Bridging theory and practice in the humane entrepreneurship domain: insights from small and medium Italian enterprises

The dynamics of the contemporary business world combined with the increasing relevance of inequality, human resource inclusion, people's well-being, climate change and environmental sustainability as well as unexpected events like COVID-19 are forcing firms into introducing new business models. This change requires a new look at an emerging entrepreneurial phenomenon, adopting an expanded, traditional perspective of analysis or even a new one. A prime sign of the shifting business landscape was the 2019 Business Roundtable's (2019) “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.” Surpassing the previous 1997 endorsement of shareholder primacy, their 2019 statement outlined a modern standard for corporate responsibility, committing boards to leading companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders. Thus, the new Business Roundtable statement, asking for an all-encompassing reorientation of corporate goals, assumes that new and larger entrepreneurial strategic postures are taking place in some firms. This emerging trend has been boosted by the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic that forced several firms to quickly re-set up their business models to survive the economic crisis. For instance, luxury fashion designer Brunello Cucinelli donated his unsold collection – with an estimated value of 30 million euros – to charity (Crivelli, 2020). Similarly, BlackRock (2020), a major international investment company, announced a rearrangement of its investment portfolio in 2020 that considers environmental sustainability at the core of value creation.

Humane entrepreneurship (HumEnt) (Parente and Kim, 2021; Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2018) is a new framework that captures the needs of the present-day landscape. Expanding entrepreneurial orientation theory (Covin and Lumpkin, 2011; Covin and Slevin, 1989, 1991) by integrating environmental, social and human resource concerns within the firms' decision-making process, HumEnt reflects the new Business Roundtable approach offering a perspective that is able to capture the multifaceted nature of a larger entrepreneurial strategic posture, aligned with the evolving business world. In fact, HumEnt suggests humane entrepreneurial orientation (HEO) to be a strategic posture expressed by a unitary construct in which entrepreneurial orientation (EO), sustainability orientation (SO) and human resource orientation (HRO) are all present. To date, although HumEnt is gaining momentum among scholars (Khurana et al., 2021a, b; El Tarabishy et al., 2022), it is still in its infancy and empirical evidence in the realm of business is strongly needed. To the best of the authors' knowledge only three studies – the first focused on two social enterprises (Buratti et al., 2022), the second investigating HumEnt employees' perception in one firm (Dębicka et al., 2022) and the third centered on one educational institution (Anggadwita et al., 2021) – have adopted the HumEnt framework. In addition, scholars (Parente et al., 2021; Dębicka et al., 2022) have highlighted the fact that future research should develop around the measurement scale for HEO. Thus, it seems particularly valuable to investigate whether, and which, trends related to the implementation of HumEnt and HEO can be detected.

By applying the HumEnt framework, this study attempts to shed light on this phenomenon having as its goal the framing of HEO's characteristics by showing how firms have implemented the HumEnt approach, and to offer suggestions on how to build an HEO measurement scale. Using a qualitative approach, this study attempts to typify the HEO construct in different firms by investigating its intertwined dimensions of EO, SO and HRO. This study answers the following research question:

The study contributes to advancing our knowledge of both HumEnt and HEO in different ways. First, it clearly analyzes firms that have adopted an entrepreneurial strategic posture corresponding to a HumEnt approach and with HEO key characteristics. Second, it offers indications on the development of a measurement scale through a discussion of emerging HEO characteristics and identifying shared characteristics of HEO strategic posture in the enterprises under examination. Finally, the analysis shows that entrepreneurs' personal values and credos are fundamental to having an HEO strategic posture adopted. The study uses a multiple-case study approach (Yin, 2018), investigating five emblematic small and medium-sized Italian enterprises (SMEs), that operate in different sectors.

The paper is organized as follows. A review of the literature is provided, identifying the main characteristics of HumEnt and summarizing HEO components as a strategic posture. The subsequent section describes the research design and methodology. Thereafter, findings from the five SMEs are depicted showing how HumEnt has been put into place and how HEO has been framed. The subsequent section discussing previous findings indicates theoretical and practical implications. Finally, the study points out research conclusions and outlines future research perspectives.

