Duration: 10/01/2026 to 09/30/2031

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

The NC1030 research group has successfully conducted research that informs business owners, stakeholders, and policymakers regarding business success, adaptation, and demise for over two decades. In this renewal, we aim to expand upon previous NC 1030 project objectives. As the era of unprecedented disruptions to economic and social systems continues, the transformation to more resilient approaches remains necessary. Resiliency allows entities to withstand system shocks and to adapt as necessary. The research team will continue to explore patterns of success and responses to challenges, focusing on adaptive change rather than reactive approaches. Our research team remains interested in identifying, understanding, and mitigating the potential risks to Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) and their communities, including family-owned businesses, and fiber and farm-based businesses . Evolving from the previous project's objectives is an increased focus on rural-based businesses, as well as local and regional supply chains. The objectives for this new iteration of the project include; identifying internal and external factors impacting community and MSME’s well-being, identifying and evaluating the responses of these entities to the external and internal factors, and informing policy or practice related to well-being for communities and MSMEs. 

Stakeholders for the NC1030 research project include MSMEs and their communities; USDA NIFA; and society at large. Specifically, components of this project align with the USDA's emphasis on advancing circular bioeconomies to enhance rural community well-being and foster overall economic growth. These are the entities most likely to benefit from project outcomes, but additional stakeholders may emerge throughout the project.

Statement of Issues and Justification

The NC1030 research group has conducted research on small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), specifically focusing on family-owned businesses, for over two decades. This group has successfully conducted research that informs business owners, stakeholders, and policymakers regarding business success, adaptation, and demise. The previous iteration of this project focused on the responses to various disruptions by the businesses, families, and communities they serve. These disruptions encompassed economic, social, technological, and natural factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple studies utilized the results from the 2019 Small Business Values Survey conducted by two NC1030 members from Purdue University. This body of research examines the use of technology, co-preneurial activity, work-life balance, socioemotional wealth, exit strategies, and the well-being of small business owners, as well as exit strategies for small businesses. Minority- and women-owned businesses, as well as farm-based businesses, were also a focus of research endeavors by the NC1030 group. 

Additionally, the last iteration of this project introduced a new theme exploring how business practices must evolve to create a sustainable and resilient system that supports a regenerative fiber and food system, ultimately enhancing the well-being of families, communities, and ecosystems. Research under this theme included the development of a farm-to-fiber camp for middle and high school students, a USDA Higher Education Challenge grant to build circular economy competencies in fiber, textiles, and clothing programs, and gaining international perspectives on transforming education to reimagine fiber-based businesses for circularity. Continuing research includes a systematic literature review of companies that utilize circularity in the fiber supply chain, as well as the gap between research on circularity and the reality of fiber-based businesses incorporating circular principles. 

In this project renewal, we aim to continue, extend, and evolve the previous NC 1030 research project objectives. As the era of unprecedented disruptions to economic and social systems continues, the transformation to more resilient approaches remains necessary. The research team will continue to explore patterns of success and responses to challenges, focusing on adaptive change rather than reactive approaches. Our research team remains interested in identifying, understanding, and mitigating the potential risks to Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs), their owners, and the communities in which they operate, including family-owned businesses and fiber-based businesses (such as fiber, textile, and clothing production, retailing, and services). Evolving from the previous project's objectives is an increased focus on rural-based businesses/entrepreneurship, as well as local and regional supply chains. Therefore, the updated objectives for this project renewal are as follows: 

Objective 1: Identify the internal and external factors impacting the well-being of MSMEs and communities.

Objective 2: Identify and evaluate the responses of MSMEs and communities to internal and external factors that impact their well-being.

Objective 3: Inform policy or practice related to the well-being of MSMEs and communities. 

We are currently witnessing the impacts of various natural, social, and economic challenges on families and MSMEs. Resiliency allows entities to withstand system shocks and to adapt and transform as necessary, not just to survive, but to thrive. These factors necessitate the reinvention of existing systems to better support the stakeholders of these systems, including families, businesses, and communities. This research group aims  to further understand the adaptive approaches of MSMEs to support and assist them in their transformation in response to these challenges. Additionally, we strive to inform policy on these issues. 

The Community Capitals Framework (Emery & Flora, 2006; Flora & Flora, 2008), which has guided previous iterations of this project, provides a lens through which to evaluate a community's ability to support MSMEs using seven forms of capital: human, social, cultural, political, built, natural, and financial. This framework will continue to be used to determine the relationship between the businesses and the communities in which they operate. Specific types of organizations of interest to the researchers in this project include family-owned, rural, farm, or fiber-based businesses. Additionally, the Sustainable Family Business Model (Stafford et al., 1999), developed by NC1030 members, emphasizes the reciprocal influences of family and business subsystems, recognizing that long-term success and resiliency depends on both. The SFBM considers both processes in times of change and disruption, as well as during times of stability (Stafford et al., 2013).

Previous iterations of this project have focused on SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), while this project renewal will expand the focus to MSMEs (Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises). MSMEs are vital to most economies in terms of numbers, share of employment, and local or regional value-added. MSMEs often operate in environments with high levels of uncertainty and, therefore, are highly vulnerable to exogenous shocks (Adian et al., 2021; Miklian  & Hoelscher, 2021). Some of these shocks include natural factors, economic factors, changing demographics, regulatory and policy shifts, as well as technological and infrastructure changes. As a result, a majority of MSMEs never fully recover from these disruptions (Jaroscak et al., 2025), making it imperative to support transformative changes within these MSMEs and their communities.

A new focus of this project, within the category of MSMES, is rural economies and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship describes a unique behavioral process involving the discovery and experimentation of opportunities, as well as the reevaluation of resources for growth (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Many entrepreneurial ventures begin as small businesses, but actual entrepreneurship moves beyond the size of the firm to focus on action driven by opportunity. Korsgaard et al. (2015) explored rural areas as a socio-spatial concept. They found that rural entrepreneurship is more than just businesses existing in a rural space; it is also activities that optimize local resources and truly connect to rural communities. Rural communities and rural entrepreneurship have a symbiotic relationship based on four relational modes, including causal, prefigurative, constitutive, and intelligibility, demonstrating how both entities evolve together (Tuitjer & Thompson, 2025). Members of rural communities are more likely to start businesses than people in urban areas; however, there are rising business closures and fewer startups in rural communities, likely due to limited financial capital (Weinstein & Dewbury, 2025).

Additionally, rural enterprises often exhibit greater risk aversion due to the fear of failure, constrained access to resources, and limited backup options (Deller & Conroy, 2016). As outlined by Barber et al. (2021), prior research has focused on understanding rural entrepreneurship through existing theories that are not specifically tailored to the concept. This gap in the literature limits our understanding of how rural entrepreneurship impacts rural communities. Therefore, it is crucial to continue researching rural entrepreneurship due to the existing gaps in the literature.

Local and regional supply chains are increasingly recognized as crucial for enhancing the resilience and long-term sustainability of MSMEs. The long-standing reliance on globalized supply chains has left businesses vulnerable to disruptions, and many are shifting focus to local and regional production models and micro-clusters, which bring together multiple levels in the chain (Rugman, Li, & Oh, 2009). Nevertheless, the transition towards local and regional supply chains is not without challenges. Smaller firms often face higher production costs, limited access to skilled labour, and difficulties in scaling innovations (Fratocchi et al., 2019).

Local and regional supply chains have a significant impact on a business's ability to incorporate circular principles. The re-establishment of regional or even domestic networks can better enable businesses to monitor social and environmental standards and integrate closed-loop processes and circularity (Bals, Daum, & Tate, 2019; Svensson, 2016). Localized networks also enable long-term, trust-based supplier relationships, which are crucial for integrating circularity into everyday supply chain decisions.

