ENTREPRENEURIAL Univ.-Prof. Dr. Robert J. Breitenecker ...
Transcript of ENTREPRENEURIAL Univ.-Prof. Dr. Robert J. Breitenecker ...
JOHANNES KEPLER
UNIVERSITY LINZ
Altenberger Straße 69
4040 Linz, Austria
jku.at
DVR 0093696
Author
Marcella Krawinkler, BA
Submission
Institute of
Innovation Management
Thesis Supervisor
Univ.-Prof. Dr.
Robert J. Breitenecker
September 2020
ENTREPRENEURIAL
ECOSYSTEMS
FACILITATING
SUSTAINABLE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Master’s Thesis
to confer the academic degree of
Master of Science
in the Master’s Program
Leading Innovative Organizations
September 29, 2020 II
Sworn Declaration
I hereby declare under oath that the submitted Master's Thesis has been written solely by me
without any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not been
used and those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and cited
quotes have been accurately credited.
The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document.
Hofkirchen im Traunkreis, 29 September 2020
Marcella Krawinkler
September 29, 2020 III
Acknowledgments
First, I would like to thank my husband and our two little children for their great understanding over
the past 15 months. Although the master's program was rewarding and connected with many
personal learnings, it was a tour de force with countless hours in front of the computer than playing
with the children or having a nice dinner. And not to forget the numerous discussions with A about
the master thesis – I want you to know that even if I don't listen to you (immediately), your inputs
and opinions are the most important ones for me. I am so grateful to have you as a family. I love
you all infinitely.
Studying again at the age of 36 next to family was only possible with the generous support of our
families in Upper Austria and Vienna. My special thanks go to Goli and H. Oma for their ongoing
and warm care of L and V. Without them, I would not have been able to do my studies to this
extent.
I would also like to thank all interview partners who openly and honestly shared their experiences,
expertise, and views.
Finally, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Robert J. Breitenecker for his
trust throughout the last few months.
I dedicate this thesis to my beloved grandparents: Für Omi und Opi.
September 29, 2020 IV
Abstract (English)
Sustainable entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems merge into the concept of
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems - a topic that has been increasingly discussed by both
academic scholars, practitioners, and policymakers in the past decade in response to the
sustainable development paradigm. This work contributes to research on sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems by examining the overall picture of sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems. It deepens the understanding of the defining pillars and characteristics that shape
them. Furthermore, the present master thesis can provide an anchoring point for actors to
understand the heterogeneity of different ecosystems in terms of context, complexity, geography,
agency, network, and governance. In this way, tailor-made instruments and measures can be
developed, which contrast with universal one-size-fits-all approaches.
The master thesis involves a well-founded literature review of the concepts of sustainable
entrepreneurship and (sustainable) entrepreneurial ecosystems, which will be synthesized in a
theoretical framework. This framework will serve as a basis for a qualitative study, in which
interviews with selected actors (i.e., sustainable entrepreneurs, financial supporters,
representatives of intermediary organizations, and business partners) in sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems in Austria were conducted. The study concludes with a conceptual
framework that integrates the empirical results into the findings derived from the literature
research.
Abstract (German)
Nachhaltiges Unternehmertum und unternehmerische Ökosysteme verschmelzen zum Konzept
der nachhaltigen unternehmerischen Ökosysteme - ein Thema, das im letzten Jahrzehnt als
Antwort auf das Paradigma der nachhaltigen Entwicklung von Wissenschaftler*innen,
Praktiker*innen und politischen Entscheidungsträger*innen zunehmend diskutiert wird. Diese
Arbeit trägt zur Forschung über nachhaltige unternehmerische Ökosysteme bei, indem sie das
Gesamtbild nachhaltiger unternehmerischer Ökosysteme untersucht. Sie vertieft das Verständnis
über die bestimmenden Säulen und Merkmale, die nachhaltige unternehmerische Ökosysteme
prägen. Darüber hinaus kann die vorliegende Masterarbeit einen Ankerpunkt für Akteur*innen
darstellen, um die Heterogenität verschiedener Ökosysteme in Bezug auf Kontext, Komplexität,
Geographie, Akteur*innenschaft, Netzwerk und Steuerung zu verstehen. Auf diese Weise können
zugeschnittene Instrumente und Maßnahmen entwickelt werden, die im Gegensatz zu universalen
Ansätzen stehen.
Die Masterarbeit beginnt mit einer fundierten Literaturübersicht über die Konzepte des
nachhaltigen Unternehmertums und (nachhaltiger) unternehmerischer Ökosysteme, die in einem
theoretischen Rahmen zusammengefügt werden. Dieser Rahmen dient als Grundlage für eine
qualitative Studie, in der Interviews mit ausgewählten Akteur*innen (d.h. nachhaltige
Unternehmer*innen, finanzielle Unterstützer*innen, Vertreter*innen von
Intermediärorganisationen und Geschäftspartner*innen) in nachhaltigen unternehmerischen
Ökosystemen in Österreich geführt wurden. Den Abschluss bildet ein konzeptioneller Rahmen,
der die empirischen Ergebnisse in die aus der Literaturrecherche abgeleiteten Erkenntnisse
integriert.
September 29, 2020 V
Table of Content
Sworn Declaration .......................................................................................................................................... II
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... III
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ IV
Table of Content ............................................................................................................................................ V
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... VII
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. VIII
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ IX
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Relevance and Motivation of the Topic .......................................................................................... 1
Research Questions and Objectives .............................................................................................. 2
Research Process .......................................................................................................................... 3
Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................................... 4
2. Theoretical Background ......................................................................................................................... 5
Sustainable Entrepreneurship ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1. Pairing Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship .................................................. 7
2.1.2. In Search of a Clear Definition ........................................................................................... 9
2.1.3. Social Entrepreneurship and Environmental Entrepreneurship as Related Concepts .... 13
2.1.4. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Process ........................................................................... 16
2.1.5. Synopsis .......................................................................................................................... 21
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ........................................................................................................ 23
2.2.1. The Idea behind Traditional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ............................................... 24
2.2.2. Systemic Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ................................................. 25
2.2.3. Dynamic Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems .................................................. 32
Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems .................................................................................... 37
2.3.1. Perspectives on Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ............................................. 38
2.3.2. Synopsis .......................................................................................................................... 42
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................ 45
3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 48
Research Philosophy ................................................................................................................... 48
Qualitative Research Design ........................................................................................................ 49
3.2.1. Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 49
3.2.2. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 55
September 29, 2020 VI
4. Results .................................................................................................................................................. 57
Context ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Complexity .................................................................................................................................... 59
Geography .................................................................................................................................... 60
Agency ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Network ........................................................................................................................................ 67
Governance .................................................................................................................................. 69
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................ 72
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 75
Theoretical and Practical Implications ......................................................................................... 75
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................ 76
Avenues for Future Research ...................................................................................................... 77
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 78
September 29, 2020 VII
List of Tables
Table 1: Selection of definitions for sustainable entrepreneurship (in alphabetical order by name) ........... 10
Table 2: Defining elements of sustainable entrepreneurship (own depiction) ............................................. 21
Table 3: Distinguishing characteristics between different types of entrepreneurship .................................. 22
Table 4: Components of Isenberg's ecosystem domains (adopted from Isenberg, 2011b) ........................ 28
Table 5: Selection of definitions for entrepreneurial ecosystems (in alphabetical order)............................. 43
Table 6: Selection of definitions for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (in alphabetical order) ......... 44
Table 7: Selection of study participants ....................................................................................................... 51
Table 8: Interview guideline (own depiction) ................................................................................................ 53
Table 9: Contextual interview data (own depiction) ..................................................................................... 54
September 29, 2020 VIII
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research process (own depiction) .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Sustainability entrepreneurship model (Tilley & Young, 2009: 86) ............................................... 11
Figure 3: Linking sustainability and development: antecedents - opportunities - entrepreneurial action
(Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017: 162) .................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Conceptualization of hybrid organizations (Giones et al., 2020: 6) .............................................. 14
Figure 5: Sustainable entrepreneurship process (Belz & Binder, 2017: 14) ................................................ 16
Figure 6: Organization design requirements (Parrish, 2010: 517) ............................................................... 19
Figure 7: Business model framework (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014: 43) ...................................... 20
Figure 8: Conceptual framework of the entrepreneurial system (Spilling, 1996: 93) ................................... 26
Figure 9: Entrepreneurial system components ............................................................................................ 27
Figure 10: Domains adopted from Isenberg's entrepreneurial ecosystem framework (Isenberg, 2011b) ... 27
Figure 11: Framework of entrepreneurial innovation and context (Autio et al., 2014: 1098) ....................... 29
Figure 12: Entrepreneurial ecosystem - elements and outputs (Stam & Van de Ven, 2019) ...................... 30
Figure 13: Ecosystem attributes and their relationships (Spigel, 2017) ....................................................... 31
Figure 14: Evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mack & Mayer, 2016: 2122) .................................. 34
Figure 15: Dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem lifecycle model (Cantner et al., 2020: 8)........................... 35
Figure 16: Transformation of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel & Harrison, 2018: 162) ......................... 36
Figure 17: Effects of contextual factors on SE activities (Pankov et al., 2019: 10) ...................................... 39
Figure 18: Conditions nurturing SEEs (Divito & Ingen-Housz, 2019) .......................................................... 40
Figure 19: Idealized stakeholder framework of a SEE (Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018: 183) .......................... 41
Figure 20: Theoretical framework (own depiction) ....................................................................................... 45
Figure 21: SEE stakeholder framework (Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018) - ...................................................... 50
Figure 22: Extract from interview transcription (own depiction) ................................................................... 55
Figure 23: Conceptual framework (own depiction)....................................................................................... 72
September 29, 2020 IX
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
3BL triple bottom line
e.g. exmpli gratia (for example)
ed. note editor's note
EE(s) Entrepreneurial ecosystem(s)
EO entrepreneurial orientation
EU European Union
i.a. inter alia
i.e. id est (that is)
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KPI key performance indicator
n/a not available
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ROI return on investment
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SE Sustainable entrepreneurship
SEE(s) Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem(s)
SEO sustainable entrepreneurial orientation
SEP Sustainable entrepreneurship process
SO sustainability orientation
UN United Nations
US United States
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
September 29, 2020 1/82
1. Introduction
"Our biggest challenge in this new century is to take an idea that seems abstract - sustainable development - and turn it into a reality for all the world's people."
(Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, 2001)
"We [scientific researchers – ed. note] also need to change tack away from following behind the mainstream business community in their attempts to tackle environmental and social problems and start developing a path towards sustainable development for them to follow."
(Tilley & Young, 2009: 91)
In the past three decades, the principle of sustainable development became very central to
political agendas. According to the Brundtland Report, published by the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, sustainable development must warrant "the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs" (WCED, 1987: 24). Sustainable development should be reached by considering the three
pillars of ecology, society, and economy (Gast, Gundolf, & Cesinger, 2017). Moreover, the United
Nations (UN) committed to 17 global Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) associated with 169
targets, to be achieved by 2030, aiming to end poverty, to protect the planet from degradation,
and to ensure prosperity across generations (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). The
European Union (EU) responded to the SGDs, for instance, by introducing The European Green
Deal accompanied by the European Pillar of Social Rights to address climate change,
environmental degradation, and social injustice (European Commission, 2019). The overall
objective of sustainability-oriented policies and action plans is to foster a paradigm change in
institutions that shape the present and future real-world interactions impacting economy, society,
and ecology.
Relevance and Motivation of the Topic
Without a doubt, opening up a policy window for sustainable development to put the issue on
political agendas and create formal policies is an essential step towards a sustainable and
purpose-driven economy (Farley et al., 2007). But since global solutions are hard to accomplish,
solutions to pressing concerns are best initiated locally. Here, sustainable entrepreneurship
comes into play. In contrast to traditional entrepreneurs striving primarily for economic gains,
sustainable entrepreneurs aim at balancing the pursuit of social, environmental, and economic
goals (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010). This is called a triple bottom line approach (3BL) comprising
"profit, social good and environmental protection" (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 305). Following a
Schumpeterian perspective, "entrepreneurial processes can destroy existing market structures
and consumption patterns, and replace them with more sustainable alternatives" (Johnson &
Schaltegger, 2019: 2). In line with this statement, sustainable entrepreneurship is increasingly
associated with offering vital contributions to a purpose-driven and sustainable economy (e.g.,
Hall et al., 2010; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).
Notwithstanding, entrepreneurship is not evolving in a vacuum (Isenberg, 2014). For an
entrepreneurial venture to grow, it is necessary to access resources such as talent, money, or
working space. This is accompanied by governmental policies enabling and nurturing both
entrepreneurship and regional development. A supportive network, comprising, e.g.,
September 29, 2020 2/82
intermediaries, other entrepreneurs, financial investors, universities or large firms, is seen as
indispensable for developing successful entrepreneurial ventures (Isenberg, 2010, 2011a; Stam,
2015; Stam & Van de Ven, 2019).
Subsequently, entrepreneurs - regardless of whether labeled conventional or sustainable - are
embedded in broader temporal, spatial, institutional, socioeconomic, and informational contexts
which influence their activities to a sky-high degree. The concept of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem (EE), which gained attention likewise by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers,
especially in the past decade, reflects this embeddedness. Accordingly, entrepreneurial ventures
are locally placed and require a supportive environment consisting of institutions and resources.
The focal entrepreneurial actor is highly interdependent, respectively interacting with other
influential partners in the ecosystem (Mason & Brown, 2014). Yet, entrepreneurial ecosystems are
unique and complex adaptive systems (Roundy, Bradshaw, & Brockman, 2018). This leads to
heterogeneity of EEs that also reflect different forms of entrepreneurship. In line with this, it is the
concept of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (SEE) that supports sustainable
entrepreneurship.
The present thesis draws on the concepts of sustainable entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
ecosystems, which amalgamate into the idea of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The
study explores the elements and factors that define and shape a sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Hence, the thesis aims to explore the constituting aspects and contextual factors of
an entrepreneurial ecosystem that are decisive for the proper facilitation of sustainable
entrepreneurship. By synthesizing theoretical findings based on relevant academic literature and
empirical results derived from interviews with central actors in sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems, the thesis contributes to sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem research. It supports
practitioners by providing a big picture that may guide the evaluation regarding which central
elements and factors are present or missing in existing SEEs.
Research Questions and Objectives
The thesis aims to answer the following primary research question:
Which elements and factors shape an entrepreneurial ecosystem
facilitating sustainable entrepreneurship?
To fully explore this issue, the afore-mentioned research question is divided into the following two
subquestions:
Subquestion 1
Based on academic literature, what are the core elements and driving factors of traditional
and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems?
In order to provide a sound basis for the empirical part, existent theoretical concepts will be
gathered and compiled into a theoretical framework.
Subquestion 2
From actors' perspectives, which elements and factors are relevant in entrepreneurial
ecosystems to explicitly support and enhance sustainable entrepreneurship?
September 29, 2020 3/82
Drawing on the experiences, observations, and perceptions of a distinct set of actors embedded
in sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems will improve understanding on the pertinent
configuration of ecosystem elements and the essential contextual factors that enable sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Research Process
Drawing on academic literature can help practitioners and managers to expand knowledge in the
fields of sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Conversely,
practitioners can inform researchers by providing their insights, experiences, and expectations. In
order to contribute to this bilateral knowledge transfer, this thesis does not only give a profound
elaboration on the relevant literature concerning sustainable entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial
ecosystems, and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. It also takes on an empirical
perspective by exploring and describing the principal elements and factors of entrepreneurial
ecosystems for sustainable entrepreneurship through the eyes of various actors engaged in
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Figure 1 illustrates the research process underlying the thesis at hand.
Figure 1: Research process (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 4/82
The whole research process is guided by an interpretivist approach (see subchapter 3.1.), which
shapes all steps in the research process ranging from the formulation of research questions to
qualitative data collection and analysis.
The literature reviews (see chapter 2) offers the theoretical background and contains a selection
of the relevant academic literature concerning the topics of sustainable entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial ecosystems, and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. It serves as the basis
for the design of the theoretical framework (see subchapter 2.4.). The latter will inform the
empirical part of the study as it is pivotal to the qualitative research techniques concerning data
collection and data analysis. The results of qualitative research will, in turn, be processed into a
conceptual framework. It is a derivative of the theoretical framework which incorporates the
findings from the empirical study.
The nature of the research integrates both exploratory and descriptive elements. An exploratory
study seeks "to discover what is happening and gain insights about a topic of interest" (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019: 186), whereas descriptive research tries "to gain an accurate profile of
events, persons or situations" (Saunders et al., 2019: 187).
Structure of the Thesis
The remainder of the thesis is structured as follows:
The second chapter reviews the related state-of-the-art literature concerning sustainable
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. In
this regard, a reasonable definition of sustainable entrepreneurship will be delineated that
accommodates seminal related work while simultaneously facilitating the aims and objectives of
the thesis. The significant characteristics of different forms of entrepreneurship (i.e., traditional,
environmental, social, sustainable) will be contrasted to put related concepts in mutual relation.
Moreover, a theoretical framework will be deduced that serves as a starting point to examine the
concept of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The third chapter explains the applied methodology. A rationale for the chosen research
philosophy provides the ground for the selected data collection and analysis techniques.
Regarding qualitative research design, data collection includes information regarding the selection
of participants, the interview guideline, and contextual data regarding the study participants.
The fourth chapter presents the results of the qualitative study. Results directly refer to the
theoretical framework as elaborated in chapter 2 and are underpinned by quotations from the
interviews to grasp and catch the core findings fully.
The final section begins with theoretical and practical implications by summing up the essential
learnings concerning the research question and the respective subquestions. Limitations of the
study and potential future research avenues mark the concluding remarks of the thesis at hand.
September 29, 2020 5/82
2. Theoretical Background
This chapter establishes the foundational basis for the remainder of the thesis about what is
known. By elaborating on the major definitions, concepts, models, and findings of selected studies,
the reader will gain insight into relevant academic literature. The review serves as a basis for
gaining a general domain knowledge of the central topics. In this sense, the author draws on
seminal references about sustainable entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The latter is the conceptual amalgamation of the former
two topics. The sections about sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems conclude with a synopsis highlighting the core definitions and conceptual pillars
underlying the respective theories. At the end of the chapter, both outlines fuse to form a
theoretical framework that will guide the subsequent empirical examination of the subject of the
graduation paper. In this sense, the written elaboration stands in line with an integrative literature
review, which is defined as "a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes
representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and
perspectives on the topic are generated." (Torraco, 2005: 356) Since sustainable
entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems are relatively young topics, they
"would benefit from a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of the literature to date." (Torraco,
2005: 357)
In order to find appropriate academic literature based on the keywords 'sustainable
entrepreneurship', 'entrepreneurial ecosystems', and 'sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems',
systematic searches were conducted in sequential steps. Initially, the databases Business Source
Premier, EconLit, and Web of Science were selected to perform queries to extract a first set of
relevant articles. This first set was expanded iteratively by a forward- and backward-snowballing
approach. Independent from the chosen search tools, only peer-reviewed, full-length articles from
scholarly journals, available online, and published in English were included. As the paper deals
with relatively nascent topics in science, most of the items were published between 2010 and
2020. After collecting a decent quantity of articles, the publishing journals were evaluated based
on specific journal rankings. For this reason, journal rankings were either taken from VHB-
JOURQUAL3 or, if the journal was not available in the VHB list, from the SCIMAGO Journal Rank.
This evaluation was undertaken to assess the quality and impact of the chosen research papers
and give the author an orientation on selecting relevant (and deselecting irrelevant) articles. A
specific search of grey literature published by recognized inter- and supranational organizations
such as the OECD, the UN, or the World Economic Forum, supplements the final set of academic
articles.
Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Prior to a profound review of the sustainable entrepreneurship literature, this chapter starts with a
basic introduction into the realm of entrepreneurship. The focus will be placed on specific
definitions and concepts that are central for the subsequent elaboration on the topic.
Entrepreneurship as a distinct and legitimate domain in business research gained attention,
especially since the 1990s (Baumol, 1990; Venkataraman, 1997). Venkataraman (1997) was
among the first who asserted the absence of a widely admitted definition of entrepreneurship. He
proposed the "nexus of opportunity and enterprising individual" (Venkataraman, 1997: 123) as the
significant constituting element. Hence, he defined entrepreneurship as a field that "seeks to
September 29, 2020 6/82
understand how opportunities to bring into existence "future" goods and services are discovered,
created, and exploited, by whom, and with what consequences." (Venkataraman, 1997: 120; italics
in original). Only if opportunities for future goods and services exist and are perceived as valuable
by an entrepreneur, the direct entrepreneurial action will then encompass the decision to take
advantage of the opportunities in focus. Consequently, discovery and exploitation of opportunities
are the significant activities for an entrepreneur which, in turn, result in economic profit. (Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997)
Regarding the discovery activity, two factors straightly linked to the enterprising individual may
support this action. First, getting hold of utile information that facilitates the recognition of
opportunities. Second, the cognitive ability of an individual to process this information advantage
and to draw upon it by identifying new and useful ideas. The activity of exploitation is associated
with the subjective decision to pursue a specific opportunity. Whether a decision is for or against
the idea, depends on the nature of the opportunity and the entrepreneur's traits and attitudes. A
myriad of opportunities comes along with different expected values concerning the entrepreneurial
profit. Accordingly, the expected value must exceed the opportunity costs of other known
alternatives. Besides, individual entrepreneurs vary in their characteristics, such as optimism, risk
attitude, or ambitiousness. They might also differ in their access to scarce resources, such as
financial or human capital. Both discovery and exploitation require the objective existence of a set
of varying opportunities. (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000)
What the term opportunities precisely means in entrepreneurship literature is primarily shaped by
Drucker (1985), who identified three sources for entrepreneurial opportunities: (1) inefficiencies in
existing markets, for instance, caused by information asymmetries or technological limitations, (2)
exogenous changes in the social, political, demographic, or economic environment which are not
within the influenceable scope of the individual entrepreneur, and (3) inventions and discoveries
producing new knowledge and information (Thompson, Kiefer, & York, 2011, cited from Drucker,
1985).
