawula et al (2021) found that Ugandan manufacturing entrepreneurial businesses' environmental sustainability was not affected by social norms and values.…”

“…Specifically, Vallance et al (2011) observed a significant impact of normative factors on the adoption of environmentally friendly practices by SMEs in the leather industry. Masocha (2019) conducted a study on the normative environmental configuration of SMEs in South Africa and found a positive relationship between normative isomorphism and SPs. To promote the proliferation of SPs among SMEs, Masocha (2019) suggested enhancing professional development, networking, and affiliations.…”

“…Masocha (2019) conducted a study on the normative environmental configuration of SMEs in South Africa and found a positive relationship between normative isomorphism and SPs. To promote the proliferation of SPs among SMEs, Masocha (2019) suggested enhancing professional development, networking, and affiliations. Additionally, Daddi et al (2021) found that both coercive and normative pressures had a positive influence on the adoption of environmental governance and operational practices, respectively.…”

Do environmental management practices mediate institutional pressures-environmental performance relationship? Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs

“…This finding is similar to prior studies on the association between normative pressure and SMEs' environmentally friendly behavior. First, [ 164 ] indicated that normative forces impact the SME’s participation in sustainability practices such as social, environmental, and economic sustainability. Second, [ 162 ] demonstrated that normative pressure drives Chinese SMEs to adopt corporate environmental responsibility practices.…”

Sustainability Practices among Manufacturing Firms in Uganda: An Overview of Challenges and Opportunities

“…Considering a vast amount of research undertaken on SPs from various jurisdictions across the globe [43][44][45][46][47], extensive opportunities exist for the uptake and implementation of SPs. In literature, institutional pressures [48][49][50]; green culture [51,52], technological infrastructure [53,45]; technological innovation [54,55,45], environmental commitment [56]; regulatory compliance [57]; Top Management support [53], energy consumption [58], Firm resources [59], organisational capabilities [60] are among the crosscutting drivers for SPs. We note that, the main challenges towards the implementation of SPs relate to; finance and cost of implementation [61]; technological infrastructure [45]; lack of awareness [61]; lack of management commitment [43]; organisational culture [62].…”