As resource constraints and market disruptions continue to shape business landscapes, especially in rural America, circular economy principles offer a transformative approach to resource management. The USDA's emphasis on advancing circular bioeconomies, in which agricultural resources are harvested, utilized, and regenerated, enhances rural community well-being and fosters overall economic growth through job creation and population retention. The bioeconomy leverages agricultural resources and their conversion into essential products and services. In contrast, the circular bioeconomy focuses on eliminating waste and pollution, keeping products and biological materials in circulation, and mimicking regenerative natural processes (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2024, August 20). Activities such as recycling, composting, and material recovery that positively affect the scale and direction of resource flows contribute to the circular bioeconomy as supporting practices. While circular bioeconomy practices have garnered increasing attention from researchers and policymakers, it remains unclear how MSMEs are currently incorporating these principles or what barriers prevent fuller adoption. It is essential to further understand how businesses can utilize circular or regenerative practices to identify best practices, develop potential frameworks, and inform policy.

Stakeholders for the NC1030 research project include MSMEs, such as family-owned and rural businesses, and their communities; USDA NIFA; and society at large. Specifically, components of this project align with the USDA's emphasis on advancing circular bioeconomies to enhance rural community well-being and foster overall economic growth. These are the entities most likely to benefit from project outcomes, but additional stakeholders may emerge throughout the project. 

When the project is renewed, the NC1030 research group will continue to work collaboratively on projects to reveal best practices for creating and supporting adaptive and transformative practices among rural enterprises, MSMEs, and communities. Additionally, researchers will increase their focus on managing adaptation and change in rural MSMEs and those already existing within the circular bioeconomy, whether knowingly or unknowingly. These best practices will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, and outreach and engagement activities with relevant stakeholders (i.e., MSME owners, community organizations). Likely impacts may include categorization and a deeper understanding of MSMEs that incorporate circular principles to inform best practices; comparisons of adaptive rural MSMEs to inform public policy; and further development of the capacity to create a community-business circular framework that emphasizes new directions for studying interdependencies. These research outcomes could help small business owners transform and adapt to achieve continuity and long-term success. 

Several issues of interest to the NC1030 team members include: transformation to a circular bioeconomy, circularity in emerging industries, rural and urban micro-pocket economies with particular vulnerability to external factors, succession planning, innovation readiness, and socioemotional wealth of MSMEs, to name a few. These topics will guide the group's work in addressing the overarching project purpose: identifying and supporting adaptive and transformative practices in rural economies, family-owned MSMEs, and communities to ensure their well-being and continuity. 

The current NC1030 research group has a varied  membership, comprising both long-term and new members, a range of academic disciplines, and members from twelve U.S. states. This variety is a strength for many reasons; two are mentioned here. First, the research project will be addressed from multiple perspectives, utilizing a variety of research methods and analysis techniques as the group collaborates to gain a deeper understanding and find solutions to these issues. Second, members have maintained a successful working relationship and a record of productivity for over twenty years in conducting research, informing policy, and applying research to business owners regarding resiliency and long-term success. The proposed project will continue to build on these strengths by expanding the knowledge base regarding adaptive approaches for rural entrepreneurs, the circular bioeconomy, and how families, MSMEs, and communities can transform for greater prosperity and well-being.

 

Related, Current and Previous Work

This section reports research on the topical areas surrounding the issues and opportunities facing micro, small and medium size enterprises (MSMEs), their owners, and the communities where they operate.  The focus is on adaptive change and transformative approaches that lead to long-term success and resiliency in response to a variety of high-level disruptions. Accomplishments of the previous NC 1030 project (2021-2026) are also reviewed. 

Sustainable Family Business Model 

The SFBM was developed and introduced by Stafford et al. (1999) who were part of the NC1030 research team, and this model reflects decades of scholarly inquiry into the intersection of family dynamics and business performance. For this proposed project, the SFBM will provide a comprehensive framework to examine how families and businesses interact with and adapt to changing environments.By integrating family and business systems, this framework allows the research team to identify resource flows, adaptive capacities, and systemic interdependence, all of which are essential for small business resilience and survival. Unlike traditional business models that focus solely on financial outcomes, the SFBM emphasizes the reciprocal influences of family and business subsystems, recognizing that long-term success depends on the well-being of both. The SFBM considers both processes in times of change and disruption and during times of stability (Stafford et al., 2013). Both internal and external events can be disruptions that significantly challenge the business and family systems to impact the family enterprise (Danes & Brewton, 2011). 

The SFBM applies systems theory concepts and resource-based perspectives to business sustainability and survival. It recognizes that family businesses operate through the continual exchange of resources, responsibilities, and support between family, business, and community domains, especially in response to disruptions (Olson et al., 2003; Stafford et al., 1999; Winter & Morris, 1998). For example, exchanging resources across the two systems might involve a parent having their child fill in at work for a sick employee, or conversely, a business owner lending the business space for a family specific event. The SFBM specifically highlights four key subsystems and processes:

1. Resources – human, social, and financial capital shared between family and business
2. Constraints – structural and interpersonal limitations affecting both systems
3. Processes –communication, conflict resolution, decision-making dynamics
4. Achievements – outcomes such as resilience, adaptability, business longevity, and family functionality. 

The framework portrays interactions between the family and business subsystems through three mechanisms: Resource exchanges (e.g., sharing labor, capital, and expertise across domains),responses to disruptions (e.g., flexibility in reallocating resources during crises or transitions), and sustainability outcomes (e.g., enhanced resilience, adaptability, and continuity across generations). 

The SFBM is well-suited for this proposed project because it encompasses all intersecting elements: family, business, the family-business interconnection, and the community. By offering a comprehensive framework to understand, measure, and respond to the challenges and opportunities facing family businesses, households, and their communities, the SFBM aligns seamlessly with the three objectives of this project.

Community Capitals Framework

The Community Capitals Framework (Emery & Flora, 2006; Flora & Flora, 2008) outlines seven forms of capital that communities possess—human, social, cultural, political, built, natural, and financial—each of which contributes to the overall capacity for entrepreneurial activity.  Understanding how entrepreneurs start businesses involves exploring their personal motivations, entrepreneurial mindset, and intention; however, this process is also shaped by the broader community context.  The Community Capitals Framework offers a powerful lens for assessing a community’s strengths and limitations in supporting MSMEs and evaluating how the seven capitals influence entrepreneurial responses, particularly during times of change or disruption. Using this approach, the new project will investigate how MSMEs adapt and build reciprocal relationships with the communities in which they operate.

Micro-small-medium Enterprises (MSMEs)

MSMEs are the backbone of most economies: they account for the lion’s share of firms, a large share of employment, and significant local value-added. They foster entrepreneurship, absorb disadvantaged workers, and provide localized goods and services—roles that become especially important during shocks (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2025). Because of their numerical dominance and proximity to consumers, MSMEs can be influential diffusion points for business-model innovation even when larger firms dominate volume (Kuik et al., 2023). MSMEs, therefore, are important both for household wellbeing (income, resilience) and broader economic dynamism. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses as those with typically 500 or fewer employees. The European Commission categorizes them as micro (fewer than 10), small (10–49), and medium (50–249) based on employee count and financial criteria (SBA Office of Advocacy, 2024a). Globally, MSMEs make up roughly 90% of firms and provide over 50% of employment, with formal MSMEs contributing up to 40% of GDP in emerging economies (World Bank Group, 2019). In the United States, small businesses account for 43.5% of GDP, approximately 2.9 trillion based on Q4 2024 GDP of $29.72 trillion, and create two out of every three new jobs (SBA Office of Advocacy, 2024a).

In contrast, entrepreneurship involves identifying, creating, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities amid uncertainty (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Thus, not all small businesses are entrepreneurial, and not all run small businesses; some may lead corporate ventures or venture-backed scale-ups (Carland et al., 1984). The MSMEs contribute to economic growth  through innovation, particularly through the adoption of digital communication technologies (such as social media and mobile phone internet use), which positively affects product and process innovation, and ultimately improves labor productivity (Gaglio et al., 2022). Research also suggests that differentiation—a firm's distinctiveness from its peers—is strongly associated with microenterprise performance, including increased employment, revenues, and profits (Carlson, 2022).  

The financial structure of these firms adheres to a "continuum of capital," linking financing sources to the business's specific stage of development (start-up, early growth, expansion) (Servon et al., 2010). Early-stage financing relies heavily on informal sources like personal savings and credit cards. Some entrepreneurs frequently face additional obstacles, including restricted credit access and a reliance on non-traditional, often costlier, financing mechanisms. Strategically, informal entrepreneurs tend to imitate existing firms and compete predominantly on cost, as constraints on financial resources and cognitive functions impede the effective pursuit of differentiation (Servon et al., 2010).