If such opportunities are taken and exploited by an entrepreneur, they may result in productive
(i.e., innovative) entrepreneurship, a term initially coined by the American economist William J.
Baumol (1990). In contrast to unproductive or even destructive forms of entrepreneurship,
productive entrepreneurial activity positively contributes to economic development. By scrutinizing
and building upon Baumol's seminal work, Eliasson and Henrekson (2004) highlight the
combination of productive entrepreneurship with individual creativity to utilize, amalgamate, or re-
combine various inputs or resources, such as human or monetary capital, in a profit-making way.
A vital condition for productive entrepreneurship to flourish is an institutional environment or
framework fostering economic growth (Aeeni, Motavaseli, Sakhdari, & Dehkordi, 2019; Baumol,
1990; Eliasson & Henrekson, 2004). Though, it is the entrepreneur with his activities who becomes
a focal actor in driving economic prosperity.
This view is criticized for being "the "standard model" of entrepreneurship" (Welter, Baker, &
Wirsching, 2019: 321), aiming first and foremost at increasing profits and growth rates through
technology or business model innovation (Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, 2005). Entrepreneurship
research has to go beyond this vantage point, given the definition that "entrepreneurship is about
the creation and nurturing of new organizations" (Welter et al., 2019: 324). Only considering
traditional entrepreneurship being described as "high-growth, technology-driven, and venture
capital-backed" (Welter et al., 2019: 320), would fall too short in explaining the differences of
September 29, 2020 7/82
empirical observations in entrepreneurship research. Heterogeneity regarding diverse forms of
entrepreneurship is therefore appreciated, and a narrowed view on the domain shall be broadened
up. Correspondingly, the focus in research has expanded to alternative forms of entrepreneurship
going beyond pure profit-orientation, which may also encompass valuable contributions to the
environment and society (Hall et al., 2010; Shepherd, 2015; Welter et al., 2019). Accordingly,
scholars commenced researching entrepreneurship that is beneficial to the broader social and
natural environment and may mitigate hardships. The non-economic motivation of enterprising
individuals for doing good then guides the individual-opportunity nexus characterizing any form of
entrepreneurship (Shepherd, 2015). Entrepreneurship research "that is more compassionate and
prosocial" (Shepherd, 2015: 501) is, at present, either labeled as social entrepreneurship,
environmental entrepreneurship, or sustainable entrepreneurship. All of them amplify the field of
entrepreneurship research as relatively nascent but influential concepts (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018;
Thananusak, 2019; Thompson et al., 2011).
The remainder of this section first elaborates on the general concepts of sustainable development
and grand challenges, and their way into entrepreneurship, accumulating in the concept of
sustainable entrepreneurship. In the next step, a variety of definitions and concepts is presented
acknowledging that, to date, there is no commonly accepted definition. By delineating the
definitions of recognized scholars in chronological order, the reader will get a glimpse of the
scientific evolution of the subject. The third section will draw on environmental entrepreneurship
and social entrepreneurship as related, preceding concepts. This will allow the author to set out
boundaries and intersections between the three fields. Fourth, a close look is taken at the
sustainable entrepreneur and the sustainable entrepreneurial process. The section will end with a
synopsis which not only sums up the essence of sustainable entrepreneurship but also offers a
significant input for the ensuing theoretical framework.
2.1.1. Pairing Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship
The sustainability focus in entrepreneurship was triggered by the claim for sustainable
development, which gained far-reaching importance as a public policy priority since the 1970s
(IUCN, 1980; Parrish, 2010; Thananusak, 2019; Thompson et al., 2011; UN Conference on the
Human Environment, 1972; WCED, 1987). In this regard, sustainable development stands for "the
need to integrate the pursuit of improved human wellbeing with the necessity of halting and
reversing systematic ecological degradation" (Parrish, 2010: 511). Though, for sustainable
development to become a reality, it needs the "man's capability to transform his surroundings"
while continuously "discovering, inventing, creating and advancing" (UN Conference on the
Human Environment, 1972: 3). Consequently, in their strive for economic development, human
beings "must come to terms with the reality of resource limitation and the carrying capacities of
ecosystems, and must take account of the needs of future generations." (IUCN, 1980: 1). With the
emergence of the sustainable development paradigm, the hitherto prevailing view that economic
growth and environmental protection are mutually exclusive goals started gradually to be shaken
(Tilley & Young, 2009). Not only policymakers but also researchers and entrepreneurs began to
think up entrepreneurship from a new angle. They became increasingly reflexive regarding taken-
for-granted assumptions and beliefs of conventional forms of entrepreneurship (Parrish, 2010).
According to the UN, "sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a
process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the
September 29, 2020 8/82
orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future
as well as present needs." (WCED, 1987: 25). In this process of change, entrepreneurship can
and has to take a central role in promoting and attaining sustainable development with the
sustainable entrepreneur as the engine (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Muñoz, 2013; Thananusak, 2019).
Already in the 2000s, when sustainable entrepreneurship became a topic of increasing interest in
research, Cohan and Winn recognized the tractive force of "a new breed of entrepreneurial firm,
one that is driven to contribute to a society which is sustainable, not just from an economic
perspective, but from an environmental and social perspective as well." (Cohen & Winn, 2007: 30)
Tilley & Young denoted sustainable entrepreneurs "as the true wealth generators of the future"
(2009: 79) who can contribute and gear "toward a more sustainable society." (2009: 83) According
to the authors, an entrepreneur is no longer representing the stereotype of a homo economicus
mainly attributed to being a "competitor, wealth generator, innovator, creative, change-agent and
risk-taker" (2009: 83) who acts rationally in strive for economic and self-centered interests
(Schaefer, Corner, & Kearins, 2015). Instead, entrepreneurial individuals can overcome the
functional expectation in terms of economic growth and profit-orientation towards the integration
of social and environmental values and performance into their organizations. The new and
integrative focus in the form of sustainable entrepreneurship will then create sound economic,
social, and environmental wealth. Parrish (2010) brings in a similar perspective by which the goal
of sustainable development lies not in rent-seeking. Instead, the purpose of a sustainable
enterprise shifts towards ecological and social outcomes, and market-based monetary income is
perceived not only as the ends but also as the means to achieve these goals (Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011).
Considering the above-mentioned, entrepreneurs are not only a significant driver for economic
development, but they also play a leading role on the front-line in combatting the pressing and
unresolved social and environmental hardships of our time (Thananusak, 2019). In this regard,
the notion of grand challenges found its way into business research comprising "specific critical
barriers whose removal would significantly help solve globally important societal and/or
environmental problems" (George, Merrill, & Schillebeeckx, 2020: 3). Examples are global
warming, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, overexploitation of scarce resources,
poverty, social inequalities, or irresponsible consumption and production patterns. Grand
challenges are most prominently captured by the Sustainable Development Goals formulated by
the UN (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Ferraro, Etzion, Gehman (2015) identified
three main characteristics of grand challenges, which they refer to as being complex, uncertain,
and evaluative. The attributed complexity is due to the nature of the challenge, the number of
actors involved, and their emergent, nonlinear dynamics, which often imputes immutability of the
challenge in focus. Radical uncertainty relates to the unfeasibility of forecast and computation,
making it difficult to point out "possible future states of the world" (Ferraro et al., 2015: 364) and
provide a sound basis for decision-making and action. The evaluative facet describes the multi-
perspective approach towards grand challenges as they might be defined, interpreted, associated,
and understood differently across people, times, and places.
Against this background, sustainable entrepreneurs are ascribed as having the potential to
transform society and to create a sustainable economy that is ameliorating adverse environmental
and social conditions. They are therefore valued as "panacea for many social and environmental
concerns" (Hall et al., 2010: 440) through the provision of sustainable and innovative products,
services, and processes (Hall et al., 2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Schaltegger & Wagner
September 29, 2020 9/82
(2011) hold that "sustainable entrepreneurship pulls the whole market towards sustainability and
influences the society as a whole." (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011: 228). Also, Schäfer, Corner,
and Kearins emphasize that "entrepreneurship […] has the potential to transform industries,
institutions and societies" (2015: 395). Accordingly, sustainable entrepreneurship takes the role to
not only minimize existing unsustainable practices, but also to create non-economic value and to
enhance transformational change in economic, social, environmental, and institutional systems.
This is mainly triggered by the already mentioned sustainable development imperative, which is
inherently changing the "rules of the game" (Hall et al., 2010: 445). In contrast to incremental
solutions, such a transformation requires disruptive or radical sustainability innovation in terms of
products, services, and processes (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Schaefer et al., 2015;
Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Though, to address these grand global challenges, a coordinated
and collaborative multi-actor approach is needed in which the sustainable entrepreneur can take
a focal role in providing solutions through their activities and ventures. (Ferraro et al., 2015;
George et al., 2020; George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016)
Taking the preceding into consideration, sustainable entrepreneurship may lead to a
transformative change in business logic and economic organizing in which sustainability turns into
"a core economic opportunity and a way to forge novel capabilities" (George et al., 2020: 5). In
balancing "planet and profit" (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 304), sustainable entrepreneurs can find
solutions to pressing societal and environmental challenges through integrating the sustainability
imperative into their core business models, strategies, practices, and processes, which could
foster a transition toward sustainable industries and socio-economies (Thompson et al., 2011).
By introducing the concept of Sustainability-as-Flourishing, Schäfer et al. (2015) uplift sustainable
entrepreneurship towards a dynamic and systemic construct. In this regard, sustainable
entrepreneurship is not understood as merely "business-as-usual augmented by incremental
environmental or social initiatives" (Schaefer et al., 2015: 395). Instead, it requires fundamental
changes in the assumptions, beliefs, and actions of the actors involved to gear, over time, towards
an ideal state. For this concept to develop also in entrepreneurial practice, specific requisites were
identified by the authors in terms of (1) beliefs and values, (2) diagnosis, and (3) responsibility.
Beliefs and values include that humans show a caring behavior for others and nature (contrasting
the concept of homo economicus) and enact social justice and equity in terms of just, equal, and
balanced distribution of resources. Diagnosis comprises the ability of complex systems thinking
(concerning the embeddedness in broader contexts and systems, which induces nonlinearity and
uncertainty, as well as the thinking in longer periods), the addressing of root causes instead of
symptoms (identifying unsustainable practices is a major condition for addressing them), and
critical reflection (which, in turn, enhances understanding of complexity). Responsibility
encompasses profit as a means to an end (as with regards to the 3BL approach), considering
planetary boundaries (i.e., limited natural capacities), and participative collaboration.
2.1.2. In Search of a Clear Definition
Sustainable entrepreneurship literature holds an abundance of different conceptual definitions.
One reason might be that the nature and scope of entrepreneurship can take many forms so that
a one-size-fits-all definition would not provide the appropriate basis for examining the topic (Tilley
& Young, 2009). Ferraro et al. (2015) refer to the notion of multivocality in the context of
sustainable development. Accordingly, "different interpretations among various audiences with
September 29, 2020 10/82
different evaluative criteria" are sustained "in a manner that promotes coordination without
requiring explicit consensus" (Ferraro et al., 2015: 373).
Table 1 shows a selection of recognized definitions in alphabetical order by the names of the
authors. The core definitions will be discussed chronologically in the section after the table.
Author(s) Definition
Belz & Binder, 2017 "[…] we define sustainable entrepreneurship as the recognition, development and
exploitation of opportunities by individuals to bring into existence future goods and services
with economic, social and ecological gains." (Belz & Binder, 2017: 2)
Cohen & Winn, 2007 "[…] we define sustainable entrepreneurship as the examination of how opportunities to
bring into existence' future' goods and services are discovered, created, and exploited, by
whom, and with what economic, psychological, social, and environmental consequences."
(Cohen & Winn, 2007: 35)
Dean & McMullen, 2007 "Sustainable entrepreneurship is defined to be: the process of discovering, evaluating, and
exploiting economic opportunities that are present in market failures which detract from
sustainability, including those that are environmentally relevant." (Dean & McMullen, 2007:
58)
Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010 "We thus define sustainable entrepreneurship as the discovery and exploitation of
economic opportunities through the generation of market disequilibria that initiate the
transformation of a sector towards an environmentally and socially more sustainable state."
(Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010: 482)
Muñoz, 2013 "Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on pursuing business opportunities to bring into
existence future products, processes and services, while contributing to sustain the
development of society, the economy and the environment and consequently to enhance
the well-being of future generations." (Muñoz, 2013: 4)
Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011 "Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on the preservation of nature, life support, and
community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into existence future products,
processes, and services for gain, where gain is broadly construed to include economic and
non-economic gains to individuals, the economy, and society." (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011:
137)
Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011 "[…] sustainable entrepreneurship can […] be described as an innovative, market-oriented
and personality driven form of creating economic and societal value by means of break-
through environmentally or socially beneficial market or institutional innovations."
(Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011: 226)
Tilley & Young, 2009 "[…] the sustainability entrepreneur, who holistically integrates the goals of economic,
social and environmental entrepreneurship into an organisation that is sustainable in its
goal and sustainable in its form of wealth generation." (Tilley & Young, 2009: 88)
Venkataraman, 1997 "[Entrepreneurship – ed. note] seeks to understand how opportunities to bring into
existence "future" goods and services are discovered, created, and exploited, by whom,
and with what consequences." (Venkataraman, 1997: 120 – italic in original)
Table 1: Selection of definitions for sustainable entrepreneurship (in alphabetical order by name)
The definition of sustainable entrepreneurship, as suggested by Cohen and Winn (2007) draws
directly on the conceptual definition regarding the term entrepreneurship by Venkataraman (1997).
According to the researchers, Venkataraman's original suggestion is considered as being
appropriate to describe the word entrepreneurship as it focuses on (1) entrepreneurial
opportunities, (2) the entrepreneurs as the central agents of discovery and exploitation, and (3)
the consequences of entrepreneurial action. Thus, the original definition by Venkataraman was
slightly amended through the addition of the expression environmental. Notwithstanding,
September 29, 2020 11/82
integrating the word environmental accommodates the general sustainable development
paradigm. Furthermore, it also challenges the view on traditional entrepreneurship towards an
alignment of economic goals with ecological aspects.
Following an economics perspective and combining it with entrepreneurship research, Dean &
McMullen (2007) hold that environmental market failures provide opportunities for entrepreneurs.
The authors emphasize that the focus of sustainable entrepreneurship is not only put on
environmental gains but also on economic returns.
In their attempt to explain sustainable entrepreneurship, Tilley and Young (2009) address the
potential of the sustainable entrepreneur to create value beyond mere economic wealth. In doing
so, the authors emphasize looking at the consequences (i.e., sustainable wealth creation) caused
by the actions and behaviors of individuals (i.e., sustainable entrepreneurs). Correspondingly,
sustainable wealth "means contributing a holistic net benefit to the economy, community, and the
natural environment" (Tilley & Young, 2009: 88). Figure 2 presents the Sustainability
Entrepreneurship Model by Tilley & Young (2009), which links together 12 elements and shows
the relationships between the four poles of economic, environmental, social, and sustainable
entrepreneurship. In this regard, ecological equity, sufficiency, eco-effectiveness, eco-efficiency,
socio-effectiveness, and socio-efficiency are seen as the underlying values that shape the
sustainable entrepreneur. Environmental sustainability, environmental stability, intergenerational
equity, economic equity, futurity, and social responsibility need to be implemented in the
entrepreneurial context to foster sustainable entrepreneurial action. If all these elements are
combined without compromising each other or neglecting separate objectives, sustainable
entrepreneurship can be achieved.
Figure 2: Sustainability entrepreneurship model (Tilley & Young, 2009: 86)
September 29, 2020 12/82
Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010) refer with their definition closely to the Schumpeterian
perspective on entrepreneurship. According to Schumpeter (1934), entrepreneurial action is linked
to the process of creative destruction. Different types of market failures, such as social or
environmental disruptions, ignite entrepreneurial opportunities which, in turn, may lead to
innovation in terms of products, service, processes, or even organizational form. Through
entrepreneurship, societal change can be invigorated, and social or environmental hardships
mitigated (Hall et al., 2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Tilley & Young, 2009).
Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) regard sustainable entrepreneurial activity as the main link between
components to be sustained (i.e., nature, life support system, community) and features to be
developed (i.e., individuals, economy, society). Accordingly, there are two significant outcomes
related to their concept of sustainable entrepreneurship – sustainability and development. The
former refers to the areas of nature (i.e., earth, biodiversity, and natural ecosystems), sources of
life support (i.e., environment, natural resources, and ecosystem services), and communities
(comprising culture, groups, and places). Development, in turn, pertains to the economic and non-
economic consequences (i.e., gains) to individuals and society. Economic gains encompass, for
instance, monetary profits or financial growth. In contrast, non-economic gains may include (1)
factors on an individual level such as education, equity, life expectancy, or (2) consequences on
a societal level such as the public well-being or security of regions or institutions. Hence, the term
gain is understood as a broad construct that integrates monetary and non-monetary
consequences entailing sustainable entrepreneurial activity. By simultaneously expressing the
relevance of entrepreneurial opportunity and action, the authors consciously stand in the tradition
of Venkataraman's definition of the term entrepreneurship (1997). Figure 3 shows the respective
sketch of the link between entrepreneurial action and outcomes (see the left side of the Figure).
Figure 3: Linking sustainability and development: antecedents - opportunities - entrepreneurial action (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017: 162)
September 29, 2020 13/82
Schaltegger & Wagner (2011) attached to the combined value approach of sustainable
entrepreneurship (i.e., integrative pursuit of environmental, social, and economic goals) additional
perspectives, namely the consideration of sustainability innovation and the strong emphasis on
market effects. The individual entrepreneur comes to the fore and holds skills and capabilities to
innovate and contribute to market success. In this regard, sustainable entrepreneurs "generate
new products, services, techniques and organizational modes that substantially reduce
environmental impacts and increase the quality of life" (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011: 223). Their
definition puts entrepreneurial action into a clear market-related context. The sustainable
entrepreneur integrates sustainable development as a core business goal and into organizational
processes. While simultaneously realizing an economically successful business, the sustainable
entrepreneur contributes to substantial positive effects on the market, environment, and society.
Also, Muñoz (2013) expresses an entrepreneurial opportunity-activity focus. He expands the
tripartite form of value creation (i.e., social justice, environmental protection, and economic
development) by a fourth factor, namely intra- and intergenerational equity, which means social
justice for present and future generations. An element that roots in the public claim for sustainable
development (WCED, 1987), and which is also encountered in the model of sustainable
entrepreneurship by Tilley and Young (2009). With this additional perspective, the focus lies not
only on "which development is to be directed but also an overarching concern with the fate of
future generations" (Muñoz, 2013: 4).
Firmly in line with the definition of Cohen and Winn (2007) is the one of Belz and Binder (2017).
The authors suggest a process model of sustainable entrepreneurship regarding the opportunity-
activity nexus of individual entrepreneurs (for a description of the model, see section 2.1.4.).
2.1.3. Social Entrepreneurship and Environmental Entrepreneurship as Related Concepts
Social, environmental, and sustainable entrepreneurship are related concepts contrasting
traditional entrepreneurship. In the following, the approach of Thompson et al. (2011) is adopted
because the three domains need to be distinguished from each other while keeping in mind that
they are not separate fields. Yet, all three streams cannot be examined in isolation as sustainable
entrepreneurship roots in social and environmental entrepreneurship (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen,
2010; Thananusak, 2019). Therefore, the different types share similar underlying principles and
characteristics, although other elements such as the primacy of goals, underlying motivations, or
disciplinary roots differ (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Thompson et al.,
2011). In literature, there remains unclarity in terms of meanings and interchangeability of the
notions' social', 'environmental', and 'sustainable'. Also, where to draw the exact boundaries
between the three concepts is unsolved (Thompson et al., 2011). Some authors agree in line with
Thompson et al. (2011) that each of these forms is a distinct field of research (e.g., Schaefer et
al., 2015; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Other scholars, in turn, hold that social and environmental
entrepreneurship are subordinated concepts to sustainable entrepreneurship (e.g., Dean &
McMullen, 2007; Tilley & Young, 2009).
Each of the three entrepreneurship lenses shares the essential understanding of the "potentially
positive outcomes for society that result from entrepreneurial actions" (Thompson et al., 2011: 5).
In line with the coupling of entrepreneurship with the sustainable development concept, Muñoz
and Cohen (2018) hold that all three types are hybrid organizational forms. They are defined by
September 29, 2020 14/82
"structures and practices that allow the coexistence of values and artifacts from two or more
categories" (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 304), respectively, where "conflicting institutional logics can
coexist" (Giones, Ungerer, & Baltes, 2020: 4). Social and environmental entrepreneurship are
ascribed to balance economic goals with either social or environmental gains. This is referred to
as the double bottom line approach (Belz & Binder, 2017). Instead, sustainable entrepreneurs
blend and balance three distinctive values while aiming at long-term impact (Giones et al., 2020).
In this regard, the notion' value' is defined as the inner principle of the entrepreneur which directly
affects the identity of the organization, whereas the term 'impact' marks the tangible outcomes
(i.e., goals) of the venture. Figure 4 shows the conceptualization of hybrid organizations and the
inherent blended values in the realm of sustainable development.
Figure 4: Conceptualization of hybrid organizations (Giones et al., 2020: 6)
Hence, sustainable entrepreneurs "enact a "triple bottom line" […] by supporting a combination of
social equity, economic stability, and reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial
action." (Thompson et al., 2011: 214). This triple bottom line is the "ideological foundation of many
sustainable entrepreneurs" (Neumeyer & Santos, 2018: 4566). What distinguishes sustainable
entrepreneurship from socially or environmentally oriented concepts is the need for a sustainable
organizational design that considers all elements of sustainable development simultaneously
(Parrish, 2010).
