Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nascent ventures’ green initiatives and angel investor judgments of legitimacy and funding

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of entrepreneurs allocating time and resources for pro-social initiatives on the perceptions of potential financial investors. Conducting two experiments, we investigate these effects and report findings that suggest corporate social responsibility initiatives may lead to increased favorable judgments of legitimacy, which in turn, facilitate obtaining funding from financial investors. We also find that these effects are more likely to occur in environments marked by low levels of dynamism. The contribution of this research is both novel and important, as it is concerned with entrepreneurs who are uniquely not necessarily concerned with being regarded as “green,” but may incorporate green initiatives in their for-profit ventures. Therefore, this study improves our understanding of how non-green entrepreneurs who act upon their pro-social values may be perceived by financial investors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our study focuses on regular for-profit ventures, and excludes social and sustainable entrepreneurs whose primary motivation is not economic returns but rather solving social and environmental issues.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. R. (1998). Cultivating the garden of Eden: environmental entrepreneuring. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2), 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend, R. J. (2014). Social and environmental performance at SMEs: Considering motivations, capabilities, and instrumentalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 541–561.

  • Bachelet, M. J., Becchetti, L., & Manfredonia, S. (2019). The Green bonds premium puzzle: the role of issuer characteristics and third-party verification. Sustainability, 11(4), 1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: an integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of 'green' inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2015). Does Greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.

  • Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: the case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? an analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C., Edelman, L., & Manolova, T. (2012). Ready for funding? Entrepreneurial ventures and the pursuit of angel financing. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 14(2-3), 111–129.

  • Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, C., & Suret, J. M. (2015). Angel group members’ decision process and rejection criteria: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 808–821.

  • Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.

  • Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M. (2009). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: an investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Edwards Jr., D. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2009). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2011). Sustainability in entrepreneurship: a tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal, 0266242610372460.

  • de Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636–1663.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Cuerel Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Keller, A. (2005). Free riding in voluntary environmental programs: the case of the U.S. EPA WasteWise program. Policy Sciences, 38, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirel, P., Li, Q. C., Rentocchini, F., & Tamvada, J. P. (2019). Born to be green: new insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 759–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52–73.

  • Dodge, H. R., & Robbins, J. E. (1992). An empirical investigation of the organizational life cycle. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(1), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 519–535.

  • Flammer, C. (2018). Corporate green bonds. SSRN Working Paper.

  • Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., Davidson, W. N., & El–Jelly, A. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: the differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1199–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, D. J., Green, S. E., & Goodnight, G. T. (2015). A model of rhetorical legitimation: the structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 76–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: the interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2569–2588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, J., Van Gelderen, M., & Thurik, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 323–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture performance: a social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts K. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures. In J. Mair, Robinson, & Hockerts, K. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. (pp. 142-154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

  • Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendoorn, B., Guerra, D., & van der Zwan, P. (2015). What drives environmental practices of SMEs? Small Business Economics, 44(4), 759–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörisch, J., Kollat, J., & Brieger, S. A. (2017). What influences environmental entrepreneurship? A multilevel analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurs’ environmental orientation. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváthová, E. (2010). Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. H., Tian, X., & Xu, Y. (2014). Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 116–135.

  • Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 781–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, T., Aguilera, R. V., & Jamali, D. (2017). Corporate stakeholder orientation in an emerging country context: A longitudinal cross industry analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 701–719.

  • Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance: an empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42(8), 1199–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levratto, N., Tessier, L., & Fonrouge, C. (2018). Business performance and angels presence: A fresh look from France 2008-2011. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 339–356.

  • Lothe, S., Myrtveit, I., & Trapani, T. (1999). Compensation systems for improving environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(6), 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macht, S. A., & Robinson, J. (2009). Do business angels benefit their investee companies? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 15(2), 187–208.

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organizational choice under ambiguity. Ambiguity and choice in organizations, 10–23.

  • Marquis, C., & Toffel, M. W. (2011). The globalization of corporate environmental disclosure: accountabilty or greenwashing?. Harvard Business School Working Paper, (11–115).

  • Maula, M., Autio, E., & Arenius, P. (2005). What drives micro-angel investments? An examination of the determinants of family and nonfamily investments. Small Business Economics, 25(5), 459–475.

  • Maxwell, A. L., Jeffrey, S. A., & Lévesque, M. (2011). Business angel early stage decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 212–225.

  • McCarthy, I. P., Lawrence, T. B., Wixted, B., & Gordon, B. R. (2010). A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental velocity. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 604–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyskens, M., & Carsrud, A. L. (2013). Nascent green-technology ventures: a study assessing the role of partnership diversity in firm success. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 739–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. D. (2007). Risk and rationality in entrepreneurial processes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mrkajic, B., Murtinu, S., & Scalera, V. G. (2019). Is green the new gold? Venture capital and green entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 929–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. J., Liao, J., & Welsch, H. P. (2006). A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought. Journal of Management History, 12(1), 12–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, B. G., Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Lohrke, F. T. (2012). The influence of entrepreneurs' credentials and impression management behaviors on perceptions of new venture legitimacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 941–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ning, Y., Wang, W., & Yu, B. (2015). The driving forces of venture capital investments. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 315–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neil, I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2016). Balancing “what matters to me” with “what matters to them”: exploring the legitimation process of environmental entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 133–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. (2012). Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 915–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. v. d. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business & Society, 44(4), 377–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance: clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 582–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.

  • Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. (2005). Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns, implications and alternative strategies. Journal of Management, 31(3), 330–353.

  • Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: the critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 361–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L., & Li, M. (2000). Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: a theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structures and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Z., Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2012). How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1274–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornikoski, E. T., & Newbert, S. L. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: a legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 311–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Osnabrugge, M. (2000). A comparison of business angel and venture capitalist investment procedures: An agency theory–based analysis. Venture Capital, 2(2), 91–109.

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance. Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1135–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, F., & Post, J. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.

  • York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbib, O. D. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: evidence from green bonds. Journal of Banking & Finance, 98, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEREN, EA 7477, Burgundy School of Business, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 29 Rue Sambin, 21000, Dijon, France

    Yann Truong

  2. Department of Management and Marketing, Nelson Rusche College of Business, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX, USA

    Brian G. Nagy

Authors
  1. Yann Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian G. Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Truong.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Truong, Y., Nagy, B.G. Nascent ventures’ green initiatives and angel investor judgments of legitimacy and funding. Small Bus Econ 57, 1801–1818 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00373-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00373-5

Keywords

JEL Classifications:

Search

Navigation