Rural and Small Business Entrepreneurship 

The landscape of rural America is changing, with more of its residents being older than those who reside in urban areas (Farrigan et al., 2024). This aging phenomenon is driven not only by aging in place (Farrigan et al., 2024), but also by retirees returning to their rural roots (Monnat, 2025). Farrigan et al. (2024) identify labor shortages and increasing demands for goods and services are some of the potential impacts of this changing demographic. Compounding these challenges, young people are choosing to leave rural areas to pursue education and employment opportunities, creating a critical need for rural small business entrepreneurship across the United States.

In the U.S. Small Business Administration’s 2025 Small Business Profile, there are 36.2 million small businesses, which constitute 99.9% of U.S. businesses (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2025). These small businesses support 62.3 million employees, which is 45.9% of all US employees. In rural areas, there are 5.4 million establishments, with 84.9% of the establishments operating without employees (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2025). People in rural areas are more likely to start businesses than people in urban areas. While rural entrepreneurs tend to make more money than other workers in their areas, there are rising business closures and fewer startups in rural communities, likely due to limited financial capital (Weinstein & Dewbury, 2025).

In 2024, the U.S. experienced vigorous entrepreneurial activity, with an average of 430,000 new business applications monthly, a 50% increase from 2019. However, most new firms begin as nonemployers; in 2022, 29.8 million nonemployer businesses generated $1.7 trillion in receipts. The transition to employer status is rare and influenced by various factors, such as lack of cash flow, hiring costs, reliance on owner’s expertise, and industry-specific struggles (Goetz et al., 2025).

Though small businesses are a form of entrepreneurship, there is a conceptual distinction and overlap between the two concepts. Small business generally refers to the size and scale of a company, often emphasizing income stability, servicing local markets, and maintaining owner control (Sahut et al., 2014). In contrast, entrepreneurship describes a behavioral process involving the discovery or creation of opportunities, the recombination of resources under constraints (often achieved through bricolage), and a greater willingness to experiment for growth (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). While many entrepreneurial ventures begin as small businesses, the key difference lies in their focus: small businesses prioritize firm size, whereas entrepreneurship centers on action driven by opportunity.

Rural entrepreneurship and rural communities have a symbiotic relationship, mutually benefiting each other. The community and entrepreneur interactions are based on four relational modes, including causal, prefigurative, constitutive, and intelligibility, demonstrating how both entities evolve together. Causality describes the way in which some element of economic activity will materially cause changes in the broader economy or environment, while prefiguration describes the necessary limits or functions created by pre-existing conditions in an economic environment (Tuitjer & Thompson, 2025). 

Korsgaard et al. (2015) explored ‘rural’ as a socio-spatial concept and differentiated between independently operating entrepreneurship that happens to be located in a rural environment versus rural entrepreneurship, which utilizes connections within the rural community. They found that rural entrepreneurship includes activities that not only contribute to local development, but also leverage local resources and truly connect to the place. These entities are also less likely to relocate given economic challenges. Thus, it is pivotal to continue research on rural entrepreneurship due to the many and varied gaps in the literature. As outlined by Barber et al. (2021), prior research has focused on applying existing theories and frameworks that are not specific to rural entrepreneurship, which continues to limit our understanding of how rural entrepreneurship impacts rural communities. 

Compared to urban areas, individuals involved in rural entrepreneurship face some specific challenges. Because rural areas have lower and less dense populations, this logically means that there are fewer consumers and potential employees (Dabson, 2001; Dabson et al., 2003). This lower population also affects demand for services and products, so productivity is generally lower as well (North & Smallbone, 2000). There is less access to resources, mainly due to the distance from greater urban areas with thriving markets. Additionally, it can be harder to begin a new business because options for business financing are more limited (Lichtenstein & Lyons, 1996). 

Rural areas are also vulnerable to external forces that impact the local economy. Agriculture and a dominating industry can severely impact a community if there is a drought or other similar weather issues. Additionally, wealth inequality is significant in rural areas, often due to lower levels of education (Dabson et al., 2003), and of lack of local entrepreneurial leadership, such as when major employment is in externally run companies (Gaventa, 1982; Luloff & Bridger, 2003). All of this contributes to a decreased ability for local communities to take part in the market in ways that are empowering (or make a meaningful economic contribution) and prioritize local well-being. 

Despite these challenges, there are types of entrepreneurs that may thrive in rural areas. For example, farmers have always been a symbol of rural entrepreneurship in rural America. By leaning into agritourism, such as starting a bed and breakfast, or having a seasonal pumpkin patch and cornfield business, farmers can still thrive (Weaver & Fennell, 1997). Services, retail trade, and construction can also be successful industries, especially when located near natural resources (Henderson, 2002). Lifestyle entrepreneurship is also popular, which includes apparel, retail, interior design, and food services. These allow individuals to pursue a specific lifestyle in a community they enjoy (Marketti et al., 2006).  

Adaptive Management

Small businesses, including rural entrepreneurs, operate in environments characterized by high levels of uncertainty and are highly vulnerable to both endogenous and exogenous factors (Adian et al., 2020; Miklian  & Hoelscher, 2021). These shocks often stem from environmental and climatic factors such as floods and wildfires; economic stressors (supply chain disruptions, inflation, high interest rates, and taxes); demographics shifts; policy and regulatory changes (such as immigration policies and tariffs); technological and infrastructure disruptions (including cybersecurity threats, broadband disruptions, and lack of access). 

As a result, the majority of small businesses and households never fully recover from these disruptions, including those caused by natural disasters (Jaroscak et al., 2025). This limited recovery has been partly attributed to a lack of continuity planning, risk management, and insufficient emergency savings (Jaroscak et al., 2025). Additionally, rural enterprises often exhibit greater risk aversion due to their fear of failure, constrained access to resources, and limited backup options (Deller & Conroy, 2016). These businesses often rely on traditional risk mitigation strategies such as insurance and business diversification to sustain their operations (Mamai & Yinghua, 2016). A recent survey by Nationwide about risk management revealed that only about two-thirds of small businesses have adequate protection against risks (Nationwide, 2024). 

Accordingly, resilience alone is insufficient for long-term survival. SMEs and rural enterprises increasingly need to engage in adaptive management - a continuous process of anticipating, responding to, and learning from community level changes (Williams & Brown, 2014). Risk management is an ongoing strategic decision-making process through which small businesses identify, evaluate, and respond to potential threats and uncertainties that may hinder their operations, financial performance, or long-term viability (Gibson, 2023). Given the critical role that small businesses and rural entrepreneurs play in the economy, there is a need for continued research to explore innovative entrepreneurial and adaptive strategies that can enhance their resilience and long-term continuity within their communities. This research will help inform policy formulation and guide the design as well as the implementation of targeted training and support initiatives tailored to meet their unique needs. 

Adaptation in Business Models. During and after COVID-19, softgoods retail businesses (such as clothing or bedding retailers)  created new value by rapidly adapting their business models to embrace digital platforms, social media engagement, and community-based learning. By leveraging tools like live video sales, interactive customer service, and collaborative networks, these retailers enhanced customer relationships, streamlined operations, and diversified their sales channels. Their agility in adopting new technologies and forming strategic partnerships enabled them to remain resilient and competitive in a disrupted market (Spurgeon & Niehm, 2023).

Partnerships. Softgoods-related small retail businesses foster strong customer relationships by prioritizing personalized service, learning individual preferences, and creating meaningful interactions both online and in-store. Through community-building efforts, local partnerships, and purpose-driven marketing, these businesses deepen customer loyalty and position themselves as trusted lifestyle brands. Their success lies in consistently aligning business values with customer needs and cultivating authentic connections across multiple touchpoints (Spurgeon & Niehm, 2025).

Local/Regional Supply Chains

Local and regional supply chains are increasingly seen as critical for strengthening the resilience of a variety of industries, including fiber-based businesses. The reliance on long, globalized supply chains has left firms vulnerable to disruptions, as highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit in the UK, when access to skilled workers and materials became restricted (Ellams et al., 2023). In response, firms and policymakers have turned their attention to localized production models and micro-clusters, which bring together designers, small manufacturers, and educational institutions (Rugman et al., 2009). These networks not only reduce reliance on complex international logistics but also support agility and creative collaboration within regions.

