Analytic hierarchy process analysis for choosing a corporate social entrepreneurship strategy

• Authors: Shahrazad Hadad
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

After conducting an extensive analysis of both the specialised literature and practice and identifying three types of corporate social entrepreneurship in my PhD thesis titled “Corporate social entrepreneurship - the new paradigm of reshaping and rethinking business”, I decided to determine which of the three approaches is mostly suited for the Romanian market. The three types of corporate social entrepreneurship: corporate social entrepreneurship as local development tool, corporate social entrepreneurship as market development tool, and corporate social entrepreneurship as transformational innovation tool were organised as the alternatives of a carefully constructed hierarchy having as criteria: return on investment (which does not necessarily refer to the money that the company invests in the strategy; the term is derived from sustainability and scalability), degree of novelty, pre-entry knowledge and interest in solving the communities’ social problems. The questionnaire constructed based on the hierarchy using analytic hierarchy processes was distributed to experts (business developers) coming from the following industries or sectors: beverages, IT, banking, furniture, and automotive. The research reveals which is the approach most likely to be employed by Romanian business developers. The results may be inferred to the sum of businesses represented by the expert business developers who were part of the research.

Keywords

EN

corporate social entrepreneurship; analytic hierarchy process; innovation; social intrapreneurship; strategy

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Management & Marketing
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 185-207

Dates

published

2015-10-01

online

2015-11-18

Contributors

author

Shahrazad Hadad

• The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

References

• Agapie, Ad. (2014), “Consistency in the context of AHP: Half Friend, Half Foe”, International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2014, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
• Gorener, A. (2013), “Comparing AHP and ANP: An application of strategic decision making in a manufacturing company”, International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 194-208.
• Gray K.D. (2014), “5 Steps to Good Decision Making”, available at: http://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/focused/5-steps-to-gooddecision- making/, (accessed June 12, 2015).
• Hadad, S. and Cantaragiu, R. (2014), “Innovation in business models using the corporate social entrepreneurship paradigm”, The 9th International Conference on Business Excellence, ICBE, 10/9/2014, Bucharest, Romania.
• Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1988), Creating Global Strategic Capability, in Hood, N. and Vahlne, J. (eds) Strategies in Global Competition, London: Croom Helm.
• Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. (2002), Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• James, P., Magee, L., Scerri, A. and Steger, M.B. (2015), Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability, London: Routledge.
• Kopeikina, L. (2005), The right decision every time, New Jersey: Pearson Education publishing as Prenntice Hall.
• Marzano, R.J. (2000), Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives, Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
• Paunescu, C.M. (2013), “Challenges of entering the business market: the pre-entry knowledge and experience”, Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 63-78.
• Saaty, T.L. (2008), ”Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, Int. J. Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83-98.
• Saaty, T.L. and Peniwati, K. (2008), Group Decision Making: Drawing out and Reconciling Differences, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
• Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., and Grover, V. (2003), "Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2.
• Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2006), “Assessing Degree of Novelty of Products to Ascertain Innovative Products”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management PLM'06.
• Simenon, N. (2013), “How many decisions does a person make in an average day”, available at http://www.quora.com/How-many-decisions-does-a-person-makein- an-average-day, (retrieved May 15, 2015).
• Schwartz, R.J. (2000), Thinking about decisions, In Costa, A.L. (Ed). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking, (pp. 59-66), Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• United Nations - The General Assembly, (2000), "United Nations Millennium Declaration", United Nations, available at http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.html (accessed May 25, 2015).

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/mmcks-2015-0014