Entrepreneurial Capital and Sustainable Value Creation: Advancing an Eight‑Capital Model, Definitions, and an Empirical Validation Agenda

The resources underpinning entrepreneurship continue to be theorised in largely separate disciplinary traditions. Sociological accounts emphasise processes of cultural and social reproduction, strategic management focuses on valuable, rare, and inimitable resources, while development studies frame livelihoods as portfolios of capital assets. In parallel, sustainability practice has increasingly operationalised value creation through multi-capital lenses embedded within ESG governance and disclosure regimes. Taken together, these perspectives offer partial insights, but their fragmentation limits theoretical integration and slows the accumulation of comparable empirical evidence.
This paper brings these strands together through the development of an Eight-Capital Entrepreneurial Capital Model (ECM), incorporating cultural, experiential (human), financial, intellectual, manufactured, natural, social, and spiritual capital within a single framework. Entrepreneurial capital is conceptualised as a multidimensional and dynamic resource system, consistent with work on sustainable livelihoods and capital portfolios. Within this framework, entrepreneurial outcomes—including opportunity recognition, resource mobilisation, innovation, resilience, and sustainability performance—are understood to depend both on the configuration of capital endowments and on the capacity to orchestrate, reconfigure, and legitimise these resources over time.
The paper proceeds by developing theory-informed propositions that link individual and interacting forms of capital to key outcomes, alongside an integrative mechanism in which resource orchestration and dynamic capabilities mediate the translation of capital into performance. To support empirical application, operational definitions are provided, together with indicative measurement constructs and survey items. A staged research agenda is also outlined, combining qualitative exploration, scale development, cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, and mixed-method approaches.
The ECM can be theoretically aligned with multi-capital approaches embedded within ESG and integrated reporting frameworks, particularly those advanced by the International Integrated Reporting Council. These frameworks conceptualise value creation as a function of multiple interacting capital stocks, including financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social, and natural capital.
The ECM extends this perspective by incorporating cultural and spiritual capital, thereby addressing behavioural, normative, and ethical dimensions of entrepreneurial activity that are not fully captured in existing ESG models. In doing so, it provides a more comprehensive account of how entrepreneurial ventures create, sustain, and legitimate value within increasingly regulated and sustainability-oriented environments.