The modern landscape of global trade is characterized by a fundamental shift away from purely global supply chains toward integrated regional supply chains, a development intrinsically linked to the renewed focus on domestic manufacturing and the emerging trend of reshoring (De Backer, et al., 2016). Empirical evidence suggests that, contrary to assumptions of worldwide integration, supply chains are overwhelmingly regional. Over 85% of large North American multinational enterprises concentrate the majority of their upstream activities (assets) and downstream activities (sales) within their home region (Rugman et al., 2009). This focus on intra-regional activity confirms that for many large firms, the supply network is effectively a domestic manufacturing network that seeks competitive advantage within familiar geographic bounds.

The prevalence of the regional model is driven by several operational and environmental advantages. Regional supply chains benefit from similar economic, political, and social environments, often supported by regional trade organizations, which substantially reduce the managerial costs and risks associated with global integration (Pearce, 2014). Furthermore, operational modeling confirms that minimizing total cost often dictates regional order placement, as costs of intra-regional transportation of materials and products are generally lower than cross-regional transportation. These regional strengths form "supply chain hubs," geographic agglomerations of facilities and capabilities that are inherently advantageous because they are "place-luck embedded"—unique resources and infrastructure difficult for competing regions to imitate (Closs et al., 2014). 

The phenomenon of reshoring—the decision to relocate manufacturing activities back to the home country (back-reshoring) or a nearby country (near-shoring)—serves as a crucial strategic reaffirmation of this regional model (Barbieri, et al., 2020). Reshoring is often a reaction to the deteriorating viability of long, complex global value chains. Motivations include the erosion of traditional cost advantages in emerging economies, massive increases in international shipping costs, and difficulties managing quality and inventory trapped in slow transport flows (Barbeiri et al., 2018). More recently, global disruptions have positioned reshoring as a preventive strategy to increase supply chain resilience.

By bringing production back to the home country or home macro-region, reshoring aligns corporate strategy with the inherent advantages of the regional supply chain. This strategic pivot allows firms to gain greater control over their operations and leverage the specialized infrastructure and stable environments found domestically (De Backer, et al., 2016). Consequently, the location of manufacturing activities is shifting toward regional/local hubs closer to end markets. To ensure the success of these reshoring and domestic manufacturing endeavors, policymakers often intervene by offering incentives, tax credits, and investments in logistics infrastructure, explicitly facilitating this relocalization into robust regional economic ecosystems (Barbieri, et al., 2020). Thus, reshoring is not merely a reversal of past decisions but a purposeful adoption of a regional strategy that maximizes the benefits of synchronized, resilient, and proximate domestic supply chains. 

Circular Bioeconomy

As resource constraints and market disruptions continue to shape business landscapes, especially in rural America, many MSMEs and communities have opportunities to incorporate circular and regenerative principles into their practices. The bioeconomy capitalizes on agricultural resources and their conversion into vital products and services. This creates opportunities for MSMEs to contribute to both economic resilience and land stewardship in rural communities. In alignment with USDA’s emphasis on the advancement of circular bioeconomies in which agricultural resources are harvested, utilized, and regenerated to enhance rural community well-being and foster overall economic growth through job creation and population retention.  

Within this broader bioeconomy framework, circular economy principles offer a transformative approach to resource management. Figge et al. (2023) define circular economy as "a multi-level resource use system that stipulates the complete closure of all resource loops…… In its conceptual perfect form, all resource loops will be fully closed. In its realistic imperfect form, some use of virgin resources is inevitable" (pg. 208). Supporting practices such as recycling, composting, and material recovery positively affect the scale and direction of resource flows and contribute to the circular economy.

A circular bioeconomy integrates three core principles driven by design: eliminating waste and pollution, keeping products and biological materials in circulation, and mimicking regenerative natural processes (ellenmacarthurfoundation.org, 2024, August 20). This approach encompasses all stages from design and production through distribution, consumption, and end-of-life recovery with particular emphasis on bio-based materials that can return nutrients to soil and ecosystems. Kirchherr et al. (2017) found that circularity operates at multiple scales: the micro level (products, companies, consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks, regional supply chains), and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim of accomplishing economic prosperity and environmental quality simultaneously.

The integration of circular principles within a bioeconomy framework is particularly relevant for fiber-based MSMEs, agricultural enterprises, and bio-based product manufacturers. These businesses often work with biological resources such as natural fibers, agricultural byproducts, and plant-based materials that have inherent regenerative potential when managed through circular systems. From an agribusiness and circular food systems perspective, sustainable consumption, supply chain and production practices, combined with food loss reduction policies have been utilized (Palmieri & Suardi, 2022; Weber et al., 2020) to provide nutritional diets while managing natural resources and human prosperity (Bene et al., 2019). While circular bioeconomy practices have garnered increasing attention from researchers and policymakers, it remains unclear how MSMEs are currently incorporating these principles or what barriers prevent fuller adoption. Preliminary studies suggest that many businesses may be utilizing circular and regenerative practices unknowingly without formal frameworks or language to describe their approaches. Rural businesses are at a distinct disadvantage lacking knowledge, partners, and resources to implement these practices despite strong consumer interest and demand. It is important to develop frameworks to empower rural MSMEs in adapting and implementing circular approaches that will provide additional economic opportunities.

Two features of MSMEs make them especially relevant to circular transitions in a fiber-based bioeconomy. First, their relatively small scale and agility allow rapid iteration of design, material choices, and novel services (e.g., repair, rental). Second, MSMEs are often tightly embedded in local supplier and consumer networks, enabling co-creative, place-based circular solutions that larger, more globalized suppliers may find harder to test (Kuik et al., 2023). These traits position MSMEs as potential “laboratories” for circular product stewardship and business-model experimentation. Finally, their strong consumer engagement helps foster the behavioral change necessary for circular transitions (Audina, 2024).

Despite their potential, MSMEs face significant barriers in adopting circular practices. Access to certified circular inputs remains costly, and high minimum order quantities often force MSMEs to move to offshore sourcing. Furthermore, a lack of infrastructure creates systemic bottlenecks for MSMEs, who cannot achieve economies of scale on their own (Piller, 2023; Jha et al., 2017). Policy and institutional gaps can exacerbate these challenges. Circularity requires proximity between levels in the supply chain  to make the system viable. Local supply chains or regional hubs allow faster turnaround for circular services (Svensson, 2016). Studies show that micro-clusters can serve as innovation hubs, linking firms with universities and research centres to develop new approaches for circular economy integration (Ellams et al., 2023).

Reshoring initiatives also play an important role in aligning supply networks with circularity principles. UK case studies demonstrate how firms motivated by sustainability commitments have progressively brought production “back home” to regain control over supplier practices and reduce transport-related emissions (Fratocchi et al., 2019). By re-establishing supplier ties domestically or regionally, companies can better monitor social and environmental standards and integrate closed-loop processes into their operations (Bals et al., 2019). Such localised networks also allow for long-term, trust-based supplier relationships, which are essential to embed circularity into everyday supply chain decisions. The literature consistently highlights that investment in micro-clusters, digital integration, and skills development is crucial for building sustainable regional bioeconomies that can fully support circularity (Ellams et al., 2023).

As this research team is primarily interested in MSMEs across various sectors including food, hospitality, fiber, agriculture byproducts, bio-based manufacturing, and related services the focus will be on how these enterprises currently view, utilize, and aspire to incorporate circular bioeconomy principles into their existing business practices, and what support systems enable successful transitions toward regenerative economic models.

Previous Research by NC 1030

This section highlights collaborative research by NC1030 members during the last iteration of this project (2021-2025). 

Johnson, Jorgensen, Zuiker, Manikowske and LeHew studied the role of communication technologies of small business success. Businesses rely on technologies, but don’t find easy-to-use technologies to be useful in their retail establishments. Findings suggest that 1) easy-to-use communication technologies are not useful and do not contribute to business success, 2) useful communication technologies are considered to contribute to business success, and 3) new owners that are younger and located in urban areas are more likely to use communication technologies. Impacts include insight into how small businesses can use “useful” communication technologies efficiently within their operations, without wasting time and other resources.