Criado-Gomis, Cervera-Taulet, and Iniesta-Bonillo (2017) highlight that sustainable
entrepreneurship happens not at the intersection of the three values. Instead, it is a concept that
holistically integrates the triple-orientation of objectives. At the core are the realization of both a
sustainability-performing and financially self-sustaining business that contributes to social good
and environmental protection, and a broader transformational process concerning society,
environment, and economy (George et al., 2020; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011).
Mair & Martí define social entrepreneurship "as a process involving the innovative use and
combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social
needs." (2006: 37) Accordingly, new value creation is triggered by the interconnection of
entrepreneurship with social issues. Social value is then defined as "value for people and
communities" (Schaefer et al., 2015: 396). Venkataraman integrated social wealth already into the
realm of traditional entrepreneurship: "Entrepreneurship is particularly productive from a social
welfare perspective when, in the process of pursuing selfish ends, entrepreneurs also enhance
social wealth by creating new markets, new industries, new technology, new institutional forms,
new jobs, and net increases in real productivity." (1997: 133) The major difference to social
September 29, 2020 15/82
entrepreneurship (and subsequently to sustainable entrepreneurship) is that in Venkataraman's
view, social wealth creation is just a side product to entrepreneurial activity, whereas, in the case
of sustainable entrepreneurship, it becomes the prime focus (Mair & Martí, 2006).
The discovery and exploitation of opportunities focus on positive social benefits and the resolution
or mitigation of social ills. Entrepreneurs are caring actors showing altruistic motives that go
beyond profit-seeking and self-interest. This, in turn, leads to the primacy of a social agenda (i.e.,
social wealth) before pursuing financial goals (i.e., economic wealth). Funding is a vital means to
secure organizational viability and to continue with the venture's mission, although decisions are
based on other criteria than financial returns. Social entrepreneurial ventures can be organized
with a for-profit or not-for-profit orientation which finds expression in the respective business
model. Notably, measuring and evaluating social performance and social impact remains one of
the most challenging endeavors in this field. (Mair & Martí, 2006; Schaefer et al., 2015;
Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Thananusak, 2019; Thompson et al., 2011)
Regarding environmental entrepreneurship (in literature interchangeably used with the terms
ecopreneurship and green entrepreneurship), profitable opportunities are found in market failures.
These failures create ecological degradation (e.g., climate change) such as externalities (e.g.,
emissions of carbon dioxide) and public goods (e.g., emission reduction). Remarkably, market
failures arise as a result of business and industry activities. Simultaneously, it is business being
increasingly perceived as providing solutions to environmental degradation and to preserve the
natural environment. Environmental entrepreneurs are "environmentally oriented individuals who
aspire to create economic value by solving environmental issues." (Thananusak, 2019: 2) This
requires knowledge about substantial problems in the natural environment. They are driven by a
double bottom line balancing economic goals (financial gains are of paramount importance) and
environmental-specific ethics to solve problems for future generations. Environmental value is
associated with the "preservation and regeneration of the natural environment" (Schaefer et al.,
2015: 396). (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Muñoz, Janssen, Nicolopoulou, & Hockerts, 2018; Schaefer
et al., 2015; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Thananusak, 2019; Thompson et al., 2011)
In essence, the distinguishing characteristics regarding social, environmental, and sustainable
entrepreneurship are well-echoed by the following statement: "social entrepreneurs focus mainly
on problems that affect people today, sustainable entrepreneurs focus on a "triple bottom line" of
people, planet, and profit, whereas environmental entrepreneurs are focused on creating
simultaneous economic and ecological benefit." (Thompson et al., 2011: 208) The uniting factor
is the "perspective on entrepreneurship as a process for socioeconomic transformation where the
business creates value beyond profit." (Schaefer et al., 2015: 396) Though, social and
environmental entrepreneurship alone, each with its specific focus, can contribute to sustainable
development only to a certain extent. Muñoz et al. (2018) hold in this regard that considering only
one of these perspectives, entrepreneurs risk neglecting the respective other side. For instance,
focusing purely on economic and environmental objectives may damage the social side, whereas
a strong focus on social goals could also lead to ecological harm. In contrast, sustainable
entrepreneurship is a holistic and promising approach to sustainability and development in all
three dimensions (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). This requires the coupling of the triple bottom line
with the discovery, creation, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities to become more than
just a theoretical concept (Muñoz et al., 2018).
September 29, 2020 16/82
2.1.4. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Process
Adopting a process perspective on sustainable entrepreneurship, Belz and Binder (2017) suggest
six phases for an entrepreneur to recognize, develop, and exploit sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunities (see Figure 5) – (1) identifying a social or ecological problem, (2) recognizing a social
or environmental opportunity, (3) developing a double bottom line solution, (4) developing a triple
bottom line solution, (5) funding and forming of a sustainable enterprise, and (6) creating or
entering a sustainable market.
Figure 5: Sustainable entrepreneurship process (Belz & Binder, 2017: 14)
At the core of the sustainable entrepreneurship process (SEP) is the sustainable entrepreneur
who is defined as the "individual who participates in the development of the sustainable venture"
(Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 305). Shepherd & Patzelt (2011; 2017) put to question the psychological,
moral, and cognitive conditions that precede the actual entrepreneurial opportunity-action process
(see Figure 3). Those people who attend to or engage themselves in social and/or environmental
issues are more likely to perceive a threat or notice a change in the environment and, in turn, form
an opportunity belief regarding sustainable development. Though, prior knowledge that directs
attention does not only concern environmental and/or social environments and noticed threats but
also entrepreneurial knowledge in terms of markets, strategies, and costumers (Patzelt &
Shepherd, 2011).
Kuckertz & Wagner (2010) examined the role of sustainability orientation of individuals and its
effect on entrepreneurial intentions. Sustainability orientation of individuals is defined as the
underlying attitudes and convictions reflecting environmental protection and social responsibility.
Such a direction is vital for the intent to commence a sustainable venture. Whereas the scholars
found a positive relationship between sustainability orientation and entrepreneurial action, they
observed a decline in the sustainability orientation of individuals if business experience increased
over time. Reasons for this observation are, on the one hand, based on the higher propensity of
less experienced individuals in taking more ethical actions. On the other hand, more ample
professional experience showed adverse effects on an optimistic attitude, meaning that working
experience leads people to strictly assess and evaluate sustainable opportunities, which, in turn,
impedes sustainable entrepreneurial action and fosters concentration on economic gains.
Scholars suggest a strong focus on undergraduate and graduate education to deal with these
downsides by enhancing sustainability and entrepreneurial knowledge and skills in an
interdisciplinary way (Filser, Kraus, Roig-Tierno, Kailer, & Fischer, 2019; Kuckertz & Wagner,
2010).
September 29, 2020 17/82
Besides, it is a personal motivation that influences opportunity beliefs. Entrepreneurial motivation
can either be activated by discerning or experiencing physical threats (as, for instance, in the case
of pollution or oppression of marginalized groups) or by sensing a risk to psychological well-being
(as in the case of dissolution of social ties entailing the decline of social or natural environments).
Both concerns trigger negative emotions (e.g., fear, frustration, anger), leading to entrepreneurial
intention to overcome these challenges. An altruistic or prosocial value orientation may also instill
the motivation for sustainable entrepreneurship. In this regard, empathy and sympathy with
disadvantaged or marginalized groups may trigger the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities.
(Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; 2017)
Concluding, problem recognition (1) is associated with prior knowledge and first-hand
experience corridors in private, educational, and professional lives (Corner & Ho, 2010; Hanohov
& Baldacchino, 2018; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; 2017). Regarding the latter, "entrepreneurs’ past
life experiences created awareness of and information about particular areas that shaped
opportunity development.” (Corner & Ho, 2010: 652) Also, Muñoz & Cohen (2018) hold that
besides prior knowledge, also entrepreneurial orientation is a central requisite for an
entrepreneurial intention to grow. Other scholars emphasize that profound knowledge of natural
(i.e., the physical world including earth, biodiversity, and natural ecosystems) and communal
environments (i.e., communities in which people live) gained through stays abroad or socialization,
a noticed threat when living in these environments, a high degree of altruism, and a strong
sustainability orientation are the key factors preceding opportunity recognition, especially if these
factors are combined with prior entrepreneurial knowledge resulting from previous jobs or projects
(Hanohov & Baldacchino, 2018; Muñoz & Dimov, 2015; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011).
Depending on the specific problem, which is either focused on social or environmental issues on
a local or global level, the sustainable entrepreneurship process starts according to the respective
subject orientation of the individual on one of two possible pathways. This is the reason why the
SEP model of Belz and Binder (2017) suggests two different starting points, which will converge
in the subsequent steps into one typical stream (see Figure 5).
Opportunity recognition (2) in sustainable entrepreneurship is primarily associated with socio-
ecological market failures and imperfections. In this sense, they are not only seen as the cause
for social and environmental problems but also as a significant source for entrepreneurial
opportunities aiming at resolving these challenges (Hall et al., 2010; Muñoz & Cohen, 2018).
Cohen and Winn (2007) identified four pervasive and environmentally-relevant market
imperfections contributing to the degradation of the natural environment: inefficient firms (in terms
of resource allocation and utilization), negative externalities (if external costs are not appropriately
reflected or compensated in the prices of products and services), flawed pricing mechanisms (due
to natural exhaustible or non-renewable resources being undervalued and underpriced), and
imperfectly distributed information (existence of bounded rationality and decision-making under
limited and asymmetric information). Through innovative solutions, sustainable entrepreneurs can
address these imperfections and, subsequently, “create entrepreneurial rents for the innovating
firms, improve market performance, and introduce more sustainable interactions with the natural
environment.” (Cohen & Winn, 2007: 32)
Similarly, Dean and McMullen (2007) argue that market failures trigger entrepreneurial
opportunities. Supplementing externalities and imperfect information, the authors added public
September 29, 2020 18/82
goods (characterized by non-excludability through missing property rights), monopoly power (i.e.,
the market power of incumbents), and ill-suited interventions by the government (e.g., public
policies and inappropriate subsidies to industries damaging the natural environment). By exploiting
these opportunities through entrepreneurial action, financial performance, social welfare, and
betterment of environmentally condemnable economic behavior can be reached. Mitigating market
imperfections contribute to market efficiency, which is essential for alleviating environmental
degradation, the efficient use of scarce natural resources, and, in the longer run, for a more
sustainable economy.
Shepherd and Patzelt (2011; 2017) hold that opportunity recognition happens in two distinct
stages (see Figure 3). Once an individual recognizes a signal from the natural or communal
environment, it leads to a third-person opportunity belief. The socio-ecological problem gets
focused attention as an opportunity for someone. In the next step, a first-person opportunity belief
might be developed. If the individual perceives the opportunity as feasible (i.e., corresponds with
the entrepreneurial knowledge and self-efficacy of the individual) and desirable (i.e., corresponds
with the motivational focus), then the individual will act upon it, and entrepreneurial action will
begin to emerge.
After deciding to form an entrepreneurial venture, the next step is then to translate the envisioned
goals along the 3BL into services or products that are valued by the potential stakeholders. Based
on their empirical findings, Belz and Binder (2017) emphasize that sustainable entrepreneurs tend
to start with conceptualizing double bottom line solutions (3) (i.e., economical plus social or
environmental goal). Only in a subsequent step, the respective third goal will be included
enhancing a triple bottom line solution (4). In contrast to simultaneous incorporation of the 3BL,
the sequential approach “reduces the complexity of the challenging task, and makes the
integration and balancing process [of social, environmental, and economic goals – ed. note] easier
and manageable for the co-founders.” (Belz & Binder, 2017: 13) This integration takes place before
market kick-off, which increases both the authenticity and credibility of sustainable value
propositions. Yet, the integration of potentially conflicting bottom lines involves trade-offs and
tensions which “emerge naturally in the process of combining private and public interests, with
social, environmental and economic interests.” (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 317) Moreover,
sustainable entrepreneurs try to balance conflicting goals, rather than to sacrifice on one or
another. In this regard, Giones et al. (2020) have shown with their study that sustainable impact
can indeed coexist with financial goals.
Regarding the stage of funding and forming the venture (5), Belz and Binder (2017) refer only
to a diversity of potential and even unconventional sources for seed-capital, such as private
donors, crowdfunding, or public funding. Indeed, in order to fully comprehend the concept of
sustainable entrepreneurship, it is essential to open up the “‘black box’” (Parrish, 2010: 511) of the
sustainable enterprise to get a holistic picture on how the envisioned goals along the 3BL
addressing social, environmental, and economic value are achieved. The following paragraphs
provide theoretical insight into the sustainable entrepreneurial orientation of ventures as basic
strategic orientation, the organizational design of sustainable entrepreneurial ventures, and the
interplay of sustainability innovation and sustainable business models.
Criado-Gomis et al. define the sustainable entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) of sustainable
ventures as a “high-order dynamic capability that has the possibility of creating new first-order
September 29, 2020 19/82
capabilities, such as EO [entrepreneurial orientation – ed. note] and SO [sustainability orientation
– ed. note].” (2017: 13) Dynamic capabilities allow organizations to stay adaptive and flexible in
uncertain and complex internal and external business environments. In this sense, entrepreneurial
orientation in organizational culture refers to innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking.
Sustainability orientation is associated with organizational change behaviors that are in line with
the sustainable development paradigm.
Parrish (2010) states that organizational design is decisive for a successful pursuit of sustainable
entrepreneurship in a competitive market context and “remaining true to their sustainability-driven
values and purpose” (Parrish, 2010: 521). According to the author, it needs “more than the right
set of values and motives to succeed” (Parrish, 2010: 511). In this regard, Figure 6 summarizes
the five principles for sustainable organizational design: (1) resource perpetuation (enhancing and
maintaining quality resources for the longest possible period), (2) benefits stacking (piling plenty
of benefits in each operational activity), (3) strategic satisfying (focusing on satisfactory outcomes
of multiple competing objectives), (4) qualitative management (deciding based on quality than on
quantity), and (5) worthiness of the contribution (distributing benefits based on worthy
contributions). In contrast to traditional entrepreneurship in which the focus lies on exploitative
reasoning focusing only on the short term, the five principles together form the scheme of
perpetual reasoning. With a holistic organizational design, the entrepreneur can consider the long-
term needs and benefits, which is an essential factor to achieve the goals along the 3BL.
Figure 6: Organization design requirements (Parrish, 2010: 517)
Lüdeke‐Freund (2020) ask how business models of sustainable entrepreneurs can support
sustainability innovations to create economic, social, and environmental value for a diversity of
stakeholders. In this regard, the sustainable business model is considered as a mediating device
between sustainability innovation (i.e., new products, services, or processes) and the generation
of sustainable business practices that lead to outcomes solving environmental and social
problems while unlocking economic value. Accordingly, “sustainable entrepreneurs bring forth
sustainability innovations that convert market imperfections into business opportunities, replace
unsustainable forms of production and consumption, and create value for a broad range of
stakeholders” (Lüdeke‐Freund, 2020: 667). Sustainability innovation is then equated with radical
innovation in which small entrepreneurial ventures are ascribed to have superior capabilities in
carrying them out compared to larger firms. (Schaefer et al., 2015; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011)
Creating value with sustainability innovation requires an appropriate sustainable business model
September 29, 2020 20/82
design. Correspondingly, it is “not only the innovation itself, that decides about market success or
failure” and the sustainment in the long-run, but also “how an innovation is brought to the market”
(Lüdeke‐Freund, 2020: 676).
Muñoz et al. hold that “[s]ustainable business models give sustainable enterprises a roadmap for
the pursuit of social and environmental impacts.” (Muñoz et al., 2018: 327) In general, business
models comprise three defining elements – value proposition, value creation and delivery, and
value capture (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Business model framework (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014: 43)
In line with this framework but with regard to sustainable development, Schaltegger, Hansen, and
Lüdeke-Freund (2016) modified the traditional business model concept stating that “[a] business
model for sustainability helps describing, analyzing, managing, and communicating (i) a
company’s sustainable value proposition to its customers, and all other stakeholders, (ii) how it
creates and delivers this value, (iii) and how it captures economic value while maintaining or
regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational boundaries.”
(Schaltegger et al., 2016: 6) Business models aiming at sustainability need to not only attend to
the costumers of the venture’s product and services and the venture’s shareholders. Instead, it
has to follow a multi-stakeholder approach, including the natural and communal environments in
focus (Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova, & Evans, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2016). Remarkably, business
model creation is not an activity solely driven by a sustainable entrepreneur. Instead, it requires
the support and participation of a comprehensive set of relevant stakeholders (such as
governmental agencies, investors, incubator or accelerator organizations, or higher education
organizations) due to its complexity and goal orientation (Lüdeke‐Freund, 2020; Neumeyer &
Santos, 2018).
Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) identified four types of sustainable business models. First, circular
business models which aim at the favorable modification of resource loops. Second, social
enterprises focusing on social impact which are either organized as for-profit or not-for-profit.
Third, the so-called bottom of the pyramid solutions focuses on costumers on the lowest income
levels. Fourth, product-service systems, i.e., providing a product, service, feature, or a result to
costumers.
The final step in the sustainable entrepreneurship process concerns creating or entering a
sustainable target market (6) with the respective sustainability innovation (i.e., a product or a
service). Belz and Binder (2017) identify three different market realities. First, if there is no
sustainable niche in the market, the sustainable venture must create one. Second, a sustainable
venture enters an established sustainable niche. In the third case, a sustainable market segment
exists, and the sustainable enterprise enters the segment. Each situation bears risks in terms of
resources, costumers, competition, failure, and survival. However, the empirical study of Belz and
Binder (2017) shows that sustainable entrepreneurial ventures place their products and services
September 29, 2020 21/82
at the upper end of the market, where the focus lies on quality and superior environmental and
social standards.
By taking on a strict market perspective, Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010) discuss the different
roles of small entrepreneurial entrants and large incumbent firms in pursuing sustainability-related
opportunities in existing markets. Their examination suggests that to drive the sustainability
transformation of a market, it is crucial that both parties co-exist and interact with each other as
each of them holds specific strengths and weaknesses that are relevant to this process. In this
regard, when a sustainable start-up enters a market by occupying a sustainability niche through
the launch of a sustainability innovation (i.e., a product or service offering), they might hold the
primacy of innovation, but tend to focus on single-issue campaigning due to their smallness,
focused attention, and limited resources. In contrast, incumbents might not be aware of the market
potential or are disadvantaged in terms of radical innovation (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). In the
phase of early growth, incumbents enter the field as fast second and hold superior competencies
in terms of technology, marketing, or process innovation. In the third phase of take-off, first
ventures may exit, other start-ups may substantially grow while combining product and process
innovation. Finally, in the maturity phase of sustainable entrepreneurship, the sustainable start-
ups transcend into serious competitors, create new niches, or become Goliaths in the market, and
incumbents discover a promising market potential for themselves. In the end, sustainability
innovation becomes a central part of the entire industry, which marks a preliminary milestone in
the transformation of the economy towards sustainable development. Schaltegger and Wagner
share the view that “[c]ompanies contribute most to the sustainable development of an economy
and society if their core business deals with solutions to environmental and social problems, if they
supply environmentally and socially superior products and if their innovations influence the mass
market and society substantially.” (2011: 227)
2.1.5. Synopsis
Since more than a decade, scholars emphasize sustainable entrepreneurship and its potential
transformational and positive impact on the natural environment, society, and economy. In
response to this awarded stewardship, many definitions emerged, which serve as a basis to create
common understanding in this field. Table 2 synthesizes these definitions into major defining
elements underlying the thesis’ notion of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Sustainable entrepreneurship
Value orientation Following a triple bottom line approach
balancing the planet, people, and profit
Focus on sustainability (nature, life support, communities) and
development (economic, non-economic gains)
Long-term orientation integrating present and future
(intra- and intergenerational perspective)
Problem & opportunity recognition Sustainable entrepreneur triggered by
prior knowledge, experience, and sustainability orientation
Altruistic, prosocial, or pro-environmental value orientation affecting
entrepreneurial motivation and intention
Opportunities evolve from market failures and imperfections, and
grand challenges (captured in the UN SDGs)
Entrepreneurial action A holistic approach including organizational design, sustainability
innovation, and sustainable business models
Table 2: Defining elements of sustainable entrepreneurship (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 22/82
In order to offer a profound basis for the remainder of the thesis, the following passages will
contrast conventional entrepreneurship with the three alternative types of entrepreneurship as
discussed in subchapter 2.1.3. Table 3 gives an overview of traditional entrepreneurship, social
entrepreneurship, environmental entrepreneurship, and sustainable entrepreneurship. It provides
the reader with the principal distinguishing characteristics between the four types in focus and
shows that sustainable entrepreneurship differs notably from its traditional counterpart.
