Abstract
Background: Sustainable entrepreneurship has become an essential strategy for tackling environmental deterioration, social inequity and economic instability. In Zimbabwe, where agriculture is pivotal to livelihoods, several small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) continue to employ unsustainable practices. Notwithstanding the growing worldwide focus on sustainability, context-specific sustainable entrepreneurship frameworks to guide SMMEs in resource-constrained agricultural contexts remain limited.
Aim: The objective of this study was to explore the lived experiences of sustainable agricultural SMMEs in Zimbabwe and to formulate a contextually relevant sustainable entrepreneurship framework to facilitate the incorporation of sustainability into their businesses.
Setting: The study focused on sustainable agricultural SMMEs operating in Zimbabwe.
Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was utilised. A total of 16 sustainable SMMEs were selected using purposive and snowball sampling. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and thematically analysed.
Results: The research revealed determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship, including passion, prior knowledge, networking and an innovation orientation. Entrepreneurs identified sustainability-orientated opportunities stemming from environmental issues, market transitions and technical innovations. Nonetheless, considerable obstacles were observed. A sustainable entrepreneurship framework was developed that integrates determinants, opportunity recognition, challenges, strategies and outcomes aligned with the triple bottom line.
Conclusion: The developed framework provides systematic guidance for SMMEs seeking to shift towards sustainable entrepreneurship. It improves comprehension of sustainable integration procedures in resource-limited agricultural settings and fosters resilience among entrepreneurs.
Contribution: The study presents new literature on sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship by offering an empirically grounded framework tailored to Zimbabwe’s agricultural industry.
Keywords: sustainable entrepreneurship; agricultural SMMEs; smart agriculture; sustainable agricultural knowledge; TBL.
Introduction
Background
Sustainability has become a central strategic concern for businesses responding to evolving market opportunities and heightened stakeholder expectations (Reefke & Sundaram 2017). The urgency of this shift is reinforced by global challenges such as climate change, food insecurity and global warming (Muñoz-Torres et al. 2019). Conventional economic models, which prioritise short-term returns, are increasingly recognised as unsustainable (Scarpellini 2022). Consequently, there is a rising demand for business models that integrate environmental stewardship, social inclusion and economic viability. While these pressures affect all sectors, agriculture remains particularly vulnerable (Seuring & Gold 2013), necessitating targeted approaches to sustainability. This study responds by examining how sustainability can be operationalised within the agricultural sector.
Zimbabwe’s agro-based economy underscores the sector’s importance. Although agriculture contributed only 9.3% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2024, it remains a critical source of employment and subsistence, particularly in rural areas (ZIMSTAT 2025). Recent shocks, including the 2024–2025 El Niño-induced drought, have exposed structural weaknesses in existing agricultural systems (Chigumira et al. 2025), highlighting the need for long-term transformation. Prior studies identify multiple pathways to address these challenges, including technological innovation to improve efficiency (Polas et al. 2023), social economy approaches to foster inclusive enterprises (Bae & Choi 2024) and enhanced resource management to reduce environmental impact (Coulibaly 2024; Li et al. 2023). Collectively, these approaches align with the principles of sustainable entrepreneurship.
A growing body of literature supports the integration of sustainability into agricultural entrepreneurship. Hasan et al. (2025) emphasise knowledge-based, sustainable entrepreneurship, while Lang et al. (2023) highlight the role of social capital in enabling such transitions. Daou and Abdallah (2025) further demonstrate how sustainable entrepreneurship frameworks can mitigate macroeconomic shocks. Despite these advances, empirical research, particularly within resource-constrained agricultural contexts, remains limited.
Global environmental pressures, including climate change and biodiversity loss, pose significant challenges for businesses (Bărbulescu et al. 2021), with disproportionate impacts on smaller and younger firms. In Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector, small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) face acute constraints, compounded by limited access to knowledge and support structures. Organised support systems are therefore critical in facilitating the adoption of sustainable entrepreneurship. Addressing this gap, this study develops a practical, context-specific framework to support SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector.
Research problem and question
Industrial and technological advancement has not only driven economic growth but has also contributed to resource depletion, environmental degradation and social inequality. Historically, economic systems prioritised short-term profitability, often at the expense of ecological and social sustainability. Today, increasing resource scarcity, population growth and evolving consumption patterns are intensifying these pressures, resulting in fragile and demand-driven systems.
Rising environmental threats – including climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – have accelerated interest in sustainable entrepreneurship (Tariq & Shahzad 2024). Concurrently, growing consumer awareness is shifting demand towards sustainable products and services (Glavič 2021), positioning sustainability as a competitive imperative. Governments, businesses and civil society increasingly recognise that long-term prosperity depends on balancing economic growth with environmental protection and social equity.
Despite this shift, many SMMEs remain slow to adopt sustainable practices, largely because of knowledge deficits (Demirel & Danisman 2019). Evidence from Zimbabwe indicates that approximately 25% of SMMEs lack the technical knowledge required to implement sustainability (Adadzi 2025; Mugoni, Kanyepe & Tukuta 2024). Even where awareness exists, practical implementation is constrained by limited expertise and guidance (Muzondo, Mashapure & Masiiwa 2025). Compounding this challenge is the absence of contextually relevant frameworks to guide adoption.
Accordingly, this study seeks to address this gap by developing a sustainable entrepreneurship framework tailored to SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. The framework is designed to facilitate the integration of sustainability into business practices through knowledge transfer, consultancy and the promotion of best practices.
The central research question guiding the study is:
What contextually grounded framework can be developed to enhance the adoption and practice of sustainable entrepreneurship among SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector?
Literature review
Sustainable entrepreneurship
Sustainable entrepreneurship integrates a stronger social mission into its business model. This has a positive impact on community and societal development (Farinha, Ferreira & Nunes 2017; Ratten, Dana & Ramadani 2019). Integrative sustainable entrepreneurship is the most constructive way to align society’s economic, social and environmental issues (Tilley & Young 2009) and to tackle resource challenges (Leal Filho et al. 2016).
The last decade has seen scholars seeking to link the traditional concept of entrepreneurship to society and the environment, a linkage described as sustainable entrepreneurship (Terán-Yépez et al. 2020). The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship, however, has been defined in many ways. Sustainable entrepreneurship is defined as a phenomenon that creates new perspectives with the potential to create positive impacts on the environmental, social and economic value(s) to benefit the welfare of future generations (Muñoz & Cohen 2018). An entrepreneur with an entrepreneurial orientation towards the sustainability of nature, life support systems and community is on the lookout for opportunities to develop future profitable products, processes and services (Shepherd & Patzelt 2011).
Sustainable entrepreneurship is fundamentally about striving for a balance that preserves the natural and societal ecosystems while ensuring the progress required for individuals, society and the economy as a whole (Sarma, Attaran & Attaran 2022). Rodrigues et al. (2023) added that sustainable entrepreneurship is a radical new business model that goes beyond the traditional frameworks of profit maximisation, incorporating a full-fledged philosophy of environmentalism, social responsibility and governance. Therefore, sustainable entrepreneurship represents a long-term commitment to creating positive impacts that extend beyond economic value to encompass environmental, social and sustainable justice, as well as lasting sustainability (Dyck et al. 2023; Sreenivasan 2024).