Katare, Marshall, and Valdivia examined how small business owners were affected by COVID-19 and the implementation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. They collected online survey data from a national sample of 463 small business owners across the United States. The survey was conducted in June 2020, eight weeks after the passage of the CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. There were three main themes that emerged from the results. First, drivers of income loss were not necessarily associated with time to recovery. Second, businesses that were undercapitalized were more likely to suffer higher income loss, longer time to recovery, and less likely to be resilient. Third, business model changes were necessary due to the pandemic but not all adaptive strategies led to better business outcomes. The results from this research study will lead to a better understanding of key vulnerabilities and adjustments that small businesses make to fully recover from economic shocks. Impacts-- their findings showed that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was not the same for all small businesses. Thus, there is a need for policy makers to take this aspect into account.

Researchers from Purdue, Missouri, Montana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota universities continue to examine how profitability and functionality are affected by work-family balance, adjustment strategies, policies in place to achieve balance, and family business status. Findings suggest the average, family-owned businesses perform better than non-family businesses along several dimensions including strategic decision-making and profitability, in part due to their aversion to risk that may damage family wealth and long-term planning horizons (Larraz, Gené, & Figueras, 2019). Results make an important contribution to the family business literature by suggesting that family businesses have higher family and business functionality, but similar profitability as non-family businesses. Policies that reinforce business practices related to family wellbeing variables in this research will be championed and widely disseminated.

LeHew and Doty collaborated on the development and delivery of a Farm to Fashion camp to middle and high school students. This project can be considered a form of engaged scholarship and outreach. The camp introduced young people to stages of fiber production, from sheep to product development, emphasizing the importance of transitioning to sustainable practices. The overarching goal of this activity was to inform and inspire young people to pursue a career in the regenerative and regional fiber system. 

Wiatt, Marshall, and Musselman investigated the succession process in small and medium family farms as two distinct but related processes of management transfer and ownership transfer. This study aimed to evaluate which business, family, and owner characteristics were significant in progressing each process towards the actual transfer of management and ownership. Business and owner characteristics were significant to both management and ownership transfer, whereas family characteristics only influenced ownership transfer. Farm family businesses that discussed goals, identified a successor, and were educated on how to start the transfer process were more likely to have made progress in both management and ownership transfer. 

Niehm, Das, Manchiraju, Wiatt, LeHew, and Diddi collaborated on emerging research that addresses several overarching questions concerning small business owners and investigates the relationship between work life balance/work and family balance (WLB/WFB) for small business owners and their perceived business success. A sizable portion of the literature addresses WLB/WFB for large companies (e.g., Wong, Chan & Teh, 2020; Felstead, Jewson, Phizacklea, & Waters, 2002). However, research addressing this  issue in small business settings remains limited,  creating a knowledge gap regarding WLB/WFB for small, independently owned businesses has dramatically increased since the COVID 19 disruptions of 2020 and 2021 (Grossfeld, 2021).

Marshall, Fitzgerald, Lee, Wiatt, Cheang, and Mukembo examined differences in Socioemotional Wealth (SEW) between copreneurs, business-owning couples, and non-copreneurial family businesses differences in their social-emotional well-being using data from the 2019 Small Business Survey of businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Findings suggest copreneurial businesses were less concerned with transgenerational control than other types of family businesses which, in turn implies that they may have different long-term objectives than non-copreneurial family businesses.

Martinez-Palomares, Cheang, and Valdivia collaborated on a study about natural hazards and the Covid 19 pandemic. Findings suggest that some business owners have less well-being than their counterparts. Bonding social capital mitigates the negative impact of well-being on resilience by reducing, in absolute value, the negative impact of negative well-being on resilience. The next steps are to test other instruments on the entire sample and to adapt the Double ABC-X model using latent variables.

NC 1030 members Yoon Lee, Michael Cheang, Cynthia Jasper, and Renee Wiatt examined the factors associated with business performance among small businesses in the United States, while comparing differences in work-family interface issues between business owners. Using data from the 2019 Small Business Values Survey (SBVS), regression results indicated that all else being equal, some business owners reported significantly lower business income than their counterparts. Regression results also revealed that work-family boundary disruption was positively associated with perceived business profitability and that successful family-business functioning was positively associated with both perceived profitability and business income. On the other hand, operating businesses from home was negatively associated with both perceived profitability and business income. 

Six NC-1030 members collaborated to prepare a research article on the wealth and well-being of small business owners. This work extends the Sustainable Family Business Theory by exploring the subjective well-being of small business owners.  Research revealed that small business owners generally experience higher levels of subjective well-being compared to larger companies, while those earning over $100k per year report lower levels of well-being. Similarly, the study on coping techniques and the wealth of hospitality businesses found that: 1) certain owners using coping techniques perceive themselves as more successful, 2) these owners have a more positive perception of wealth, 3) perceptions of wealth and well-being, and 4) family-owned businesses report higher well-being than non-family-owned businesses. These findings guide small business owners and retail managers on the positive impacts of health and wealth on overall well-being.

Two NC1030 members Diddi, and LeHew, along with two outside researchers collaborated with the executive director of Fibershed and  were awarded a USDA Higher Education Challenge Grant titled “Building Circular Economy Competencies In Fiber, Textiles And Clothing Curriculum To Enhance Workforce Preparedness”. The overarching goal of this multi-institutional and transdisciplinary project is to enhance fiber, textiles and clothing (FTC) curriculum with circular economy (CE) competencies to prepare the next generation of professionals to support the industry transformation toward circularity. The first objective is to increase conceptual knowledge related to FTC CE principles in baccalaureate education and address the skills gap related to regenerative agriculture, emerging technologies, and innovations advancing circularity. The second objective is to support FTC educators’ ability to deliver professional competencies related to CE.

Marshall, Wiatt, and Lee collaborated on a manuscript focusing on small business exit strategies and the effects of socioemotional wealth on the choice of four common exit strategies. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the association of socioemotional wealth (SEW) with the four common exit strategies employed by rural small business owners. The data were from a national survey of U.S. small business owners. Business owners with high SEW were more likely to choose stewardship strategies rather than liquidate. Rural business owners compared to their urban counterparts were less likely to choose to sell their businesses to non-family members which may have implications for rural main street over the next decade.

Fitzgerald, Lee, Marshall, Wiatt, Cheang, and Mukembo continue to study the use of adjustment strategies within businesses and families when unusually high demands are made on either system utilizing data from the 2019 Small Business Values Survey (SBVS). Their study focuses on how couple and non-couple owners differ in use of business managerial strategies when competing demands on time and resources are present in the business or family systems. While descriptive statistics show copreneurs use fewer adjustment strategies, regression analysis revealed couple-owned businesses actually use more strategies than others. Business characteristics (size, location, industry) and owner demographics (age, gender, ethnicity) significantly influence strategy usage. 

Marshall, Wiatt, Lee, Fitzgerald, Cheang, and Mukembo presented a study titled, “Mixing Business and Pleasure: Socioemotional wealth and income among copreneurs and Business-owning couples” was presented at the 2024 Work and Family Researchers Network (WFRN) Conference in Montreal Canada utilizing data from 500 U.S. small businesses to examine how copreneurial and couple-owned business structures affect both financial (income) and non-financial (socioemotional wealth) outcomes. Preliminary results show that while being a couple-owned business or copreneurial business leads to higher levels of socioemotional wealth, it is also associated with lower income. Plans are to submit the manuscript to a journal in spring 2025.

LeHew, Doty, Irick, Das, Diddi, Manchiraju, and Eike presented a “round-table” symposium at the International Federation of Home Economics (IFHE) World Congress in Galway, Ireland in June 2024. By sharing global perspectives represented by conference attendees, the researchers gained a richer understanding regarding the power of transformative education for reimagining the fashion industry for circularity. This can inform future research endeavors for development of a circular fiber economy in the U.S.