Traditional Entrepreneurship
Environmental Entrepreneurship
Social Entrepreneurship
Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Core motivation Create a successful
business
Contribute to solving
environmental
problems and create
economic value
Contribute to solving
societal problems,
value for society
Contribute to solving
social and
environmental
problems through the
realization of a
successful business
Main goal
Generate profit and
strive for financial
growth
Earn profit by solving
environmental issues
Achieve societal goal
and secure funding to
achieve this goal;
social agenda before
financial goals
Creating sustainable
development along the
3BL through
entrepreneurial
business activities
Boundary perception Organizational and
market boundaries
Natural boundaries Societal boundaries Plantery boundaries
Time focus Present Future Present Present and Future
Role of economic goals
Ends Ends Means Means and Ends
Role of non-economic goals
Social Issues only
subordinated role
Environmental issues
as integrated core
element
Societal goals as ends
Core element of
integrated end,
contribution to
sustainable
development
Strategic business Orientation
Entrepreneurial
orientation; concept of
homo economicus
Pro-environmental and
entrepreneurial
orientation
Pro-social and
entrepreneurial
orientation
Sustainability and
entrepreneurial
orientation
Core feature
Identifying and
exploiting opportunities
aiming at economic
benefits
Identifying and
exploiting opportunities
in environmental
market failures
Identifying and
exploiting opportunities
in social ills
Identifying and
exploiting sustainable
opportunities based on
prior knowledge and
moral values
Organizational design principle
Exploitative reasoning n/a n/a Perpetual reasoning
Organizational development challenge
Increase effectiveness,
efficiency, and
performance
From focus on
environmental issues
to integrating economic
issues
From focus on societal
issues to integrating
economic issues
From small contribution
to large contribution to
sustainable
development
Type of Innovation
Technology or
business model
innovation
Ecological (Green)
innovation Social innovation
Sustainability
innovation
Table 3: Distinguishing characteristics between different types of entrepreneurship (adopted and developed from Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011: 224)
The foregoing considerations and definitions lead to the identification of three major inherent
conceptual blocks. These blocks help to frame and advance our understanding of the concept of
sustainable entrepreneurship. They reflect the conceptual distinctions between definitions of Mair
& Martí, 2006, and the framework approach suggested by Muñoz & Cohen, 2018). Accordingly,
the building blocks encompass (1) individual sustainable entrepreneurs as the founders of the
enterprise, (2) the sustainable entrepreneurship process including the value-creating nature of
September 29, 2020 23/82
opportunity recognition and exploitation, and (3) the sustainable entrepreneurial venture following
a sustainable business model, which facilitates the tangible outcomes along the 3BL. Sustainable
entrepreneurship impacts multiple levels because it situates between entrepreneurial processes,
market and industry transformations, and far-reaching societal and environmental developments
(Johnson & Schaltegger, 2019).
What was entirely left out hitherto is the relevance and role of context in sustainable
entrepreneurship. The subsequent subchapters will act upon this omission.
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Welter (2011) emphasized the importance of moving away from de-contextualization and a sole
focus on business-internal elements or individual actors towards an integrated perspective of
diverse contextual lenses, factors, and forces that affect the whole entrepreneurship field. In this
regard, sustainable entrepreneurs do not act in isolation but find themselves and accommodate
to, get influenced by, and shape various contexts, such as institutional, business, social, or spatial
systems in which they are embedded (Arenas, Strumińska‐Kutra, & Landoni, 2020; Muñoz &
Cohen, 2018; Volkmann, Fichter, Klofsten, & Audretsch, 2019; Welter, 2011). Furthermore,
entrepreneurs are not disconnected from their surroundings. Instead, they engage in a plethora of
interactions with various stakeholders – a topic that was touched on only briefly in the previous
section regarding the sustainable entrepreneurship process. The cause why context is such a
relevant dimension is that contextual factors may enable or constrain the entire entrepreneurship
process (Welter, 2011). For instance, different contexts may provide individual entrepreneurs with
other opportunities, while they also may restrict or impede entrepreneurial actions. Hence, context
refers to “those elements outside the control of the entrepreneur that will affect the development
of the venture” (Muñoz & Cohen, 2018: 310).
These reasons make it necessary “to conceptualize entrepreneurship more holistically, as part of
larger ecosystems with interactions between actors” (Volkmann et al., 2019: 2) as this contributes
significantly to the general understanding of entrepreneurship. Against this background,
entrepreneurial ecosystems gained growing attention and became a popular concept not only in
academics but also among practitioners (e.g., Isenberg, 2010; 2014) and policymakers (e.g.,
Mason & Brown, 2014; World Economic Forum, 2013). The idea behind is to create a valuable
and conducive environment to support the formation and development of successful
entrepreneurial activities, and to contribute to long-term regional socio-economic growth,
revitalization, and prosperity (Roundy, Brockman, & Bradshaw, 2017; Simatupang, Schwab, &
Lantu, 2015; Volkmann et al., 2019). Moreover, entrepreneurial ecosystems are considered “a
critical tool for creating resilient economies based on entrepreneurial innovation” (Spigel, 2017).
Scholars suggest that in contrast to entrepreneurial ecosystems for traditional entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurial ecosystems embracing sustainable entrepreneurship show other distinct
configurations of ecosystem elements and follow different dynamics and processes supporting
sustainable entrepreneurship. In line with this, Muñoz and Cohen (2018) hold that “only
appropriate conditions may lead to producing social, environmental and economic wealth” (Muñoz
& Cohen, 2018: 311). The following sections draw on the academic literature and elaborate on the
concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems, focusing on those fostering sustainable entrepreneurship.
September 29, 2020 24/82
It corresponds with the “systemic nature of entrepreneurial activity” (Cavallo, Ghezzi, & Balocco,
2019: 1292).
The following section introduces the reader to the topic of entrepreneurial ecosystems. It aims at
creating an understanding of the general ideas behind the concept, including the strength of a
conducive environment for high-growth entrepreneurship and the significance of place. The
subsequent section delineates systemic perspectives on entrepreneurial ecosystems by
describing the most relevant conceptual frameworks and models developed by scholars or
practitioners. The focus lies on holistic configurations of elements within a given ecosystem.
Complementarily, the third section addresses dynamic perspectives such as the emergence and
evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems over time, as well as underlying processes and
interdependencies.
2.2.1. The Idea behind Traditional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
A conducive environment for high-growth entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial embeddedness in a plurality of contexts manifests itself in the concept of an
entrepreneurial ecosystem. The core idea is “to explain the persistence of high-growth
entrepreneurship within regions” (Spigel, 2017). High-growth entrepreneurship is a form of
entrepreneurship capable “to drive productivity growth, create new employment, increase
innovation, and promote business internationalization” (Mason & Brown, 2014: 3). With substantial
economic potential, high-growth ventures are not necessarily technology-based but exist across
industries and sectors. They may create positive spillover effects on other firms and organizations
in the same territory (Mason & Brown, 2014). Even more, successful entrepreneurship may lead
to positive spillover effects on the entire ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011a). These spillovers do not
only address, for instance, the spawning of new ventures, but also broader impacts on, e.g., life
quality, social innovativeness, or philanthropy.
Embodied in the notion of high-growth entrepreneurship is the statement of Stam and Spigel
(2016) at which “not all types of entrepreneurship are equally important for economic growth”. In
this regard, Isenberg advocates broad-based entrepreneurship, which can only flourish if
governments are “explicitly sector agnostic” (Isenberg, 2011a: 4). Isenberg recommends looking
at observable entrepreneurial directions rather than on given industries in the region. He argues
that discovering opportunities lies in the responsibility of the entrepreneur, whereas governments
must create advantageous framework conditions. For this, Isenberg recommends governments to
uplift and communicate entrepreneurship “as a high social priority” (Isenberg, 2011a: 6). Isenberg
(2010) insists on focusing on high-potential ventures in place of a high quantity of small-scale
enterprises. If this is the case, Isenberg argues, “[p]eople start talking about it [entrepreneurship
– ed. note], it becomes socially acceptable, the institutions begin to form, and government
recognizes that something positive is happening and sometimes listens to the newly influential
entrepreneurs and initiates reforms”. (Isenberg, 2011a) For this aim, it is central to define two
targets, (1) the type of entrepreneurship in focus, and (2) how much of it is favored. This must be
paralleled, if necessary, by a cultural shift in the attitude of a community towards the acceptance
of failure and experimentation. Though, it is not the government alone which is responsible for
stimulating prospering entrepreneurial ecosystems, private and public actors (i.e., individuals,
business, governments, civil society, supporting and development partners) need to work together
September 29, 2020 25/82
for an ecosystem to realize its full potential in nurturing entrepreneurial ventures that create
economic value. (Isenberg, 2010; Simatupang et al., 2015)
In order to support high-growth entrepreneurship, it is not enough to create loose and
disconnected framework conditions (Mason & Brown, 2014). Instead, it is recommended to
deliberately build a business environment conducive for entrepreneurs and their ventures
(Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018). Though, it has to be considered that “the ‘heroic entrepreneur’ is
not the sole determinant of entrepreneurial success, and that the ‘ecosystem’ plays an important
role in nurturing new venture seeds into fully-fledged, value-adding growth ventures” (Radinger-
Peer, Sedlacek, & Goldstein, 2018: 1499). Mason and Brown advocate for a “systems-based form
of support for high growth entrepreneurship” (2014: 5)
The spatial dimension of entrepreneurial ecosystems – place as a prerequisite
Scholars hold that entrepreneurial activities need an examination at a regional or local context in
which entrepreneurs operate (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017). Though, EEs are not restricted to a
specific geographical scale, and could therefore comprise particular territories, such as countries,
regions, or cities (Mason & Brown, 2014; Stam & Van de Ven, 2019). Since “[s]ystems of
entrepreneurship are geographically bounded” (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017: 1031), there are
significant differences in the conditions between regions and cities in terms of, e.g., regulations,
institutions, social norms and culture, or access to finance. Radinger-Peer et al. (2018) equate the
spatial dimension with context-specificity, which they borrow from the ecosystem definition in the
natural sciences. Region-specificity is used synonymously. Both terms refer to place-based
factors, i.e., the “unique set of conditions and circumstances under which the ecosystem emerges”
(Radinger-Peer et al., 2018: 1503).
2.2.2. Systemic Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Before the notion of entrepreneurial ecosystems has been used, Spilling employed the term
entrepreneurial system addressing “the complexity and diversity of actors, roles, and
environmental factors that interact to determine the entrepreneurial performance of a region or
locality.” (1996: 91) Spilling holds that organizing and hosting a mega-event in a region (the author
refers to the case of Olympic games), the construction of a significant facility (e.g., bridges or
tunnels), or the introduction of new technology, are the significant drivers activating an
entrepreneurial system.
According to the author, economic development on a regional level is a consequence of multiple
entrepreneurial processes and requires “[a] complex system of initiatives, actions, and events”
(Spilling, 1996: 91). Spilling dissociates himself from the focus on the individual entrepreneur.
Instead, he holds that the foundation of a new venture may also involve groups, organizations, or
other firms, making it necessary to put the accent preferably on entrepreneurial events of a venture
than on a single person. Stimulating and restricting environmental factors, i.e., existing business
and socio-cultural structures (such as infrastructure or public institutions) shape the
entrepreneurial climate in a distinct region. This climate affects a multiplicity of actors, e.g., other
entrepreneurs or firms, and the discovery and exploitation of opportunities. The resulting series of
entrepreneurial events will, in turn, impact the environmental factors. The changing context ideally
fosters a new entrepreneurial climate in the region with positive long-term effects. Hence, an
entrepreneurial system is stable in the short run, but subject to changes in the long term. Figure 8
September 29, 2020 26/82
visualizes the respective conceptual framework consisting of those elements that Spilling suggests
for an entrepreneurial system. (Spilling, 1996)
Figure 8: Conceptual framework of the entrepreneurial system (Spilling, 1996: 93)
Neck, Meyer, Cohen, and Corbett (2004) examined the components relevant for new venture
creation in a region, i.e., system, focusing on a high level of entrepreneurial activity in high-
technology industries. In contrast to Spilling (1996), who focused solely on elements, these
authors tried to address the interactions of components and the relationships between them. By
doing so, it was possible to get a first insight into the development of entrepreneurial systems over
time.
The starting point for their study was the assumption of a spawning effect of entrepreneurial
ventures, meaning that “a genealogy of firms created from organizations spawning new
organizations is a natural occurrence within an entrepreneurial system.” (Neck et al., 2004: 192)
In such a setting, an incubator organization is a firm where a focal entrepreneur was employed
before creating his or her venture. In contrast, a spin-off organization is a new venture formed in
a related industry by an individual or a group that left an established firm. The study showed that
few incubator organizations triggered a high ratio of spin-offs either implicitly (i.e., incubator
organization not being aware of the intention of an employee to form a business but leaving the
individual with skills and abilities gained during tenure) or explicitly (i.e., aware of the intention and
providing support and assistance). Second generation spin-offs were not preferred and thus not
supported explicitly, as the founders wanted to retain their workforce.
Findings suggest that next to incubator and spin-off organizations, formal and informal social
networks, physical infrastructure, and the culture of a region are “related uniquely and interact to
form a system conducive for dense high-technology entrepreneurial activity.” (Neck et al., 2004:
190) Among all these elements, culture is the most critical element in the system.
September 29, 2020 27/82
Figure 9 shows the identified elements based on an empirical study of a distinct US region.
Re
gio
na
l E
ntr
ep
ren
eu
ria
l S
ys
tem
Incubator Organizations
Implicit Spin-offs Second and Future Generation Spin-offs Explicit Spin-offs
Distinct regional elements
Informal Network
(friends, families, colleagues, informal ties with other firms)
Formal Network
University
(e.g., developing talented graduates, providing leading-edge technology, providing consultants)
Government (e.g., taxes, incentives, financial support)
Professional and Support Services (e.g., lawyers, accountants, consultants)
Capital Sources
(e.g., venture capitalists, business angels, banks)
Talent Pool
Large Corporations
Physical Infrastructure (e.g., roads, traffic, office space, housing, real estate)
Culture (e.g., geography, climate, intellectual capital, high-tech capabilities)
Figure 9: Entrepreneurial system components (own depiction developed from Neck et al., 2004: 199)
Isenberg (2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2014) contributed fundamentally to the practical understanding of
entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Entrepreneurship
Policy
Finance
Culture
Supports
Human Capital
Markets
Figure 10: Domains adopted from Isenberg's entrepreneurial ecosystem framework (Isenberg, 2011b)
September 29, 2020 28/82
Policy Markets Finance
Leadership
- Unequivocal support
- Social legitimacy
- Open door for advocates
- Entrepreneurship strategy
- Urgency, crisis, challenge
Government
- Institutions (e.g., investment, support)
- Financial support (e.g., for R&D, jump
start funds)
- Regulatory framework incentives (e.g.,
tax benefits)
- Research institutes
- Venture-friendly legislation (e.g.,
bankruptcy, contract enforcement,
property rights, and labor)
Early Costumers
- Early adopters for proof-of-concept
- Expertise in productizing
- Reference costumers
- First reviews
- Distribution channels
Networks
- Entrepreneur’s networks
- Diaspora networks
- Multinational corporations
Financial Capital
- Micro-loans
- Angel investors, friends, and family
- Zero-stage venture capital
- Venture capital funds
- Private equity
- Public capital markets
- Debt
Human Capital Culture Supports
Labor
- Skilled and unskilled
- Serial entrepreneurs
- Later-generation family
Educational Institutions
- General degrees (professional and
academic)
- Specific entrepreneurship training
Success Stories
- Visible successes
- Wealth generation for founders
- International reputation
Societal norms
- Tolerance of risks, mistakes, failure
- Innovation, creativity, experimentation
- Social status of the entrepreneur
- Wealth creation
- Ambition, drive, hunger
Infrastructure
- Telecommunications
- Transportation & logistics
- Energy
- Zones, incubation centers, clusters
Support professions
- Legal
- Accounting
- Investment bankers
- Technical experts, advisors
Non-Governmental Institutions
- Entrepreneurship promotion in non-
profits
- Business plan contests
- Conferences
- Entrepreneur-friendly associations
Table 4: Components of Isenberg's ecosystem domains (adopted from Isenberg, 2011b)
Accordingly, individual elements of an entrepreneurial ecosystem need a holistic and strategic
integration. Addressing only few components would fall too short in fostering new venture creation
and economic growth, which could lead to unintended negative consequences, such as brain drain
of potential entrepreneurs due to a sole focus on education. Instead, it is vital to “address many
factors in parallel” but “in non-formulaic ways” (Isenberg, 2011a). In this regard, Figure 10 and
Table 4 show Isenberg’s framework consisting of six major domains – “a conducive culture,
enabling policies and leadership, availability of appropriate finance, quality human capital, venture-
friendly markets for products, and a range of institutional and infrastructural supports” (Isenberg,
2011b) - each connected to specific components.
Following the approach of Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, and Wright (2014), entrepreneurial
ecosystems “regulate the direction and quality of entrepreneurial innovation by shaping the
direction […] and even the types of organizational forms that will be accepted as legitimate.” (Autio
et al., 2014: 1100). Entrepreneurship and innovation should not be used interchangeably, instead
it is to examine when and under what conditions entrepreneurs innovate. This brings us directly
to the notion of innovation-conducive contexts. Figure 11 displays the respective framework of
September 29, 2020 29/82
entrepreneurial innovation and context comprising (1) spatial context (i.e., spatial locus of
entrepreneurial ventures, as well as geographical concentration of institutions, policies, and social
norms) , (2) temporal context (considering the dimensions of time in the life-cycle of organizations,
industries, and ecosystems), (3) industry/technology context (industry structure and technologies
shape the innovation activities of ventures), (4) organizational context (including, for instance,
organizational culture, practices, and knowledge), (5) institutional/policy context (i.e., formal
institutions, such as regulations and the rule of law; informal institutions, such as culture or social
norms), as well as (6) social context (i.e., interactions and networks between ecosystem actors).
Different contexts directly influence entrepreneurial behavior and action, which, subsequently,
affects the type of entrepreneurial innovation and venture performance. Ultimately, different
contexts also influence disparate configurations of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Figure 11: Framework of entrepreneurial innovation and context (Autio et al., 2014: 1098)
Stam (2015) and Stam and Van de Ven (2018; 2019) follow a systems approach in terms of
entrepreneurial ecosystems and uplift the entire EE as a unit of analysis. They argue that EEs are
nested in “a broader set of complex systems” (Stam & Van de Ven, 2019). Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems are inherently artificial constructions of humans, which bring the notions of agency
and institutions to the fore. Against this background, it is even more essential to regard an EE as
a whole; therefore, “it should not be decomposed in ten elements for explaining the relative
influence of different elements of the system.” (Stam & Van de Ven, 2019)
Figure 12 depicts the integrative model regarding the elements and outputs of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem and marks the underlying causal paths (propositions abbreviated as P1, P2, P3).
According to the authors, an EE consists of three elements assigned to institutional arrangements,
and seven factors associated with resource endowments. In sum, the ten elements reflect the
functional equivalents of institutions and resources that are needed in a sound regional
entrepreneurial ecosystem fostering productive, high-quality entrepreneurship. In this regard,
productive entrepreneurship is defined as “any entrepreneurial activity that contributes directly or
indirectly to net output of the economy or to the capacity to produce additional output” (Baumol,
1993 cited from Stam & Van de Ven, 2019).
September 29, 2020 30/82
Figure 12: Entrepreneurial ecosystem - elements and outputs (Stam & Van de Ven, 2019)
Institutional arrangements concern formal institutions (i.e., the rules of the game in a society
provided by, e.g., government bodies), culture (i.e., cultural context as an informal institution; here:
entrepreneurship culture as the degree to which entrepreneurship is appreciated), and networks
(i.e., social connectedness of actors).
Resource endowments comprise physical infrastructure (i.e., enabling economic interaction and
allowing actors to meet in physical proximity), demand (i.e., potential market demand or
costumers’ purchasing power for goods and services), intermediaries (i.e., business support
services lowering entry barriers for new ventures, and reducing time-to-market of innovations),
talent (i.e., diverse set of human capital in terms of skills, knowledge, and experience), knowledge
(i.e., investments in scientific and technological knowledge creation), leadership (i.e., building and
maintaining an ecosystem, guidance for and direction of collective action through ‘visible’ leaders),
and finance (i.e., financial investments with an expected return in the future).
All these observable elements are mutually interdependent and co-evolving in a specific region
over time (co-evolutionary proposition P1). By the interplay of the factors, productive
entrepreneurial activity is evolving, which results in the outcome of aggregated value (upward
causation proposition P2). Stam and Van de Ven (2019) speak of structure affecting agency.
Finally, productive entrepreneurship loops back and affects the EE directly (downward causation
proposition P3). The final proposition corresponds with the process of agency affecting structure,
meaning that successful entrepreneurs might take on other roles within an EE as they morph, for
instance, into venture capitalists or network developers in their territory.
The relational approach of Spigel (2017) puts the focus on the constituting internal attributes of
entrepreneurial ecosystems within a region, and the relationships and interactions between them
(see Figure 13). He distinguishes between cultural, social, and material attributes (i.e., resources).
Spigel holds that “successful ecosystems are not defined by high rates of entrepreneurship but
rather how the interaction between these attributes creates a supportive regional environment that
increases the competitiveness of new ventures.” (Spigel, 2017)
Cultural attributes represent the fundamental beliefs and attitudes about entrepreneurship. In this
regard, positive risk perception and entrepreneurial success stories contribute to a robust
entrepreneurial culture. Social attributes relate to those resources that are associated with social
networks and social capital. Formal and informal networks themselves are essential for the
acquisition of resources, the creation and exchange of knowledge, and access to the market.
Mentors and dealmakers are actors with high degrees of social capital, assisting in network
building and skill development. Investment capital is provided by formal and informal investors
September 29, 2020 31/82
who may simultaneously act as advisors to the ventures. Worker talent corresponds with skilled
employees who form the human capital within a local EE. Material attributes connect to tangible
assets, such as universities developing new knowledge and human capital, early-stage support
services and facilities in the form of lawyers or co-working spaces, supportive government rules
and policies, and the existence of strong local markets.
Figure 13: Ecosystem attributes and their relationships (Spigel, 2017)
The single attributes affect and support or reinforce each other. The resulting unique relational
structure between the attributes manifests in multiple regional ecosystem configurations, which,
in turn, “encourage entrepreneurial activity and provide critical resources that new ventures can
draw on as they expand and evolve.” (Spigel, 2017) Each of these configurations affects the type
of resources available in a respective EE. Notably, the resources are explicitly related to new
venture creation and development and could not be easily accessed otherwise.