While these definitions highlight the multidimensional nature of sustainable entrepreneurship, the literature remains conceptually fragmented. Scholars emphasise opportunity recognition, innovation and value creation, often without clearly articulating how economic, social and environmental objectives are prioritised or balanced in practice. This lack of conceptual clarity creates challenges in distinguishing sustainable entrepreneurship from related constructs such as sustainability and sustainable agriculture. In this study, sustainability is understood as a broad normative framework concerned with balancing environmental integrity, social equity and economic viability. Sustainable agriculture applies these principles specifically to agricultural production systems, focusing on ecological resilience and food security. In contrast, sustainable entrepreneurship emphasises the role of entrepreneurs in identifying and exploiting opportunities that generate integrated economic, social and environmental value. This distinction is important, as it positions entrepreneurship as an agent-driven and innovation-orientated process within sustainability transitions.
The approach is built on the essential principles that guide entrepreneurial activities towards achieving the triple bottom line (TBL). The principles include the following: Environmental responsibility; sustainable entrepreneurs accept the limited number of resources available on planet Earth and the importance of reducing environmental deterioration (Veleva 2021). They promote sustainability, better use of resources, less waste and a positive impact on the environment by conserving resources. Social equity: sustainable entrepreneurship is inclusive and aims to bring in disadvantaged stakeholders, employees and descendants (Esteves et al. 2021). Economic viability: while sustainability is an important compass, sustainable entrepreneurs consider the need for economic viability to achieve a sustainable impact in the long run (Rosário, Raimundo & Cruz 2022). However, the literature presents an inherent tension regarding the role of entrepreneurship in sustainability. While some studies position entrepreneurship as a catalyst for environmental innovation and social value creation, others highlight its potential to intensify resource use and environmental degradation. This suggests that entrepreneurship is not inherently sustainable; rather, its outcomes depend on the orientation, capabilities and contextual constraints faced by entrepreneurs.
Sustainable entrepreneurship in agriculture
A combination of factors poses a risk to the agricultural industry’s ability to meet demands from present users as well as users in the future: the challenge of balancing natural resources against food needs (Kharel, Dahal & Raut 2022; Sonderegger et al. 2022; Thakur, Wang & Verma 2022); the systematic depletion and pollution of water resources, with demand growing globally by 1% each year (Zhang & Oki 2023); the phenomenon of poverty and the shrinking of the population in rural areas (Velten et al. 2015); and supply-side shocks, including the availability and the cost of labour, have negative impact on the total cost of production and distribution (Martey et al. 2022). This will certainly harm the ecosystem and negatively affect the economy, making the challenge of agricultural sustainability more urgent (Xu et al. 2022).
In recent decades, many scholars have focused on analysing sustainable entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector. Syan et al. (2019) and Diallo and Wouterse (2023) considered the problem of food and its shortage against the backdrop of slow agricultural growth. From a food security perspective, Kharel et al. (2022) and Tamasiga et al. (2023) focused on this issue. Sonderegger et al. (2022) and Mirzabaev, Strokov and Krasilnikov (2023) focused on the problem from the perspective of agricultural land use. Despite the growing body of literature on sustainable entrepreneurship in agriculture, existing research is heavily concentrated in developed and emerging economies outside Africa. This creates a contextual blind spot, as institutional constraints such as resource scarcity and market informality, which are key characteristics of many African economies, fundamentally shape how sustainability-orientated entrepreneurship is practiced. Consequently, insights from other regions may not be directly transferable to contexts such as Zimbabwe.
Innovative entrepreneurs in the agricultural subsector can help develop new, sustainable strategies to reduce agriculture’s negative environmental impacts. Entrepreneurs who engage in creative entrepreneurship are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, such as conservation tillage, which reduces soil erosion and improves soil quality (Tohidyan Far & Rezaei-Moghaddam 2019). Plus, the innovative entrepreneurship of SMMEs can foster the development of environmentally friendly technologies and new green products, thereby reducing the agricultural sector’s negative environmental impact and stimulating green economic development (He 2022). Jia (2020) recognised the role of sustainable enterprises in supporting green economic development in rural areas. On the other hand, unsuccessful creative entrepreneurship may impede green development. This duality highlights a critical gap in the literature: while sustainable entrepreneurship is often normatively framed as beneficial, there is limited empirical understanding of how entrepreneurs navigate the trade-offs between economic survival and environmental responsibility, particularly in resource-constrained agricultural systems.
In addition, they may employ inefficient and harmful practices, including the use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers, which can lead to soil degradation, water pollution and decreased biodiversity (Rametse & Shah 2012). Kremen et al. (2007) support this viewpoint concerning the decline of biodiversity and beneficial organisms. The side effects provide a basis for endorsing sustainability while addressing entrepreneurial concerns in the agricultural sector.
Sustainability is now a key focus in all sectors of the economy, and the same is true for agriculture. Sustainable agriculture can take two forms (Bowfin et al. 2004). One of the approaches argues that agriculture needs to be sustainably carried out in the long run and that the productive resources of the system have to be self-maintained (i.e. the system needs to have mechanisms for the preservation of soil, protection of the groundwater, and use of renewable sources of energy, and the agricultural systems have to be adjusted to the prevailing climate). In addition, agricultural systems have to be self-sustaining in the long run. The other approach argues that agriculture should also contribute to the sustainability of the wider regional and societal systems. For instance, the agricultural system should address waste disposal in metropolitan areas and provide means to recycle sewage sludge from cities (Lichtfouse et al. 2009). This approach captures the broader focus on sustainability and aligns with Schaltegger and Wagner (2011), who found that, in the past, entrepreneurs were primarily perceived as creating economic value. In the case of sustainable entrepreneurship, economic value is a means to an end: an improvement in social and ecological systems.
Sustainable entrepreneurship by small, medium and micro-enterprises
Small, micro and medium enterprises are essential to the economy by enhancing rural development, agricultural innovation and technology, resource management and food security (Wu & Li 2023; Zhang, Qu & Zhan 2023). As the agricultural industry, the backbone of society, shifts from conventional to modern practices, the role of SMMEs becomes increasingly critical. This transition underscores the importance of sustainable agriculture for the economy (David et al. 2022; Ngah et al. 2024). Despite their recognised importance, SMMEs face significant structural constraints in adopting sustainable practices, including limited access to finance, technology and institutional support. This creates a paradox in the literature: SMMEs are expected to act as drivers of sustainability transitions, yet often lack the resources and capabilities required to implement sustainability-orientated innovations fully.
Implementing sustainable practices fosters entrepreneurial innovation by developing a sustained, collaborative and adaptive culture. Traditional business models are inherently inefficient. They are typically single-use and resource-heavy and, as a consequence, environmentally damaging, socially inequitable and economically ineffective (Gu & Zheng 2021). In response to these traditional practices, entrepreneurial sustainable innovation (ESI) created value by re-engineering the entire value chain to include resource preservation, waste minimisation and social accountability. Sustainable practices, including eco-design, life cycle assessment and stakeholder engagement, motivate entrepreneurs to re-evaluate conventional methods of product development, manufacturing and marketing.
The value derived from the re-evaluation yields innovative, profitable products, services and business models that are environmentally sustainable, socially equitable and economically viable (Baldassarre et al. 2020). Sustainability challenges create a fertile ground for entrepreneurs to develop new, innovative and disruptive solutions that spur technological advancements, innovative processes and disruptive markets. By engaging in sustainable practices in business endeavours, entrepreneurs reduce their environmental footprint and expand their social footprint while creating multiple opportunities for growth, differentiation and competitive advantage in an ever-changing market landscape.
The influence of size may determine the approach towards entrepreneurship and, consequently, sustainable entrepreneurship (Sarma et al. 2022). For instance, larger companies in sustainable entrepreneurship can leverage their resource advantages, including financial and human capital, to undertake sustainability efforts on a larger scale and with greater financial capacity (Laasch 2018). Conversely, the innovation and adaptability of SMMEs in adopting sustainability-orientated practices and technologies can be considerable, as is their rapid adaptability to changing market conditions.
The nature of the industry, the firm’s organisational structure (Marimuthu, Arokiasamy & Ismail 2009), the market situation (Johnson & Schaltegger 2020), the geographical position of the firm (Ascani et al. 2020) and the commitment of management (Muñoz & Cohen 2018) influence how the firm formulates strategy in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Triple bottom line
The TBL framework guides the study. The literature currently presents three perspectives on sustainable entrepreneurship, focusing on the conceptualisation of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Farny 2016; Lis & Ptak 2022). The dominant perspective is the incorporation of the TBL model into sustainable entrepreneurship, which integrates the economic, social and environmental dimensions and is widely used in entrepreneurship studies (Koe, Omar & Sa’ari 2015). Although the TBL framework is widely adopted, it has been criticised for assuming that economic, social and environmental objectives can be simultaneously achieved without trade-offs. In practice, entrepreneurs, particularly in developing economies, often face difficult prioritisation decisions, where short-term economic survival may take precedence over longer-term environmental and social goals. In addition, TBL highlights that balancing the environmental, social and economic needs of stakeholders has become important for most business stakeholders (Elkington 2018). On the other hand, another perspective considers sustainable entrepreneurship a singular concept in which businesses are orientated towards economic, social and environmental goals (Heikkurinen et al. 2019; Muñoz & Dimov 2015). Sustainable entrepreneurship pioneers a radical departure from traditional business models that emphasise profit maximisation. It transcends the retrograde model by integrating environmental, social and governance concerns (Dyck et al. 2023). It comprises a commitment to values, interests and concerns beyond financial metrics: preserving the planet, social responsibility and sustaining enduring interests (Sreenivasan 2024). It is a precursor and cornerstone to the key fundamental principles that steer entrepreneurship towards achieving a TBL: social equity, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. These principles include:
Environmental Responsibility: Sustainable entrepreneurs understand that the planet’s resources are limited. There is an urgent imperative to help mitigate the increasing gravity of the world’s environmental crisis (Veleva 2021). They develop and promote sustainability, resource efficiency and reduced pollution to diminish their environmental impact and preserve the environment.
Sustainable entrepreneurship is pioneering and radically inclusive. It strives to create and promote opportunities for all, including those typically marginalised; the workforce; and, socially, the generations yet to come (Esteves et al. 2021). Entrepreneurs underpin social equity and socially inclusive community engagement. They advocate for the community’s empowerment and resilience.
Economic Viability: Sustaining businesses requires understanding economic viability to achieve long-term impact (Rosário et al. 2022). Sustainable entrepreneurs develop new business models, harness new market opportunities and create new revenue streams, all while focusing on profit and advancing sustainable development goals.
While prior studies have significantly advanced the understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship, their focus has largely remained conceptual and normative. Foundational contributions emphasise opportunity recognition and value creation across economic, social and environmental domains, while the TBL framework provides a broad integrative lens. However, these approaches often assume that sustainability objectives can be simultaneously achieved, with limited attention to the practical trade-offs, contextual constraints and decision-making processes faced by entrepreneurs, particularly within resource-constrained environments. Moreover, existing frameworks are predominantly developed in contexts characterised by stronger institutional support, thereby overlooking how sustainable entrepreneurship is operationalised in settings marked by informality, limited resources and institutional gaps.
Consequently, several critical gaps remain. Firstly, there is limited conceptual clarity regarding the distinction and interaction between sustainability, sustainable agriculture and sustainable entrepreneurship. Secondly, existing studies insufficiently account for the contextual realities of African agricultural systems, particularly in Zimbabwe. Thirdly, there is a lack of empirical insight into how SMMEs navigate the tensions and trade-offs inherent in pursuing triple-bottom-line objectives.
This study addresses these limitations by developing a contextually grounded framework that moves beyond normative assumptions to capture the lived realities, constraints and adaptive strategies of sustainable entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. In doing so, it offers a practice-orientated perspective that both complements and extends existing sustainable entrepreneurship theory.
Research methods and design
In this study, a qualitative descriptive method was used. Qualitative descriptive, first described by Sandelowski (2000), is a method that provides a detailed account of particular events or phenomena. It describes the ‘who, what and where’ of events without heavy theorisation or recontextualisation (Neergaard et al. 2009). Qualitative descriptive research is data-driven and focuses on participants’ unmediated experiences (Neergaard et al. 2009; Sandelowski 2010). The qualitative descriptive approach is based on naturalistic inquiry and focuses on studying phenomena in their real-world contexts without prior selection or manipulation of study variables (Bradshaw, Atkinson & Doody 2017; Sandelowski 2000). It allows methodological freedom, enabling researchers to choose from a variety of theoretical perspectives, sampling strategies and data collection techniques (Hall & Leibenberg 2024). This is a perfect fit for the study’s aim of examining the experiences of SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector.
Study population and sampling
The researcher used four selection criteria, including purposive and snowball sampling. At first, a web-based inquiry of institutions that support and reward sustainable businesses in Zimbabwe was conducted. Of the several business websites evaluated, the researcher determined that Green Enterprize was the most appropriate choice, as it supports and awards sustainable entrepreneurs nationwide across all industries. The researcher contacted Green Enterprize to obtain the details of the top winners and two runners-up from the agricultural sector. The researcher sent an email to the Green Enterprize with a research request from the NWU Business School Scientific Committee to legitimise the process. The interview guide was also sent to them to familiarise them with the questions that would be posed to the winners. Green Enterprize approved the request and, with the participants’ consent, provided the researcher with their details. The researcher then used snowball sampling to expand the sample of three sustainable enterprises until data saturation was reached. The sampling strategy was guided by the need to select information-rich cases that could provide deep insights into sustainable entrepreneurship practices. Purposive sampling was therefore appropriate, as it enabled the deliberate selection of participants who had demonstrable experience in sustainability-orientated agricultural enterprises. The inclusion of award-winning entrepreneurs ensured that participants had a proven track record in implementing sustainable practices, thereby strengthening the relevance and quality of the data.
Snowball sampling complemented this approach by allowing access to additional participants within the same entrepreneurial networks, particularly in a context where sustainable agricultural SMMEs are not easily identifiable through formal databases. This combination enhanced both the depth and diversity of the sample.
The researcher has shown compliance with the POPI Act regarding potential participants’ contact details by meeting minimum criteria that demonstrate accountability and ensure that the contact details are used only for lawful and permitted research purposes (POPIA 2013). The researcher kept to the set inclusion and exclusion criteria. An SMME is included in the study if it is a registered entity, engages in sustainable entrepreneurship, and has been operational and successful for at least 2 years (Chitaka 2024). The participants’ profiles are shown in Table 1.
| TABLE 1: Research participants’ profiles. |
Establishing an adequate sample size is important to ensure the validity and reliability of findings in qualitative research (Neuman 2014). In qualitative research, the decision about sample size is often guided by the concept of data saturation, in which researchers aim to collect data until no new information or insights emerge (Hennink & Kaiser 2022). The aim is to provide a sufficiently diverse and representative group of participants to explore different dimensions of the research question(s). The study reached saturation at 16 participants.
Data collection
The study employed semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. This approach enables an in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives, experiences and practices, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to probe emerging themes (Wahyuni 2012). The semi-structured format facilitated interactive engagement between the researcher and participants, allowing for the identification of unanticipated issues relevant to the research problem.
Participants were contacted in advance to schedule interviews and to obtain informed consent. They were provided with detailed information regarding the study’s objectives and procedures, and the interview guide was shared beforehand to support adequate preparation. The majority of interviews were conducted face-to-face at participants’ workplaces, with durations ranging from approximately 50 to 90 min. Prior to each interview, consent for audio recording was obtained. To ensure confidentiality, participants’ identities were anonymised through the use of coded identifiers rather than personal names.
All interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. To enhance data accuracy and credibility, transcripts were returned to participants for verification (member checking), allowing them to confirm the completeness and correctness of the recorded information. Data analysis commenced only after participant validation and followed the thematic analytical procedures outlined next.
To strengthen the reliability of the findings, interview data were triangulated with observational insights and document analysis. Before the interviews, the researcher reviewed both online and physical materials, including websites, brochures and relevant organisational documents. In addition, site visits enabled direct observation of participants’ operations. During the interviews, participants guided the researcher through their activities, allowing for real-time verification of responses and clarification of any inconsistencies between reported practices and observed evidence.
Analysing the data
The researcher analysed the data using thematic analysis, following the six-step approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006; 2024). The analysis adopted a primarily inductive approach, allowing themes to emerge from the data rather than being imposed a priori. However, the TBL framework and sustainable entrepreneurship literature informed the researcher’s sensitising perspective, particularly in recognising economic, social and environmental dimensions, without constraining the coding process.
The coding process was conducted manually to enable close engagement with the data. Initial codes were generated through a systematic, line-by-line reading of interview transcripts, capturing meaningful units relevant to the research questions. This marked the transition from familiarisation to structured analysis. Coding was iterative and recursive, with codes continuously refined, merged or discarded as new insights emerged. A coding framework (codebook) was developed and updated to ensure consistency and transparency.
To enhance analytical rigour and minimise subjectivity associated with solo coding, several strategies were employed. The researcher maintained a detailed audit trail documenting coding decisions, theme development and analytical reflections. In addition, peer debriefing with academic supervisors was conducted to review emerging codes and themes, challenge interpretations and ensure consistency across the dataset.
Stage one involved familiarisation with the data, where the researcher engaged extensively with transcripts to understand their breadth, depth and patterns. This included repeated reading and verification against audio recordings to ensure accuracy (Braun & Clarke 2024).
Stage two involved generating initial codes, where relevant data segments were systematically identified and labelled, ensuring balanced coding without over- or under-coding.
In stage three, codes were grouped into broader categories, leading to the development of initial themes. This process involved identifying patterns, relationships and distinctions among codes and aligning them with the research questions (Braun & Clarke 2006). Theme development extended beyond grouping codes to critically examining relationships, contradictions and underlying meanings to ensure analytical depth.
Stage four focused on reviewing and refining themes. Themes were assessed against criteria of internal coherence, consistency and distinctiveness, ensuring each theme captured a meaningful aspect of the data while remaining clearly differentiated. Cross-case comparisons were conducted to confirm representativeness across participants.
Stage five involved defining and naming themes, refining their scope to ensure clarity and alignment with the study’s objectives while addressing overlaps and ambiguities (Braun & Clarke 2006).
Throughout the analysis, the researcher actively searched for negative or deviant cases that contradicted emerging patterns. These were examined and incorporated to enhance the credibility and depth of the findings.
The final stage involved producing a coherent and structured report. Themes were presented in a clear narrative, supported by data extracts and linked to the research questions. This ensured that the analysis not only described patterns but also generated meaningful insights into sustainable entrepreneurship practices among SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector (Christou 2022).
Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, trustworthiness is critical to establishing the authenticity and reliability of outcomes. Trustworthiness is typically assessed using four criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba 1985). The researchers used document analysis and observation to establish the credibility of their findings (Morse et al. 2002). To strengthen the transferability of their studies, researchers documented the details of the research phenomena, participants and methodology. Dependability is another component of trust of findings in qualitative research (Morse et al. 2002). To enhance reliability, the researcher sent the study’s findings to participants to confirm the data and its interpretation, along with descriptions of how they were collected.
In qualitative research, trustworthiness is critical to establishing the credibility and rigour of findings and is assessed through credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Morse et al. 2002).
Credibility was enhanced through prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of data sources (interviews, observations and document analysis) and member checking, where participants verified interview transcripts and interpretations.
Transferability was supported through the provision of thick descriptions of the research context, participants and processes, enabling readers to assess the applicability of findings to other settings.
Dependability was ensured by maintaining a clear audit trail documenting all stages of the research process, including data collection, coding decisions and theme development.
Confirmability was achieved by grounding findings in participants’ narratives and maintaining transparency in the analytical process, thereby minimising researcher bias.
Researcher reflexivity
Researcher reflexivity is essential in qualitative research, as the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. The researcher acknowledged their potential influence on the research process, including personal assumptions, prior knowledge and interpretations of sustainable entrepreneurship.
To mitigate bias, the researcher engaged in continuous self-reflection throughout the study, critically examining how their perspectives may shape data interpretation. Field notes and reflective memos were maintained during data collection and analysis to document emerging thoughts, decisions and potential biases.
In addition, the use of verbatim quotations and participant validation helped to ensure that the findings remained grounded in participants’ lived experiences rather than the researcher’s preconceptions.
Ethical considerations
This study followed the rules for qualitative research ethics, and ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the North-West University and Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. NWU-01897-22-A4).
All participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose, voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Written informed consent was obtained before the interviews, including consent to audio-record sessions. To protect confidentiality and anonymity, participants’ identities and company names were replaced with pseudonyms (P1-P16) in transcripts and reports.
Data security was ensured in accordance with POPIA and university guidelines. All electronic data were stored on encrypted, password-protected devices, while physical documents were kept in a locked drawer accessible only to the researcher. A detailed audit trail was maintained to track consent, data collection, transcription and analysis procedures. After the predetermined retention period, all data will be securely disposed of.
By integrating these measures, the study ensures ethical rigour, participant privacy and responsible handling of personal and sensitive data in line with both institutional and legal standards.
This study aimed to develop a framework for sustainable entrepreneurship among SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. The framework presented in Figure 1 was derived from the collected data and outlines the determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship, opportunities, entrepreneurial activities, challenges, strategies, recommendations and resulting outcomes.
 |
FIGURE 1: Sustainable entrepreneurship framework. |
|
Determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship
The first part of the interview guide explored the determinants that motivated participants to pursue sustainable entrepreneurship. Key factors identified included passion, motivation, innovativeness, a drive for change, policy, networking and the desire to make an impact. Unlike Yadav, Gupta and Rawat (2018), who emphasised government regulation, legislation and knowledge flow as primary drivers, respondents to this study highlighted passion as the dominant motivating force.
For example, P4 indicated entering sustainable agriculture because of a strong personal passion, while P14 noted that passion helped overcome entrepreneurial challenges:
‘It is a combination of leadership skills and strong networks. You cannot work without any of these, and in my case, the passion takes the highest drive.’ (P14)
‘Agriculture has always been my passion. Getting into business challenges our resilience, seriousness, planning, and skills, so it is easy to give up without passion.’ (P4)
Beyond passion, participants identified attributes such as perseverance, hard work, risk-taking and courage as essential. P2 highlighted the importance of courage and dedication:
‘It takes a lot of courage to run a successful enterprise … if it weren’t for the dedication I have for our work, we would have stopped a long time ago.’ (P2)
Similarly, P12 emphasised determination in overcoming repeated business failures.
Networking also emerged as a key determinant, supporting Gray et al. (2014), who identify it as a crucial motivator for SMMEs. Participants observed that strong networks enhance both creativity and business growth. As P2 explained:
‘The ability to network and creativity contributed a lot to what we are at the moment.’ (P2)
In addition, respondents were motivated by a desire to address social and environmental challenges. Participants such as P1, P11 and P16 highlighted job creation and community impact as key drivers:
‘Business and job creation have always been my passion … I thought of creating jobs for the underprivileged, in particular, women.’ (P16)
This aligns with Choongo et al. (2017), who argue that SMME owners engaged in sustainable entrepreneurship are often driven by altruistic motives, including social responsibility and environmental stewardship.
Overall, the findings indicate that sustainable entrepreneurship among SMMEs is driven by a combination of personal values, social motivations and strategic capabilities. As reflected in the framework, these determinants form the entry point into sustainable entrepreneurial activity.
The framework presented in Figure 1 was derived from the collected data and outlines the determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship, opportunities, entrepreneurial activities, challenges, strategies, recommendations and resulting outcomes. The key findings across all framework components are summarised in Table 2.
| TABLE 2: Synthesis of participants’ findings on sustainable entrepreneurship among small, medium and micro-enterprises. |
Opportunity recognition
The literature suggests that sustainable opportunity recognition is shaped by internal factors such as resilience, prior knowledge and motivation (Shepherd & Patzelt 2011). In this study, P1, P4 and P8 leveraged prior knowledge from personal and work experience, parental businesses, formal education and online courses to identify sustainable opportunities:
‘I had the chance to go to Thailand … my thesis was on waste-to-energy. When I returned home, I focused on energy systems from agricultural waste.’ (P4)
‘I discovered hydroponics by following people from Indonesia and China on social media.’ (P1)
Environmental market failures also provided opportunities (Dean & McMullen 2007). For example, P4 identified waste management gaps through prior policy work:
‘I saw challenges with waste management and thought institutions would value practical solutions.’ (P4)
Participants identified opportunities based on environmental threats or social concerns. P2 addressed greenhouse gas reduction, while P9 helped local farmers reduce costs. Market shifts, such as growing demand for organic foods, also shaped opportunities (P12):
‘The growing demand for organic foods is an opportunity we are exploiting.’ (P12)
Small, medium and micro-enterprises can often identify these sustainable opportunities within their immediate environment.
Challenges
Participants reported several obstacles to achieving sustainability. Access to finance was a major challenge, often addressed through bootstrapping. P1 used wedding donations and P2 personal savings, while P9 benefited from scholarships and awards. Financial institutions perceive sustainable startups as high-risk, aligning with Shepherd and Patzelt (2011):
‘Banks hesitate to finance embryonic sustainable business ideas.’ (P5)
Limited know-how and institutional barriers, such as bureaucratic red tape and lack of sustainability information, further constrain SMMEs (Hoogendoorn, Van der Zwan & Thurik 2019). Zimbabwe’s economic environment, including volatile exchange rates and low consumer incomes, also impedes operations (P12):
‘Economic challenges … we buy in USD and sell locally; microgreens are considered a luxury.’ (P12)
Sustainability integration requires strategic vision, collaboration and innovation, as trade-offs between economic viability and sustainability objectives can discourage entrepreneurs (Ayandibu 2024; Weigand et al. 2014). Despite these challenges, they also create opportunities for innovative solutions.
Strategies
Successful sustainable entrepreneurs provide lessons for practice. Key strategies include stakeholder engagement, capacity building, future-orientated thinking and embedding sustainability as a core business value. P4 and P13 emphasised supportive policy frameworks and financial incentives:
‘Policies must foster and support sustainable entrepreneurship.’ (P4)
‘More encouragement and incentives for organic farming are needed.’ (P13)
Sustainability education is also crucial. Participants (P4, P6, P10) advocated integrating sustainability in schools to develop socially responsible future entrepreneurs. Financial support remains critical, particularly for projects stuck at the idea stage (P5, P6, P14).
Creating markets for sustainable products, including international opportunities, was highlighted by participants (P6, P11, P12). Awareness campaigns through workshops, media and schools can educate consumers, influence purchasing behaviour and strengthen the sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystem (Cong Doanh, Gadomska-Lila & Thi Loan 2021; Kaplan & Haenlein 2010; Klewitz & Hansen 2014):
‘Awareness can be done in workshops, media, and schools … catching them young ensures long-term impact.’ (P6)
Recommendations
To advance sustainable entrepreneurship in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector, the study identifies several priorities. Firstly, expanded investment in entrepreneurship education and capacity building is essential to equip entrepreneurs with the skills, knowledge and tools required to establish and scale sustainable ventures. Beyond formal training, mentorship, networking, access to finance and the development of incubators and accelerators are critical enablers. Participants also emphasised the need to mainstream sustainability education and public awareness initiatives.
Secondly, policymakers should reduce entry barriers and strengthen institutional support through targeted regulations, incentives and legal frameworks. Measures such as tax incentives, expedited permitting and subsidies for sustainable innovation would enhance entrepreneurial uptake. Improved market access and policy support for SMMEs are equally necessary to prevent the loss of viable innovations because of financial and structural constraints.
Thirdly, sustainable entrepreneurship requires strategic leadership at the firm level. Entrepreneurs must embed sustainability within organisational strategy, operations, and supply chains, set measurable goals, and engage stakeholders transparently. Leading by example can reconcile profitability with environmental stewardship while strengthening customer trust and long-term competitiveness.
Participants further advised SMMEs to pursue sustainable pathways, comply with regulatory frameworks, adopt structured planning and avoid environmentally harmful practices. Collaboration, peer learning and benchmarking against successful ventures were identified as mechanisms to accelerate capability development. Collectively, SMMEs are positioned as custodians of environmental sustainability.
At the societal level, sustainability must be normalised through media, education and consumption patterns. As the primary market, society plays a decisive role by supporting sustainable products and services. Financial institutions should complement these efforts by offering tailored instruments, including phased or prototype-based funding models, to mitigate risk.
Finally, multi-stakeholder collaboration-across government, academia, industry and civil society is essential to amplify impact. Integrating sustainability into educational curricula and fostering university-industry partnerships can build early-stage competencies and promote transdisciplinary engagement. Overall, the recommendations underscore that sustainable entrepreneurship is a shared responsibility spanning institutional, organisational and societal domains.
Sustainable entrepreneurship outcomes
The impacts of sustainable innovation are multifaceted, spanning economic, environmental and social dimensions. Economically, sustainable innovation stimulates growth through job creation and the emergence of new sectors, particularly within green and clean technologies, while enhancing firm resilience and competitiveness by reducing exposure to resource, regulatory and reputational risks.
Environmentally, sustainable business models contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, resource conservation and ecosystem protection. Empirical examples from the study, such as plant-based production and hydroponic farming, illustrate tangible efforts to mitigate the environmental footprint of agriculture.
Socially, sustainable entrepreneurship promotes inclusion, empowerment and poverty alleviation by expanding opportunities for marginalised groups, supporting fair labour practices and improving access to essential services. These outcomes highlight the sector’s broader developmental significance.
The study’s central objective is to develop a practical framework to support SMMEs in transitioning towards sustainable entrepreneurship. This framework reflects the triple value proposition: economic, social and ecological and positions sustainable entrepreneurship as integral to societal functioning, livelihood creation and environmental stewardship. Ultimately, it reinforces the role of innovation and entrepreneurship in securing long-term sustainability.
Contributions and directions for future research
This study contributes a contextually grounded framework based on participants’ lived experiences, enabling a deeper understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship adoption among SMMEs in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. The findings reveal strong potential and a positive orientation towards sustainability, reinforcing the broader transition towards sustainable economic systems.
The research also highlights the importance of awareness, education and motivation in fostering innovative, risk-orientated agribusinesses that generate sustainable value. By addressing knowledge gaps in sustainability, the study provides a foundation for strengthening entrepreneurial capability and aligning economic objectives with environmental priorities.
However, the study is context-specific and based on a limited qualitative sample, which constrains generalisability. Future research should extend to other sectors, such as energy, and adopt quantitative or mixed-method approaches to capture broader perspectives. Comparative studies across Southern Africa would further enhance understanding of regional sustainability challenges and opportunities.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that SMMEs engage in sustainable entrepreneurship because of factors including prior knowledge, stakeholder support, altruism, networking, training, regulatory conditions and external pressures. These drivers shape opportunity recognition and utilisation, while persistent challenges, such as resource constraints, economic instability and limited support, continue to hinder progress.
The proposed framework enhances resilience by equipping SMMEs with strategies to address these constraints and by establishing a benchmark for achieving economic, social and environmental outcomes. It also provides a reference point for policymakers, educators and practitioners seeking to advance sustainable entrepreneurship.
Strengthening partnerships, embedding sustainability in education and practice, and increasing investment in research and capacity development are critical next steps. A sustained commitment to these priorities will enable businesses to drive innovation, create shared value, and contribute to a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly enhanced the article. This article includes parts of the author, Tatenda Chitaka’s, PhD dissertation titled, ‘Developing a Framework for Sustainable Entrepreneurship for Small, Medium, and Micro-Enterprises in the Agricultural Sector in Zimbabwe, Doctor of Philosophy in Economic and Management Sciences with Business Administration at NWU Business School, North-West University, South Africa, under the supervision of Professor Stephan Van der Merwe’, conferred on 30 April 2024.
This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Tatenda Chitaka’s doctoral thesis titled, ‘Developing a framework for sustainable entrepreneurship for small, medium and micro- enterprises in the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe’, submitted to the Economic and Management Science department, North-West University in 2023. The thesis was supervised by Stephan P. van der Merwe. Portions of the data, analysis, and/or discussion have been revised, updated, and adapted for journal publication. The original thesis is publicly available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10394/42549. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.
Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Tatenda Chitaka: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualisation, Writing-original draft, Writing – review and editing. Stephan van der Merwe: Supervision. Jan C. Visagie: Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Tatenda Chitaka, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Ascani, A., Bettarelli, L., Resmini, L. & Balland, P.A., 2020, ‘Global networks, local specialisation and regional patterns of innovation’, Research Policy 49(8), 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104031
Ayandibu, A.O., 2024, ‘A literature review on sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship: Encouraging positive change in a dynamic world’, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 13(9), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v13i9.3767
Bae, B. & Choi, S., 2024, ‘The effect of collaborative governance in social startups on social performance: The mediating effect of economic performance’, Journal of Open Innovation and Technology 10(3), 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100370
Baldassarre, B., Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C., Bocken, N. & Calabretta, G., 2020, ‘Implementing sustainable design theory in business practice: A call to action’, Journal of Cleaner Production 273, 123113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123113
Bărbulescu, O., Tecău, A.S., Munteanu, D. & Constantin, C.P., 2021, ‘Innovation of startups, the key to unlocking post-crisis sustainable growth in Romanian entrepreneurial ecosystem’, Sustainability 13(2), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020671
Bradshaw, C., Atkinson, S. & Doody, O., 2017, ‘Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research’, Global Qualitative Nursing Research 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Christou, P.A., 2022, ‘How to use thematic analysis in qualitative research’, Journal of Qualitative Research in Tourism 3(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.4337/jqrt.2023.0006
Chigumira, E., De Waal, D.R., Steenbergen, V., Sharma, D. & Singh, K., 2025, Zimbabwe Economic Update 2024: Improving Resilience to Weather Shocks and Climate Change, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, viewed n.d., from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099013025065013130.
Chitaka, T., 2024, ‘Developing a framework for sustainable entrepreneurship for small, medium and micro- enterprises in the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe’, PhD thesis, North-West University.
Choongo, P., 2017, ‘A longitudinal study of the impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance in SMEs in Zambia’, Sustainability 9(8), 1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081300
Cong Doanh, D., Gadomska-Lila, K. & Thi Loan, L., 2021, ‘Antecedents of green purchase intention: Cross-cultural empirical evidence from Vietnam and Poland’, Oeconomia Copernicana 12(4), 935–971. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.031
Coulibaly, Y., 2024, ‘Resource-backed loans and ecological efficiency of human development: Evidence from African countries’, Ecological Economics 224(10), 108295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108295
Daou, A. & Abdallah, C., 2025, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship in times of crisis: A multi-level framework’, Management Sustainability: An Arab Review 5(2), 399–426.
David, L.H., Pinho, S.M., Agostinho, F., Costa, J.I., Portella, M.C., Keesman, K.J. et al., 2022, ‘Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: An energy point of view’, Journal of Cleaner Production 331, 129–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129896
Dean, T.J. & McMullen, J.S., 2007, ‘Towards a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing 22(1), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003
Demirel, P. & Danisman, G.O., 2019, ‘Eco-innovation and firm growth in the circular economy: Evidence from European small-and medium-sized enterprises’, Business Strategy and the Environment 28(8), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.23366
Diallo, M. & Wouterse, F., 2023, ‘Agricultural development promises more growth and less poverty in Africa: Modelling the potential impact of implementing the comprehensive Africa agriculture development programme in six countries’, Development Policy Review 41(3), e12669. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12669
Dyck, B., Manchanda, R.V., Vagianos, S. & Bernardin, M., 2023, ‘Sustainable marketing: An exploratory study of a sustain-centric, versus profit-centric, approach’, Business and Society Review 128(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12314
Elkington, J., 2018, ‘“Triple Bottom Line”. Here’s why it’s time to rethink it’, Harvard Business Review 2(1), 22–28, viewed 01 September 2025, from https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it.
Esteves, A.M., Genus, A., Henfrey, T., Penha-Lopes, G. & East, M., 2021, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals: Community-led initiatives, the social solidarity economy and commons ecologies’, Business Strategy and the Environment 30(3), 1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2706
Farinha, L., Ferreira, J. & Nunes, S., 2017, ‘Linking innovation and entrepreneurship to economic growth’, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 27(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-07-2016-0045
Farny, S., 2016, ‘Revisiting the nexus of entrepreneurship and sustainability: Towards an affective and interactive framework for the sustainability entrepreneurship journey’, Aalto University 1(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1221228
Glavič, P., 2021, ‘Evolution and current challenges of sustainable consumption and production’, Sustainability 13(16), 9379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169379
Gray, B.J., Duncan, S., Kirkwood, J. & Walton, S., 2014, ‘Encouraging sustainable entrepreneurship in climate-threatened communities: A Samoan case study’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 26(5–6), 401–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.925059
Gu, W. & Zheng, X., 2021, ‘An empirical study on the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship: Based on the environmental Kuznets model’, Journal of Business Research 123, 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.011
Hasan, M., Supatminingsih, T., Huruta, A.D., Tahir, T., Guampe, F.A. & Lu, C.Y., 2025, ‘Sustainable agricultural knowledge-based entrepreneurship literacy in agricultural SMEs: Triple bottom line investigation’, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity 11(2025), 100466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100466
He, M., 2022, ‘Literature review on entrepreneurship practice in agriculture, rural and farmers under the background of rural revitalisation’, Open Access Library Journal 9(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108776
Heikkurinen, P., Clegg, S., Pinnington, A.H., Nicolopoulou, K. & Alcaraz, J.M., 2019, ‘Managing the anthropocene: Relational agency and power to respect planetary boundaries’, Organisation and Environment 34(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619881145
Hennink, M. & Kaiser, B.N., 2022, ‘Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests’, Social Science & Medicine 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
Hoogendoorn, B., Van der Zwan, P. & Thurik, R., 2019, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship: The role of perceived barriers and risk’, Journal of Business Ethics 157(4), 1133–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3646-8
Jelassi, T. & Martínez-López, F.J., 2020, ‘External analysis: The impact of the internet on the macro-environment and on the industry structure of e-business companies’, in T. Jelassi & F.J. Martínez-López (eds.), Strategies for e-Business: Creating value through electronic and mobile commerce, pp. 49–95, Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48950-2_3
Jia, J., 2020, ‘Promoting inclusive development by supporting technological innovations in rural and agricultural development’, in C. Zuo, C. Huang, X. He & X. Wang (eds.), Inclusive development and poverty reduction: International research on poverty reduction, pp. 119–135, Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8446-6_6
Johnson, M.P. & Schaltegger, S., 2020, ‘Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: A review and multilevel causal mechanism framework’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44(6), 1141–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719885368
Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M., 2010, ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media’, Business Horizons 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kharel, M., Dahal, B.M. & Raut, N., 2022, ‘Good agricultural practices for safe food and sustainable agriculture in Nepal: A review’, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10(11), 100–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100447
Koe, W.L., Omar, R. & Sa’ari, J.R., 2015, ‘Factors influencing the propensity to sustainable entrepreneurship of SMEs in Malaysia’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences 17(1), 570–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.404
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R. et al., 2007, ‘Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change’, Ecology Letters 10, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x
Laasch, O., 2018, ‘Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organisational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models’, Long Range Planning 51(1), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.09.002
Lang, L.D., Tiwari, A.K., Hieu, H.N., Ha, N.M. & Gaur, J., 2023, ‘The role of structural social capital in driving social-oriented sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship’, Energy Economics 124, 106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106855
Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Becker, D., Skanavis, C., Kounani, A., Sardi, C. et al., 2016, ‘Sustainable development policies as indicators and preconditions for sustainability efforts at universities: Factoring in impacts and reporting’, Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 859–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.106
Li, T., Umar, M., Mirza, N. & Yue, X.G., 2023, ‘Green financing and resources utilisation: A story of N-11 economies in the climate change era’, Economic Analysis and Policy 78(6), 1174–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.05.007
Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Souchère, V., Alberola, C. & Ménassieu, J., 2009, ‘Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008054
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Lis, T. & Ptak, A., 2022, ‘Information and knowledge as factors contributing to sustainable entrepreneurship’, Procedia Computer Science 7, 4017–4026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.464
Marimuthu, M., Arokiasamy, L. & Ismail, M., 2009, ‘Human capital development and its impact on firm performance: Evidence from developmental economics’, Journal of International Social Research 2, 265–272.
Martey, E., Etwire, P.M., Adzawla, W., Atakora, W. & Bindraban, P.S., 2022, ‘Perceptions of COVID-19 shocks and adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in Ghana’, Journal of Environmental Management 320(7), 115–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115810
Mirzabaev, A., Strokov, A. & Krasilnikov, P., 2023, ‘The impact of land degradation on agricultural profits and implications for poverty reduction in Central Asia’, Land Use Policy 126(3), 106530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106530
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K. & Spiers, J., 2002, ‘Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
Muñoz, P. & Cohen, B., 2018, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead’, Business Strategy and the Environment 27(3), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000
Muñoz, P. & Dimov, D., 2015, ‘The call of the whole in understanding the development of sustainable ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing 30(4), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.012
Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.A., Rivera-Lirio, J.M. & Escrig-Olmedo, E., 2019, ‘Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favour business models that promote a more sustainable development?’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26(2), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1695
Mugoni, E., Kanyepe, J. & Tukuta, M., 2024, ‘Sustainable supply chain management practices (SSCMPS) and environmental performance: A systematic review’, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 3, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2023.100050
Muzondo, P.J, Mashapure, R. & Masiiwa, S.T., 2025, ‘Barriers and enablers in adopting circular business models in horticulture SMEs: Insights from Zimbabwe’, Journal of Circular Economy 3(3). https://doi.org/10.55845/GYQR3716
Neergaard, M.A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R.S. & Sondergaard, J., 2009, ‘Qualitative description – The poor cousin of health research?’, BMC Medical Research Methodology 9(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52
Neuman, W.L., 2014, Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, 7th edn., Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Essex.
Ngah, R., Lajin, N.F.M., Rahim, H.L. & Kadir, M.A.B.A., 2024, ‘Exploring entrepreneurial personality traits, motivation, and entrepreneurial success in the urban poor community’, International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting 19(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.33094/ijaefa.v18i3.1484
Polas, M.R.H., Kabir, A.I., Jahanshahi, A.A., Sohel-Uz-Zaman, A.S.M., Karim, R. & Tabash, M.I., 2023, ‘Rural entrepreneurs’ behaviours towards green innovation: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh’, Journal of Open Innovation and Technology 9(1), 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100020
Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI Act)-POPIA. 2013. Government of South Africa, Cape Town, viewed 24 June 2026, from https://popia.co.za.
Rametse, N. & Shah, H., 2012, ‘Investigating social entrepreneurship in developing countries’. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2176557
Ratten, V., Dana, L.P. & Ramadani, V., 2019, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship and its impact on social innovation’, Sustainability 11(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030850
Reefke, H. & Sundaram, D., 2017, ‘Key themes and research opportunities in sustainable supply chain management–identification and evaluation’, Omega 66, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.02.003
Rodrigues, L., Raichande, E., Gomes, M. & Semedo, M., 2023, ‘Corporate governance and ethics for sustainability: The case of the company Mercur S.A. in Brazil’, in J. Leitão, H. Alves & D. Ferreira (eds.), Handbook of research on solving societal challenges Through sustainability-oriented innovation, pp. 215–242, IGI Global, Hershey, PA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6123-5.ch012
Rosário, A.T., Raimundo, R.J. & Cruz, S.P., 2022, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship: A literature review’, Sustainability 14(9), 5556. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095556
Sandelowski, M., 2000, ‘Whatever happened to qualitative description?’, Research in Nursing and Health 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
Sandelowski, M., 2010, ‘What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited’, Research in Nursing and Health 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
Sarma, S., Attaran, S. & Attaran, M., 2022, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship: Factors influencing opportunity recognition and exploitation’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 25(6), 146575032210930. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750322109300
Scarpellini, S., 2022, ‘Social impacts of a circular business model: An approach from a sustainability accounting and reporting perspective’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29(3), 646–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2226
Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M., 2011, ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions’, Business Strategy and the Environment 20, 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
Seuring, S. & Gold, S., 2013, ‘Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: From stakeholders to performance’, Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033
Shepherd, D.A. & Patzelt, H., 2011, ‘The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”’, Entrepreneurship: Theoretical and Practical 35, 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x
Sonderegger, G., Heinimann, A., Diogo, V. & Oberlack, C., 2022, ‘Governing spillovers of agricultural land use through voluntary sustainability standards: A coverage analysis of sustainability requirements’, Earth System Governance 14(4), 100–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2022.100158
Sreenivasan, A., 2024, ‘Entrepreneurship ethics and its contribution to sustainable development goals’, International Journal of Ethics and Systems 41(4), 806–825. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-04-2023-0073
Syan, A.S., Kumar, V., Sandhu, V. & Hundal, B.S., 2019, ‘Empirical analysis of farmers’ intention to adopt sustainable agricultural practices’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510x19848857
Tamasiga, P., Onyeaka, H., Akinsemolu, A. & Bakwena, M., 2023, ‘The inter-relationship between climate change, inequality, poverty and food security in Africa: A bibliometric review and content analysis approach’, Sustainability 15(7), 5628. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075628
Tariq, R. & Shahzad, S., 2024, ‘Sustainable environment: The intersection of environmental and political communication in Pakistan to overcome environmental challenges’, in M.S.M. Saleh, S.A.A. Kasuma & H. Miao (eds.), Multi-stakeholder contribution in Asian environmental communication, 1st edn., Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032670508-12
Thakur, M., Wang, B. & Verma, M.L., 2022, ‘Development and applications of nano biosensors for sustainable agricultural and food industries: Recent developments, challenges and perspectives’, Environmental Technology & Innovation 26(1), 102371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102371
Tilley, F. & Young, W., 2009, ‘Sustainability entrepreneurs: Could they be the true wealth generators of the future?’, Greener Management International 5(5), 79–92.
Tohidyan Far, S. & Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., 2019, ‘Multifunctional agriculture: An approach for entrepreneurship development of the agricultural sector’, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 9, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0148-4
Veleva, V., 2021, ‘The role of entrepreneurs in advancing sustainable lifestyles: Challenges, impacts, and future opportunities’, Journal of Cleaner Production 283, 124658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124658
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N. & Newig, J., 2015, ‘What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review’, Sustainability 7(6), 7833–7865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067833
Wahyuni, D., 2012, ‘The research design: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies’, Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research 10(1), 69–80.
Weigand, K., Flanagan, T., Dye, K. & Jones, P., 2014, ‘Collaborative foresight: Complementing long-horizon strategic planning’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85, 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.016
Wu, H. & Li, J., 2023, ‘Risk preference, interlinked credit and insurance contract and agricultural innovative technology adoption’, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8(1), 100282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100282
Xu, J., Zhao, J., She, S. & Liu, W., 2022, ‘Green growth, natural resources and sustainable development: Evidence from BRICS economies’, Resource Policy 79, 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103032
Yadav, N., Gupta, K. & Rawat, D., 2018, ‘Drivers of sustainability practices and small and medium enterprises: A systematic literature review’, European Journal of Sustainable Development 7(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2018.v7n4p531
Zhang, C.Y. & Oki, T., 2023, ‘Water pricing reform for sustainable water resources management in China’s agricultural sector’, Agricultural Water Management 275(4), 108045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108045
Zhang, Q., Qu, Y. & Zhan, L., 2023, ‘Great transition and new pattern: Agriculture and rural area green development and its coordinated relationship with economic growth in China’, Journal of Environmental Management 344(10), 18563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118563
Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT), 2025, Presentation of Annual GDP Figures for 2023 and 2024, Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, Harare, viewed 03 September 2025, from https://www.zimstat.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/Macro/NationalAccounts/2025/2023and2024_ZWG_presentation25June2025.pdf.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