NC 1030 members Valdivia, Cheang, Zuiker, Katare, and Martinez-Palomares examined the strategies families and small businesses across the United States used to cope with a drastic reduction or loss of income because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using a nationally representative sample to examine the association between coping strategies used to deal with income reduction or loss, and health and subjective wellbeing. Findings suggest that while families and small businesses are resourceful in normal times, during periods of non-normative shocks of such magnitude and extended period of time as the COVID-19 pandemic, without systems and structural supports from the government, the conventional ways of coping (e.g., use of savings, reaching out to family and friends, and getting assistance from food pantries) may not be sufficient to help families and small businesses to recover from such unexpected life events.  

Lee, Marshall, and Wiatt are collaborating on a research topic that compares differences in exit intention strategies between business owners utilizing data from the 2019 Small Business Survey. Our preliminary regression results show that some business owners were more likely to choose stewardship exit strategies rather than liquidate. This finding is consistent with previous findings. These business owners were also more likely to give or sell their businesses to familiar successors than to liquidate their businesses.  Plans are to submit the manuscript to a journal in 2025.

 

Objectives

1. Identify the internal and external factors impacting the well-being of MSMEs and communities.
   
2. Identify and evaluate responses by MSMEs and communities to the internal and external factors impacting their well-being.
   
3. Inform policy or practice related to the well-being of MSMEs and communities.
   

Methods

As the era of unprecedented disruptions to economic and social systems continues, the transformation to more resilient approaches remains necessary. The research team will continue to explore patterns of success and responses to challenges, but shifting focus to adaptive change rather than reactive approaches. Our research team remains interested in identifying, understanding, and mitigating the potential risks to Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs), their owners, and the communities in which they operate. Researchers continue to utilize the Sustainable Family Business Model and Community Capital Framework. However, new focus areas include the development of a circular bioeconomy, rural entrepreneurship, local and regional supply chains and adaptation management. NC1030 members will address these issues as related to the established project objectives.

Several studies will be completed during the next five years investigating: transformative approaches to existing and emerging challenges for rural and family-owned MSMEs; transition to profitable circular bioeconomies in various industries; and relevant practices and policies required to support these adaptive transformations.

Two collaborative research themes are proposed by NC1030 members to guide specific research studies during the duration of this five-year project. We expect other research initiatives to emerge based upon these initial research efforts. Below is a brief description of these themes and initial research activities.

Theme 1: Prosperity, Well-being, and Vitality of Rural or Family-Owned MSMEs and their Communities 

Rural small businesses and family-owned MSMEs are vital to the economic and social fabric of U.S. communities, yet they face heightened vulnerability to internal and external factors such as demographic and cultural shifts, technological change, natural disasters, geographic isolation, and limited access to capital and infrastructure. This theme explores how these MSMEs adapt to a changing business landscape.

This theme’s research emphasis focuses on innovation readiness to address existing and emerging challenges, such as outmigration/return migration, aging populations, digital and technological transformations, intergenerational innovation, succession planning, and the role of socioemotional wealth in sustaining MSMEs. Additional focus areas include circularity in emerging sectors (e.g., food systems, hospitality services), collaborative networks (e.g., crowdsourcing, “coopetition”), policy formulation, youth retention and return migration, and workforce reskilling. By identifying key resources, capacities, and adaptive strategies, the research aims to inform community-centered approaches to strengthening economies. Thus, this research will apply the Community Capitals framework to support and assess how these capitals interact to produce entrepreneurial outcomes for business and community prosperity and well-being.

This theme encompasses a series of studies aimed at understanding and enhancing the resilience, innovation readiness, and socioemotional and economic vitality of rural and family-owned MSMEs. Focus areas for this theme include the following:

1. Explore Demographic and Social Transitions by investigating the effects of outmigration and return migration on local economies and business vitality. Intergenerational innovation will be explored to determine opportunities for rural community growth. The aging population (e.g., ‘silver tsunami’), succession planning, youth retention strategies, and their impact on community vitality will be analyzed. The implications of aging populations on workforce availability and business continuity will be explored. The Sustainable Family Business Model (SFBM) will guide the assessment of rural and family business continuity.

2. Assess Adaptive Capacity and Innovation Readiness by examining how MSMEs in rural communities respond to internal and external pressures such as demographic change, cultural shifts, and technological disruption. Rural communities face unique vulnerabilities due to demographic shifts, technological change, geographic isolation, and limited access to capital and infrastructure. The research team will focus on how MSMEs adapt to change and disruption, geographic isolation, and infrastructure limitations. Innovation readiness will be explored in the face of emerging challenges including digital transformation (e.g., AI). The Community Capitals Framework will serve as a foundation to assess how various forms of capital (e.g., financial, human, social, cultural) interact to produce entrepreneurial outcomes.

3. Map Circularity and Emerging Sector Opportunities through the identification of opportunities for circular practices in sectors such as food systems and hospitality services. This research will evaluate MSMEs’ current engagement with circularity and potential for expansion into sustainable business models.

4. Strengthen Collaborative Networks and Social Capital through the study of the impact of collaborative models such as crowdsourcing and “coopetition” on business resilience. A mapping of the role of social, human, and cultural capital in supporting MSME innovation and community prosperity is planned.

5. Inform Policy and Workforce Development by developing policy recommendations to support MSMEs in rural areas. This research will identify barriers and opportunities in the policy landscape for infrastructure, financing, and education. An aim is to design workforce reskilling initiatives aligned with technological and market shifts, and to develop tools and metrics to evaluate community-centered approaches to economic development and well-being.

Theme 2: Roadmap for Fiber-Based MSMEs: Transitioning Toward a Circular Bioeconomy 

 A series of studies fall under this theme by investigating how business practices must transition to a resilient system that can support profitable circular fiber bioeconomies while enhancing the well-being of MSMEs and communities.

More specifically, project areas will focus on the following: 

1. Identify the current state of circularity and potential opportunities for MSMEs operating in the natural fiber and textile (i.e. cotton, wool, hemp, flax, leather) supply chains.  This includes mapping local and regional fiber assets such as fiber farmers, processors, designers, marketers, local governments, and cooperative models or industry clusters. 
2. Assess infrastructure deficiencies and other barriers hindering MSME's transition to circularity and resilience, including examining supply chain integration and bottlenecks. 
3. Identify enabling factors and characteristics of MSMEs successfully implementing circular business practices and regional supply chain relationships that support transition to more resilient and circular operations. 
4. Evaluate market potential and business models by determining market readiness and product development potential, identifying niche markets for regionally produced circular goods, and identifying the most promising business models.
5. Develop frameworks for policy and practice by creating a roadmap explaining the relationships between MSME characteristics, adaptive capability, regional supply chain integration, and alternative pathways for transition to circularity, and determine the policy landscape by identifying policy barriers and opportunities for supporting regional natural fiber and textile economies and circular business practices.

Research Activities

This section briefly summarizes the research methods used to address the project objectives and to implement the research studies above. Collaborative efforts will be used to coordinate data collection, and data will be pooled in datasets available for use by all members. A major strength of the research group is the subset of research teams that are formed to analyze data that has been gathered for the project and disseminate the results through various venues. The members will continue maximizing collaborative activities to garner greater efficiencies in our research efforts. 

Mixed methods approach will be employed to investigate the complex nature of the problem. This approach allows the team to collect and analyze data through qualitative and quantitative research strategies, whichever are appropriate based upon the research questions being investigated. An added feature of mixed methods is that it supports triangulation of data (Creswell, 2009) and enhances theory development and model building. Qualitative strategies will include individual and focus group interviews to extract common themes and build grounded theory. Quantitative research strategies include collecting primary data from appropriate populations using survey instruments to measure key variables. Secondary data will also be important sources of information to supplement the primary data collected. Relevant secondary data about MSMEs, households, and communities will be extracted from a variety of restricted and public sources such as: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Family Business Succession Survey, 2019 Small Business Values Survey, 2013 Small Business Survival and Demise after a Natural Disaster, and American Community Survey. Analytical and statistical techniques utilized for each component of the research project will vary based upon the nature of the research questions and the hypothesized relationships being tested.  

The team will work on data analysis and publications using NC1030’s declaration system. The declaration system allows a member of the team to suggest (or declare) a theme for an article which includes the dependent variable of interest, the independent variables, and the econometric model to be used. The declaration is then sent to the entire NC1030 team to solicit input. The declaration system has two purposes: first, it allows the team to monitor what is happening with the data; and, second, it encourages collaboration among team members. 