Audretsch and Belitski (2017) advanced previous EE frameworks to a remarkable extent. By
focusing on entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities, their framework consists of six domains, of which
four are known from previous ones (Stam, 2015): culture, formal institutions, demand and
workforce, and physical infrastructure and amenities. Remarkably, they included two other
elements, namely the melting pot index and the informational and technology context.
According to the authors, improvement of urban entrepreneurial ecosystems can be reached if a
local culture facilitates trust and safety for undertaking entrepreneurial activities, if transport
connections and city amenities (e.g., green spaces, coffee shops, museums) are perceived as
good, if administration services are efficient and public resources are responsibly allocated, and if
internet access and connectivity are adequately given. Regarding the latter, including the
informational and technology context in the framework supports “individual decision-making,
judgment and the ability to foresee opportunities” (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017: 1034). The melting
pot index (valuing diversity, tolerance, and integration) refers to an appropriate integration of
foreigners, which will improve an existing urban EE. In contrast to the beneficial consequences,
high demand for the labor force and housing might be adverse for EE as individuals might change
their minds to start their own business.
September 29, 2020 32/82
2.2.3. Dynamic Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
More recently, research on EE has shifted from static frameworks to process perspectives, aiming
to understand the underlying dynamics, cause-effect interlinkages, and interdependencies (e.g.,
Brown & Mason, 2017; Radinger-Peer et al., 2018). Perceiving entrepreneurship as a process
implies that entrepreneurial ecosystems are inherently dynamic. Such a perspective on EEs
focuses on questions around the emergence (i.e., the formation of an EE), adaptation, evolution,
sustainment, and transformation of entrepreneurial ecosystems over time.
Isenberg (2010) considers the creation of an entire ecosystem as a significant challenge. By
asking “[n]ature or nurture?” (Isenberg, 2011b), he addresses the vital issue if entrepreneurial
ecosystems are artificial constructions, or if they develop naturally. Isenberg holds that the answer
lies in between and is related to a process he calls intelligent evolution. Accordingly, it combines
“the invisible hand of markets and deliberate helping hand of public leadership” (Isenberg, 2011b).
While Hakala, O'Shea, Farny, and Luoto (2020) delineate the emergence of an EE primarily
nurtured by regional agents (i.e., governments) and enacted public policies, it is Stam who
emphasizes that “[e]ntrepreneurship is not only the output of the system, entrepreneurs are
important players themselves in creating the ecosystem and keeping it healthy.” (Stam, 2015:
1759) Inherently, the role of the government is not denied but decreased towards an enabling or
facilitative role, becoming a feeder of the ecosystem rather than a leader (Spigel & Harrison, 2018;
Stam, 2015). In line with the foregoing, Stam and Van de Ven (2019) argue that there are plenty
of possibilities how the evolutionary process of an EE might kick off, though, they connect the
process directly to agency. In this regard, the process can start through the intentions and activities
of entrepreneurs, ecosystem leaders, or by partisan mutual adjustment. Roundy et al. (2018) holds
that the emergence of EEs is due to a mix of “micro-level processes (e.g., the intentions of
entrepreneurs), meso-level processes (e.g., the provisioning of resources to entrepreneurs from
support organizations), and macro-level processes (e.g., the influence of ecosystem culture)”
(Roundy et al., 2018: 2).
Importantly, imitating or trying to reproduce thriving existing ecosystems may result in a dead-end
situation as the uniqueness of circumstances and factors shaping any entrepreneurial ecosystem
cannot be repeated. Instead, it is of utmost importance to cultivate a local entrepreneurial
ecosystem that is “based on the realities of their [regions’ – ed. note] own circumstances”
(Isenberg, 2010). Though, Isenberg asserts that “[g]rowing your own [entrepreneurial ecosystem
– ed. note] requires time, effort and resources, as well as experimentation and learning until the
right unique configurations evolve.” (Isenberg, 2011a)
According to Roundy et al. (2018), emergence can only be explained if frameworks acknowledge
the inherent complexity of EEs. Hence, and with reference to complexity science, EEs are complex
adaptive systems “in which macro-level behaviors both emerge from and influence the micro-level
interactions of the elements of the system” (Roundy et al., 2018: 2). By simultaneously connecting
micro-levels (i.g., the intentionality of entrepreneurs or individual-level activities) with macro-levels
(e.g., system-level rules), it becomes evident that the single elements in the ecosystem are
continuously interacting with each other across levels. Subsequently, they can respond and adapt
to altering conditions and contexts. Characteristics of complex adaptive systems include open-
but-distinct boundaries, complex components, nonlinearity, adaptability, sensitivity to initial
conditions, and self-organization.
September 29, 2020 33/82
Open-but-distinct boundaries refer, on the one hand, to the geographical boundedness of an EE,
on the other hand to the openness and permeability regarding resource flows entering or leaving
the EE. The complexity of components includes the role pluralism of agents (i.e., entrepreneurs,
investors, mentors, etc.) and the activities on multiple levels (i.e., micro, meso, macro). Nonlinear
dynamics and (positive or negative) feedback loops are caused by the interdependency of
components. Adaptability is an essential characteristic as “actions of agents within an EE will
produce continuous modifications to the system, which shape how the system responds to
endogenous and exogenous disturbances and allow it to adapt to changing and novel conditions”
(Roundy et al., 2018: 4). An EE is sensitive to initial conditions, meaning that the primary
configuration may have unexpected and unpredictable effects on future developments.
Considering the property of self-organization, EEs emerge in “uncoordinated, semi-autonomous
actions of individual agents” (Roundy et al., 2018: 3). This corresponds with Isenberg’s (2010;
2011a) point of view. Accordingly, an entrepreneurial ecosystem is not driven by a single actor,
e.g., by entrepreneurs. Neither is it a two-actor game involving merely entrepreneurs and
governments (Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018). Instead, there are plenty of others acting as “key
catalysts” or “important connectors and influencers who may not be entrepreneurs themselves.”
(Isenberg, 2014). These actors might have different roles in developing conducive entrepreneurial
environments, which also influences the evolution of an EE (Colombelli, Paolucci, & Ughetto,
2019). The fact that “no one owns or represents an entrepreneurship ecosystem” (Isenberg, 2014)
leads to different motivations and objectives of the actors involved, though, they are working
together for the common purpose of economic prosperity (Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018).
According to Isenberg (2014), ecosystems can develop a self-sustaining nature if a multiplicity of
stakeholders finds benefits in there. Isenberg states that if the tipping point of self-sustainment is
reached (i.e., if the six conducive domains in his model are empowered and mutually reinforcing
each other, see Figure 10), institutional actors (such as governments) need to reduce their
involvement.
Because a profound explanation of entrepreneurial ecosystems requires a dynamic approach,
Mack and Mayer (2016) suggest an evolutionary view on EE. Figure 14 shows four stages of
development, i.e., birth, growth, sustainment, and decline, which are related to Isenberg’s
ecosystem framework (Isenberg, 2011b) containing the six elements of policy, finance, culture,
support, human capital, and markets.
Over time, while the EE evolves and declines, both the importance and strength of critical elements
alter, which, in turn, impacts the entrepreneur, his venture, and the entire EE. In the birth phase,
for instance, elements in the EE are still underdeveloped. During the growth phase, the domains
become increasingly oriented towards entrepreneurship, whereas during sustainment, each of the
elements starts to diminish. If the EE actors in the respective domains fail in prolonging the
sustainment phase, the decline of the EE will follow. In this final stage, the entrepreneurial climate
weakens to a considerable extent, and “[e]ntrepreneurship is no longer perceived as a viable
career option” (Mack & Mayer, 2016: 2124). Ultimately, according to the authors, the EE will
disappear, or the cycle will start afresh. Referring to Mack and Mayer (2016), Malecki (2018)
contrasted that such a life cycle model should not contain the stage of decline, but end with a
sustainability phase.
September 29, 2020 34/82
Figure 14: Evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mack & Mayer, 2016: 2122)
Building on Mack and Mayer (2016), Cantner, Cunningham, Lehmann, and Menter (2020) take a
dynamic lifecycle view on entrepreneurial ecosystems, which involves a transitional perspective
(i.e., morphing into a different form of an ecosystem, in this case, a business ecosystem such as
an industrial cluster). Figure 15 shows five stages in the development process: birth, growth,
maturity and stabilization, decline, and re-emergence.
September 29, 2020 35/82
Figure 15: Dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem lifecycle model (Cantner et al., 2020: 8)
The birth-phase of an EE starts with the idea of an individual, which may be triggered by a
knowledge spillover from different sources such as universities or established firms, which was
overlooked and stayed unutilized by others. If such ideas are exploited and translated into an
increasing quantity of new venture creations or spin-offs, the EE starts to evolve. In the second
stage, the growth phase, all elements in the ecosystem form and specialize in the requirements
of entrepreneurship. What is called a “vibrant entrepreneurial scene” (Cantner et al., 2020: 9) is
the emergence of a regionally embedded entrepreneurial culture, which inspires and motivates
others to start their venture. During maturity and stabilization, the number of entrepreneurial
ventures weakens due to less attractiveness in the EE, and incumbent firms start reintegrating
existing successful enterprises. Here lies the tipping point, where the EE starts to transform into a
business ecosystem with plenty of established actors. In the decline stage, the ecosystem
transformation towards a business ecosystem with established firms, routines, and norms is
completed. It is marked by the exploitation of opportunities of incumbents than of entrepreneurial
ventures, and radical innovations are replaced by incremental ones in line with established
technological standards. Importantly, this poses new opportunities for potential entrepreneurs,
which is the basis for the upcoming phase of re-emergence. In this case, the lifecycle starts anew
but with different, more advantageous conditions. Supporting networks, institutions, routines, and
norms are already in place, and the entrepreneurial culture re-emerges continuously. A new
technological regime has overtaken the site from the previous one.
Spigel and Harrison (2018) follow a process- and resource-based view on entrepreneurial
ecosystems because, according to the authors, such an approach is, in contrast to the actor-
centric perspective as in previous models, more adequate “to better understand how
entrepreneurs gather resources and support from an ecosystem” (Spigel & Harrison, 2018: 165).
Furthermore, it helps to recognize if entrepreneurs and ventures act differently when it comes to
other stages in their lives or the venture life cycle. In this regard, EEs are driven by ongoing
September 29, 2020 36/82
processes of resource creation, resource recycling, and flow of resources through social networks
which may alter the structure of an EE to a notable extent. Key resources in this regard may
include knowledge, capital, mentors, or talent. The mere presence of resources is not a reason
for an EE to emerge and to grow. Instead, it is vital that entrepreneurs can access and make use
of resources, which are provided by the flow through social networks. For this reason, local social
networks need to be built dense and trust-based, and within the networks (i.e., the entrepreneurial
community) entrepreneurs are perceived as legitimate to deliver high-growth entrepreneurship.
Moreover, public bodies and agencies have the task to create opportunities for actors in the
networks to connect, hence, taking care of relational forms of support (Mason & Brown, 2014).
Resource recycling is another factor which is contributing to the development of an EE.
Correspondingly, successful or failed entrepreneurs exiting the EE free up resources, which can
be recycled in the EE, meaning that these resources are available for others. It is also an option
that successful or failed entrepreneurs do not exit the EE but sustain the entrepreneurial resources
in the region. Subsequently, they contribute, for instance, their knowledge, capital, or networks to
younger generations of entrepreneurs, and they may take on new roles, e.g., as mentors,
investors, or as serial entrepreneurs.
Taking the previous into account, the three processes of resource creation, resource recycling,
and the flow of resources lead to a typology of four different EEs, distinct by their network strength,
and functionality in terms of the available resources. As shown in Figure 16, the transformation of
entrepreneurial ecosystems over time affects the connectivity between actors and resource
processes, moving from a nascent to a strengthening, and subsequently resulting in either a
resilient or a weakened ecosystem.
Figure 16: Transformation of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel & Harrison, 2018: 162)
September 29, 2020 37/82
Cantner et al. (2020) pointed to the essential aspect that ecosystems can exist in parallel. This
implies that ecosystems are heterogeneous in nature. In this regard, Roundy et al. (2017)
examined the variance between different ecosystems by asking “why some EEs thrive, particularly
in response to environmental changes, while others decline or fail to develop” (Roundy et al.,
2017: 99). Accordingly, EEs vary in their degree of diversity in terms of actors, venture types,
business models, and support organizations, e.g., incubators and accelerators) and their degree
of coherence concerning shared values and activities, which causes components of an EE to
interact. The interplay between them leads to system-level resilience, which is the distinguishing
factor between the variance of ecosystems. Resilience is an indicator for ecosystem health defined
as “the degree to which an EE can continuously recover from and adapt to exogenous shocks and
endogenous pressures” (Roundy et al., 2017: 99).
Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
By referring to Welter (2011) and Welter et al. (2019), Volkmann et al. (2019) hold that by
integrating sustainability into entrepreneurial ecosystem research, accumulating in the nascent
field of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, a new wave of contextualization inaugurates. In
this regard, context does not end with, for instance, institutional or geographical dimensions.
Instead, we must take broader societal and environmental contexts into account to
comprehensively respond to the needs and requirements of sustainable entrepreneurship
(Volkmann et al., 2019).
In analogy to traditional EEs fostering long-term economic growth and development, sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems aim at advancing sustainability transition into the economy,
environment, and society (Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018; Pankov, Velamuri, & Schneckenberg,
2019). In this regard, “the establishment of an entrepreneurial ecosystem which places
sustainability at its core can be an important contributing factor to sustainable development.”
(Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018: 182) The question arises of how entrepreneurial ecosystems aiming
at supporting sustainable entrepreneurship and contributing to the UN Sustainable Development
Goals must be configured and shaped (Volkmann et al., 2019). As outlined in previous sections,
sustainable entrepreneurship is explicitly different than traditional entrepreneurship, which may
imply that an ecosystem for a different form of entrepreneurship has a dissimilar configuration of
ecosystem elements (such as institutions or actors) and follows other dynamics (Divito & Ingen-
Housz, 2017).
In line with the preceding, the next section deals with systemic and dynamic views on sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems and highlights those elements, processes, and interdependencies of
importance for this topic. The focus lies on relevant systemic components of SEEs, supporting
and impeding contextual factors, the emergence of and transformation into SEEs, and the
significance of stakeholders within existing SEEs. The chapter concludes with a synopsis that
defines the overarching pillars of all entrepreneurial ecosystems independently of their thematic
orientation. Corresponding with the synopsis about sustainable entrepreneurship, the synopsis
regarding EEs and SEEs will directly flow into the subsequent theoretical framework.
September 29, 2020 38/82
2.3.1. Perspectives on Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
A systemic perspective on SEEs
Cohen (2006) defines a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem as an “interconnected group of
actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support
and facilitation of new sustainable ventures.” (Cohen, 2006: 3) Cohen was among the first
researchers who expanded the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems with the sustainable
development paradigm. He holds that benefits of SEE comprise not only economic outcomes such
as job growth and prosperity, but also those corresponding with social and environmental values,
e.g., improved social and ecological conditions and reduction of poverty and homelessness. In his
study, Cohen explored the potential of existing traditional EE components to contribute to (or
impede) the development of a SEE by looking at the system components of formal and informal
networks, university, government, professional and support services, capital services, and talent
pool.
Findings suggest that it is relevant for the development of a SEE that potential stakeholders (e.g.,
costumers, advisers, other firms) are open to and understand sustainability principles and issues
otherwise, entrepreneurs and their ventures will not get the appropriate support. Additionally,
policies and regulations need to encourage sustainable behavior at various levels. Moreover,
sustainable entrepreneurs are expected to face barriers from the formal network, which increases
the importance of informal social networks for advice, mentoring, and support. Cohen concludes
with the assumption that “the backbone of a SEE is the natural environment and culture of the
community” (Cohen, 2006: 12), which triggers the question if a SEE can also be developed “in a
community that lack[s] a quality natural environment or culture towards sustainability” (Cohen,
2006: 13).
Divito and Ingen-Housz (2017) assume that a SEE differs substantially from a traditional EE in
terms of ecosystem components, i.e., actors and institutions necessary for fostering sustainable
entrepreneurial action. In this regard, it is the local culture supporting sustainability values, which
is decisive for attracting new supportive actors to the SEE. Collectively forming and supporting
sustainability innovation projects may help the SEE to grow and the diverse actors to gain
legitimacy for their activities. Bischoff (2019) also argues that the perceived strength of sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems depends on the role of entrepreneurial stakeholders by engaging in
sustainability-focused stakeholder support and collaboration, and the regional culture shaping the
awareness for entrepreneurship and sustainability. Against this background, Bischoff concludes
that SEEs are highly context-specific.
Supporting and impeding contexts
Pankov et al. (2019) take a holistic approach and emphasize that EEs need to be studied as a
whole. They argue that an ecosystem “is much more than an arbitrary composition of various
elements and attributes; it is noticeably characterized by an interrelation between entrepreneurs
and contextual factors that can weaken and empower an ecosystem.” (Pankov et al., 2019: 18)
In this sense, their study explores the effects of contextual factors on entrepreneurial activities of
sustainable ventures in the sharing economy. They argue that sustainable ventures are confronted
with a different set of competitive conditions compared to traditional entrepreneurs. Accordingly,
as sustainable entrepreneurs follow a triple bottom line of objectives, they might face challenges
in terms of “higher information asymmetries, more regulatory complexity, or difficulties of achieving
market breakthroughs” (Pankov et al., 2019: 2). Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems should
be shaped in a way that they respond and adapt to these challenges. Therefore, is it critical to
September 29, 2020 39/82
investigate how contextual factors influence the development of SEEs. One of the significant
findings concerns the importance of socio-cultural boundaries for developing SEEs. In this regard,
Pankov et al. (2019) hold that “values, rules, and norms are powerful tools to enforce sustainable
behavior and [to] draw the line between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs” (Pankov
et al., 2019: 18)
Figure 17 depicts the theoretical framework showing two sets of contextual factors of an EE, one
of them enhancing, the other set restraining sustainable activities in the sharing economy.
Stimulating effects on sustainable entrepreneurial activities include enforcing the adaptation of
behavioral rules and enabling the development of organizational capabilities. In contrast,
restricting effects involve impeding market penetration and organizational agility and suppressing
growth. These conjoint set of contextual factors shape the strategic choices of sustainable
entrepreneurs.
Figure 17: Effects of contextual factors on SE activities (Pankov et al., 2019: 10)
Emergence of and transformation into SEEs
O’Shea, Farny, and Hakala (2019) link the entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and creation
process to the emergence of a SEE. Throughout opportunity development, individuals engage in
the three interaction-based phases of co-intuiting (i.e., idea generation and prototyping), co-
interpreting (i.e., identifying faults, looking for opportunity gaps and collaboration synergies, testing
ideas), and co-integrating (i.e., designing roadmaps or creating commercialization paths). These
phases are strongly characterized by a collective agency, which contrasts with the isolated actions
of entrepreneurs, founding groups, or other actors within an EE.
Remarkably, it is this collective agency that facilitates the emergence of a SEE. By referring to the
concept of a nascent EE, the authors draw on Spigel and Harrison (2018) and adopt a process-
and resource-based view. They frame a SEE as an artifact that is deliberately and collaboratively
designed by the respective ecosystem actors engaged in new venture ideation and developing
September 29, 2020 40/82
opportunity confidence. Hence, a vital basis for a SEE to evolve is the shared sustainability
intention of all engaging actors comprising of strong beliefs, a shared vision, and multidisciplinarity
as a goal. This intention fosters an enabling emotional climate (i.e., passion for renewal, high level
of trust, and freedom), contributing to the SEE development.
Divito and Ingen-Housz (2019) examined based on the Amsterdam denim sector how traditional
entrepreneurial ecosystems become one with a distinct sustainability focus. As shown in Figure
18, the authors identified four interrelated conditions nurturing the transformation into a SEEs: (1)
sustainability orientation of actors, (2) recognition of sustainable opportunities and resource
mobilization, (3) collaborative innovation of sustainability opportunities, and (4) markets for
sustainable products. Significantly, these conditions affect the interactions and interdependencies
between various actors. In this regard, the authors hold that “[t]he favorable presence of these
conditions allows sustainable entrepreneurs to interact and engage in entrepreneurial
experimentation that focuses on sustainable solutions, products, and innovations.” (Divito & Ingen-
Housz, 2019)
Regarding the first, a strong sustainability orientation of actors may lead to the spawning of new
actors, not only new sustainable entrepreneurs or established firms showing ambition to foster
sustainable business model innovation, but also other actors such as a new type of support
organizations (e.g., activists). Recognition of sustainability opportunities and assembling
resources was primarily based on the geographical and cognitive proximity to potential partners.
The findings of the study suggest that opportunities are co-recognized and co-created through the
interactions of various actors in the SEE. Accordingly, “opportunities are networked, socially
constructed occurrences that require coordinated efforts in entrepreneurial ecosystems” (Divito &
Ingen-Housz, 2019) Collaborative innovation refers to a high level of exploration and exploitation
activities, which leads to positive knowledge spillover effects among the various actors. Markets
for sustainable products involve the transition of ideas into a value proposition of products or
services that, in turn, generate social, environmental, and economic wealth.
Figure 18: Conditions nurturing SEEs (Divito & Ingen-Housz, 2019)
September 29, 2020 41/82
The relevance of stakeholders for SEEs
In line with the view that entrepreneurial ecosystems are primarily shaped through the
participation, interconnections, and interdependencies of multiple actors, an EE is perceived as “a
highly complex multi-level construct” (Simatupang et al., 2015: 390) involving actors at an
international level (e.g., supranational agencies, international aid agencies), at a national or
regional level (e.g., government agencies, business associations, universities), a firm level (e.g.,
entrepreneurial ventures on different stages of the venture life cycle, smaller and larger incumbent
firms, private foundations), and at the group and individual level (e.g., entrepreneurs, mentors,
investors, lawyers).