The well-researched EO theory postulates that an organization's EO is a strategic posture (Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007/2008; Zahra and Neubaum, 1998; Covin and Wales, 2012; Wales, 2016) that has been encapsulated in three dimensions: innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). It should be emphasized that EO is a part of corporate entrepreneurship strategy (Ireland et al., 2009) and that entrepreneurial behavior may change over time (Wales, 2016) especially with an evolving business world where environmental and societal issues as well as human issues have assumed a role in certain entrepreneurial behavior. Thus, a drawback of EO is that it does not consider, in its dimensionality, human resources and the well-being of the environment and society. HumEnt is a theory that enables model development to address the humane side of business in entrepreneurial strategic posture (ESP). Expanding on EO, HumEnt represents a behavioral and attitudinal theory of entrepreneurship that posits people as the key drivers of job and wealth creation, and also takes into account social responsibility and protection of the environment (El Tarabishy et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2016, 2018; Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021; Anggadwita et al., 2021).

Two distinct HumEnt models can be detected (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2018). The first model – Model 1, proposed by Kim et al. (2018) – emphasizes the role of human resources and maintains the need to integrate EO within a specific human-centered logic (Kim et al., 2021). The second model – Model 2, proposed by Parente et al. (2018, Parente et al., 2021 – introduces an expanded entrepreneurial strategic posture defining the construct of HEO as “the extent to which entrepreneurs and top managers are inclined to take care of a firm's competitiveness, to take care of their human resources and to take care of relevant social values and concerns, including those regarding environmental sustainability” (Parente et al., 2021, p. 4). Like Model 1, Model 2 draws on EO theory (Covin and Lumpkin, 2011), adopting Covin and Slevin's conceptualization on the foundations of EO theory. However, Model 2 also draws on three other theories: (1) servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1977; Van Dierendonck, 2011), (2) stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and (3) the theory of corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1991; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Thus, the modernized ESP proposed in model 2 called HEO is based on three dimensions: EO, SO and HRO. In addition, HEO has some of its founding values in organization's culture and both entrepreneur's and employees' personal values (Santos et al., 2021; Parente et al., 2018).

To understand the extent to which an organization can be categorized as a HumEnt firm, researchers must measure and assess the extent of that firm's HEO. Thus, HEO represents the conceptual framework of this study. The following section summarizes HEO key components and dimensions.

Framed as an entrepreneurial strategic posture that expands EO, HEO includes several characteristics of EO such as the “firm's overall competitive orientation” (Covin and Slevin, 1989, p. 77) and the firm measurement level (Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). On the other hand, HEO integrates three components, namely EO, SO and HRO, and, being an ESP, it is based on their incorporation into the organization's business model and strategy (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021).

EO expresses the extent to which the strategic posture of firms is entrepreneurial or, in contrast, conservative. Scholars (Wales et al., 2013; Rauch et al., 2009) observed that the predominant way of measuring EO is by using the instrument proposed by Covin and Slevin (1989) and Miller (2011, 1983) with the traditional three dimensions: risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness. To measure innovativeness within the EO construct, the questionnaire (Miller, 1983, 2011; Covin and Slevin, 1989) mainly focuses on the new products created by the firm in a specific time frame. To build the risk-taking conceptualization in the EO domain, Miller and Friesen defined it as, “the degree to which managers are willing to make large and risky resource commitments – i.e., those which have a reasonable chance of costly failures” (1978, p. 923). Thus, risk-taking is measured predominantly in terms of entrepreneurial proclivity for low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates of return) or entrepreneurial proclivity for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns). Finally, proactiveness evokes a forward-looking perspective that is associated with seizing new opportunities and launching innovative activities.

SO is a construct developed within the sustainable entrepreneurship domain yet still maintaining ambiguity regarding its nature. In fact, three different lines of research can be distinguished (Criado-Gomis et al., 2017). The first one studies how firms can achieve environmental goals (O'Neill and Gibb, 2016) by focusing on environmental sustainability. The second one follows the social entrepreneurship research trajectories in which social needs become entrepreneurship goals (Lumpkin et al., 2013). The third stream of research proposes a more holistic approach to SO by uniting social and environmental factors (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). This conceptual ambiguity results in different measurement scales aimed either at assessing environmental sustainability (Roxas and Coetzer, 2012), or both environmental protection and social responsibility (Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010), or the degree to which firms engage in sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial actions (Jahanshahi et al., 2017). The approach to SO assumed in this paper is “a firm-level strategic orientation demonstrated by the fact that a firm's behavior exhibits a high level of commitment to the preservation of the natural environment but also respects society-driven initiatives and acts to improve the quality of life in the local community” (Parente et al., 2021, pp. 15–16). In this sense, it can be measured by referring to the degree to which the firm strategically realizes projects (1) to improve the quality of life and the well-being of the local community, and (2) to protect or restore the environment.

HRO refers to human resource management as a strategic approach to manage “policies and practices that shape the employment relationship and are explicitly aimed at achieving individual employee, organizational and/or societal goals” (Boselie, 2014, p. 5). Similar to SO, HRO lacks a validated measurement scale that fully captures its components. However, Kim et al. (2018) focused on the human resource management process identifying four dimensions that should qualify HRO: empathy, equity, enablement and empowerment. The authors define them as follows: (1) empathy is “the extent to which a company shares emotions and information with its employees”; (2) equity is “the extent to which a company treats individuals in a fair and equal manner”; (3) enablement is “the extent to which a company provides the environment where each individual employee is able to develop skills and knowledge, consisting of both skill and infrastructure”; and (4) empowerment is “the delegation of power and responsibility from higher levels of the organizational hierarchy to lower levels, especially in regard to an employee's ability to make decisions” (Kim et al., 2018, p. 21).

This study uses the case-study method (Yin, 2018) to analyze how HEO is framed in SMEs, carrying out five qualitative case studies. This method was selected for the following reasons. First, case study has long been considered an appropriate method for analyzing emerging phenomena and topics such as HumEnt, providing relevant material useful to understanding HEO and its components (Yin, 1984). Second, this methodology has proven particularly effective in supporting the analysis of specific contexts (Kidder, 1982), which is consistent with the goal of this study. Lastly, findings emerging from multiple sources are more compelling and “the overall multiple-case study is therefore regarded as being more robust” (Yin, 2018, p. 90; Herriott and Firestone, 1983).

In this study, five Italian manufacturing SMEs were selected for investigation. We include in the study medium-sized enterprises firms with fewer than 500 employees, as done in the United States (OECD, 2005). According to general statement, small firms are generally defined as being those with fewer than 50 employees (OECD, 2005). The choice of five cases is consistent with Yin's guidelines (2018) that suggest the ideal number of units to be analyzed in a multiple case study is between four and twelve.

The selection of the five cases has been made through different stages. After an analysis on company websites exhibiting a high potential for HumEnt, 15 Italian manufacturing companies were identified as potential subjects for the study. These firms were selected from a pool of companies that (1) have won awards and certifications in innovation, human resource management and sustainability practices and have participated in the most recent editions of public events or initiatives consistent with at least one of the dimensions of HEO; and (2) are well known in academia as subjects of past papers and conferences, but have not yet been specifically analyzed for HEO. A panel of three academic experts in entrepreneurship, sustainability and human resource management then reviewed and confirmed the relevance of the dimensions of HEO in all 15 companies. The companies were emailed an invitation to participate in this research study, to which nine firms responded and agreed to be interviewed. These nine respondents were then ranked according to three inclusion criteria – heterogeneity in terms of industry sector, size of firm and geographical location – so that researchers could select and obtain the greatest diversity (Eisenhardt, 1989). At the end of this process, the selected sample was composed of five enterprises operating in different industry sectors. One of them (SME 3) is a small firm employing no more than 50 employees (Table 1).

Information was collected through 20 direct interviews with the five companies, along with other sources of data (Gibbert et al., 2008), such as an analysis of websites, balance sheets, archival documentation, and company publications and brochures. In addition, researchers conducted site visits to each company and made direct observations. Direct interviews with entrepreneurs and executive managers were used to collect primary data to assess the level of HEO. In the interviews, researchers presented open-ended questions (Table 2) to understand the extent to which each SME expresses EO, SO and HRO in line with the conceptual framework of Parente et al., 2021 and how SMEs' entrepreneurs and management understand the three theoretical dimensions representing HEO. The interview protocol was built on the constructs' characteristics summarized above, aimed at ascertaining its typification. In particular, questions regarding EO involved the understanding of the three categories of risk, innovativeness and proactiveness (Covin and Slevin, 1989). Questions regarding SO concerned how SO is interpreted at the entrepreneurial level and how the preservation of the natural environment and attention to the wider society (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011) is felt as a strategic posture. Questions regarding HRO related to the understanding of the four categories of empathy, equity, enablement and empowerment (Kim et al., 2018).

All respondents were directly involved in major strategic decisions concerning HEO dimensions and were able to provide deep, first-hand knowledge of their companies, based on the idea that individuals within the company are best-equipped to describe the company's EO, and its attitudes and behaviors toward HumEnt (Parente et al., 2021). In particular, the authors of this paper interviewed all five of the entrepreneurs and two managing directors; in one company, the managing director role was vacant and held ad interim by the entrepreneur. Thirteen interviews were carried out with executive managers or directors involved in R&D, innovation, production, human resources, marketing, sales, post-sales and quality control. To reduce the bias of the respondents, interviews were conducted with several managers of the same company (Yin, 2018). In fact, the use of multiple informants mitigates the potential biases of any individual respondent by allowing information to be confirmed by several other sources (Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009).

Each researcher conducted interviews with at least one company and played a strategic role by being an active listener, thus ensuring respondents correctly understood the questions. The interviews were conducted in autumn 2019, spring 2020 and autumn 2020 ( Annex), lasting between 30 and 90 min. The interviews were carried out in Italian, then recorded, transcribed and translated into English for the data analysis process.

Secondary data, collected from websites, balance sheets, archival documentation and company publications, enabled cross-checking of statements made in the interviews through triangulation (Woodside and Wilson, 2003), revealing a high level of consistency (Janesick, 1994).

Before being analyzed, all information collected through direct interviews and secondary data was processed using data reduction and data display techniques (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Data reduction involved the inspection and selection of collected materials to identify the information that best answered the research question. During the data display phase, responses and data were organized, and those that were relevant were highlighted.

After this preparatory phase, the five cases were analyzed following Miles and Huberman’s (1994) guidelines of within-case and cross-case analysis. Within-case analysis considers each case study as a stand-alone unit (Mills et al., 2010). The objective is to acquire in-depth knowledge of the individual subject and highlight its distinctive elements and themes (Eisenhardt, 1989). Cross-case analysis compares and contrasts the themes and evidence that has emerged from the within-case analysis case to search for similarities and differences among the cases.

The analysis of the collected data began with an in-depth analysis of each specific case from the viewpoint of our research question. Each of the authors read the cases independently to identify the theoretical constructs, relationships and patterns of HEO present in each of the five cases. The aim of this phase of the analysis was to identify significant statements, phrases and sentences related to the HEO strategic posture and its dimensions. This process required multiple interactions and discussions among the authors, and ultimately resulted in a compiled collection of significant statements taken from all five cases that demonstrate the HEO construct, its dimensions and the emerging themes for each dimension measurement. In particular, and related to EO, the statement was classified as classical measurement or expanded measurement if it demonstrated itself to be in line with the classical measurement scale (Miller, 1983, 2011; Covin and Slevin, 1989) or not in line with the classical measurement scale (being classified as beyond the literature, in this case). Related to SO, the statement was classified as environmental sustainability, social sustainability or holistic sustainability (as the three aforementioned research lines). In this latter case, if the statement was not in line with any of the measurement scales retrieved from the literature, it was classified as being beyond the literature. Related to HRO, the emerging theme was classified into the dimensions proposed by Kim et al. (2018), namely empathy, equity, enablement and empowerment, if possible. If not, the emerging theme was derived from the statement's wording. Next, the five cases themselves were compared to analyze the similarities and differences among the five firms, in order to highlight the characteristics that HEO demonstrates in different enterprises. The findings were then discussed referring to HEO and explained in reference to the existing literature.

The five investigated enterprises show different interpretations of the three EO dimensions as is suggested by an analysis of the reported quotations (Table 3).

In three medium-size firms (SME 1, SME 2 and SME 5), EO is represented most frequently by the two dimensions of risk-taking and innovativeness, with the dimension of proactiveness not clearly made explicit in any of the informants' answers. In contrast, in SME 3 (Q21 and Q22) and in SME 4 (Q23) proactiveness distinctly emerges. In the small-sized enterprise (Q5), and also in SME 4 (Q7), risk-taking is interpreted classically in line with the measurement scale proposed by Miller (1983, 2011) and Covin and Slevin (1989) as a proclivity for low/high-risk projects in terms of normal and certain returns, and in the adoption of costly decisions. However, two of the medium-sized enterprises, SME 1 (Q1, Q2) and SME 5 (Q8, Q9), demonstrated an expanded conceptualization of risk-taking behavior at the organizational level, including the proclivity to bear in mind the distant future, with risk and uncertainty also taken into consideration. An additional insight into investment assessment was observed in SME 1 (Q3). In its risk conceptualizations, an investment must be assessed not only from the financial perspective, but also considering social and environmental sustainability. In addition, SME 2 demonstrates an interpretation of risk-taking as a way of catching emerging opportunity (Q4).

Similarly, differences were found in the conceptualization of innovation. In the small-sized enterprise (Q15, Q16), innovation is a matter of technology; in the medium-sized enterprises, innovation is not only a technological issue, but also a process of design and the sharing of knowledge in collaboration with customers to generate new products. In this sense, especially in SME 1 (Q10, Q11), innovation is qualified as a behavior, while in SME 2 (Q12, Q13), and SME 4 (Q17), it is a factor of competitiveness which is not necessarily related to the generation of new products, thus not being totally in line with the classic measurement scale proposed by Miller (2011, 1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989). In fact, in EO most used scale (Miller, 1983, 2011) innovation is measured both by the number of products introduced in recent years, or by the proclivity to make changes in products or services, which is clearly stated by SME 5 (Q19). An interesting element that emerges in 3 cases (SME 2, SME 4 and SME 5) is the attention to reconcile innovation with environmental aspects (Q14, Q17, Q20). In particular, in SME 4 the entrepreneur used the new term of “innovability,” meaning that innovation is constantly oriented to pay attention to the environment and the territory.

In the five SMEs investigated (Table 4), SO ties together environmental sustainability, attention to social aspects and the firm's local region (Q24, Q26, Q27, Q28, Q30, Q32, Q33), with a conceptualization in line with that posited by HumEnt theorists (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021). In particular, the concept of sustainability seems to be in line with a holistic approach to SO (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011; Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011), combining environmental goals with social goals. Moreover, the inclusion of ethical and social values in the SO conceptualization is interpreted in terms of opportunities offered to people who live in the region where the firm is based. Attention to the community and the territory is expressed also through the organization of projects and events aimed to support the local community (e.g. in SME 1, the Esino River and its adoption, the renovation and enhancement of the Abbey of Sant’Urbano in the San Clemente Valley, in SME 5, the support for the local center for disabled people). Finally, three of the investigated enterprises (Q25, Q29, Q31) clearly stated that in regard to SO, environmental sustainability is not an obligation, but a central part of the vision and the strategy, strengthening the conceptualization of HEO as an entrepreneurial strategic posture (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021; Buratti et al., 2022).

The HRO (Table 5) in the five cases all envision their firm and employees as a family (Q34, Q37, Q40, Q41, Q45). The interviewed staff and management underlined the positive working climate and the fact that the entrepreneurs seek to create a feeling of home, and want colleagues, managers and entrepreneurs to consider each other as an extended family. In the small firm (Q39) and in two of the medium enterprises, SME 2 (Q37) and SME 4 (Q44), this workplace climate is not considered a consequence of a planned strategy, but rather the natural climate of the firm. In contrast, SME 1 intentionally invests in its human resources to empower employees, beginning with the sponsorship of a potential future collaborator in elementary school. In addition, SME 1's ultimate goal is to encourage people to become entrepreneurs.

In all five enterprises, the analysis of the data collected shows that initiatives (training courses, personal events, etc.) to develop a positive climate and to build a sense of family are being organized. Information emerging from the interviews seems not to be completely consistent with Kim et al.’s (2018) measurement model in at least four enterprises. In fact, the four dimensions of empathy, equity, enablement and empowerment are clearly declared only from SME 3 (Q49) but are not simultaneously recognized by all the firms when asked about the topic. In SME 1, empowerment and enablement appear (Q35, Q36). In SME 2, empathy (Q38) is identified by the general manager. SME 4 highlights equity (Q43) and enablement (Q44). SME 5 points out its attention to empathy (Q45, Q46) and empowerment (Q47). All in all, empathy represents the most recurring dimension among the investigated enterprises relating to the HRO component. At the same time, it must be underlined that themes different from the ones proposed by Kim et al. (2018) emerge in the HRO measurement, such as personal relationships (Q34, Q38, Q42), and networking and collaboration (Q35, Q36, Q42).

From the analysis of collected data, it emerges that almost all medium-sized enterprises communicate their actions concerning SO or HRO. Examples of these actions related to sustainability orientation are the adoption of the Esino River, and the recovery and enhancement of the Abbey of Sant’Urbano by SME 1; the donations to sustain scientific research and the “Masseria delle Sorgenti” renovation project pursued by SME 2; and the financing of a local center for people with disabilities and an annual competition for students performed by SME 5. On the other hand, in the small-sized enterprise, the HEO strategic posture does not seem to be clearly communicated in terms of SO and HRO actions (Table 6). In SME 3, the HEO strategic posture is mainly associated with the mind and actions of the entrepreneur (Q49). At the same time, the attention paid to the land and local region (Q27) is high but no clear communication of this actions emerges. Also, in SME 4, which has more than 50 employees but is not so big as SME 1, SME 2 and SME 5, a number of cultural events devoted to pay attention towards the local community and territory have been established. Not often does clear communication emerge.

Thus, the results demonstrated that in all five SMEs, HEO can be qualified as an entrepreneurial strategic posture (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021; Buratti et al., 2022). In particular, HEO represents an explicit entrepreneurial strategic posture (Covin and Slevin, 1989) in the medium-sized enterprises. In these enterprises, HEO as a strategic posture is well-expressed and communicated through electronic and paper documentation and followed by clear actions. In contrast, in the small-sized enterprise under examination, HEO represents an implicit strategic posture, only being clear – or evident – in the mindsets and behaviors of the entrepreneurs.

Interviews showed that the family values strongly influence the company strategy (Q25, Q29, Q44, Q48, Q49, Q50). In four SMEs – SME 1, SME 2, SME 3 and SME 4 – it seems that HEO is strictly related to the entrepreneur's personal philosophy. This is strongly in line with the HumEnt approach in which personal values are fundamental external components that influence model adoption (Parente et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2021).

The aim of this study is to present and discuss how the HEO has been demonstrated through the understanding of SMEs, as well as to offer suggestions for an HEO measurement scale. To pursue this goal, a case study approach was adopted, 5 SMEs were investigated, and 20 among entrepreneurs and managers were interviewed. SME 3 was a small-sized enterprise. The other four SMEs were medium-sized enterprises.

Study results showed that HEO, in medium-sized enterprises, is an explicit strategic posture which is well-communicated and followed by clear actions while it is implicitly mainly expressed by the mindset and the behavior of the entrepreneur in the small-sized enterprise case. Another result emerging from the study is that the personal values and the personal culture of the entrepreneurs seems to be “ground” on which HEO as a strategic posture has been developed. In particular, these values and this culture seems to generate a visionary scenario that each manager adopts to exploit the business idea generated by the entrepreneur himself.

In addition, several results have emerged and have been examined relating to HEO measurement and more specifically to the three single HEO components. Thus, this study has both theoretical and practical implications. First, this study confirms the existence of businesses presenting the HEO theoretical characteristics. In particular, this study strengthens HumEnt theory, recognizing HEO as a strategic posture in firms that are different from each other in terms of dimensions and context. At the same time, the study highlights that firms that fit the HumEnt theory, demonstrate at least EO, SO and HRO.

Second, the study expands on HumEnt theory, offering new and relevant insights into developing an HEO measurement scale. In fact, the three HEO dimensions did not demonstrate similar markers in the five investigated firms. In particular, only one of the five cases interpreted the EO components (innovation, risk taking, and proactiveness) as were originally theorized (Covin and Slevin, 1989). The other four cases exhibited EO characteristics that differed from the classical ones. More specifically, in these four cases, innovation is assessed not only by the number of products introduced in recent years but also characteristics such as co-design, new technologies, co-creation and open innovation as well. Similarly, some cases highlight that risk is assessed not only from a financial perspective but also from a social perspective (i.e. how the risk may impact employees). Therefore, an enlargement of the measurement scale should be considered (with theoretical and practical tests).

Third, the study underscores that although HEO remains a unified concept, different measurement scales are needed for different types of organizations.

Fourth, findings suggest that although literature on sustainability has clearly distinguished between environmental sustainability and social sustainability, a holistic approach that unites social and environmental factors (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011) is preferred. Thus, a measurement scale of SO centered on a firm's commitment to the preservation of the natural environment and to eventually adopt society-driven initiatives acting to improve the quality of life in the local community is needed.

Fifth, HRO components are heterogeneous in the investigated SMEs and are not necessarily correlated to all the theoretical aspects proposed by Kim et al. (2018).

Sixth, as HumEnt enterprises are centered on people, values and culture, firms with HEO should stimulate and shape employees, managers and collaborators to the values on which HEO is built. Thus, courses on HumEnt values and culture are needed at all levels of education (primary, secondary, college and PhD-level).

Seventh, as some of the cases emphasized that a positive workplace climate and staff well-being are results of long-term action, managers and entrepreneurs must plan and organize team-building events and training courses for the primary function of building and/or reinforcing the familial feelings among the workforce.

Eighth, as HumEnt is costly in the short run, governments and institutions should think of supporting firms that respect HumEnt principles, leaving the environment and society at large better than how they found them.

Ninth, independent organizations, such as the International Organization for Standardization, should define and approve good practices and standards to recognize HumEnt firms.

Starting from the HumEnt theory proposed by Kim et al. (2018) and Parente et al. (2018, Parente et al., 2021, the study aims to describe and discuss the characteristics of an HEO strategic posture in the context of Italian SMEs.

Considering the theoretical nature of this posture, as well as the exploratory nature of the research, researchers applied a case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2018). Five SMEs were analyzed, and several pieces of evidence were highlighted.

The paper demonstrates that the investigated firms reveal both explicit and implicit HEO strategic postures. On the one hand, the existence of the construct was confirmed; on the other hand, the results show that HEO assumes different characteristics in the analyzed enterprises. It can be hypothesized that the displayed differences derive from two factors: (1) the size and the industry sector of the firm, and (2) the values and mindset of the entrepreneur, and consequently of the firm. Finally, the study showed that culture and values seem to affect the HEO strategic posture.

This study is not free of limitations, strictly related to the analyzed firms. First this study dealt only with Italy. Second, a specific procedure was adopted to select the investigated firms without any guarantee on their representativeness. Third, no large firms are part of the selected sample of investigation. Although these aspects limit the generalizability of the results, they represent clear trajectories of future research on HumEnt.

While this study empirically clarified the characteristics of HEO, future research is needed to better typify the construct and understand its three interconnected dimensions. The study found a slightly different EO conceptualization with respect to innovation and risk taking among the five SMEs. As a consequence, an in-depth study is needed to verify whether the classic measurement scales of EO are still current or if they must be revised. Another research trajectory relates to SO, which appears to be a central construct that connects the environmental dimension with the social dimension, as well as HRO. This latter dimension seems related to an entrepreneur's vision of a firm, and research is needed to assess whether it works differently depending on the dimensions or context of the firm.

Lastly, all cases showed an entrepreneur's visionary idea on how to shape the firm and how to enhance the business idea. Future research may focus on the relationship between the individual values and culture of the entrepreneur, with HEO being utilized to assess the relationship between the two as an antecedent of the HEO strategic posture.

Table A1