The team works very collaboratively and is divided into subgroups that focus on the two overarching research themes listed above. In some cases, team members will work on more than one theme area and all will be involved in data analyses and dissemination of results.

 

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Creation of a database of MSMEs operating in the consumer-based fiber and food supply chains, including primary data collected from qualitative and quantitative studies as well as curated secondary data to be used for identification of best practices. Mapping of local and regional fiber assets such as fiber farmers, processors, designers, marketers, local governments, and cooperative models or industry clusters. Identification of rural retail, hospitality and service MSMEs adaptation strategies to a changing business landscape Detection of key variables influencing transformative approaches within family-owned and rural businesses and their communities as they respond to current and emerging vulnerabilities. Comments: * Creation of a database of MSMEs operating in the consumer-based fiber and food supply chains, including primary data collected from qualitative and quantitative studies as well as curated secondary data to be used for identification of best practices. * Mapping of local and regional fiber assets such as fiber farmers, processors, designers, marketers, local governments, and cooperative models or industry clusters. * Identification of rural retail, hospitality and service MSMEs adaptation strategies to a changing business landscape * Detection of key variables influencing transformative approaches within family-owned and rural businesses and their communities as they respond to current and emerging vulnerabilities.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Results will lead to a better understanding of key adjustments that MSMEs in vulnerable communities make to remain successful. Provides a deeper understanding of what factors affect key variables within rural and family-owned MSMEs and will allow advisors, businesses, and educators to better guide clients and their own operations. Results will be disseminated through extension publications and journal articles. Identifies best practices for MSMES and communities to develop greater resilience and transition to a circular bioeconomy. Outcomes include a roadmap to provide guidance for MSMES and communities. Research efforts support necessary transformative responses to ensure owners of MSMEs can continue to operate, creating livelihoods for themselves and others in the community as well as contributing to the overall economic health of these rural communities. * Results will lead to a better understanding of key adjustments that MSMEs in vulnerable communities make to remain successful. * Provides a deeper understanding of what factors affect key variables within rural and family-owned MSMEs and will allow advisors, businesses, and educators to better guide clients and their own operations. Results will be disseminated through extension publications and journal articles. * Identifies best practices for MSMES and communities to develop greater resilience and transition to a circular bioeconomy. Outcomes include a roadmap to provide guidance for MSMES and communities. * Research efforts support necessary transformative responses to ensure owners of MSMEs can continue to operate, creating livelihoods for themselves and others in the community as well as contributing to the overall economic health of these rural communities.

Milestones

(1):The project objectives build upon each other and will be completed in three phases over the five-year period. A timeline with key milestones for each phase is reported below. Years 1-2 PHASE 1: develop, test, and refine instruments to measure key variables; conduct focus group interviews; construct surveys; collect data from MSMEs; and establish database structure.

(2):Years 1-2 PHASE 1: develop, test, and refine instruments to measure key variables; conduct focus group interviews; construct surveys; collect data from MSMEs; and establish database structure. PHASE 2: develop and estimate statistical models; build datasets to add to database; identify adaptive and transformative approaches, best practices, and most promising alternative business models supporting circularity and resilience in MSMEs; submit and present conference papers; and develop and submit manuscripts to peer reviewed journals in relevant but varied disciplines (e.g., agricultural economics, rural development, business management, hospitality, and retailing).

(3):PHASE 2: develop and estimate statistical models; build datasets to add to database; identify adaptive and transformative approaches, best practices, and most promising alternative business models supporting circularity and resilience in MSMEs; submit and present conference papers; and develop and submit manuscripts to peer reviewed journals in relevant but varied disciplines (e.g., agricultural economics, rural development, business management, hospitality, and retailing).

(4):PHASE 2: develop and estimate statistical models; build datasets to add to database; identify adaptive and transformative approaches, best practices, and most promising alternative business models supporting circularity and resilience in MSMEs; submit and present conference papers; and develop and submit manuscripts to peer reviewed journals in relevant but varied disciplines (e.g., agricultural economics, rural development, business management, hospitality, and retailing). PHASE 3: disseminate research findings and best practices to non-academics through newsletters, social media, and workshops; consider policy implications of key research findings and identify advocacy opportunities.

(5):PHASE 3: disseminate research findings and best practices to non-academics through newsletters, social media, and workshops; consider policy implications of key research findings and identify advocacy opportunities.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The project will have multiple outreach outlets that reflect the varied expertise of the NC 1030 membership. Research findings will be shared through scholarly publications in research journals that span multiple disciplines, and will be presented at national and international conferences. Findings will also be published in extension, community development and policy journals, as well as outlets that reach community and public sector stakeholders. Results will offer information that can be useful to policymakers, businesses, and educators. Beyond academic audiences, materials will be posted in appropriate Extension communities of practice such as Entrepreneurs and their Communities. Lessons from research on non-normative impacts have implications useful to agencies, for example, the Small Business Administration. Lessons learned will be shared with these agencies and local communities through such means as informational websites, news releases, social media platforms, Extension publications, and publications of professional organizations such as Choices published by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, and Webinars, such as C-FARE, NCERA, and webinars for the NCRCRD to share findings from grant funding.

NC 1030 research will be presented at conference venues such as the U.S. Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), Applied and Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA), American Collegiate Retailing Association (ACRA), American Council of Consumer Interests (ACCI), International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA), and the Community Development Society (CDS). Published work will be disseminated through academic journals such as the Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Journal of Extension, Journal  of  Small Business Strategy, Sustainability, and the Journal of Fashion Practice.

Organization/Governance

Executive Committee: The technical committee retains all powers except those specifically delegated to a subcommittee. The officers of the technical committee shall constitute the executive committee. There shall be a chair, a secretary, and a member at-large, one of which is elected each year. The executive committee shall respond in writing to any inquiry from a member of the technical committee.

Duties/Term of Office: A full list of duties of the chair is found in the CSREES Manual. The chair sends a copy of the annual report to the technical committee members, and informs the administrative advisor's secretary of changes to the NC 1030 listserv. The chair, elected in odd-numbered years, serves for two years beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which they are elected. The secretary, elected in the even-numbered years, serves for two years beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which they are elected. The member-at-large serves for one year beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which they are elected. The at- large member works with the executive committee on matters brought to the attention of the chair, which require a vote. In the event that co-chairs are elected, there will be no election of a member-at-large.

Other Appointees and Subcommittees: There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will update the mailing list. There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will serve as editor of a public website created for the NC 1030 project. There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will serve as manager of the interview schedules. A policy subcommittee will consist of a chair and at least two additional members who shall be appointed by the chair.

The subcommittee will serve for the duration of the NC 1030 project. A chair, selected by the subcommittee, will remind the members of the technical committee of the policies on a regular basis.

Literature Cited

Reference List

*Indicates NC1030 Hatch Multistate Collaboration

Adian, I., Doumbia, D., Gregory, N., Ragoussis, A., Reddy, A., & Timmis, J. D. (2020, September 24). Small and medium enterprises in the pandemic: Impact, responses and the role of development finance (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9414). World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/729451600968236270/pdf/Small-and-Medium-Enterprises-in-the-Pandemic-Impact-Responses-and-the-Role-of-Development-Finance.pdf 

Audina, M., Yunus, R., Parinding, K. A., & Nasruddin, M. A. (2024). The role of micro, small, and medium enterprises in improving community welfare. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 4(1), 81-89.

Baker, T. & Nelson, R.E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 

Bals, L., Daum, A., & Tate, W. L. (2019). Sustainable reshoring: Drivers, outcomes and policy implications. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 23(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-12-2019-0269

Barber, D., Harris, M. L., & Jones, J. (2021). An overview of rural entrepreneurship and future directions. Small Business Institute, 31(4), 1-4.

Barbeiri, P., Ciabuschi, F., Fratocchi, L., & Vignoli, M. (2018). What do we know about manufacturing reshoring? Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 11(1), 79-122.

Barbieri, P., Boffelli, A., Elia, S., Fratochhi, L., Kalchschimdst, M., & Samson, D. (2020). What can we learn about reshoring after Covid-19? Operations Management Research, 13, 131-136.

Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., Talsma, E. F., & Khoury, C. K. (2019). When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development, 113, 116–130. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011 

Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.

Carlson, N. (2022). Differentiation in microenterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 44, 1141 - 1167. doi:10.1002/smj.3463 

Closs, D., Bolumole, Y., & Rodammer, F. (2014). Supply chain management opportunities for regional economic development. Transportation Journal, 53(4), 453-498.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808330883

Dabson, B. (2001). Supporting rural entrepreneurship. Exploring policy options for a new rural America, 35-48.

Dabson, B., Malkin, J., Mathews, A., Pate, K., & Stickle, S. (2003). Mapping rural entrepreneurship. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and Washington, DC: CFED.

Deller, S. & T. Conroy. (2016). Survival rates of rural businesses: What the evidence tells us. Choices. 4th Quarter 31(4). Retrieved from https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/survival-rates-of-rural-businesses-what-the-evidence-tells-us

De Backer, et al. (2016), Reshoring: Myth or reality?, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm56frbm38s-en 

Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Journal of the Community Development Society, 37(1), 19-35.

Ellams, D., Postlethwaite, S., Casadei, P., & Ospina, J. (2023, May 17). Identifying and analysing UK fashion micro-clusters. Retrieved from Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Center: https://pec.ac.uk/discussion_paper_/identifying-and-analysing-uk-fashion-micro-clusters/

Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2024, August 20). Circular economy introduction. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview 

Farrigan, T., Genetin, B., Sanders, A., Pender, J., Thomas, K. L., Winkler, R., Cromartie, J. (2024). Rural America at a glance (Report No. EIB-282). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8722498.ers

Figge, F., Stevenson-Thorpe, A., & Gutberlet, M. (2023). Definitions of the circular economy: Circularity matters. Ecological Economics, 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107823 

Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (2008). Rural communities: Legacy and change (3rd edition). Boulder, CO: West View Press.

Fratocchi, L., Ancarani, A., Barbieri, P., Di Mauro, C., & Zanoni, A. (2019). From global to local: Reshoring for sustainability. Sustainability, 11(20), 5693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205693

Gaglio, C., Kraemer-Mabula, E., & Lorenz, E. (2022). The effects of digital transformation on innovation and productivity: Firm-level evidence of South African manufacturing micro and small enterprises. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 182, 121785.

Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Gibson, K. (2023, October 24). What is risk management & why is it important?: HBS Online. Business Insights Blog. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/risk-management

Goetz, C., Hyatt, H., Kroff, Z., Sandusky, K., & Stinson, M. (2025). Business owners and the self-employed: 33 million (and counting!). US Census Bureau. (No. 25-60).

Henderson, J. (2002). Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Rural Development Paper Series.

Jaroscak, J. V., Kreiser, M., Lawhorn, J. M., Lee, E. A., Lindsay, B. R., Marshak, A. R., Webster, E. M., & Whitt, C. (2025, March 25). Federal disaster assistance for businesses: Summaries and policy options (CRS Report No. R47631). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47631 

Jha, R., & Depoo, T. (2017). Role of microenterprises in recovering US economy-post 2008 financial crisis. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 19(3), 9-28.

Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Wittorff Tanvig, H.(2015). Rural entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the rural – between place and space. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 21(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2013-0205

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation, & Recycling, 127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 

Kuik, S., Kumar, A., Diong, L., & Ban, J. (2023). A systematic literature review on the transition to circular business models for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Sustainability, 15(12), 9352.

Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (1996). Incubating new enterprises: A guide to successful practice. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Luloff, A. E., & Bridger, J. C. (2003). Community agency and local development. In D. Brown & L. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 203–213). State College, PA: Penn State Press.

Mamai, M., & Yinghua, S. (2016). Managing risks through mitigation strategies: Evidence from Cameroonian Small and Medium Enterprises. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(1), 219. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v12n1p219

*Marketti, S., Niehm, L.S. & Fuloria, R. (2006). An exploratory study of lifestyle entrepreneurship and its relationship to life quality. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34(3), 241-259. 

Miklian, J., & Hoelscher, K. (2021). SMEs and exogenous shocks: A conceptual literature review and forward research agenda. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 40(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426211050796

Monnat, S. M. (2025). US rural population health and aging in the 2020s. Public Policy & Aging Report, 35(1), 3-9.

Nationwide. (2024, December). Risk management survey 2024: Insight report. Retrieved from https://news.nationwide.com/download/06ed6a6d-f7c5-4b4c-995f-06d5472d132e/2024riskmanagementsurveyreport-newsroom.pdf?utm_source=NWNewsroom&utm_medium=Newsroom&utm_campaign=NWNewsroom

North, D., & Smallbone, D. (2000). The innovativeness and growth of rural SMEs during the 1990s. Regional Studies, 34, 145–157.

*Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K. Z., & Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 639-666.

Palmieri, Nadia., & Suardi, Alessandro. (Eds.). (2022). Agricultural and Food Systems Sustainability The Complex Challenge of Losses and Waste. MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

Pearce, J. (2014). Why domestic outsourcing is leading America’s reemergence in global manufacturing. Business Horizons, 57, 27-36.

Piller, L. W. (2023). Designing for circularity: sustainable pathways for Australian fashion small to medium enterprises. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 27(2), 287-310.

Rugman, A. M., Li, J., & Oh, C. H. (2009). Are supply chains global or regional? International Marketing Review, 26(4/5), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330910971962

Sahut, J. M., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Small business, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 663-668.

SBA. (2024, July 23). U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved October 29, 2025, from Office of Advocacy: https://advocacy.sba.gov/2024/07/23/frequently-asked-questions-about-small-business-2024/#:~:text=Small%20businesses%20are%2043.5%25%20of,small%20businesses%20in%20FY%202022. 

Servon, L., Visser, M., & Fairlie, R. (2010). The continuum of capital for small and micro enterprises. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 301-323. doi: 10.1142/S1084946710001579

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. 

*Spurgeon, E. & Niehm, L.S. (2023). Business model innovation of small retail champions: An exploratory investigation in the fashion retail sector. Global Scientific and Academic Research Journal of Economics, Business, and Management, 2(6) pp. 43-54. http://gsarpublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GSARJEBM922023-Gelary-scripts.pdf

*Spurgeon, E. & Niehm, L.S. (2025). Integrating strategy and practice: An evidence-based framework for sustainable growth in small fashion retail. Submitted to the International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education. In Review.

*Stafford, K., Duncan, K.A., Danes, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(3), 197-208.

*Stafford, K., Danes, S., & Haynes, G. (2013). Long-term family firm survival and growth considering family adaptive capacity and federal disaster assistance receipt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 188-200.

Svensson, G. (2016). The sustainability of local sourcing in fashion supply chains. Sustainability, 8(6), 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060616 

Tuitjer, G., & Thompson, N. A. (2025). Rural entrepreneurship as-practice: a framework for research beyond stereotypical notions of entrepreneurial agency and contextual constraints. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 37(9-10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2025.2475890 

U.S. Small Business Administration (2025). Small business profiles for the states, territories, and nation 2025. https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/State_Profiles_2025_Technical-Notes.pdf 

Weaver, D. B., & Fennell, D. A. (1997). The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: A profile of operations. Tourism Management, 18, 357–365.

Weinstein, A., & Dewbury, A. (2025, May 16). Rural America’s struggle to access private capital. Center on Rural Innovation. https://ruralinnovation.us/resources/reports/rural-americas-struggle-to-access-private-capital/ 

Winter, M., & Morris, E. W. (1998). Family resource management and family business: Coming together in theory and research. In R. K. Z. Heck (Ed.), The entrepreneurial family (pp. 30-47). Needham, MA: Family Business Resources Publishing. 

Weber, H., Poeggel, K., Eakin, H., Fischer, D., Lang, D. J., Wehrden, H. V., & Wiek, A. (2020). What are the ingredients for food systems change towards sustainability?-Insights from the literature. Environmental Research Letters, 15(11), 113001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab99fd

Williams, B. K., & Brown, E. D. (2014). Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environmental management, 53(2), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7

World Bank Group. (2019). World development report 2019: The changing nature of work. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2019 

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

KS, MO, UT, WI, WV, WY

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

East Carolina University, Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT)