Civic wealth creation - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Timothy Eyube-Porwoll
Edited by: –
Last updated: December 8, 2025

Executive summary

Civic Wealth Creation (CWC) is a framework for fostering sustainable, community-driven development through collaboration among communities, enterprises, and support organizations. It emphasizes creating three forms of wealth—social, economic, and communal—beyond financial gains. Social wealth improves quality of life through health, education, and justice; economic wealth provides jobs and resources; communal wealth strengthens local identity and self-reliance. CWC operates at the civic level, prioritizing local ecosystems where change is most tangible. Key mechanisms include engaged participation, collaborative innovation, and resource mobilization. The ADKAR model (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) offers a roadmap for managing stakeholder engagement and overcoming resistance to change. Case studies like Saxapahaw (USA) and Sanergy (Kenya) illustrate how enterprises and communities co-create civic wealth through entrepreneurial action. Challenges include balancing wealth dimensions, avoiding mission drift, and sustaining stakeholder commitment. Future research should address stakeholder dynamics, measurement of civic wealth, and ethical implications. Ultimately, CWC provides a holistic approach to social innovation, enabling communities to bypass systemic failures and build inclusive prosperity.

1 Introduction

Wide socio-economic gaps and political disillusionment have raised concerns about the ability of traditional institutions to solve local problems. For example, inequality is climbing worldwide – a trend that “can weaken trust in public institutions and undermine democratic governance”.¹ Correspondingly, surveys document a global decline in public trust and rising polarization.² At the same time, many communities feel “disempowered” by distant governments or one-size-fits-all markets that fail to address local needs. Research shows that when markets or public agencies falter, citizens often respond with collective civic action or social enterprises.³ These bottom-up collaborations have become increasingly important as alternative solutions – linking community members, institutions, and businesses – to pursue sustainable development and innovation in place of failing top-down approaches.

This context highlights the importance of local collective action. Scholars note that “positive societal change happens when community members, supporters, and entrepreneurially minded agents come together to aggregate resources and build new capacities”⁴ . Such stakeholder-driven efforts are now gaining attention in fields like social innovation and sustainable development. Civic Wealth Creation (CWC) is one prominent framework: it explicitly links entrepreneurship, community engagement, and institutional support toward shared well-being. The CWC perspective aligns with growing interest in social entrepreneurship, cooperative models, and institutional alternatives that center local knowledge and agency. By focusing on “wealth” beyond finance – including social capital, public goods, and local capacity – CWC offers a holistic way to address modern societal problems.

Motivated by these trends, this article aims to clarify the concept of Civic Wealth Creation and provide tools for understanding its practice. In particular, it seeks to define what CWC is and how it can be achieved, as well as how the CWC framework can be organized and evaluated. Building on Lumpkin and Bacq’s seminal work, the following guiding questions are formulated:

What is Civic Wealth Creation and how is it achieved? Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) define CWC as “the generation of social, economic, and communal endowments that benefit local communities”⁴ . We explore how communities, support organizations, and enterprises collaborate to create this wealth.
How can CWC be conceptualized, structured, and evaluated? This question addresses the need to build a coherent model and metrics for CWC – for instance, identifying key dimensions (stakeholder roles, forms of wealth) and assessing initiatives’ impact on each.

2 Literaure review

2.1 Definition and emergence of Civic Wealth Creation

Civic Wealth Creation (CWC) has emerged as a comprehensive framework for understanding and enabling positive societal change through the intentional, entrepreneurial, and collaborative generation of wealth that benefits local communities. Rather than focusing solely on economic performance or market efficiency, CWC is concerned with long-term, inclusive, and community-rooted development that strengthens the social fabric and resilience of a specific civic environment. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) define CWC as “the generation of social, economic, and communal wealth that benefits local communities”.⁴ At its core, CWC encompasses the creation of three distinct yet interrelated forms of wealth: social wealth, communal wealth, and economic wealth.⁵ Social wealth refers to benefits that directly enhance collective well-being, such as access to healthcare, education, social justice, and public safety.⁴ It typically arises at the intersection of local communities and so-called regimes of support, which include public institutions, nonprofit organizations, and other formal support systems.⁵ Communal wealth is generated through the entrepreneurial efforts of communities themselves, emphasizing localized self-reliance, cultural enrichment, and the development of social capital. It reflects the capacity of people in a defined locale to shape their environment through cooperation, identity formation, and collective agency.⁵ This form of wealth is created in the dynamic interplay between community actors and enterprise.⁴ Economic wealth results from productive trade, employment creation, and resource access—components typically associated with markets.⁴ Within the CWC framework, however, economic wealth is understood not as an isolated goal, but as a tool for strengthening community capacity and sustainability. It emerges through collaboration between enterprises and regimes of support and is meant to be reinvested into the local context.⁵ When these three forms of wealth are cultivated simultaneously and in coordination, they converge into what is referred to as “civic wealth.” This represents the total stock of intellectual, emotional, and material resources available to a local civic unit—such as a neighborhood, town, or rural community—designed to sustain its long-term well-being. Civic wealth reflects a synergy among community participation, institutional support, and entrepreneurial initiative, making it a multidimensional indicator of sustainable development.⁴⁶

Figure 1: The Civic Wealth Creation framework⁴

A key conceptual contribution of CWC is its relocation of the unit of analysis to the civic level. Unlike traditional approaches that focus on firms, governments, or macroeconomic systems, CWC centers on local ecosystems where social change is most tangible.⁷ This “civic level of analysis” underscores the role of individuals and communities not merely as recipients of change, but as agents and co-creators of transformation. It captures the diversity of local settings—villages, neighborhoods, and micro-regions—where the solutions are often designed and implemented by those most affected by systemic problems.⁸ CWC initiatives are characterized by four structural features that together constitute the operational logic of this framework. First, intentionality distinguishes civic wealth creation from market-led or spontaneous outcomes. Successful CWC efforts are designed with a specific civic context in mind, often targeting disadvantaged or underrepresented populations. These efforts are purposefully structured to generate both economic and non-economic outcomes that are sustainable and deeply rooted in the community.⁷ Second, entrepreneurial commerce plays a central role in financing and legitimizing CWC. Rather than relying exclusively on grants or public subsidies, CWC initiatives often adopt revenue-generating business models that support their societal mission. Entrepreneurial commerce thus functions as a strategic mechanism that facilitates the mobilization of resources, builds organizational credibility, and fosters local autonomy.⁷ Third, CWC is built upon an expanded understanding of wealth. Instead of measuring success purely through financial indicators, it adopts a holistic notion of “total wealth” that includes emotional, social, cultural, and relational assets. This expanded view recognizes elements such as trust, civic engagement, social equity, and well-being as legitimate and valuable dimensions of prosperity.⁶⁹ Fourth, stakeholder engagement is both a foundational element and a distinguishing feature of CWC.⁴ The framework emphasizes the active inclusion of a diverse set of actors, typically categorized into three stakeholder groups: (1) Community members—motivated by kinship, solidarity, and civic responsibility; (2) Regimes of support—such as foundations, government bodies, and NGOs that provide institutional and financial backing; (3) Enterprises—which use market mechanisms to drive change while aligning with social objectives. Their interactions create mutual accountability and shared value, serving as a basis for sustainable and equitable civic transformation.⁶ Despite its strengths, CWC is not without challenges. In practice, the boundaries between social, communal, and economic wealth can blur, and trade-offs may arise. Initiatives can face mission drift when financial pressures undermine civic objectives (Lumpkin and Bacq, 2019, p.). Moreover, lack of stakeholder commitment or resistance to change can jeopardize implementation efforts. For example, the Saxapahaw case study illustrates how informal governance, unclear roles, and conflicting interests within entrepreneurial communities can create friction and hinder progress.⁵ In conclusion, Civic Wealth Creation represents a robust paradigm for local transformation, particularly in contexts where market or state mechanisms fail to deliver inclusive outcomes. By integrating intentional design, entrepreneurial logic, multidimensional wealth, and participatory engagement, CWC offers a powerful, community-centered approach to sustainable societal development.

2.2 Stakeholders in the CWC context

2.2.1 Communities, regimes of support and enterprise

In the context of Civic Wealth Creation (CWC), stakeholder collaboration is not only encouraged but essential. Drawing from stakeholder theory, CWC is grounded in the belief that diverse actors can fulfill their needs and aspirations through voluntary agreements based on shared values and mutual recognition. As Freeman and colleagues (2010) argue, value is not merely “discovered” in the marketplace but co-created through the alignment of interests among stakeholders within a community.¹⁰ This principle resonates strongly with the CWC logic that wealth emerges from within social relationships rather than from external interventions alone.

CWC emphasizes that positive social transformation requires the engagement of multiple stakeholder groups, often from different sectors, working together to pool resources and build collective capacity. Research shows that cross-sector stakeholder collaboration is crucial for the success of community-based change initiatives.¹¹ When those who are directly affected by societal issues—such as marginalized populations or under-resourced neighborhoods—are excluded from the process, external aid often proves temporary, unbalanced, or even detrimental.¹² Thus, stakeholder engagement must be both inclusive and sustained.

The CWC framework identifies three primary stakeholder groups whose joint efforts are necessary to achieve civic wealth. First, communities represent the beneficiaries of change—residents and local actors who contribute contextual knowledge, lived experience, and social cohesion. Their involvement is driven by logics of kinship and citizenry, which reflect shared responsibility, emotional attachment, and a sense of belonging.⁴ Without their insight and commitment, CWC efforts risk missing the nuances of local realities and cultural dynamics.

Second, regimes of support encompass donors, foundations, universities, government agencies, and service organizations that offer financial, institutional, and political support.⁴ These stakeholders operate under the logics of influence and control, providing essential resources, establishing priorities, and shaping policy frameworks. Their role is vital in enhancing legitimacy and creating the enabling environments needed for civic entrepreneurship.⁴ Third, enterprises include for-profit firms, nonprofit organizations, cooperatives, and hybrid ventures engaged in commercial activity with a social mission.⁶ These actors are motivated by logics of business and entrepreneurship, which emphasize sustainability, innovation, and the generation of economic value. Their presence in CWC initiatives provides not only revenue streams but also operational efficiency, growth potential, and access to markets.⁶ Together, these three stakeholder groups form the collaborative backbone of Civic Wealth Creation. Their interactions—when rooted in trust, aligned objectives, and reciprocal accountability—enable the emergence of integrated solutions to complex social problems. Rather than acting independently, CWC demands coordinated action across sectors, built upon the recognition that meaningful, lasting change must be co-produced by those who live within, support, and economically engage with the communities in question.⁴

2.2.2 Mechanisms of value creation through stakeholder engagement

Civic Wealth Creation (CWC) unfolds through several mechanisms that enable stakeholders from diverse sectors to jointly generate value.⁴ These mechanisms reflect how social, economic, and communal resources are activated in context-specific ways. The collaborative logic of CWC relies heavily on stakeholder engagement—not just as a principle, but as a dynamic, operative force that drives transformation through action.

The first and most foundational mechanism is Engaged Participation. This refers to the deliberate and sustained involvement of stakeholders—particularly community members—across all stages of a civic wealth creation. From problem identification and co-design of solutions to implementation and maintenance, high levels of participation empower local residents to take ownership of created wealth and to initiate further value-generating activities.⁴ This mechanism also includes the engagement of key supporters who contribute their expertise, legitimacy, and legal authority to drive and sustain CWC initiatives Di Domenico and colleagues (2010) research on social entrepreneurship states that “the active involvement of stakeholders in the creation, management, and governance” of social enterprises was apparent in all studied cases.¹³ The second key mechanism is Collaborative Innovation, which involves generating novel approaches to complex social challenges by leveraging the knowledge, expertise, and creative capacity of multiple actors across organizational boundaries.¹⁴ Collaborative innovation emerges in response to persistent societal inequities and fosters the development of new institutional arrangements and systems. In civic contexts, such innovation is typically interorganizational, connecting enterprises, communities, and regimes of support.⁴ Effective collaborative innovation depends on trust-building, shared missions, equitable power-sharing, inclusive decision-making, and transparent communication. These processes reduce the friction caused by conflicting stakeholder logics and facilitate synergies that enhance problem-solving. Integrative leadership plays a critical role in coordinating stakeholders and aligning their contributions with the collective goal of civic wealth creation.⁴ The third mechanism is Resource Mobilization—the ability of civic initiatives to access, attract, and activate a diverse range of financial, human, technological, and physical resources. In many CWC settings, resource constraints are a primary barrier to impactful social innovation.¹⁵ Thus, mobilizing resources becomes both a practical and strategic priority. CWC efforts serve as catalysts that unite stakeholder groups around shared civic goals, creating incentives for resource sharing and long-term collaboration.⁴ Mobilized resources can directly expand a community’s civic wealth (e.g., through donated land, restored infrastructure, or grant funding) or indirectly strengthen inter-stakeholder relationships (e.g., through volunteer labor, shared space, or professional networks).¹⁶ When CWC becomes a shared mission, stakeholders are more willing to contribute and collaborate, enhancing collective efficacy and long-term impact.⁴ In sum, engaged participation, collaborative innovation, and resource mobilization form a triad of mechanisms through which civic wealth is created. They allow stakeholders to transform intentions into outcomes, moving beyond rhetorical commitment toward material and institutional change. These mechanisms are not standalone processes; rather, they operate in mutual reinforcement, enabling communities and their partners to co-produce sustainable, localized, and inclusive forms of wealth.

2.2.3 The ADKAR Model in the context of CWC

Achieving positive social change through CWC requires high engagement across diverse stakeholders, yet efforts often falter due to resistance to change and low stakeholder participation.⁶ To mitigate these issues, Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) propose applying the ADKAR change management model – which stands for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement – as a structured framework to enhance stakeholder engagement in CWC initiatives. The ADKAR model, originally developed by Hiatt (2006) for guiding individual change, identifies five outcomes that must be present for change to occur: (1) awareness of the need for change, (2) desire to participate, (3) knowledge of how to change, (4) ability to implement the change, and (5) reinforcement to sustain it.⁶¹⁷ This section analyzes each ADKAR dimension (Figure 2) and explains how they foster civic engagement and value creation, with a focus on collaboration among community members, support regimes, and enterprises to achieve social impact. Emphasis is placed on entrepreneurial constructs, stakeholder perspectives, conceptual levers, and value integration mechanisms.

Awareness

Awareness of the need for change is the initial ADKAR element and a prerequisite for any stakeholder to engage in a civic initiative. It entails recognizing what change is proposed, why it is necessary, the risks of not changing, and the personal or communal benefits of change.⁶ In entrepreneurial terms, this aligns with the concept of opportunity—alertness to changing local conditions and the identification of unmet social needs.

From a stakeholder perspective, communities must develop awareness of social deficits and opportunities for improvement.⁶ However, awareness is not always internally generated. For example, in Flint, Michigan, it was external actors—scientists—who drew attention to the local water contamination crisis.¹⁸ This case highlights that communities may rely on others to help them recognize their own problems. At the same time, support regimes must engage directly with communities to assess real needs and impact potential. Enterprises require knowledge of both community needs and support regime priorities to align their ventures effectively.⁶

Figure 2: Civic Wealth Creation engagement framework⁶

Mismatches in awareness among stakeholders can lead to misunderstandings or resistance. Divergent problem definitions, lack of trust, and selective attention to signals hinder mutual understanding.⁶ The concept of embeddedness—where organizations integrate into the community’s social fabric—is a critical lever here. Local embeddedness allows enterprises and regimes of support to grasp everyday realities and informal feedback loops, enhancing awareness and responsiveness.¹⁹ For instance, even non-social regimes of support, such as microfinance institutions, perform better when hiring locally connected staff.⁶ When it comes to value integration, intentional communication mechanisms—such as town halls, participatory research, and focus groups—are crucial to developing a shared understanding.

Additionally, multi-stakeholder initiatives benefit from joint fact-finding efforts, such as community-engaged planning sessions, participatory action research, or inclusive workshops.²⁰ These formats provide a structured space for stakeholders to listen to one another and co-create a shared understanding of the problem, leading to greater alignment and legitimacy.

In CWC, the Awareness stage also underscores the importance of epistemic humility: stakeholders must be open to recognizing that their perception of the problem may be partial or limited. Enterprises, for instance, must resist the urge to impose top-down interpretations and instead learn from local knowledge. Regimes of support should critically assess whether their assumptions about a community’s needs are evidence-based and informed by lived experience.⁶

Desire

Even when awareness is achieved, change will not proceed unless stakeholders develop a genuine desire to engage. Desire refers to the willingness to act upon awareness, shaped by intrinsic motivation, perceived benefits, context, and social identity.¹⁷ Communities may acknowledge persistent issues like poverty but lack the motivation to engage due to perceived futility or past disappointments.²¹ Support regimes are often motivated by twin goals—economic progress and social impact—but may disengage if one dimension dominates at the expense of the other.⁶ Enterprises balance reputational, financial, and mission-alignment incentives. They may engage if the civic project enhances legitimacy and profitability but will withdraw if it threatens survival.

Desire is often fragmented across stakeholders due to differing goals. Integrative negotiation is a key mechanism to realign interests and create shared value. By focusing on underlying interests rather than positions, stakeholders can discover win–win solutions.⁶ A vital mechanism to bolster collective desire is Empowerment. Empowerment operates at both individual and group levels: it is often discussed as an outcome of successful social change 22, but it is also a driver of desire during the change. In the ADKAR framework, empowerment can be seen as a lever to transform self-interest into shared interest – stakeholders come to realize that by empowering one another (e.g. giving marginalized groups a voice, or enabling local leaders to take charge), everyone benefits from a more robust, inclusive solution.

For example, a city foundation that sets up a community advisory board to co-design programs is more likely to foster enduring desire among residents. Similarly, enterprises that integrate local feedback into their product design or service delivery demonstrate responsiveness and inclusion, which boosts legitimacy.

Conversely, self-serving behavior—such as elite resistance to equitable change or nonprofits clinging to sole provider roles—can fragment desire and harm collective outcomes. This includes “prosocial paradox” dynamics, where social organizations act in ways that reinforce their own power at the expense of broader systemic change.²²

Knowledge

Once stakeholders are on board and motivated to change, they must have knowledge of how to change – the third ADKAR component. Knowledge encompasses the information, skills, and know-how required to design and implement new solutions.¹⁷ In the context of CWC, knowledge is a collective resource that arises from combining different stakeholders’ expertise and local insights. Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) describe knowledge-sharing among stakeholders as “vital to the CWC process.⁶ Communities contribute local, context-specific knowledge – they have lived experience of the issue and can envision which solutions might work locally.²¹ If a community lacks experience with formal projects or is unsure how to solve a problem, there is a risk of inaction or ineffective action. Support regimes often bring policy expertise, funding mechanisms, and research capacity.⁶ Many supporters – such as government agencies, foundations, or investors – have accumulated expertise in their domains (e.g. public health, education, finance) and can advise on best practices or connect communities with external knowledge resources. Enterprises contribute industry knowledge, innovation techniques, and operational management experience.⁶ An enterprise that has internal expertise related to the change can repurpose its knowledge to act quickly. If not, it must seek external knowledge through hiring consultants, trainers, or partnering with others.²³ Education is the supporting mechanism. Joint educational activities, such as cross-sector training sessions, community learning workshops, and knowledge-sharing platforms, help distribute critical information to all participants. For example, Montgomery et al. (2012) describe how community–enterprise partnerships provided entrepreneurship training and mutual learning opportunities that built the knowledge base for everyone involved.²⁴ Here, Solution design becomes the core conceptual lever. Two broad pathways for designing solutions can be pursued:⁶ (1) adapt existing knowledge from outside, or (2) generate new knowledge through innovation. Adaptation requires customizing known solutions for local relevance, while innovation involves designing new approaches collaboratively. Innovation is riskier but often necessary in contexts where established models have failed or are unavailable.

Ability

Having knowledge of what needs to be done is necessary but not sufficient – stakeholders must also have the ability to implement new skills and behaviors, which is the fourth ADKAR element. Ability refers to the actual capacity to execute the change in practice at the desired level of performance.¹⁷ This includes possessing the requisite skills, competencies, resources, and a supportive environment to carry out the change. Abilities in ADKAR encompass not only technical or task skills but also psychological, physical, and cognitive capacities, as well as necessary resources like time and support.⁶ In the CWC context, communities need access to goods and services, organizational readiness, and local infrastructure.⁶ At minimum, the community must have a basic capacity to engage – infrastructure to receive solutions, openness to participate, and the absence of prohibitive barriers. Regimes of support primarily contribute financial capital, political influence, and networks. Their ability to drive change often boils down to whether they can mobilize adequate funds and social capital for the initiative. Enterprises are the primary operational actors delivering goods or services in CWC. Their ability hinges on having the required resources and skills to execute the solution. Resources include physical assets, human talent, finances, and relationships.²⁵ Aside from resources, enterprises must have technical capabilities (to develop products or services of good quality) and operational capabilities (to deliver effectively, manage logistics, etc.).⁶ A powerful way to boost ability across all stakeholders is through collaboration and support networks. As Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) state, “civic wealth creation stakeholder partnerships provide an effective mechanism for resource sharing, skills development, and revenue generation”.⁶ By collaborating, stakeholders can leverage one another’s assets

A key lever for ability is change leadership. Strong leadership amplifies stakeholders’ abilities by organizing them towards a common goal. Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) observe that a change leader frequently emerges as the key driver of CWC, and this figure could come from any stakeholder group.⁶ Thus, ADKAR’s Ability stage in CWC often involves identifying or developing change leaders who can mobilize skills and resources in pursuit of the collective vision.

Reinforcement

The final ADKAR element, Reinforcement to sustain the change, deals with making change stick and keeping stakeholders committed over time. Reinforcement comes into play after stakeholders have initiated the change, and it involves providing ongoing encouragement, rewards, or feedback to ensure the new behaviors or activities are maintained (Hiatt 2006). In a civic initiative, reinforcement mechanisms are what keep community members, support partners, and organizations engaged in the project for the long haul, rather than reverting to old habits or dropping out once initial excitement fades. A lack of positive reinforcement or the presence of negative reinforcement can quickly dampen motivation. If stakeholders perceive that their investment of time or resources isn’t leading to meaningful outcomes (or worse, is being met with criticism or indifference), they may decide the opportunity cost of continuing is too high and disengage either before the change is complete or soon after.⁶ In CWC, each stakeholder category tends to measure success in distinct ways, so the reinforcement must be relevant to what each group values. Communities, for example, are often most invested in communal and social wealth outcomes – improvements in quality of life, stronger social bonds, cultural vibrancy, etc.⁴ . Visible positive outcomes are important to reinforce community members’ belief that the change is benefiting them. For regimes of support, the primary success signals are often social and economic returns on their investment. They might not demand profit in the traditional sense, but they do expect that their contribution yields appreciable social impact (and sometimes political or reputational benefits). If those expectations are not met – if the community or enterprise they backed fails to produce positive change – their reinforcement is negative and they may pull out funding or attention.⁶ Enterprises in CWC look for reinforcement in terms of their economic viability and communal value creation. Many social enterprises are driven by compassion and mission, but to sustain their efforts, they also need to feel capable and valued in their role.²⁵ If the enterprise’s service is not being utilized (e.g. a social enterprise opens a community market but only few people shop there) or outcomes are poor, it sends a discouraging signal that can lead to abandoning the effort.

To systematically provide reinforcement, CWC initiatives use various feedback mechanisms to evaluate and communicate progress. Common tools include: performance metrics – quantifiable indicators of social impact (number of people served, improvement on certain health or education metrics, etc.), impact assessments – more comprehensive evaluations possibly including qualitative outcomes, participant feedback – getting input from community members or beneficiaries on how the change is affecting them, and “retrospectives” or after-action reviews – sessions to reflect on lessons learned.²⁶ Additionally, the setting of Incremental goals serves as an important lever. In the ADKAR framework, reinforcing early successes is critical: small victories achieved early in the process serve as proof that the effort is paying off, thus encouraging stakeholders to continue or expand the initiative. As Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) put it, strategies utilizing “incremental goals to generate quick wins provide stakeholders with important short-term feedback regarding CWC success.⁶ Incremental goals are particularly effective: short-term wins build momentum and validate the process. These can include job placements, event attendance, or pilot program completions.⁶ They also allow for reflection and adjustment, increasing adaptive capacity.

In conclusion, the ADKAR change model, though initially developed for business change, proves to be highly applicable to public and community-based change efforts. Its focus on individual and stakeholder-level change readiness provides a human-centric roadmap for enacting positive social change. In the context of civic wealth creation, ADKAR serves as a catalyst for bringing together diverse stakeholders and keeping them collaboratively engaged from the genesis of an idea to the realization of long-term impact.

2.3 Expanded understanding of wealth

2.3.1 Types and creation of wealth

As previously touched, the concept of CWC expands conventional notions of wealth beyond purely financial terms, incorporating social and communal dimensions that together sustain communities. While economic wealth remains central to entrepreneurship and commerce, social and communal forms of wealth represent equally vital contributions to civic well-being. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) argue that civic wealth is created at the intersections of the three stakeholder groups, each driven by distinct logics but capable of producing synergies when aligned.⁴ This chapter elaborates on the three main forms of wealth—social, economic, and communal—to turn to the ways they are generated at stakeholder intersections. Also, it discusses the concept of partial models of CWC, wherein only a subset of these wealth forms are robustly realized.

Social wealth creation

Social wealth in the context of civic wealth creation refers to the improvements in the social well-being of a community – the “intangible, nonpecuniary” benefits that enhance quality of life. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) characterize social wealth as the benefits accruing to a community’s well-being, such as improved access to healthcare, education, justice, or other social services.⁴ This form of wealth is typically manifest in outcomes like public health improvements, educational attainment, reduced crime, greater social inclusion, and expanded opportunities for community members to thrive. Importantly, social wealth is a collective asset: it resides not in individual bank accounts but in the enhanced capabilities and social conditions of the community.

In these situations, community members motivated by kinship or citizenry seek assistance from external supporters, or conversely external actors recognize a community’s needs and offer help. This process can occur “bottom-up,” with local initiatives requesting aid, thereby incrementally building local capacity and social capital. It may also occur “top-down,” where outside organizations or donors step in uninvited to bolster a community’s well-being (also described as outside-in development).²⁷ In both cases, external Regimes of Support – such as nonprofits, governments, or donors – contribute resources and expertise with the intent to positively influence local conditions. The underlying logic is that investing in a community will yield broader societal returns, consistent with inside-out development principles. Through these collaborative efforts, the logics of kinship and citizenry (Community) intersect with the logics of influence and control (Support), stimulating the creation of social wealth.⁴

Economic wealth

Economic wealth in the CWC context is generated by the interaction of enterprising activity with supportive stakeholders, effectively linking commerce to community advancement.⁴ The logics of business and entrepreneurship (Enterprise) drive the pursuit of economic value through new ventures, market-based solutions, and income-generating activities, while the logics of influence and control (Support) provide critical resources and governance to enable these activities.⁴ Economic wealth creation typically involves launching or expanding ventures that produce financial returns and employment. New enterprises often rely on external funding or partnerships – for instance, loans, investments, grants, or technical assistance – to grow and become sustainable.⁴ In exchange for providing capital and support, stakeholders such as investors, philanthropists, or government agencies seek to guide outcomes and ensure their contributions are used effectively.⁴ The infusion of financial resources, business expertise, and even social networks from these supporters helps ventures scale innovations and increase their impact. As these business-focused stakeholders collaborate with Regimes of Support, economic wealth is created – evident in job creation, increased incomes, and improved economic infrastructure in the community.⁴ Even policy actions like pro-commerce legislation or university knowledge transfer can bolster local economic wealth by enabling entrepreneurial growth.⁴

Communal wealth

Communal wealth is the form of wealth that emerges when community members themselves engage in enterprise to improve their collective well-being. It is created at the intersection of the Community and Enterprise spheres, reflecting the idea of communities acting entrepreneurially on their own behalf.⁴ Communal wealth extends beyond financial metrics, encompassing shared assets, capacities, and a sense of empowerment that arise when a community coalesces around a common enterprise.

A classic manifestation is community-based entrepreneurship, defined as “a community acting corporately as both entrepreneur and enterprise”.²¹ In such ventures, a group of local stakeholders collectively owns and manages an enterprise with the aim of addressing local needs. Essential elements include “communal values and the notion of the common good” as core drivers of the business.²¹ This emphasis on collective benefit means that communal wealth often appears in the form of enhanced social cohesion, local pride, and improved quality of life alongside economic gains.

For instance, when community members join forces to start a cooperative or social enterprise – such as creating employment opportunities tailored to underserved groups – they generate communal wealth by building self-reliance and capacity within the locality.⁴ These community-led ventures provide outlets for cultural expression, social interaction, and relationship-building, which strengthen the fabric of the community. Research on entrepreneurial communities shows that when entrepreneurs and residents unite to repurpose local assets and invest in shared projects, they can revitalize a community and create new opportunities for others.⁵ Such efforts exemplify communal wealth creation: the community itself is directly involved in producing value and retaining it locally. In sum, communal wealth is realized when the logics of kinship and citizenry fuse with the logics of business and entrepreneurship, empowering communities to solve their own problems and capture the benefits.⁴

2.3.2 Partial models of Civic Wealth Creation

The ideal scenario for CWC is one in which social, economic, and communal wealth are all generated robustly and in balance – yielding a strong form of civic wealth. However, in practice many initiatives result in “partial” models of civic wealth creation, wherein one or two types of wealth are created in high measure while the other type(s) remain low.⁴ Depending on which combinations of wealth are achieved, CWC outcomes can be classified as moderate (high in two types of wealth creation, low in one) or weak (high in only one type, low in the other two). For instance, the nonprofit KaBOOM! brings together community leadership with corporate sponsors and volunteers to build playgrounds in underserved neighborhoods – a collaboration that clearly improves communal wealth (through increased local responsibility and cohesion) and social wealth (through health and safety benefits for children), but does not significantly generate new economic wealth for the community.⁴ As a result, KaBOOM! produces a moderate degree of civic wealth, improving quality of life but contributing only modestly to economic self-sufficiency.²⁸ Another example of a moderate CWC model is the social enterprise TOMS Shoes. TOMS’s “one-for-one” model (donating a pair of shoes or other needed goods for each product sold) creates economic wealth for the company and some social wealth for beneficiary communities, but because those communities are largely passive recipients rather than active participants, communal wealth creation is minimal.²⁹ In this case, high economic and social outcomes paired with low communal engagement again yield a moderate overall level of civic wealth. A different configuration is seen in the microconsignment model, which empowers local micro-entrepreneurs (mostly women in rural villages) to sell affordable goods like stoves and water filters. This initiative combines strong economic wealth creation (generating household income and business activity) with strong communal wealth (building local capacity and self-sufficiency), yet it produces relatively limited social wealth in terms of broader public services.⁴³⁰ Finally, some cases illustrate weak CWC. A prominent example is big-box retail entering a community – for instance, a Walmart store provides jobs and affordable goods (economic wealth) but can also drive out local businesses and does little to engage the community or transform local social conditions, resulting in low communal and social wealth.⁴ Here, the collaboration primarily between an enterprise and outside support (e.g., corporate investment with minimal community input) leads to economic gains but only weak civic wealth overall.

Figure 3: Partial models of Civic Wealth Creation⁴

These partial models underscore that creating all three types of wealth simultaneously is challenging, and trade-offs often occur. Wealth dimensions can sometimes substitute for or undermine one another – for example, an overemphasis on economic goals might sideline communal objectives, essentially causing projects to drift away from their social mission.⁴ Moreover, if stakeholders are not fully engaged or aligned in the process, the CWC initiative may stall or yield imbalanced outcomes. As previously stated, low stakeholder engagement is indeed linked to reduced civic wealth, whereas deep, intentional collaboration across community members, support organizations, and enterprises is more likely to produce strong, sustainable impacts.⁶ In essence, the greater the synergy among all three stakeholder categories and the wealth types they generate, the stronger the civic wealth created for the community.⁴

2.4 Monopoly bypassing through collective action

2.4.1 Monopolies as market failures in utility services

Monopolies are widely recognized as market failures because they suppress competition and consumer choice, creating what has been called a “freedom dilemma”.⁷ On one hand, monopolists often justify their dominance by pointing to economies of scale and efficiency – providing goods or services at lower unit cost as they grow larger. On the other hand, when a single provider controls a market, consumers lose meaningful freedom of choice. Such monopolistic power allows firms to shape consumer behavior, while extracting disproportionate value. In short, monopolies may arise through legitimate business success, but their unchecked power ultimately undermines consumer welfare.

Natural monopolies – industries where high fixed costs and structural factors make single-firm provision most efficient – pose a particular challenge. Utilities like water, electricity, and sanitation are often natural monopolies because the huge infrastructure investments required (pipes, grids, treatment plants) create prohibitive entry barriers for competitors.⁷ It is typically unprofitable for more than one company to operate, so one firm becomes the sole provider by default. The problem is that this incumbent utility monopoly then wields outsized market power to restrict service and overcharge consumers. In the absence of competition, consumers have no recourse to alternate providers. Government intervention has traditionally been the remedy for such natural monopoly abuses. While state-owned or regulated utilities are intended to protect consumers, in practice these arrangements often fall short of restoring true consumer choice.⁷ A regulated monopoly (e.g. a private concession with government oversight) might still leave consumers with no alternative supplier and weak oversight or corruption can allow continued exploitation.

2.4.2 Bypassing monopoly power via collective action and CWC

When public regulation fails to curb monopoly power, citizens often seek collective alternatives to regain their freedom of choice. This process relies on collective action – the coordinated effort of a group to achieve a common goal – to create market- based alternatives outside the monopolist’s control.

In the context of utility monopolies, consumers typically have three ways to bypass a monopoly provider, which were noted by Broadman and Kalt (1989)³¹ in their study of natural gas markets: 1. switching to an alternative supplier, 2. using a substitute service that fulfills the same need via different means and 3. organizing to provide the service themselves. Broadman and Kalt also distinguish two forms of monopoly bypassing⁷ :

Partial bypass: Consumers bypass the monopoly company but still utilize the existing infrastructure or network that the monopolist built.
Complete bypass: Consumers bypass both the monopoly company and its physical network, creating an independent delivery system for the service

Within the CWC framework, any of the three stakeholder groups – community members, enterprises, or support organizations – might take the lead in initiating a monopoly-bypassing project. What defines CWC is not who starts it, but the fact that ultimately all three types of stakeholders collaborate and contribute. The following case studies illustrate how each type of stakeholder can spark a collective action to bypass a utility monopoly, thereby creating “civic wealth” – in the form of improved services, empowerment, and local prosperity – outside of monopolistic structures.

Community-initiated CWC: Jakarta remunicipalization

One way communities regain control from monopolies is through “remunicipalization” – organizing to bring a privatized public service back under municipal ownership and citizen oversight.

In Jakarta, local residents organized to reclaim a privatized water utility. After 1997 concessions to Thames (Aetra) and Suez (Palyja) led to 59% coverage, 44% leakage and prices more than four times higher than before.³² A coalition of citizens, workers and NGOs (KMMSAJ) sued to end the contracts. The city’s Water Management Team (WMT) assessed options and chose to let the contracts expire, gaining the existing pipes free of charge.³³ This is a classic partial bypass: Jakarta citizens bypassed the private companies but kept the distribution network. In effect, the community now buys water from a new public utility while using the old infrastructure.⁷ This collective effort restored consumer choice and oversight. With water management back under public control, citizens now influence pricing and service decisions. Local Residents and community groups can directly supervise operations and contracts, increasing transparency and accountability.⁷ In practice, this has already helped curb excessive pricing and improve coverage and quality. For example, community and civic oversight make it less likely that “excessive price practices will continue” and more likely that “improved distribution services with greater coverage and lower leakage” will result.⁷ These outcomes constitute civic wealth: the collective action of citizens has enhanced their prosperity, health and well-being by overcoming monopoly failures.

Enterprise-initiated CWC: Sanergy (Kenya)

Entrepreneurial ventures can also lead collective-action solutions to monopoly failures. Sanergy is a social enterprise founded by MIT students to solve sanitation in Nairobi slums. It installs “Fresh Life Toilets” (FLTs) – low-cost, off-grid cubicle toilets – in densely populated neighborhoods.³⁴ Crucially, Sanergy franchises these units to local entrepreneurs: residents pay a fixed setup fee and then collect user fees by managing the toilets. Sanergy provides technical support and collects the waste, converting it into fertilizer. This circular, bottom‐up model bypasses the usual sewer or piped networks (which seldom reach informal settlements) and creates a close substitute for formal sanitation.⁷ Because Sanergy’s model is entirely independent of the incumbent utility’s distribution, it exemplifies complete bypass. Residents’ collective action – franchisees cooperating with Sanergy – produces a new sanitation system that is “completely independent from utility companies and their distribution networks”.⁷ In other words, Sanergy and neighborhood entrepreneurs co-create a reliable alternative service, wholly circumventing the monopoly’s reach.

Sanergy’s mission is driven by social entrepreneurship: it addresses an unmet public need (safe sanitation) through a viable business model. The enterprise recognized that low-income areas suffer “absent or unreliable utility services” (often only pit latrines) that carry health risks.⁷ By embedding citizens as service providers, Sanergy increases access and choice. As the authors note, Sanergy’s citizens‐as‐entrepreneurs approach is “an enterprise-led CWC initiative” where collective franchising enables low-income communities to cocreate and operate their own sanitation system. Stakeholder theory predicts exactly this: when communities, entrepreneurs, and supporters coalesce, they generate social and economic wealth beyond what a single actor could achieve.¹⁰ Sanergy’s hybrid model also exemplifies collaboration. Its for-profit branch reinvests revenues to scale service (measured in FLTs installed and toilet users), while a nonprofit arm – funded by USAID, Gates Foundation, etc. – subsidizes expansion into poorer areas. Importantly, the company engages local authorities and community leaders in each project. This multi‐stakeholder coalition (“Sanergy, entrepreneurs, and neighborhoods”) produces “a highly decentralized and financially sustainable local solution” that bypasses concentrated power.⁷ By uniting social, economic and community endowments, Sanergy’s CWC approach not only delivers toilets but also builds civic wealth (health, livelihoods, empowerment) in slum neighborhoods.

Regime-of-support-initiated CWC: Water for people (Bolivia)

Collective monopoly bypassing can also be initiated by a “regime of support” actor – such as a non- governmental organization (NGO) or development agency – that mobilizes communities and resources to solve a service gap.

Water for People (WFP) is an NGO (a regime-of-support actor) that enables rural communities to create their own water/sanitation utilities. Operating in isolated Bolivian villages, WFP’s principle is “water for everyone forever”. Unlike a private firm, WFP’s role is to convene and empower stakeholders. The process starts with wide consultation (elders, teachers, officials, engineers, NGOs), ensuring the entire community buys in.⁷³⁵ Villagers, local government, and WFP each pledge about one-third of project costs. Only with this joint commitment does construction proceed. The resulting water and sanitation systems are designed, operated, and maintained by the communities themselves (often organized as local enterprises), with WFP withdrawing once systems run (offering technical help as needed).

Ownership and accountability are paramount. From the outset, WFP makes it clear that the community drives the initiative. Local people contribute labor, time and leadership; officials provide political support; and enterprises (e.g. a local utility coop) may be involved. The result is a wholly community‐owned utility. For example, in Cuchumuela (14 villages, 2,700 people) residents formerly fetched foul spring water by foot.⁷ Starting in 2005, WFP worked with villagers and the municipal government to install piped water and sanitation systems. By 2012, every household had reliable water. This dramatic improvement – from unsafe springs to full coverage – was achieved through collective action: villagers became the entrepreneurs of their own water utility.

WFP’s model shows how broad coalitions bypass monopoly constraints. The NGO explicitly builds relationships between market, government, technical and community forces. It shares costs with local governments and draws in additional aid. For sustainability, officials (and even village residents- turned-officials) are treated as key stakeholders: they co-develop regulations, training and systems. In effect, local governments help create substitutes that remedy the inefficiencies of a monopoly (e.g. where the utility had not extended service).

Because WFP’s community-built utilities do not rely on the incumbent monopoly’s network, this is also complete bypassing. As Lumpkin, Melendez & Bacq note, WFP “completely bypasses inadequate monopoly utility services”.⁷ By involving enterprises (private drillers, mechanics), community organizations, and municipalities, WFP generates a decentralized alternative that fits local condition. Access to clean water and sanitation increases for even marginal communities, expanding choices where previously none existed. In CWC terms, WFP’s effort creates communal endowments: safer water, better health, and stronger local governance emerge from the collective effort of citizens, enterprises, and support institutions.

These examples underscore the theoretical point that collective action and stakeholder collaboration are at the heart of CWC. Rather than rely on competition to discipline monopolies, the cases show how empowered citizens (communities), mission-driven organizations (enterprises), and supportive regimes (government/NGOs) co‐produce credible market-based solutions.⁷

2.5 Gaps and opportunities for future research

Because CWC is a relatively new lens, several authors note that the empirical and theoretical basis remains underdeveloped. The sources reviewed here collectively identify a number of important gaps and opportunities for research. In broad terms, these revolve around (1) understanding multi-stakeholder dynamics and engagement; (2) measuring and evaluating civic wealth outcomes; (3) the forms of organizing and resource mobilization; (4) contextual and process issues in community- driven change; and (5) ethical issues and unintended consequences of CWC.

A central theme is stakeholder engagement and alignment. Both Lumpkin and Bacq (2019)⁴ and Bailey and Lumpkin (2023)⁶ emphasize that CWC inherently involves diverse actors with different motivations. While positive outcomes arise when community members, enterprises, and supporters align, research has yet to specify how this alignment occurs and fails. Bailey and Lumpkin note that their stakeholder‐engagement framework (using the ADKAR change model) is only an initial step, and urge further study of the “conceptual levers” and dynamics by which actors’ differing values and needs can be reconciled.⁶ In their framework, each actor has distinct engagement propensities and change‐stage requirements (awareness, desire, etc.), so future work should examine how these vary in context and can be managed. For example, when and why do organizations (enterprises or governments) move beyond a narrow “business case” to invest in civic wealth out of a sense of shared purpose? Similarly, which stakeholder is best positioned to initiate a CWC initiative – community leaders, entrepreneurs, or regimes of support – and under what conditions?³⁶ Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) raise related questions about stakeholder logics: they observe that the strength of citizens’ kinship or entrepreneurial motivations (“logics”)⁴ can vary widely, and that weak local engagement can stall projects. Research is needed to determine, for instance, whether weak stakeholder logics can be compensated by stronger leadership elsewhere, and how collective interactions might generate multiplier effects.⁴ In sum, understanding the mechanisms of engagement – including how to overcome resistance or exclusion – is a ripe area for future work. By mapping CWC change processes, researchers can “pinpoint barriers” to engagement and test interventions to foster cooperation.⁶ Closely related is the question of measuring and evaluating civic wealth outcomes. Since CWC encompasses social and communal dimensions as well as economic gains, there is no established metric. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) explicitly call for future work to “assess CWC effectiveness” by developing measures of civic wealth. They suggest borrowing non-monetary outcome measures from community development, public administration or related fields (e.g. health, education, social capital metrics)⁴ , but also recognize the need to test the novel wealth constructs proposed in the CWC framework (social, economic, and communal wealth). The EGOS call for papers similarly highlights this gap: it asks researchers to identify the different manifestations of civic wealth as outcomes, and to devise ways to evaluate and measure them.³⁶ Work is also needed on learning from practice – analyzing both successes and failures of past CWC projects to refine impact measures. Thus, building systematic evaluation tools for CWC is a high priority.

Another gap concerns the forms of organizing and resource mobilization in CWC. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) note that CWC initiatives can take diverse organizational forms – from community cooperatives and public–private partnerships to nonprofits and social ventures – but little is known about which arrangements best generate civic wealth. They pose questions about the roles of different legal and organizational models: for instance, “To what extent is the cooperative form a promising vehicle for CWC?” and how do new legal entities (e.g. B Corps, L3Cs, Community Interest Companies) contribute to civic wealth.⁴ Similarly, Bailey and Lumpkin’s (2023) research agenda suggests examining how enterprises mediate resources between support regimes and communities, and how they manage conflicting demands from different partners.⁶ More generally, multi‐source calls raise questions about resource flows: how do enterprises and communities attract support (funding, knowledge, political backing) from regimes of support, and how do they pool their resources to co- create value. Investigating these organizing aspects – for example through comparative case studies of CWC ventures using different structures – could reveal best practices for mobilizing capital, knowledge, and authority in local change efforts.

The literature also points to contextual and process-level factors that need exploration. Existing CWC studies have focused on particular contexts (e.g. urban communities, base-of-pyramid utilities 7, or a single rural entrepreneurial hub 6), but it is unclear how generalizable the findings are. Dowin Kennedy’s (2021) case study of an entrepreneurial community in rural North Carolina, for instance, explicates stages by which founders built shared vision and animated local support. She explicitly calls for “future research [to] examine whether the process of entrepreneurial community formation presented here holds true in other contexts”.⁵ More broadly, the framework suggests studying geographical and cultural variation: e.g. how does a neighborhood’s location, resource endowments or shared identity influence the amount of civic wealth produced?⁴ In line with this, the EGOS call highlights questions about local ecosystems: how do entrepreneurial or community networks foster or deter CWC? What local institutions or norms are needed for CWC to take root (2025)?³⁶ Another underexplored area is the temporal dynamics of CWC: is civic wealth creation inherently project‐based or does it require ongoing institutions? Questions raised include whether there are iterative “loops” of interaction that steadily accumulate wealth, and how initiatives evolve (and when stakeholders enter or drop out) over time.⁴ In sum, enriching CWC theory with studies from diverse settings – urban vs. rural, high-income vs. developing regions, different cultures – and tracking how processes unfold will strengthen the field’s external validity.

Finally, several authors caution that CWC may entail ethical complexities and unintended harms, an area ripe for research. By definition, CWC is normatively framed as “positive social change,” but actors’ motives and actions can be mixed. Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) explicitly warn that funding in the name of civic wealth may “not be motivated by prosocial aspirations” and may even be channeled toward “selfish or corrupt ends”.⁴ They therefore call for research on the ethical implications of CWC activities and on the destructive potential of stakeholder interactions. Bailey and Lumpkin (2023) echo this concern, discussing “wealth creation paradoxes” that arise if entrepreneurship benefits some community members while excluding or even harming others.⁶ For instance, a top-down development project might increase local incomes but erode communal norms, or a sustainability campaign could pit environmentalists against workers’ interests. These tensions point to a need for studies of equity and justice in CWC: under what conditions do such paradoxes emerge, and how can coalitions be designed to mitigate negative side-effects?

In conclusion, the reviewed sources reveal that CWC research is just beginning and invite an ambitious agenda. Addressing these gaps – from unpacking stakeholder dynamics and measuring “civic wealth,” to testing CWC in varied institutional settings and interrogating its ethics – will be essential to mature the civic wealth creation perspective.

3 CWC in practice

3.1 Building entrepreneurial communities through CWC

3.1.1 The relevance of entrepreneurship

As discussed earlier, enterprises are indispensable to civic wealth creation (CWC) initiatives because they generate the economic endowments that, together with social and communal capital, form the three pillars of civic wealth. Entrepreneurship in rural and low-income regions can “strengthen communities through civic wealth creation (CWC)” by leveraging market activities to make change efforts financially viable.⁵ CWC requires collaboration among community members, regimes of support and enterprises. In this framework, for-profit and nonprofit ventures provide “multiple mechanisms for ensuring change initiatives are financially viable and sustainable through market-based entrepreneurial activities”.⁶ In practice this means that businesses contribute economic wealth (jobs, tax base, infrastructure investment) while coordinating with others to foster social connections and community assets. In short, enterprises are key actors: their ventures create jobs and services that seed economic wealth, which in turn can support broader civic programs. The case of Saxapahaw illustrates how a group of entrepreneurs acted on this role by redeveloping a defunct mill into a vibrant village hub, generating new wealth in all three dimensions.⁵

3.1.2 Case overview – Saxapahaw, USA

Saxapahaw, North Carolina is a village built around a once-thriving cotton mill. After the mill closed in 1994, the community suffered lost jobs and closed shops. In 2003 a local family (the Jordan family, long‐time mill owners) repurchased the shuttered mill complex with a mission to “remake the heart of the community”.⁵ They assembled a founding team of local entrepreneurs who shared this vision. This team included Mac (from the Jordan family) and his relatives, who owned much of the property (mill apartments, rental homes, and nearby land); Claire and Doug, who managed the upper mill building (providing a pub, co-working space, and condos); Heather and Tom, who opened an event center (ballroom) and coffee shop in the mill; and Jeff and Cameron, who took over the old convenience store and turned it into a grocery/gas/general store. These four partnerships provided the mix of real estate, capital, and business skills needed to restart Saxapahaw’s economy.

Working together, the team developed a shared vision for the mill’s redevelopment. They imagined a mixed-use “village” where residences, shops, and community services co-existed. Within a year the newly renovated apartments were filled, and the group had garnered broad local support. Key elements of the vision included re-opening the general store, preserving the schoolhouse, adding riverfront condos, and creating community gathering spots (pub, coffee shop, event spaces) so “entrepreneurs, artists, and villagers would live, work, and create” there.⁵ The founders described their aim as “creating a particular type of place where we and our children want to live with other people who are looking for the same thing”.

Kennedy (2021) summarizes the rebuilding process in Saxapahaw as four interconnected stages driven by these personal, place-based relationships: (1) forming a shared vision among the founding entrepreneurs; (2) recruiting partners with complementary assets to renovate the mill; (3) creating business and social opportunities (for the team and new entrepreneurs); and (4) curating the physical space and community culture to sustain that vision.⁵ These steps were carried out in sequence but also evolved iteratively. Crucially, the founding team – anchored by long-time locals – leveraged their local networks and commitment to “make Saxapahaw a desirable place to live again”.⁵ Over several years they transformed the idle brick mill into a mixed-use complex with housing, a pub, event venues, a store, coworking, and more. In doing so they seeded a broader entrepreneurial community that expanded well beyond the original team. Today, dozens of small businesses operate in Saxapahaw, revitalizing the village with new employment and communal amenities.³⁷ The remainder of this chapter draws out the key steps in Saxapahaw’s experience and generalizes them into strategies that enterprises can use to advance CWC in other settings.

3.1.3 Key steps and insights from Saxapahaw

Developing a shared vision

In Saxapahaw the regeneration began with visioning. Mac and his family, having repurchased the mill, repeatedly shared their long-term vision for the site with anyone who would listen. They gathered local supporters and “dreamt” together about possibilities: groups of residents and entrepreneurs spent hours imagining what a re-awakened Saxapahaw could be.⁵ These sessions coalesced into a concrete shared vision: to create a self-sustaining village hub combining homes, locally owned businesses, and community services.

At this point, the case illustrates that enterprises can engage in CWC by articulating an inclusive, place-based vision that aligns diverse stakeholders. In practice, Saxapahaw’s founders made their grand vision tangible: public events (like the “Saturdays” concerts) and media outreach communicated the plan to the wider region, signaling that this was no ordinary development but a community-making project. Thus, enterprises should invest time in co-creating a clear future image for projects – involving neighbors, local officials, and potential collaborators from the start – and to continuously reinforce that vision. A compelling shared narrative can recruit partners and attract resources that no single entrepreneur could muster. As Bailey and Lumpkin (2023)⁶ note, stakeholders with common goals can generate civic wealth when they interact; Saxapahaw’s vision-building was exactly such a process of convening stakeholders around a joint goal of village renewal.

Leveraging place-based relationships

Place‐based social ties were the foundation of Saxapahaw’s entrepreneurial community. All of the founders had strong local connections or affinity: Mac and the Jordan family had lived there for generations, Heather and Tom had moved in and become active in local networks, and others were drawn by personal or cultural fit. Because many businesses were run by owners “in the home of their founder”, they entered with embedded network linkages that facilitated collaboration.⁵³⁸ For instance, Mac’s family legacy gave them local legitimacy and knowledge; Mac, as property manager, personally met every new potential renter or business, vetting those “who fit” the vision and cultivating long-term relationships.⁵ These underlying relationships propelled every stage of the project. The entrepreneurs’ personal attachments motivated them to invest resources in the community, not just for profit. Their social networks allowed them to find partners and opportunities quickly and word-of-mouth invitations brought collaborators together.⁵ In short, Saxapahaw’s revitalization was a network-driven effort. For other enterprises, this suggests the importance of leveraging place-based embeddedness, underlining it as a conceptual lever in Bailey and Lumpkin’s Framework⁶ : rural entrepreneurs often know local needs and have trust within the community.³⁸ By mobilizing these personal ties, entrepreneurs can more easily align interests, overcome skepticism, and gather support. Enterprises seeking to foster CWC should similarly engage owners or leaders who have genuine roots in the place, or who actively build relationships of trust over time.

Investing complementary assets

A second critical step was assembling the right mix of assets. The Saxapahaw mill building alone (300,000 sq ft) could not be regenerated by one party; the project demanded a combination of capital, skills, and resources. The founding entrepreneurs deliberately pooled complementary assets. For example, Claire and Doug (with a partner) purchased the upper mill buildings, while Heather & Tom invested to lease parts of the property. Heather used her marketing savvy to fill the new apartments, and Jeff & Cameron brought expertise in managing food and retail when they took over the general store in 2010.⁵ Meanwhile, Doug and Claire bore most of the financial risk as developers: they formed a management company that bought much of the space and financed the $15 million renovation (often at personal cost). Each founding pair contributed different key assets. By combining their resources, they overcame the financial and logistical barriers that none could surmount alone.

The lesson for enterprises is clear: collaboration and strategic partnership are essential when pursuing civic goals that exceed any single firm’s capacity. CWC theory stresses that enterprise actors contribute economic wealth, but they may lack non-monetary assets without allies.⁴ Saxapahaw shows how assembling partners with diverse strengths – from access to capital, to property rights, to on-the-ground expertise – can make a project viable. In practical terms, an entrepreneurial initiative might form joint ventures, co-working partnerships, or formal consortiums where each member invests what they have. By inviting other stakeholders (here, fellow entrepreneurs) to invest, Saxapahaw’s founding team spread the burden and sped up redevelopment. Enterprises in CWC should similarly map out what assets they lack, and actively recruit partners or subcontractors to fill those gaps, ensuring the enterprise-led project is sustainable.

Creating opportunities for other entrepreneurs

Once the vision and assets were in place, the Saxapahaw founders intentionally created opportunities for others to join the local economy. Their aim was to grow beyond the original team of seven, because a thriving village needs more participants than its initiators alone. They did this in several ways:

Commitment to local sourcing and hiring. The new businesses immediately prioritized village residents and farmers. For example, when Jeff and Cameron took over the general store, they plastered a sign “WE BUY PRODUCE” and shifted inventory toward local goods (produce, craft beer, farmstead products).⁵ They began hiring local villagers and buying from neighboring farms. This created a reliable customer base for farmers and created jobs for locals. It also signaled to the community that the enterprise was for Saxapahaw, not against it.
Creating productive spaces and shared facilities. The founders invested in spaces that could accommodate new ventures and events. The ballroom/event center (opened 2011) and adjacent coffee shop provided both entertainment and everyday gathering space.³⁹ In 2014, Claire launched a co-working office in a spare storefront, allowing remote workers and craftspeople to “be part of Saxapahaw” without necessarily spending all day in cafes.⁵ These venues served multiple roles: they operated as businesses (generating revenue), but they also offered low-cost or free usage to community groups, thus fostering social activity.
Seeding new businesses through branding and mentorship. The Saxapahaw team also “built a brand” for the village itself, promoting it via social media, a shared website, and local advertising. This collective branding made Saxapahaw attractive to outsiders, bringing in visitors and new talent. Within this brand, they sometimes incubated sub-businesses. For instance, the pub and general store helped train a butcher and supported him to open a separate meat shop.⁵⁴⁰ In housing, Mac branded a fitness and wellness center, then recruited professionals to run them. In each case, the founding firms shouldered the start-up effort and financial risk so that entrepreneurs with less capital could eventually take over. This approach allowed functions needed in the village (butchery, bakery, wellness) to exist early on, creating jobs and services, while generating future independent businesses as skills and markets matured.

Generalizing from Saxapahaw, enterprises can advance CWC by expanding the pie for everyone, rather than protecting their slice. By commissioning local suppliers and hiring villagers, a business injects income into the broader community (social wealth), which in turn supports local demand. By providing multi-use or subsidized facilities, they lower the threshold for new ventures. In sum, when enterprises purposefully nurture other entrepreneurs and community projects, they multiply the civic wealth generated.

Curating space and culture

As new businesses and services emerged, Saxapahaw’s founders took a curatorial role, guiding how the village grew. Because the founding group owned or controlled most of the mill’s real estate, they could shape tenant mix and community norms. They balanced two competing values: coordination versus independence. On the one hand, each business valued its autonomy; on the other, too little coordination could fragment the village’s vision. An organizational leader noted the challenge as a “fragile tightrope walk” – with too tight a grip the area could become a gated community, yet without any guidance, coherence would be lost.⁵ In practice, the group used a few key curatorial tactics. One of those was Screening for fit and niches. When entrepreneurs sought to open new businesses, Claire (who managed leasing) assessed whether they “fit” the Saxapahaw brand and shared values. Would the new tenant work toward the shared vision and respect the village’s character? For example, when a brewery wanted to move in, the team openly told them “we don’t need two bars” next to each other. Instead they helped the brewery establish a brewing facility with a small tasting room and patio, rather than a full-scale pub.⁵³⁸ This ensured each venue had a distinct niche.

Furthermore, Clarifying roles and transparency was essential. Early on, ventures cooperated closely (e.g. the ballroom initially ran without its own liquor license, expecting patrons to use the pub upstairs). Over time they learned to set clear boundaries: when one entrepreneur found that supporting a friend’s start-up hurt his margins, they negotiated formal agreements and communicated openly about expectations.⁵ Although this required difficult conversations, it helped prevent business conflicts. The community eventually settled on a culture of high transparency – entrepreneurs routinely discuss their plans and constraints.

The result of this curation is a strong sense of interdependence and ownership across the community.⁵ Each business knows its role and contributes to others’ success. Saxapahaw exemplifies how entrepreneurs in a CWC setting act as place-managers: they create a balanced ecosystem rather than leaving growth to a free-for-all. This curatorial step is an important insight: enterprises can serve as stewards of the local economy, guiding development to amplify civic ends. Recommendations for other actors include setting community standards (e.g. hiring locally or upholding environmental values) and establishing mechanisms (even informal) for ongoing dialogue among businesses.

Establishing mechanisms of long-term civic wealth

Finally, Saxapahaw’s entrepreneurs built concrete mechanisms to sustain civic wealth over time. They did not just open businesses; they created lasting institutions and norms. Today (as of 2021), Saxapahaw’s entrepreneurial community comprises nearly 50 brands and organizations, with roughly 15 businesses operating in the mill complex alone. These 15 firms employ over 150 people – about 10% of the village’s population.⁵ Importantly, the founding entrepreneurs have intentionally leveraged their enterprises to reinforce economic and social welfare. For instance, many pay above-market wages and offer free meals or discounts in-house, reflecting their value of social responsibility. The group also invested in environmental and quality standards.⁵ These decisions may reduce short-term profit, but they underpin the venture’s social impact.

These economic actions translate into communal gain. The local economy grew as farmers and producers could sell more, and trained staff circulated between businesses. Saxapahaw entrepreneurs even cooperated on capital improvements: local farms jointly created a distribution network to serve restaurants, and restaurants pooled resources to buy shared kitchen equipment.⁵ These shared investments increased collective productivity. The newly thriving businesses generated tax revenue and spending that enabled public goods: entrepreneurs helped fund a local food pantry and a day care center to serve the influx of families. They also developed a community trail system and supported the local school, embedding wealth beyond pure profit.

In CWC terms, Saxapahaw’s enterprises co-created economic wealth (jobs, business revenue), which in turn funded social wealth (community gathering spaces, events, education) and communal wealth (infrastructure like daycare and trails). Crucially, these outcomes exceeded what any single business could provide alone. The case highlights that when enterprises commit to “more frugal” financial returns and recycle gains into local programs (as Doug noted), they catalyze multiplier effects for civic well-being.⁵ For other contexts, the insight is to explicitly connect business success to civic mechanisms: pay living wages, procure locally, and support community institutions (schools, clinics, nonprofits) as part of the business plan. Saxapahaw shows that doing so can draw in new residents and ventures – those “talented do-somethings” come to live and invest where civic wealth is growing.⁵ The Saxapahaw case vividly demonstrates how a group of enterprises can animate civic wealth in collaboration with community stakeholders. By turning a derelict mill into a mixed-use village, the founding entrepreneurs created a self-reinforcing cycle: their businesses generated jobs and income, which funded community services and drew in still more businesses and residents. In this way Saxapahaw’s founding entrepreneurs acted both as animators and entrepreneurs – they built ventures for profit, but also tended the social fabric so that benefits spread beyond their own firms.⁵ This experience underscores that enterprises in CWC are not mere passive investors; they can purposefully co-create social and communal wealth by embedding their activities in a long-term vision for the locality.

As mentioned in previous sections, future research could examine how replicable the Saxapahaw model is in different settings (urban neighborhoods, other rural towns) and how enterprises can balance financial sustainability with their role as civic stewards.⁵ Regardless, Saxapahaw confirms that businesses can – and must – be active co-creators of civic wealth. By developing shared visions, leveraging local ties, combining assets, seeding opportunities, and curating growth, enterprises can do much more than make profits: they can help communities flourish socially and communally as well as economically.

References

1
World. WID – World Inequality Database https://wid.world/world/.
2
Prats, M., Smid, S. & Ferrin, M. Lack of Trust in Institutions and Political Engagement: An Analysis Based on the 2021 OECD Trust Survey. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/lack-of-trust-in-institutions-and-political-engagement_83351a47-en.html (2024) doi:10.1787/83351a47-en.
3
Anokhin, S., Morgan, T., Jones Christensen, L. & Schulze, W. Local context and post‐crisis social venture creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 17, 40–60 (2023).
4
Lumpkin, G. T. & Bacq, S. Civic Wealth Creation: A New View of Stakeholder Engagement and Societal Impact. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 383–404 (2019).
5
Dowin Kennedy, E. Creating community: the process of entrepreneurial community building for civic wealth creation. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 33, 816–836 (2021).
6
Bailey, R. C. & Lumpkin, G. T. Enacting Positive Social Change: A Civic Wealth Creation Stakeholder Engagement Framework. Entrep. Theory Pract. 47, 66–90 (2023).
7
Lumpkin, G. T., Meléndez, E. & Bacq, S. Civic Wealth Creation: Bypassing Monopolies Through Collective Action. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 38, 165–176 (2024).
8
Lumpkin, G. T. & Bacq, S. Family business, community embeddedness, and civic wealth creation. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 13, 100469 (2022).
9
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O. & Shulman, J. M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 519–532 (2009).
10
Stakeholder theory and capitalism. in Stakeholder Theory 267–285 (Cambridge University Press, 2010). doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815768.010.
11
eliasoph-lichterman-2015-civic-action.
12
Moyo, D. WHY AID IS NOT WORKING AND HOW THERE IS A BETTER WAY FOR AFRICA.
13
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. Entrep. Theory Pract. 34, 681–703 (2010).
14
Ketchen, D. J., Ireland, R. D. & Snow, C. C. Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 1, 371–385 (2007).
15
Desa, G. & Basu, S. Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social Entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 7, 26–49 (2013).
16
Haugh, H. Community–Led Social Venture Creation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 31, 161–182 (2007).
17
Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community. (Prosci, 2006).
18
Hanna-Attisha, M., LaChance, J., Sadler, R. C. & Champney Schnepp, A. Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children Associated With the Flint Drinking Water Crisis: A Spatial Analysis of Risk and Public Health Response. Am. J. Public Health 106, 283–290 (2016).
19
Gras, D., Conger, M., Jenkins, A. & Gras, M. Wicked problems, reductive tendency, and the formation of (non-)opportunity beliefs. J. Bus. Ventur. 35, 105966 (2020).
20
National Civic League | Advancing civic engagement to create equitable, thriving communities. National Civic League https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/.
21
Peredo, A. M. & Chrisman, J. J. Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise. Acad. Manage. Rev. 31, 309–328 (2006).
22
McMullen, J. S. & Bergman, B. J. Social Entrepreneurship and the Development Paradox of Prosocial Motivation: A Cautionary Tale: Social Entrepreneurship and the Development Paradox. Strateg. Entrep. J. 11, 243–270 (2017).
23
Zhou, K. Z. & Li, C. B. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strateg. Manag. J. 33, 1090–1102 (2012).
24
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A. & Dacin, M. T. Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. J. Bus. Ethics 111, 375–388 (2012).
25
Lumpkin, G. T., Bacq, S. & Pidduck, R. J. Where Change Happens: Community-Level Phenomena in Social Entrepreneurship Research: JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 24–50 (2018).
26
Grimes, M. Strategic Sensemaking within Funding Relationships: The Effects of Performance Measurement on Organizational Identity in the Social Sector. Entrep. Theory Pract. 34, 763–783 (2010).
27
Woolcock, M. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework.
28
Community-Built Playspaces. KABOOM! https://kaboom.org/community-built-playspaces/.
29
Shoes: Fashionable Footwear for Every Step | TOMS. https://www.toms.com/en-us/impact.
30
Van Kirk, G. The MicroConsignment Model: Bridging the “Last Mile” of Access to Products and Services for the Rural Poor ( Innovations Case Narrative : The MicroConsignment Model). Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 5, 101–127 (2010).
31
Broadman, H. G. & Kalt, J. P. How Natural Is Monopoly? The Case of Bypass in Natural Gas Distribution Markets. 6, (1989).
32
Zamzami, I. & Ardhianie, N. An end to the struggle? Jakarta residents reclaim their water system. Chapter Two.
33
Setiadi, W. & Pratiwiningrum, A. Z. A Remunicipalization Idea on Water Management in DKI Jakarta Province. J. Din. Huk. 19, 630 (2020).
34
Fresh Life Innovative Model System. Fresh Life https://fresh-life.org/our-model/fresh-life-system/.
35
Cuchumuela, Bolivia. Water For People https://www.waterforpeople.org/cuchumuela/.
36
EGOS – SUB-THEMES [main Colloquium] – European Group for Organizational Studies. https://www.egos.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1721760205556&subtheme_id=1701662511660.
37
Saxapahaw, NC. Mysite https://www.saxapahawnc.com.
38
Baù, M., Chirico, F., Pittino, D., Backman, M. & Klaesson, J. Roots to Grow: Family Firms and Local Embeddedness in Rural and Urban Contexts. Entrep. Theory Pract. 43, 360–385 (2019).
39
ABOUT. Haw River Ballroom https://www.hawriverballroom.com/about.
40
Left Bank Butchery. Left Bank Butchery https://leftbankbutchery.com.

1
World. WID – World Inequality Database https://wid.world/world/.
2
Prats, M., Smid, S. & Ferrin, M. Lack of Trust in Institutions and Political Engagement: An Analysis Based on the 2021 OECD Trust Survey. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/lack-of-trust-in-institutions-and-political-engagement_83351a47-en.html (2024) doi:10.1787/83351a47-en.
3
Anokhin, S., Morgan, T., Jones Christensen, L. & Schulze, W. Local context and post‐crisis social venture creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 17, 40–60 (2023).
4
Lumpkin, G. T. & Bacq, S. Civic Wealth Creation: A New View of Stakeholder Engagement and Societal Impact. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 383–404 (2019).
5
Dowin Kennedy, E. Creating community: the process of entrepreneurial community building for civic wealth creation. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 33, 816–836 (2021).
6
Bailey, R. C. & Lumpkin, G. T. Enacting Positive Social Change: A Civic Wealth Creation Stakeholder Engagement Framework. Entrep. Theory Pract. 47, 66–90 (2023).
7
Lumpkin, G. T., Meléndez, E. & Bacq, S. Civic Wealth Creation: Bypassing Monopolies Through Collective Action. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 38, 165–176 (2024).
8
Lumpkin, G. T. & Bacq, S. Family business, community embeddedness, and civic wealth creation. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 13, 100469 (2022).
9
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O. & Shulman, J. M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 519–532 (2009).
10
Stakeholder theory and capitalism. in Stakeholder Theory 267–285 (Cambridge University Press, 2010). doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815768.010.
11
eliasoph-lichterman-2015-civic-action.
12
Moyo, D. WHY AID IS NOT WORKING AND HOW THERE IS A BETTER WAY FOR AFRICA.
13
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. Entrep. Theory Pract. 34, 681–703 (2010).
14
Ketchen, D. J., Ireland, R. D. & Snow, C. C. Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 1, 371–385 (2007).
15
Desa, G. & Basu, S. Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social Entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 7, 26–49 (2013).
16
Haugh, H. Community–Led Social Venture Creation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 31, 161–182 (2007).
17
Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community. (Prosci, 2006).
18
Hanna-Attisha, M., LaChance, J., Sadler, R. C. & Champney Schnepp, A. Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children Associated With the Flint Drinking Water Crisis: A Spatial Analysis of Risk and Public Health Response. Am. J. Public Health 106, 283–290 (2016).
19
Gras, D., Conger, M., Jenkins, A. & Gras, M. Wicked problems, reductive tendency, and the formation of (non-)opportunity beliefs. J. Bus. Ventur. 35, 105966 (2020).
20
National Civic League | Advancing civic engagement to create equitable, thriving communities. National Civic League https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/.
21
Peredo, A. M. & Chrisman, J. J. Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise. Acad. Manage. Rev. 31, 309–328 (2006).
22
McMullen, J. S. & Bergman, B. J. Social Entrepreneurship and the Development Paradox of Prosocial Motivation: A Cautionary Tale: Social Entrepreneurship and the Development Paradox. Strateg. Entrep. J. 11, 243–270 (2017).
23
Zhou, K. Z. & Li, C. B. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strateg. Manag. J. 33, 1090–1102 (2012).
24
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A. & Dacin, M. T. Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. J. Bus. Ethics 111, 375–388 (2012).
25
Lumpkin, G. T., Bacq, S. & Pidduck, R. J. Where Change Happens: Community-Level Phenomena in Social Entrepreneurship Research: JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 24–50 (2018).
26
Grimes, M. Strategic Sensemaking within Funding Relationships: The Effects of Performance Measurement on Organizational Identity in the Social Sector. Entrep. Theory Pract. 34, 763–783 (2010).
27
Woolcock, M. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework.
28
Community-Built Playspaces. KABOOM! https://kaboom.org/community-built-playspaces/.
29
Shoes: Fashionable Footwear for Every Step | TOMS. https://www.toms.com/en-us/impact.
30
Van Kirk, G. The MicroConsignment Model: Bridging the “Last Mile” of Access to Products and Services for the Rural Poor ( Innovations Case Narrative : The MicroConsignment Model). Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 5, 101–127 (2010).
31
Broadman, H. G. & Kalt, J. P. How Natural Is Monopoly? The Case of Bypass in Natural Gas Distribution Markets. 6, (1989).
32
Zamzami, I. & Ardhianie, N. An end to the struggle? Jakarta residents reclaim their water system. Chapter Two.
33
Setiadi, W. & Pratiwiningrum, A. Z. A Remunicipalization Idea on Water Management in DKI Jakarta Province. J. Din. Huk. 19, 630 (2020).
34
Fresh Life Innovative Model System. Fresh Life https://fresh-life.org/our-model/fresh-life-system/.
35
Cuchumuela, Bolivia. Water For People https://www.waterforpeople.org/cuchumuela/.
36
EGOS – SUB-THEMES [main Colloquium] – European Group for Organizational Studies. https://www.egos.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1721760205556&subtheme_id=1701662511660.
37
Saxapahaw, NC. Mysite https://www.saxapahawnc.com.
38
Baù, M., Chirico, F., Pittino, D., Backman, M. & Klaesson, J. Roots to Grow: Family Firms and Local Embeddedness in Rural and Urban Contexts. Entrep. Theory Pract. 43, 360–385 (2019).
39
ABOUT. Haw River Ballroom https://www.hawriverballroom.com/about.
40
Left Bank Butchery. Left Bank Butchery https://leftbankbutchery.com.