entrepreneurial capital; multi‑capital model

1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289-300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, R. (2001). Linking entrepreneurship to growth (No. 2001/2). OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Azubayeva, B., et al. (2021). The impact of cultural capital on development: Parental cultural capital and entrepreneurship choice. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 152. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/11/4/152 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [28] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6), 643-650. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy. https://cooperative-individualism.org/becker-gary_investment-in-human-capital-1962-oct.pdf [26] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Berinde, M., & Andreescu, N. A. (2015). Reporting corporate social responsibility according to GRI standards. The Annals of the University of Oradea, 17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in public health, 6, 149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press. https://home.iitk.ac.in/~amman/soc748/bourdieu_forms_of_capital.pdf [24] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Brändle, L., et al. (2025). Social class origin and entrepreneurship: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088390262500031X [108] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brändle, L., Rönnert, A. L., Moergen, K. J., & Zhao, E. Y. (2025). Social class origin and entrepreneurship: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 40(4), 106503. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of business venturing, 22(1), 50-76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Drobetz, W., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Hackmann, J. P., & Momtaz, P. P. (2024). Entrepreneurial finance and sustainability: Do institutional investors impact the ESG performance of SMEs? Journal of Business Venturing Insights. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2024.e00498 [82] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., & La Torre, M. (2017). Barriers to implementing the international integrated reporting framework: a contemporary academic perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4), 461-480. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Firkin, P. (2018). Entrepreneurial capital. In Entrepreneurship: New perspectives in a global age (pp. 57-75). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 693-727. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of management Journal, 48(4), 661-676. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021/2023). GRI Universal Standards 2021 (effective for reporting from 1 January 2023). https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of business venturing, 22(1), 119-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hong, M., Ge, Z., & Wu, C. (2023). The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems by capital, habitus, and practice: A two‑phase model based on Bourdieu’s approach. Frontiers in Psychology. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987485/full [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. IFRS Foundation. (2021). International <IR> Framework (version 2021). https://integratedreportingsa.org/ircsa/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/International-IR-Framework-2021-with-changes-highlighted.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. IFRS Foundation. (2023a). IFRS S1: General requirements for disclosure of sustainability‑related financial information. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/pdf-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/part-a/issb-2023-a-ifrs-s1-general-requirements-for-disclosure-of-sustainability-related-financial-information.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. IFRS Foundation. (2023b). IFRS S2: Climate‑related disclosures. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/pdf-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/part-a/issb-2023-a-ifrs-s2-climate-related-disclosures.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS review, 10(1), 18-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. (2014). Entrepreneurial potential: The role of human and cultural capitals. International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 918-943. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Kim, P. H., Kim, P., & Aldrich, H. (2005). Social capital and entrepreneurship. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kolade, O., Egbetokun, A., Adegbite, E., & Obembe, D. (2026). Guts, grit and God? Spiritual capital and entrepreneurial resilience in a turbulent environment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 43(1), e70049. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/36879/9/Kolade-GutsGritAndGod%28VoR%29.pdf [119] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kolade, O., Egbetokun, A., Rae, D., & Hussain, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial resilience in turbulent environments: the role of spiritual capital. In Research handbook on entrepreneurship in emerging economies (pp. 354-372). Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mehmood, K., et al. (2026). Empowering sustainable entrepreneurship through data‑driven innovation: A pathway to ESG performance in SMEs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-026-01175-z [121] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management journal, 36(6), 1175-1195. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of accounting and economics, 19(2-3), 179-208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Natarajan, N., Newsham, A., Rigg, J., & Suhardiman, D. (2022). A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nonaka, L., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International journal of technology Management, 11(7-8), 833-845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Okan, Y. T. (2025). Spiritual entrepreneurship orientation scale: Psychometric evaluation and validity‑reliability analyses. [Journal unspecified in this manuscript—verify in final draft]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39658769/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Paoloni, M., Coluccia, D., Fontana, S., & Solimene, S. (2020). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and entrepreneurship: a structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1797-1818. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Pennetta, S., Anglani, F., Reaiche, C., & Boyle, S. (2025). Entrepreneurial agility in a disrupted world: Redefining entrepreneurial resilience for global business success. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 34(2), 221-267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of business strategy, 5(3), 60-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Shahzad, F., Poudel, D., & Ferreira, J. J. (2026). Innovation as a resilience-building strategy in micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14657503261421099. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of management, 37(5), 1390-1412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European planning studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Sun, Y., Qiao, X., An, Y., Fang, Q., & Wu, N. (2022). Does multiple capitals disclosure affect the capital market? An empirical analysis in an integrated reporting perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 837209. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Tabares, A., Londoño-Pineda, A., Cano, J. A., & Gómez-Montoya, R. (2022). Rural entrepreneurship: An analysis of current and emerging issues from the sustainable livelihood framework. Economies, 10(6), 142. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Tajeddini, K., Hussain, M., Gamage, T. C., & Papastathopoulos, A. (2024). Effects of resource orchestration, strategic information exchange capabilities, and digital orientation on innovation and performance of hotel supply chains. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 117, 103645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630117302868 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. The European Commission. (2022/2023). Corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD overview and legal basis). https://finance.ec.europa.eu/financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Thelken, H. N., & de Vos, A. (2020). The impact of values and future orientation on intention formation for sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620320990 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of business venturing, 26(3), 341-358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Xie, G. H., Wang, L. P., & Lee, B. F. (2021). Understanding the impact of social capital on entrepreneurship performance: the moderation effects of opportunity recognition and operational competency. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 687205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Yunus, E. N., Ernawati, E., Nuraini, E., & Yuniarti, K. (2025). Post‑crisis growth: Resource orchestration, innovation, and diversification in MSMEs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100570 [85] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Yunus, E. N., Ernawati, E., Nuraini, E., & Yuniarti, K. (2025). Post-crisis growth: Resource orchestration, innovation, and diversification in MSMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2), 100570. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Zaid, M. A., & Issa, A. (2023). A roadmap for triggering the convergence of global ESG disclosure standards: lessons from the IFRS foundation and stakeholder engagement. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(7), 1648-1669. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Entrepreneurship and Start-Up Ecosystem Vis-À-Vis Government Start-Up Scheme in Manipur: A Critical Review and a Way Forward
• Building Resilience: How Malaysian Women Entrepreneurs Use Strengths and Resources to Navigate Challenges
• Branding in Digital Entrepreneurship: Evaluating Branding Criteria in IT Entrepreneurship
• Bridging the Intention–Action Gap through Entrepreneurial Optimism: A Conceptual Exploration
• Entrepreneurial Orientation of Undergraduate Students in University Malaysia Perlis: A Conceptual Paper