Bischoff and Volkmann (2018) explored the role of sustainability-focused stakeholder support in
developing sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Figure 19 displays a framework of a SEE
focusing on sustainable entrepreneurs and nine related stakeholder groups (i.e., other actors in
the ecosystem supporting and collaborating with the sustainable venture), including the types of
interactions and support. Importantly, this framework depicts an idealized view on SEEs, meaning
that it needs adaptation to real-life circumstances. This could, for instance, lead to a separation of
primary and secondary stakeholder groups depending on the focus, intensity, frequency, and
duration of involvement.
Figure 19: Idealized stakeholder framework of a SEE (Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018: 183)
Sustainable entrepreneurs are the key actors in a SEE. Through their activities, they “directly or
indirectly transfer sustainable mindsets and promote sustainable behaviour.” (Bischoff &
Volkmann, 2018: 187) The framework suggests that both stakeholder support and collaboration
enhance engagement in sustainable entrepreneurship, which subsequently contribute to the
September 29, 2020 42/82
development of a SEE (next to other influencing factors, such as geography or formal and informal
institutions).
In this regard, stakeholder support (e.g., through the provision of valuable tangible or intangible
resources) must be explicitly tailored to the needs and requirements of sustainable entrepreneurs
who follow a triple bottom line of social, environmental, and economic goals (Bischoff, 2019). It is
ascribed to be extensive, complementary, and all-encompassing. Stakeholder collaboration goes
further by embracing mutual relations and interdependencies. In fostering partnerships, the focus
shifts to value co-creation, where different stakeholder interests are considered. Stakeholder
collaboration needs to be well-coordinated, aligned, coherent, and enduring. The authors highlight
that multi-stakeholder partnerships and alliances are not only valuable on a micro-level (i.e., for
sustainable entrepreneurial success), but also on a macro level (i.e., taking a systemic perspective
by perceiving SEE as a whole).
2.3.2. Synopsis
In the past two decades, entrepreneurship research moved away from the individual entrepreneur
as the sole responsible for value creation towards a holistic perspective that puts the entrepreneur
and his activities in a broader contextual setting (Stam & Spigel, 2016). The literature part of the
thesis at hand depicts this evolution precisely.
As outlined in Table 5, there exists a high quantity of definitions for the concept of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Each of them is eligible and focuses on distinct but overlapping aspects. Therefore,
we will subsequently seek to derive the significant conceptual pillars underlying the phenomenon
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This helps the reader to get a grasp of the big picture.
Author(s) Definition
Audretsch & Belitski, 2017 “a dynamic community of inter-dependent actors
(entrepreneurs, supplies, buyer, government, etc.) and
system-level institutional, informational and socioeconomic
contexts” (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017: 1033)
Audretsch, Cunningham, Kuratko, Lehmann, & Menter,
2019
“entrepreneurial ecosystems” as organized attempts to
establish environments that are conducive to increasing the
success for newly established ventures. (Audretsch et al.,
2019: 313)
Isenberg, 2010 “The entrepreneurship ecosystem consists of a set of
individual elements—such as leadership, culture, capital
markets, and open-minded customers—that combine in
complex ways.” (Isenberg, 2010)
Isenberg, 2014 “an ecosystem is a dynamic, self-regulating network of many
different types of actors” (Isenberg, 2014)
Mason & Brown, 2014 “a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors (both
potential and existing), entrepreneurial organisations (e.g.
firms, venture capitalists, business angels, banks),
institutions (universities, public sector agencies, financial
bodies) and entrepreneurial processes (e.g. the business
birth rate, numbers of high growth firms, levels of
September 29, 2020 43/82
‘blockbuster entrepreneurship’, number of serial
entrepreneurs, degree of sellout mentality within firms and
levels of entrepreneurial ambition) which formally and
informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the
performance within the local entrepreneurial environment”
(Mason & Brown, 2014: 5; italics in original)
Neck et al., 2004 “a complex relationship of many interacting elements that
need to be in place to support high levels of regional
entrepreneurial activity” (Neck et al., 2004: 192)
Roundy et al., 2017 “communities of agents, social structures, institutions, and
cultural values that produce entrepreneurial activity”
(Roundy et al., 2017: 99)
Roundy et al., 2018 “An entrepreneurial ecosystem is a self-organized, adaptive,
and geographically bounded community of complex agents
operating at multiple, aggregated levels, whose non-linear
interactions result in the patterns of activities through which
new ventures form and dissolve over time.” (Roundy et al.,
2018: 5)
Spigel, 2017 “Entrepreneurial ecosystems are combinations of social,
political, economic, and cultural elements within a region that
support the development and growth of innovative startups
and encourage nascent entrepreneurs and other actors to
take the risks of starting, funding, and otherwise supporting
high-risk ventures.” (Spigel, 2017)
“Ecosystems are the union of localized cultural outlooks,
social networks, investment capital, universities, and active
economic policies that create environments supportive of
innovation-based ventures. (Spigel, 2017)
Spilling, 1996 “the concept of the entrepreneurial system, i.e., the
complexity and diversity of actors, roles, and environmental
factors that interact to determine the entrepreneurial
performance of a region or locality.” (Spilling, 1996: 91)
Stam & Van de Ven, 2019 An ecosystem “consists of all the interdependent actors and
factors that enable and constrain entrepreneurship within a
particular territory.” (Stam & Van de Ven, 2019)
Stam & Spigel, 2016 “Entrepreneurial ecosystems are defined as a set of
interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way
that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a
particular territory.” (Stam & Spigel, 2016)
Table 5: Selection of definitions for entrepreneurial ecosystems (in alphabetical order)
Taking all the above-mentioned definitions into consideration, the defining overarching pillars
comprise context, complexity, geography, agency, network, and governance (adopted from Velt,
Torkkeli, & Laine, 2020). Context relates to different dimensions, such as temporal, institutional,
or social facets, and the contextual boundaries of a given EE. Complexity refers to the view of EEs
as a systemic whole with a dynamic, adaptive nature. The pillar of Geography perceives
September 29, 2020 44/82
entrepreneurial activity and EEs as locational phenomena which emphasize region-specific
attraction, development, use, and flow of resources. Agency concerns individual and collective
actors having an intended or unintended influence on the emergence and development of EEs.
Network involves the support and collaboration of a broad set of stakeholders within an EE, and
aims at understanding the interactions, connectivity, and interdependencies between EE elements
and actors. Governance refers to the questions of who coordinates/regulates an EE and how EEs
should be governed. This pillar relates to institutions that take the role of nurturing and supporting
entrepreneurship.
These pillars frame any entrepreneurial ecosystem. In the unique manifestation and interplay of
conditions, elements, actors, and processes, the heterogeneity of EEs is a plausible consequence
(in the case of this thesis, we contrasted traditional EEs with sustainable EEs). This leads to the
assumption that sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (for the respective definitions see Table
6) share the pillars but with different foci, configurations, scales, actors, and dynamics. The primary
difference lies in the distinct sustainability-orientation of the entire EE elements and actors (Acs,
Stam, Audretsch, & O’Connor, 2017).
Author(s) Definition
Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018 “A sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem refers to an
interconnected and collaborating group of stakeholders
providing sustainability-focused support to entrepreneurs
in order to foster entrepreneurial activities that
simultaneously address the economic, ecological and
social dimensions of sustainability and thereby contribute
to the transformation to a sustainable regional economy.”
(Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018: 186)
Cohen, 2006 “interconnected group of actors in a local geographic
community committed to sustainable development
through the support and facilitation of new sustainable
ventures.” (Cohen, 2006: 3)
Table 6: Selection of definitions for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (in alphabetical order)
Together with the synopsis to the topic of sustainable entrepreneurship (see section 2.1.5.), this
part is taken further for the subsequent elaboration on the theoretical framework in the next
subchapter.
September 29, 2020 45/82
Theoretical Framework
Figure 20: Theoretical framework (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 46/82
The synopses of both the chapters sustainable entrepreneurship (see section 2.1.5.) and
entrepreneurial ecosystems, respectively sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (see section
2.3.2.) form the basis for developing the theoretical framework as displayed in Figure 20. The
framework merges the core statements of the literature review into a holistic picture integrating
those elements and factors that are characteristic of entrepreneurial ecosystems in general and
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in particular.
The overarching pillars – context, complexity, geography, agency, network, governance –
characterize any entrepreneurial ecosystem independent of its thematic focus (adopted from Velt
et al., 2020). Notably, these pillars do not follow a notable sequence but are listed in a way that is
understandable for the structure of the whole research topic. A short description of each pillar can
be found in the framework containing the primary content expected when dealing with it more
profoundly. The pillar descriptions were derived from the literature review about EEs and SEEs.
In accordance with the six pillars, core findings from the chapters regarding SE, EEs, and SEEs
were divided into the topics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Sustainable Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems. The bullet points reflect the core elements and factors that shape any entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Hence, these factors apply to all EEs regardless of their thematic orientation. The last
column, termed Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, aims only at factors that are decisive
for SEEs, and should be considered as detailing elements and characteristics concerning those
mentioned in the penultimate column.
In this regard, the pillar Context includes, i.a., different contextual factors, such as temporal or
institutional ones, that have a supporting or constraining influence on entrepreneurial ecosystems.
In general, EEs are embedded in various contexts that influence the ecosystem to a great extent.
In terms of SEEs, these contexts ideally support the sustainability-orientation of the ecosystem.
The sustainable development paradigm, for instance, is primarily induced by political decision-
makers. Such an institutional context is needed for sustainable actors to enhance sustainability
transformation on different levels. Awareness of or experiences with problems in the broader
societal and environmental environment increases the opportunity recognition of individuals. The
temporal focus is not only put on present days, but on a volatile, complex, and uncertain future,
which must take future generations and natural environments into consideration. Social and
environmental entrepreneurship as related concepts also falls under the umbrella of different
contexts. Although they are adjacent concepts, they are themselves embedded in other, more
specific contexts.
The pillar Complexity refers to entrepreneurial ecosystems as both static but comprehensive
configuration of elements and dynamic aspects regarding its dynamic and adaptive nature,
meaning, for instance, that the emphasis of constituting elements might differ between different
types of ecosystems. Analogous to other kinds of EEs, SEEs show a distinct configuration of
elements which might have a different emphasis and strength in response to the sustainability
orientation. These configurations might also change over time; literature speaks here of
entrepreneurial ecosystem lifecycles. Besides, coupling the sustainable entrepreneurship process
with triple bottom lines of goals and objectives may lead to a more complex entrepreneurial reality
also encompassing trade-offs and other obstacles when doing business.
The pillar Geography comprises the assumption that entrepreneurial activity is a locational
phenomenon. Hence, resources that are needed by entrepreneurs and other actors within an EE
September 29, 2020 47/82
are region-specifically mobilized, developed, and used. The geographical boundedness of EEs
goes hand in hand with a spatial concentration of resources. Positive effects relate to knowledge
spillover effects between different actors and elements. Adverse effects might involve gaps
between regions caused by different access to resources. In the case of SEEs, place-based
resources must be sustainability-oriented. The realization of a successful entrepreneurial business
is highly contingent on these resources.
The fourth pillar, Agency, relates, on the one hand, to the individual and collective actors operating
in an EE, and comprises, on the other hand, their role in the emergence and development of EEs.
According to the literature, EEs develop through the activities of actors. In addition, also
evolutionary dynamics play a significant role. In SEEs, agency is highly connected with a
pronounced sustainability-orientation of actors. In this regard, the emergence and development of
SEEs is also a mix of visible and invisible hands.
The Network pillar takes support and collaboration of stakeholders into account. Furthermore, this
pillar addresses the interdependencies and interactions between EE elements and actors. EEs
follow a multi-stakeholder approach with the entrepreneur in the center. Various forms of
stakeholder involvement might either encompass active forms of collaboration or passive forms of
support. In SEEs, stakeholder involvement is driven by a strong sustainability focus. It is of high
importance not only to the focal entrepreneurs but to all actors in the field, to build up a strong
stakeholder community with a shared ambition towards sustainable development. In line with this,
the realization of a successful entrepreneurial venture can be perceived as a collective effort.
The last pillar, Governance, deals with topics around the coordination and regulation of EEs,
aiming specifically at formal and informal institutions. In any EE, formal institutions have a role in
advocating entrepreneurship by creating conducive framework conditions. Informal institutions, in
turn, influence entrepreneurial culture to a considerable extent. In the case of SEEs, the
importance of formal and informal institutions is predominant. Literature suggests that sustainable
entrepreneurship needs to be anchored in governmental, economic, and educational institutions,
whereas culture should consider both entrepreneurial and sustainability aspects.
Concluding, SEEs differ from EEs primarily through the strong alignment with the sustainability
imperative on the pillars of context, complexity, geography, agency, network, and governance.
SEEs fulfill the overall characteristics as stated in the column Entrepreneurial Ecosystems but
differ in the detailing elements highlighted in the column Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.
The theoretical framework serves as the major guidance for the subsequent qualitative research
process (see chapters 3 and 4).
September 29, 2020 48/82
3. Methodology
This chapter starts with the chosen research philosophy, which is an appropriate step to
understand the subsequent choices concerning qualitative research design fully. A detailed
introduction follows concerning data collection and analysis techniques applied to the thesis at
hand.
Research Philosophy
Among the five research philosophies in business and management research (termed as
positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism, and pragmatism), the author follows an
interpretivist approach. The reason for addressing this topic in the thesis is that research
philosophy underpins the entire research process fundamentally. It shapes the author’s research
questions, methodological choices, the techniques for data collection and analysis, and how
findings are interpreted (Saunders et al., 2019). In this regard, research philosophy “refers to a
system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge.” (Saunders et al., 2019:
130) It involves ontological assumptions about the nature of the world and the reality,
epistemological beliefs about what constitutes knowledge, and axiological assumptions regarding
how far own values influence the research process.
Regarding ontology, interpretivism assumes that humans continuously create different meanings,
interpretations, and realities as they are in a constant flux of processes and experiences. Hence,
reality is socially constructed and increasingly complex. Concerning epistemology, theories, and
concepts are too limited in depicting the complexity and differences of social realities, making it
necessary to include narratives, stories, perceptions, and interpretations of individuals into
research. This leads to an enrichment in understandings and worldviews. From an axiological
point of view, the researcher brings in value-bound, subjectivist interpretations, and is not
detached from those being researched.
Interpretivism follows a clear subjectivist orientation. In this sense, social reality is not externally
given and independent from an individual’s view as in the case of objectivism, but “is made from
the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors (people).” (Saunders et al., 2019: 137)
This necessitates for researchers “to study a situation in detail, including […] contexts in order to
understand what is happening or how realities are being experienced.” Hence, the role of
subjectivist researchers is to understand the different experiences and realities of the actors in
focus. By taking an empathetic standpoint, “[t]he challenge for the interpretivist is to enter the
social world of the research participants and understand that world from their point of view.”
(Saunders et al., 2019: 149)
Setting the previous in reference to the thesis at hand, it is not only the sustainable entrepreneur
or other actors within an entrepreneurial ecosystem that are highly influenced by the multiple
contexts, they are embedded in. Also, the author of the thesis is affected by contextual factors as
she is an active part of the research process. Hence, both the units of analysis in focus and the
author of the thesis make subjectivist sense and meaning of their realities. To fully understand the
needs and requirements of actors in terms of a conducive sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem,
it is relevant to ask the research participants about their perceptions, views, and stances.
Regarding the role of the author’s values in the research process, the selection of literature, the
conducted literature review, the design of the research instrument, and the realization of interviews
was made mainly as objective as possible. Though, the author was not neutral or detached in
September 29, 2020 49/82
terms of the own world view and experiences. Nevertheless, the author tried to take a reflexive
stance and to continually question her own beliefs and assumptions.
Qualitative Research Design
Research design is a guiding plan of coherent steps towards answering the research questions
(Saunders et al., 2019). It is informed by the underpinning research philosophy of interpretivism
(see subchapter 3.1.) as the thesis aims at making “sense of the subjective and socially
constructed meanings expressed about the phenomenon being studied.” (Saunders et al., 2019:
179) By empirically exploring the phenomenon of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, the
goal is to develop a theoretical contribution to the subject in focus – in this case, to sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem research.
Consequently, qualitative research draws on specific data collection techniques and analysis
procedures which seek to derive meanings from words and images. These techniques stand in
contrast to quantitative research designs gathering and analyzing numerical data. Regarding data
collection, a mono method qualitative study constitutes the methodological choice. Accordingly,
the applied data collection technique concerns the type of semi-structured interview. The outcome
of the conducted interviews is non-standardized data, which necessitates using specific analytical
procedures. Participant selection happened based on non-probability sampling. In the case of the
thesis, heterogenous purposive sampling was undertaken. The time horizon of the thesis is cross-
sectional, which involves “the study of a particular phenomenon at a particular time” (Saunders et
al., 2019: 212). In this case, data collection (i.e., conducting interviews) happened in a timeframe
of five days, which, in contrast to longitudinal studies, only represents a snapshot at a specific
point in time.
In line with the foregoing, the next sub-sections deal with a detailed presentation of the data
collection techniques and analysis procedures applied to the thesis at hand.
3.2.1. Data Collection
Selection of Participants
The population of interest comprises all actors within any sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Due to the limited scope in terms of time to finalize the thesis and access to potential interviewees,
it was necessary to delineate a target population consisting of all actors within sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems in Austria, focusing on the regions of Vienna and Upper Austria. The
reason for the explicit regional emphasis is the fact that the author of the thesis could make use
of the personal network in this field, which was enlarged by snowballing recommendations. The
sample was drawn from the target population and stands therefore in direct relation to it. Hence,
a sample is a preselected subset that is manageable in size. (Saunders et al., 2019) In the case
of the thesis, a suitable sample size was determined with six participants.
Under the umbrella of non-probability sampling fall the techniques of purposive sampling. It is
characterized by using “your judgment to select cases that will best enable you to answer your
research question(s) and to meet your objectives” (Saunders et al., 2019: 321). Remarkably,
purposive (or judgemental) sampling techniques are not statistically representative of the target
population, which makes it necessary to select information-rich cases. This is also in line with the
September 29, 2020 50/82
statement that “qualitative research is not necessarily intended to be replicated because it will
reflect the socially constructed interpretations of participants in a particular setting at the time it is
conducted.” (Saunders et al., 2019: 216) In the context of the thesis, the subtype of heterogeneous
sampling was chosen. Consequently, it was the author’s choice “to choose participants with
sufficiently diverse characteristics to provide the maximum variation possible in the data collected.”
(Saunders et al., 2019: 321) This technique allows identifying key themes that can be derived
based on the selected data collection method.
The characteristics with maximum variation in the context of sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems was derived from the actual functions and roles of different actors operating in the
targeted sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The orientation framework for selecting useful
and credible participants is based on the stakeholder model suggested by Bischoff and Volkmann
(2018), which was explained in section 2.2.3. Figure 21 shows the model with the allocation of the
study participants to the respective actor groups.
In line with the precedent depiction of the stakeholder framework for SEEs, Table 7 gives a
detailed overview of the selected participants of the study. Subsequently, the author provides not
only detailed background information about the participants but also the reasons why the author
perceives the single individuals as valid contributors to the study at hand.
Figure 21: SEE stakeholder framework (Bischoff & Volkmann, 2018) - with additional notes concerning study participants (own remarks)
September 29, 2020 51/82
Participant Gender Age Range Assigned Group of Actors
Actor Organization
Current Function in
Actor Organization
Spatial Focus
Participant A Female 30-40 Incubators & Accelerators
Impact Hub Vienna GmbH
Managing Director
Vienna
Participant B Male 40-50 Sustainable
Entrepreneur
ENOMICS E-Charging
Technology GmbH
Managing Director, Co-
Founder
Based in Vienna / not
geographically bounded
Participant C Female 30-40 Sustainable
Entrepreneur
Wohnbuddy / WGE! – Gemeinsam
Wohnen Co-Founder
Vienna/Lower Austria
Participant D Male 30-40 Business Partner
i-LOG Integrated Logistics GmbH
(attached to Schachinger Logistik
Holding GmbH)
Project Manager for Energy
Efficiency and Mobility
Upper Austria/Vienna
Participant E Male 30-40 Financial Institution
Private Foundation Impact Investor Vienna
Participant F Male 30-40 Financial Institution
AWS Austria Wirtschaftsservice
GmbH
Head of Entrepreneurship
and Creative Industries
Based in Vienna / National Focus
Table 7: Selection of study participants
Accordingly, two female and four male persons have been gained for the empirical part, all of them
between age 30 and 50. Most of the actors, respectively, actor organizations, are based in Vienna.
However, the geographical focus might be larger than one distinct region due to the purpose and
scope of the single organizations.
Participant A is the managing director of Impact Hub Vienna. Due to her longstanding experience,
she is a suitable contributor. Founded in 2009, Impact Hub Vienna is “a community of
entrepreneurs, freelancers, investors, corporates, and BGs to work on socially impactful business
ideas” and is part of a broader regional, national, and global network (Impact Hub Vienna, 2019).
It enables social innovation and collaboration by hosting a co-working and event space,
accelerator programs, and a strong network of partners from various backgrounds. Initially born
as a platform for social entrepreneurship, it became increasingly relevant in recent years to expand
the scope towards environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship. Therefore, due to its
intermediary role as actor, driver, and operator within an existing entrepreneurial ecosystem, the
Impact Hub Vienna represents a valid contribution to the study.
Two sustainable entrepreneurs participated in the study. One of them (Participant C) is a co-
founder of Wohnbuddy, which is carried by a non-profit association based in Vienna. Wohnbuddy
is a platform mediating vacant living space between young & old and creates thereby an affordable
and lasting form of living together between generations. Although the business model has a strong
September 29, 2020 52/82
social focus (intragenerational co-living), it integrates ecological (i.e., utilization of vacant space)
and economic (i.e., financial operability) aspects.
The second sustainable entrepreneur (Participant B) is the co-managing director of ENOMICS,
which develops, produces, and provides electric charging technology. As a market-oriented
enterprise with a green business model, it also involves social dimensions (e.g., ENOMICS
produces at manufacturing workshops inclusive of people with disabilities in Lower Austria).
Hence, both representatives, marked as Participants B and C, are considered suitable choices for
sustainable entrepreneurs operating along the triple bottom line of social, ecological, and
economic objectives.
Schachinger Logistik is a family-owned large company in holistic logistics solutions for various
sectors and industries. Notably, sustainability is one of Schachinger’s core principles, which the
company integrates into social and environmental agendas. Through i-LOG representing the
research wing of Schachinger Logistik, the company participates in several research projects with
various partners (e.g., start-ups, universities, established small and large companies) in the field
of renewable energy and mobility. The project manager, who is, i.a., responsible for the successful
handling and coordination of these projects, participated in the study (Participant D) and provided
valuable insights from the vantage point of a green goliath (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).
Participant E is a potential impact investor with first experiences who, together with his family,
represents a family-owned private foundation. He invested already in a selected project, which
makes this person an extending part of the study. Impact investments are “made with the intention
to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”
(GIIN, 2020). In this regard, private foundations, as distinct types of financial supporters, dedicate
their resources to impact investing.
Participant F has a leading role at Austria Wirtschaftsservice (AWS), the promotional bank for
innovation and growth of the Austrian federal government. It provides supports in setting up an
enterprise, i.a., by accessing soft loans, grants, or guarantees. Against the background of holding
various functions and roles within purpose-driven entrepreneurial ecosystems (he is also one of
the co-founders and former co-managing director of Impact Hub Vienna), Participant F has long-
time expertise in the field of social, environmental, and sustainable entrepreneurship. In his current
position as Head of Entrepreneurship and Creative Industries, he integrated impact into the
specific AWS funding opportunity Creative Impact. The grant targets companies in the foundation
and small- or medium-sized enterprises that engage in the development of innovative products,
services, or processes, e.g., in the field of social impact. The establishment of this grant reflects
the increase in applications in the areas of sustainability and entrepreneurship. Hence, based on
his function and the programs launched by the respective department, Participant F can positively
contribute in various ways to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews serve as sources for data collection (Saunders et al., 2019). This
research instrument commences with a predetermined list of themes (i.e., topics) derived from the
initial literature review (see chapter 2). On this basis, key questions were developed.
September 29, 2020 53/82
Table 8 depicts the interview guideline, including the major themes and key questions.
Step 1: Briefing of the participant before the interview
(1) Welcoming
(2) Introductory presentation of the thesis (including the purpose of study, general topic, research question(s),
basic definitions of SE and SEE)
(3) Remarks concerning audio-recording, notetaking, use of data, and anonymity
Step 2: Conducting the interview
Theme (Topic) Questions
Theme 1:
Configurational elements and factors of
SEEs
Q1: From your perspective, which elements and factors are
there in existing sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems to
support and enable sustainable entrepreneurship?
Q2: From your perspective, which elements and factors are
missing in existing sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems to
support and enable sustainable entrepreneurship?
Repeating Theme 1, including Q1 and Q2, by
showing and explaining a primary model
concerning the configuration of
entrepreneurial ecosystems provided by
Stam and Van de Ven (2019) – see Figure 12
Q3: From your perspective, which elements and factors are
there in existing sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems to
support and enable sustainable entrepreneurship?
Q4: From your perspective, which elements and factors are
missing in existing sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems to
support and enable sustainable entrepreneurship?
Theme 2:
Roles in and contribution to SEEs
Q5: From the perspective of an actor’s representative within a
SEE, how would you define or describe your function(s) and
role(s)?
Q6: From the perspective of an actor’s representative within a
SEE, what is the actor’s contribution to a SEE?
Theme 3:
Resume
Q7: What would it take to create or develop an ideal
entrepreneurial ecosystem for sustainable entrepreneurship?
Step 3: Closing of the interview
(1) Ask for remaining questions
(2) Clarify the use of data and anonymity
(3) Thank interviewee for participation
Table 8: Interview guideline (own depiction)
The briefing part (Step 1) contained the welcoming of participants, an introduction into the thesis,
and informed consent regarding the collection and use of data. It aimed at creating a trustworthy
atmosphere for the participants to answer openly and honestly.
While conducting the interviews (Step 2), the interviewer (i.e., the author of the thesis) stuck widely
to the predefined questions throughout the conduct of the interviews. This ensures consistency
and allows for comparable and valid data when testing the theoretical framework. Additional
questions were asked to some of the interviewees but only in cases when it was necessary to ask
for background or contextual information (see above-mentioned sub-section about the selection
September 29, 2020 54/82
of participants), or when a crucial topic popped up (in this case, the importance of a specific topic
was based on the interviewer’s subjective judgment). This is in line with the interpretivist
philosophical approach, which allows “to be more flexible and contingent on what each participant
says” (Saunders et al., 2019: 438).
The closing of the interview (Step 3) comprised room for open questions from the participants, a
final clarification of the use of data, and concluding remarks.
All the six interviews took place on a one-to-one basis on the Internet (via the digital conferencing
platform Zoom). They were audio-recorded in German with the consent of the individual
participants. Besides, the interviewer took both content-related and contextual notes. Whereas
content-related information sets the basis for the subsequent task of analyzing data, contextual
data refers to the background information of the interview. (Saunders et al., 2019) In terms of the
use of data and anonymity, the interviewer agreed with the individual participants to omit the
personal names. It is allowed by informed consent to mention gender, function(s) and role(s), and
the focal organization.
Table 9 shows the contextual data assigned to each of the participants, including the location of
the interview, date and time, setting, and the author’s impression about the course of the interview.
Participant Location of Interview
Date, Time, Duration
Setting Author’s Impression
Participant A Online (via Zoom) Sep 08, 2020
4.30 p.m. 00:53:21
Quiet atmosphere, no interruptions
Familiar with concepts of SE, EE, SE; very profound insights
into various topics
Participant B Online (via Zoom) Sep 10, 2020
8.30 a.m., 00:24:17
Quiet atmosphere, no interruptions
Was not familiar with the concept of EE, SEE; answered
openly; sustainable entrepreneur who faces trade-offs along 3BL
Participant C Online (via Zoom) Sep 10, 2020
9.30 a.m., 00:35:49
Quiet atmosphere, initially internet
connection problems
Familiar with concepts of SE, EE, SE; a perfect example for a
sustainable entrepreneur operating along the 3BL
Participant D Online (via Zoom) Sep 10, 2020 10.30 a.m., 00:21:41
Quiet atmosphere, initially internet
connection problems
Was not familiar with concepts of EE, SEE; answers reflect his professional background in a large established company
Participant E Online (via Zoom) Sep 10, 2020
5 p.m., 00:28:09
Quiet atmosphere, no interruptions
Familiar with concepts of SE, EE, SEE; well-reflected answers
from an impact investor’s perspective
Participant F Online (via Zoom)
Sep 11, 2020
10 am, 00:16:38
Quiet atmosphere, no interruptions
Familiar with concepts of SE, EE, SE; high-quality responses due to long-term expertise in the
fields of SE and SEE
Table 9: Contextual interview data (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 55/82
3.2.2. Data Analysis
Analyzing qualitative data requires profound data preparation. With regard to the previous section,
all the interviews were audio-recorded. Only those sections in the audio-recordings were
transcribed that were identified by the author to be relevant for the research. This approach has
the advantage of reducing time but involves careful listening to the audio file to fully grasp the
content. Additionally, it triggers the risk of missing some aspects of the interview, which required
the author to listen to the audio files more than once. The whole process of data preparation
increases familiarity with the data, which is a prerequisite for subsequent data analysis. (Saunders
et al., 2019)
Microsoft Office Excel was used to transfer the audio data into written form (the file is attached via
USB stick to an analog copy of the thesis available at the Institute of Innovation Management,
Johannes Kepler University Linz). As displayed in Figure 22, column A comprises the posed
question following the interview guideline (see section 3.3.1.). In this example taken from the
original Excel file, column H contains notes in German put down during the conduct of the
interview. Column J captures the quotes in German, which are pertinent to the research, including
the timestamps taken from the audio files. Quotes are reflected in column I, which holds the core
statements derived from the quotes. The core statements entail the principal themes addressed
by the interviewees and, subsequently, served as guidance during data analysis. The connection
between the core statement(s) and respective quote(s) was marked by sequential numbering in
the respective cells.
During data analysis, translating the verbatim statements from German to English, respectively
paraphrasing these quotations into English, happened simultaneously to writing the analysis
section. Each quote was considered individually and evaluated concerning the affiliation to one of
the six pillars of the theoretical framework developed in subchapter 2.4. (i.e., context, complexity,
geography, agency, network, governance).
In the next step, quotes were assigned to the single themes subordinated to the topic of
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems according to the theoretical framework. Quotes that fitted
the themes subordinated to the topic of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems were included in the analysis
part when it contained important information enriching sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. If
a transcribed quote could not fulfill the criteria of any of the six pillars, it was not considered in the
analysis section, but remained in the Excel file. Those quotes which were included in the analysis
Figure 22: Extract from interview transcription (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 56/82
section were highlighted in italic and marked with the respective author of the quote and the
timestamp of the audio file. In line with the chosen interpretivist research philosophy, quotations
of participants are intensely used in the results section of the thesis (see section 4) to fully take
account of the subjectivist perceptions, interpretations, and views verbally expressed by the
interviewees.
This procedure helped to assort the selected quotes into clusters that offer the basis or a profound
thematic analysis. In this sense, thematic analysis helps to comprehend qualitative data sets, to
identify themes and patterns for further exploration, and to subsequently draw conclusions
(Saunders et al., 2019).
September 29, 2020 57/82
4. Results
This section deals with the results of the conducted empirical data collection and analysis
procedures. The first six sub-sections of this chapter correspond with the pillars developed in the
theoretical framework (see subchapter 2.4.). They contain the core statements of the interviews
substantiated by the respective quotes shared by the interviewees.
The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework. For this, the theoretical framework will be
further developed by taking the findings from the analysis into account.
Context
The interviews confirm that context is a vital factor for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Accordingly, contextual factors influence the significance and understanding of sustainable
development in general and the flow of this concept into the entrepreneurial ecosystem field.
The item ‘inter- and intragenerational orientation/sustainability transformation’ equates not only
with a temporal orientation of a SEE comprising the present and the future but also with the shared
ambition of actors to promote sustainability transformation in society and economy. The latter was
addressed by one participant who highlighted the significance of long-term transformation and
changes towards a world that is in sync with environmental and societal needs.
And what I think is very relevant, it needs a social change. Because this issue of
sustainable development is closely interwoven with a rethink in society about what our
values are, what the economy needs, or what society needs. And now, I often think that
we live in a society that serves the economy and not the other way around. And shouldn't
it be the other way around? That the economy serves society? There must be a very strong
rethinking of what is a priority, and that profit should not have the primacy. (Participant C,
00:31:54)
But at the same time, I think that these huge issues around social and environmental
challenges cannot be left to private individuals; industry and politics must also set the
standards. And above all, the industry itself must implement these targets and have the
will to change. It simply needs a will to change on the part of society. (Participant C,
00:32:55)
The item ‘topic of sustainable development leads to recognition of sustainability opportunities’ was
mentioned by two participants. Participant A sees opportunity beliefs triggered through school or
university programs. In contrast, Participant E identifies personal conviction, or a personal pain
point as pivotal for a first spark to become a sustainable entrepreneur.
What it takes is awareness and inspiration around sustainability issues, i.e., it takes a
specific anchor point to say this is something I want to pursue. University programs or
September 29, 2020 58/82
school programs that link entrepreneurship with sustainability or the Sustainable
Development Goals will undoubtedly help. It's essential to open the mindset for these
topics and show that this is also a possible way forward instead of a purely traditional
career path. (Participant A, part I, 00:04:40)
A conviction, a personal connection, or a personal pain point - successful sustainable
entrepreneurs are people who are themselves affected by an environmental or social
problem or challenge. (Participant E, 00:07:21)
The item ‘social and environmental entrepreneurship as related concepts’ comes forth in the
interviews with both sustainable entrepreneurs. Although Participant B follows a green-oriented
business model, this person matched the definition of a sustainable entrepreneur acting along the
triple bottom line of economic, environmental, and social goals. Though the entrepreneur’s self-
conception differed from it and the term sustainable entrepreneurship, as used in this thesis, was
unknown to the day of the interview. Instead, during the interview, Participant B was continuously
referring to green or environmental entrepreneurship.
If we help more people to become green faster through our products, then we have already
won. (Participant B, 00:20:49)
In contrast, Participant C was intensely familiar with the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship.
For her, the term sustainable is an internalized expression which she uses consistently. Hence,
she forwent the term social during the interview, although Wohnbuddy implements a business
model with a primarily social focus.
In line with this, Participant A states that not only entrepreneurs developed a new self-conception
in recent years, but also organizations broadened their scope and acknowledge contextual
frameworks, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, aiming at a broader understanding
and internalization of sustainability.
A thematic refocusing is also owed to the SGDs. So far, we have simply said that social
innovation was the big topic, and that's where every social or environmental idea was
subordinated. And now there are the SDGs - that is of course, a congenial framework, and
it is also a matter of saying which SDGs are relevant for Austria, and on which ones do we
focus as Impact Hub. (Participant A, part II, 00.20:54)
One aspect that was raised during one interview deals with a specific socioeconomic context for
sustainable entrepreneurship that needs to be established. Accordingly, a high level of
socioeconomic prosperity supports the emergence of sustainable ventures. This financial
endowment on a macro level is also reflected in the financial endowments on a micro (individual)
and meso (organizational) level, which will be addressed in the section of the Geography pillar.
Another factor is a certain level of prosperity, a certain slack, in society. I believe that
sustainable entrepreneurship in a precarious society, where people don't have much time
and other resources to deal with more than what is necessary, then, I believe, you won't
find enough people who are committed to this. Financial resources, economically speaking,
September 29, 2020 59/82
or at least on an individual level, are essential. A successful sustainable entrepreneur could
move more freely than someone who must fight for his food. (Participant E, 00:06:04)
Complexity
Concerning the point ‘unique SEE configuration in response to sustainability imperative’, it became
apparent during the interviews that the model developed by Stam (2015) and Stam and Van de
Ven (2018; 2019) – see section 2.2.2. – stays valid also for SEEs. All elements of institutional
arrangements (i.e., formal institutions, culture, networks) and resource endowments (i.e., physical
infrastructure, demand, intermediaries, talent, knowledge, leadership, finance) were mentioned by
each of the participants but with different emphasis concerning their perceptions and experiences.
In the entire results part, those elements are put under a closer look, which showed noteworthy
findings, such as formal institutions, culture, or finance.
The item ‘coupling of sustainable entrepreneurship process with triple bottom line’ was mainly
addressed by Participant B, the sustainable entrepreneur with a green business model. He stated
that the triple bottom line approach leads inevitably to trade-offs between economic,
environmental, and social objectives - especially in the case when an entrepreneur runs a
business that has a clear market- and costumer-focus and is contingent on upstream business
partners in the supply network.
You cannot force people to buy sustainable products. If I run a sustainable company, then
I am dependent on the products. I can be a sustainable entrepreneur, but I gain nothing if
I can't sell my products. (Participant B, 00:06:20)
When I start a company, the economic factor is crucial. The ecological aspect is considered
as much as possible. But, to be honest, we are significantly affected by the financial
aspects. (Participant B, 00:06:53)
In the charging infrastructure industry, it is not always possible [to remain ecologically
sustainable] because you are also buying products and materials. They have specific
industry standards. Once you are inside a product chain, you are dependent on suppliers.
And changing these chains is a very, very big effort. But I always have the ecological
bubble on the radar. (Participant B, 00:07:28)
Nevertheless, he tries to make sustainability-oriented adjustments as far as they lie within the
range of his possibilities as a sustainable entrepreneur.
What you can do is, you decide on a different material, e.g., aluminum - because they say
it is durable. What you can also control is the place of production and at what wages you
produce. At ENOMICS, we made a conscious decision to manufacture in Austria, even
though all the consultants told us to go to Romania or Bulgaria or China, where production
September 29, 2020 60/82
is much cheaper. But then we looked for a production possibility in Austria, which also
meets social aspects, and we ended up at the Geschützte Werkstätten in St. Pölten.
(Participant B, 00:08:26)
Due to the high complexity in following a triple bottom line of goals, sustainable entrepreneurs are
at risk to endanger their own well-being conditions.
And there are also themes that run through these entrepreneurial journeys. A lot is also
about personal development, well-being, how can I avoid burn out. Because often, if you
pursue several goals - not only profit and social issues or profit and green issues - and
then you are still on fire for them, you are relatively young and have little experience, there
is a danger behind it. And this is also an area that is only developing in this way and where
you only now realize that it actually needs it because many people have not pursued their
businesses further even after burnout. (Participant A, part I, 00:08:52)
Geography
Regarding the ‘provision of place-based sustainability-oriented resources’, there is, according to
some of the interviewees, a noticeable gap between urban and rural regions. A strong focus on
resource provision and allocation is put on cities (with Vienna as the most advantaged area in
Austria). Therefore, participants expressed the need to catch up in non-urban regions, for
instance, how to attract and sustain talent respectively to build up a first-quality informational and
technological infrastructure that allows for the migration of ventures’ products or services into the
digital space. Another argument was brought up with regard to programs, events, and workshops.
In rural areas, sustainable start-ups are certainly another challenge. (Participant D,
00:08:20)
There are many incubator or accelerator programs in Vienna and workshops. But there are
less offerings on a regional level. That is also something where there is certainly still a
need to catch up. (Participant A, part I, 00:07:17)
One resource category that was highlighted in the interviews concerns the access of sustainable
entrepreneurs to financial endowments. Multiple sources are available, such as financial support
from informal networks, public grants, and private investments.
And then, of course, there is the issue of financing. But in the case of sustainable
entrepreneurship, financing is not only about investments, especially at the beginning,
because there are rarely investors who invest large sums of money in a very fresh start-
up. Sometimes these are also loans or crowdfunding campaigns or support from the
network. Many of the founders who are with us in the networks say that the first financing
comes from friends and family, and only subsequently comes from banks. Much further
down the line, it comes from investors, but then you need a case that will survive in the
September 29, 2020 61/82
market, you need to have specific numbers, etc. Especially in the beginning, it is often a
lot of self-financing or friends or family. But there is also, and this is also important, social
banking, e.g., from Erste Bank. This is a separate institution that deals only with social and
ecological start-ups. Interestingly, they have also expanded their focus: designed initially
purely for social issues, they are now expanding their focus towards the Sustainable
Development Goals. (Participant A, part I, 00:07:32)
In Austria, grants, loans, and investments focusing on sustainable entrepreneurship are only at a
nascent stage.
There are already rudimentarily single philanthropic institutions or philanthropically
oriented persons. There is a bank that offers loans; there are the first established investors,
as well as support programs from the state and private sector. (Participant F, 00:01:38)
When one speaks of real investments, there is a lack of a capital market. The capital market
is a huge problem, especially in Austria and Europe. There is simply not enough money in
the various phases of an innovation-driven company to grow. (Participant E, 00:09:14)
Remarkably, there is a difference between philanthropic capital and investment capital for which
the investor expects returns from the investee.
It needs much more philanthropic capital, also compared to other countries. In Germany,
for example, all charitable foundations distribute around 200 EUR per inhabitant and year.
But in Austria, it is only 3 to 4 EUR. Philanthropic capital is already present in a first, tiny
scale, but it needs much more. An early-stage ecosystem, in which the ecosystem cannot
finance itself via the markets, needs patient and risk capital, and perhaps also one that
does not have to be paid back. (Participant F, 00:04:34)
Public fundings remain an essential source for financing sustainable entrepreneurs and their
activities. They are of significant relevance to finance life during the start-up phase of
entrepreneurial ventures.
One must also start with national and regional public funding agencies. For example, there
are special funding offers for sustainable entrepreneurs. Because in the end, what most
people lack is time. Time to implement their ideas. And with time comes money. You must
be able to finance your life in the time it takes to build up your business. These are the
things I see that often make a venture fail. Because then people are forced to go back to
a regular life in which you work 30 to 40 hours per week in a regular job. But besides that,
realistically, you can't seriously build a sustainable business. You must go to events that
are during the day. You must take care of your clients during the day, and you can't just do
it in the evening or only on the weekend. It just doesn't work that way. (Participant C,
00:10:36)
The examples mentioned above are some of the resources required by sustainable
entrepreneurship, which directly relate to the item ‘realization of successful sustainable
businesses (resource-based perspective)’. Hence, sustainability-oriented actors mobilizing and
granting resources contribute positively to the capacity-building of SEEs.
September 29, 2020 62/82
‘Creative Impact’ of the AWS is a program with accompanying measures aiming at a
positive impact on the ecosystem, e.g., by presenting individual projects, connecting actors
with each other, offering workshops, or cooperating with stakeholders who offer
workshops. In sum, it is about promoting capacity building in the ecosystem. (Participant
F, 00:11:08)
One topic that came up in some of the interviews relates to impact and performance measurement.
It turned out that it is under dispute what is understood under the term impact, how the impact is
measured, and how this, in turn, relates to traditional forms of performance measurement such as
KPI or ROI. Interviewees agree that ventures must sustain financially, but nevertheless, if an
enterprise is explicitly sustainability-oriented, then measurement tools have to reflect it. This helps
to increase comparability and transparency of instruments on financial markets and in financial
institutions.
And the next question is, of course, what is impact? This requires an impact measurement
tool, which, to my knowledge, is not undisputed - when is impact impact? Do you only
measure the output of an organization, or do you measure the change you want to cause?
e.g., CO2 savings or biodiversity in %. This is, of course, a complicated topic. It would be
ideal if every investor or every bank could calculate on a piece of paper just like when you
invest in a share or a property - that would bring me this return or value. Because then it
would be much easier to compare it with other targets. (Participant E, 00:24:28)
But I think we have to get away from the idea that the only KPI is profit. They have to be
financially sustainable, and they have to be able to finance themselves over a more
extended period. Otherwise, you have a problem as a company. But you don't have to
make high profits or returns; you have to measure returns differently. If I invest there, I get
two or three percent interest, so maybe still a little bit more than at the bank. But I haven't
emitted that much CO2 per year. Or I have given so many children, who usually have no
access to education, access to education. Or I have integrated so many homeless people
into the job market. So I think there must be other standards or KPIs as well. And they
have to be included in investment decisions but also in government decisions. (Participant
A, part II, 00:16:36)
And it needs a standard and agreed definition of how much "return on impact" is. Because
if you would have that, and if everyone would accept it, you could approach the capital
market and finance yourself in the same way as other companies do." (Participant E,
00:23:16)
One point that will always come up is undoubtedly the topic of investments and financing.
Simply because sustainable entrepreneurship naturally measures with a different measure
than classic startups. And because the same profit rates cannot be assumed because we
have several goals and therefore, it is less interesting for classical investors. An impact
investment scene has developed over the last years, but it is still relatively small. The sums
are also minimal in comparison. And even if you look at it now: what is the ministry doing
in times of Corona, they now have a start-up commissioner and a team, but they mainly
promote digital innovations and things that make coal, and they don't have a focus on
September 29, 2020 63/82
sustainable entrepreneurship now. They are already publishing a report, but it has little to
do with entrepreneurship. I think there is still a lot of development potential there. But there
is still a lot of information and clarity to be created: what do I measure at all? And the
investors must be not only profit-oriented but also quasi sustainability-oriented. In other
words, I invest in a better world and get a certain return, but a much lower return than if I
invest in a company that doesn't even look at people or planet. (Participant A, part I,
00:13:08)
What also needs to be considered is the factor of time. In this sense, impact may need a longer
time than financial returns to become evident.
When I look at investors in Austria: there are so few investors who invest impact-driven
and do not think economically. Of course, you have to think economically, but where the
focus is on impact and not on return on investment. And that people do invest, even if they
know that the next five years will be relatively slow. But in the long term, it is simply vital
for society that it is done. And it just takes a while to see the impact. (Participant C,
00:29:19)
In line with this, fast growth in terms of scale and profit might be counterproductive when the
direction should go towards long-term sustainability.
Sustainable entrepreneurship is also a topic that can lead to a rethink: certain things simply
take time. Especially when you launch a new product on the market. This whole start-up
mentality, which only aims to sell the product in the shortest possible time and make as
much money as possible - I think you have to say goodbye to that, too. And that kind of
mentality shouldn't be something worth striving for. (Participant C, 00:30:10)
Though, in general, growth is not perceived as adverse; instead, it is also relevant for sustainable
ventures.
It does not have to be just small start-ups. They can also be sustainable start-ups that are
scalable and can grow. (Participant A, part II, 00:16:36)
Agency
The item ‘pronounced sustainability orientation of all actors’ was a central topic to all interviewees.
Sustainability orientation is reflected in the primary activities of the single actors (e.g., financial
institutions offering impact investments or entrepreneurs implementing sustainable business
models). In the case of large companies who were not born sustainably, but integrated
sustainability into their business models over time, sustainability orientation becomes a strict
requirement in their business processes and activities.
September 29, 2020 64/82
Our customers demand the integration of sustainability practices, and we require
sustainability principles from our business partners. (Participant D, 00:14:11)
In line with the previous is the fact that sustainable entrepreneurship can have an important
influence on the sustainability orientation of large incumbent firms. In this context, the topic of
sustainable intrapreneurship gains increasing attention. This is about convincing large companies
to enter the SEE and provide engagement opportunities with sustainable actors in the ecosystem.
This links to the Network pillar.
What I find a fascinating topic and where there is still little is Sustainable Intrapreneurship:
How do I get larger organizations to rethink? There is still very little. And there are some
stimulating approaches that could give us more leverage. (Participant A, part I, 00:16:42)
I believe that sustainable entrepreneurs should become examples for all organizations.
They could teach the other organizations how to live a triple bottom line. And what
innovations do you have to make to get that right? And how do you have to rethink or
perhaps restructure internally? (Participant A, part II, 00:19:53)
Sustainability orientation is also present in the plethora of roles actors take or develop throughout
their journeys. Through engaging in various roles, actors, in turn, influence the sustainability
orientation of new or existing stakeholders in the field.
On the one hand, you are a pioneer, a forward thinker, a visionary. In the context of Vienna,
also a city maker. A sustainable entrepreneur is also somehow a stimulator. Organizations
may start to think about doing something new or think about their existing processes. You
are also inspiring for many other people because you realize your idea. When you build up
an organization that is strongly value-oriented, you are very much reflected. That way, you
can also help other people who want to do something similar. You are indeed a mentor
and consultant. And when you submit funding applications - you also confront those who
make the selection with entirely new ideas. (Participant C, 00:19:34)
Remarkably, not only sustainable entrepreneurs are hereby addressed. Also, actors in financial
institutions identify additional roles beyond the mere function of providing monetary support.
Though, these different roles are not obligatory and depend highly on the personality of the
respective actor.
However, an impact investor is also a gateway or a potential business partner. He should
at least give feedback on your business model. A good impact investor should also facilitate
access to customers, not necessarily grant it because he might not be in the field, but the
investor can open doors. He is also an accelerator, maybe not as professional as a
program or an organization, but a good impact investor should be able to draw up a plan
with the sustainable entrepreneur and look together what are the possible next steps, how
can you be sure to make it to the next investment round. Some impact investors can also
connect you with other sustainable entrepreneurs or other stakeholders that might be
important to you. But these additional roles are always only partially present. It depends
on who they are. Some people don't want to deal with it and just want to get rid of their
September 29, 2020 65/82
money. Some people run a small consulting firm and give you only 80 of the promised 100
while getting the remaining 20 as a consulting service. (Participant E, 00:17:32)
In the case of intermediaries like the Impact Hub, which provides physical space, accelerator
programs, workshops, and access to a broad community and network of partners, additional roles
relate to being a multi-sectoral spot, to promoting the topic of sustainable entrepreneurship, and
to communicating success stories of sustainable entrepreneurs.
The role is that we have become a multi-sectoral spot where people know that when they
come here, they will get a lot of information, like which start-ups are cool in the market right
now? What happened to the start-ups in the corona crisis? How can I work with these start-
ups? And what do I get out of a collaboration? How can I support them? Can I use this
community to solve my questions? (Participant A, part II, 00:04:00)
One of the roles that we have not actively pursued, but which is always resonant:
communicating the topic and the individual sustainable entrepreneurs in the marketplace
and thus making the topic known and establishing it. And the growth of this sector. I believe
that the Impact Hub has significantly contributed to the fact that social entrepreneurship
has become more relevant in Austria and that new individuals and organizations have
joined in. (Participant A, part II, 00:05:06)
The interviewees identified a new category of actors influencing primarily awareness creation
concerning sustainable entrepreneurship to a great extent, namely media and communication
partners. In this sense, effective communication is a critical requirement to increase knowledge
about sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems and to co-form
a positive attitude and culture towards sustainable entrepreneurship.
Everyone repeats what is written in the ‘Heute’ newspaper. Nobody reflects about what
sustainability really means and what everyone can personally contribute to a positive
change. (Participant D, 00:19:35)
What is missing is a vital communication channel: who talks about sustainable
entrepreneurship? Who reports about it? How does society, but also public decision-
makers, learn that it exists? (Participant F, 00:05:21)
I also believe that the topic has still not been accepted by the masses, not even in Vienna.
And that's where it's all about promoting communication. There is now a project where we
are considering with Ashoka and SENA (Social Entrepreneurship Network Austria) whether
it makes sense to have a comprehensive communications agency that communicates:
What is Sustainable Entrepreneurship? What do people do? They tell stories, but they also
really provide data and do press work. And you also make sure that such stories get to the
top or today or anywhere else. In truth, it is still a niche topic, and if you say you want to
reach the SDGs, then EVERY company should become a sustainable company. But you
can only achieve that if you broaden the issue a lot. (Participant A, part I, 00:14:59)
Effective communication of success stories of sustainable entrepreneurs contributes to the long-
term maintenance and impact of SEEs.
September 29, 2020 66/82
At the end of the day, it needs proof that sustainable entrepreneurship works. Okay, there
are more and more examples of entrepreneurs who live this triple bottom line, that have a
positive impact not only on the economic side but also on the ecological and social
components. This can have a positive contribution to the ecosystem that increases. Where
you see, it is a concept that works. At the end of the day, every ecosystem needs trees in
bloom and healthy animals. Because if it just muddles along, it will probably implode at
some point because people say, "okay, it's not supposed to work out.” (Participant F,
00:15:05)
The emergence of SEE is linked to a shared vision and a handful of individuals who connect.
These individuals take up an initial spark or trigger in society and transform an idea into a venture
or an organization.
An ecosystem needs a specific time when several players check that something is moving
or needs to change. This can also be a period. And I think that when I think about the Social
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Vienna, there were not three people who suddenly came
up with the idea. Still, there was a worldwide movement that started in the USA and
England because the social systems there were fucked up, and people were thinking. I
have to do something myself because the state doesn't do it anymore. (Participant A, part
II, 00:25:59)
To build an ecosystem, you need a vision, something you can communicate. Something
this ecosystem is built around. Ten years ago, this trend was social entrepreneurship and
young people who said that we no longer wanted to pursue a classic career but to do
something else and stepped up to this trend. And organizations that then somehow
structured it. (Participant A, part II, 00:27:30)
Participant A brought up a new perspective with regard to SEEs. She emphasized the
development of sub-ecosystems within an existing SEE, reflecting specific key themes. This is
insofar of importance as such an approach influences other pillars such as Network or
Governance.
I believe that differentiation is needed, i.e., ecosystems to specific topics. You could say
there is a climate hub, a poverty hub, an education hub. We notice and get feedback from
sustainable entrepreneurs who are already further along in their development that they
need or want very concrete support in their fields. For example, if they work in education,
they must work with schools or with the city school board. (Participant A, part II, 00:11:17)
I think these sub-ecosystems are essential. Climate is still too big. We must break the topic
down into areas such as sustainable construction, energy, and mobility. The start-ups then
actually need partners in precisely this area and input from precisely this area. And in some
cases, laws that must change for the sustainable entrepreneurs to be able to bring their
innovations to market. (Participant A, part II, 00:13:35)
September 29, 2020 67/82
Network
Concerning the item ‘building up a stakeholder community with shared ambition towards
sustainability’, it is of relevance that networking happens on different spatial levels and involves
other small and large actors or stakeholders.
An ecosystem needs local, regional, and national networking through virtual and physical
platforms, peer-to-peer, and other stakeholders. (Participant F, 00:02:18)
An ecosystem needs systematic networking of young innovations with established
corporations and public organizations. Small and large entities must be connected, more
than has been the case so far. (Participant F, 00:05:53)
What you also need are docking points and role models where you can simply see: how
can a sustainable entrepreneurial venture look like? But also: who can support me? Who
can I talk to about initial ideas? What kind of networks are there? Which events fit my
purpose - so it is more on this connection or network level to look at: Ok, who are the
people from which I can get some input and see how things work. And where are examples
of how it works in practice, and is sustainable entrepreneurship something that interests
me? (Participant A, part I, 00:05:27)
In the interviews, the peer-to-peer exchange became a highly significant factor for sustainable
entrepreneurs, which involves both content-related information and interchange and psychological
support on a personal level.
It needs other people, other sustainable entrepreneurs who support each other. Simply a
community where you can exchange ideas. One of the most challenging things is to feel
alone with what you do. There is nobody who does the same (in Austria at least). You also
need mental hygiene. We sometimes face hurdles or obstacles that you might not have as
a typical entrepreneur, and this exchange with the community is essential to keep up, not
to stop. Or the community can help you, e.g., 'talk to him or her' or 'have you already heard
about this funding opportunity or event? (Participant C, 00:07:54)
Another theme that runs through is this peer-to-peer exchange of entrepreneurs at different
stages. This means bringing sustainable entrepreneurs together not only with banks,
potential customers, or partners but also with each other so that they can exchange ideas
and learn from each other. This is also something that has been embraced much more
strongly and positively in recent years than the classic workshop held by a consulting group
because entrepreneurs often learn closer to reality than from any expert coming from any
large company. (Participant A, part I, 00:10:02)
A sustainability-oriented stakeholder community is associated with a stronger cross-sectoral focus
and goes hand in hand with the topic of ‘sustainability-focused stakeholder involvement’.
September 29, 2020 68/82
What is still missing are networks that work together across sectors. We hear this
frequently from start-ups, from large companies, and the public sector. There are indeed
networks that work on the Sustainable Development Goals, for example, on climate or
education. For instance, there is a group of companies that deals with the topic of climate,
but there are no start-ups, scientific partners, or NGOs involved in it. Or there are NGOs
that join forces, but they are skeptical about the sustainable entrepreneurship scene or
companies because they are too privately oriented. Breaking down these silos is one thing.
The second is to create genuinely multi-sectoral networks that really support each other
and don't just meet and chitchat a bit but work together on solutions". (Participant A, part
I, 00:12.00)
I believe that an ecosystem can establish well if there is a positive response from the
environment, i.e., if society understands what it is, that other sectors and institutions
recognize it and try to play an active role here. In other words, it is not a hermetically closed
system but that it can interact with different ecosystems too. Exchange with business, with
public organizations, with politics, with science should become even stronger. But also, the
networking of the existing actors with each other - I believe there is still a lot of potential.
Many actors look only on their well-being. But I think now is a good time to see what the
actors can do to strengthen themselves and others. (Participant F, 00:12.59)
And then we should see that sub-ecosystems meet. They also need to learn from each
other; for example, they have digital tools that can be used there. But I believe that in
concrete terms, we also need more sub-communities. It should then also be about bringing
these sub-ecosystems together. (Participant A, part II, 00:11:17)
Stakeholder involvement may take various forms. Large companies, for instance, may engage in
publicly funded research projects in which the project consortium involves, i.a. sustainable
entrepreneurs.
We work on a project basis with sustainable start-ups and SMEs and support them in their
growth. We are not a bad platform for this; we are open for research projects, contribute
our know-how, and offer our infrastructure and resources to test or use prototypes in
practice. Then sustainable entrepreneurs and their ventures have the push to grow. We
give them a little help to get started. (Participant D, 00:15:20)
Taking the foregoing into consideration, the primary aim is to support the individual entrepreneurs
in scaling their businesses. This responds to the item ‘realization of successful sustainable
businesses (network-based perspective)’.
Networking is an essential contribution to sustainable entrepreneurship. That you help
people who have cool sustainable ideas but who come from an environment where they
can't scale these ideas. For example, if I have a promising investee, I would not only give
him or her money, but I would also help him or her to get more donors, I would make him
or her known, I would maybe even politically connect this person and help to make his or
her idea big. (Participant E, 00:21:43)
September 29, 2020 69/82
Governance
It turned out in the interviews that formal institutions (i.e., government, economy, education) and
informal institutions (i.e., culture) play a significant influencing role in sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems.
The item ‘relevance of sustainable entrepreneurship in formal institutions’ relates primarily to the
simultaneous anchoring of sustainability and entrepreneurial content in public policies, laws, and
regulations, as well as in education. Hence, SEEs are also shaped by government, economy, and
education, which ideally support the stimulation and pursuit of sustainable entrepreneurial
activities by setting appropriate rules and norms.
What is missing is awareness in society, especially among decision-makers, that this type
of entrepreneurship is essential, and our society needs it. And that in the future, it cannot
only be about profit but that there are also other values that need to be implemented. I am
talking about decision-makers in all areas - politics, business, culture, education.
(Participant C, 00:09:31)
According to the interviewees, governmental decision-makers give direction and are responsible
for establishing conducive framework conditions for sustainable entrepreneurship. They must be
sensitive to the challenges sustainable entrepreneurs are confronted with, which may differ
enormously from those of traditional entrepreneurs. Furthermore, governments and politics can
also become a vital leverage point for lifting sustainable innovation being considered as valuable
for society, economy, and the planet.
We can now see that politicians and the public sector are increasingly recognizing the topic
of sustainable entrepreneurship. We see in the government program that impact start-ups
are mentioned and that they need the right framework conditions - this can be funding
opportunities, perhaps access to philanthropic money, a legal form, or incentive systems
such as tax breaks. If you address these issues, then the legal framework conditions must
be adapted even more. (Participant F, 00:14:24)
Strong political support is needed in a way that decision-makers say ‘yes, our society needs
sustainable entrepreneurship, this is valuable, and we support it’. Whatever such support
may look like. For example, people who implement an idea that we believe in, that we
consider essential, receive a year of unconditional basic income. Or that they say: we take
over the start-up financing for the product or service development. A separate agency or a
different department in a ministry evaluates the ideas and then decides who will be
supported and what this support will look like. This support must be individual. Because
every sustainable entrepreneur faces different challenges. (Participant C, 00:27:55)
State support is also an important issue. My dream, but this is a personal dream of mine,
is that we, as Austria, stop wanting to become the new Silicon Valley and say we have to
September 29, 2020 70/82
go in this direction, but to say: Austria has so many advantages in the direction of
sustainability - why can't we become the model country for sustainable innovation? And
that the Ministry of Economic Affairs is also behind it and then brings these entrepreneurs
in front of the curtain, including small businesses and agricultural enterprises, and that this
super stage gives them the kind of stage that is sometimes granted to all kinds of start-
ups, especially in the digital and digital financial sector. To want to become the new Silicon
Valley is simply not sensible. (Participant A, part II, 00:14:18)
Binding rules set by governmental bodies are vital in contributing to the promotion of sustainability
because non-binding policies only leading to a voluntary adherence to environmental and social
standards would not have the desired effects. Therefore, Participant B advocated for more exact
and stricter legal and regulatory requirements.
Many freely adhere to environmental standards. We could tighten the legal requirements
even further because then they would apply to everyone. That is the adjustment screw that
I see most strongly. There are environmental movements, etc. But in the end? You can't
force people [to sustainability]. Laws can only do that. (Participant B, 00:10:00)
Regarding the institution of economy, structural flexibility would be a significant prerequisite to
establishing sustainability innovations in markets. Accordingly, norms in well-developed markets
may constrain innovativeness.
What may be lacking is structural flexibility in markets, e.g., if a sustainable entrepreneur
plans to set up a business in a highly standardized field, e.g., drones delivering
pharmaceuticals. Norms, standards, or constraints from a highly developed market can
inhibit innovation. (Participant E, 00:10:31)
Education must systematically consider topics around sustainability and entrepreneurship.
Schools and universities should incorporate these topics into their curricula and lesson plans to
promote sustainable entrepreneurship profoundly and regularly.
What should be more is the integration of sustainability and entrepreneurship into the
educational system, so that young people and young adults get to know it at an early age,
understand what it is, perhaps discover it for themselves, and gather initial knowledge and
experience to put it into practice. (Participant F, 00:04:06)
Sustainability education must start in elementary school. You must start early so that it
becomes a matter, of course, to think about sustainability, to work on it, and to ultimately
act sustainably. (Participant D, 00:20:00)
Nevertheless, it is not only about addressing and integrating the two core topics of sustainability
and entrepreneurship. Other relevant subjects may concern leadership competencies or skills in
information- and communication technologies that enrich personal capabilities.
Education and training can be taken even further, for instance, in the direction of
leadership. (Participant F, 00:07:45)
September 29, 2020 71/82
Many topics need to be integrated into education - it starts with programming, incorporating
sustainability issues into lessons, or anchoring them in the school system. In education,
there should be better prepared for work life, for teamwork. (Participant D, 00:17:45)
The importance of education and training of potential sustainable entrepreneurs that lack specific
skills or competencies becomes predominant with the subsequent statement.
Many people have good ideas, but they often lack specific knowledge. Especially when
you talk about the triple bottom line, some people come from BOKU and say: wow, great,
I'm an expert in engineering, and I know how to make things green, but I don't know much
about setting up a business plan or getting funding. They lack the economic side.
Conversely, many business students always come up with platform ideas but don't have
the products. In these cases, it's all about bringing together the respective other
knowledge, but also getting an understanding of it, mostly the business perspective. Many
of them, especially in the social sector, have excellent ideas, maybe even worked in NGOs,
but they lack the entrepreneurial approach: how do I bring my idea to the market? And of
course, there are a lot of programs there now. (Participant A, part I, 00:06:10)
Another vital aspect with regards to this pillar are ‘informal institutions fostering entrepreneurial
and sustainability culture’. Entrepreneurial culture is mainly linked to risk-taking, which also
involves accepting mistakes as learnings and not as a failure that cuts down your abilities or
competencies.
There is a lack of willingness to take risks. That also falls under culture. Austria has a very
risk-averse culture. In Austria, it's not like people say, we just try, we'll find a way. That also
applies to error acceptance. Even if you fall on your face with a project, in other cultures, it
is often a learning experience and is highly regarded or at least not considered bad. In
Austria, it is more a sign that you have failed, and therefore, it is less valuable. That is bad.
(Participant E, 00:15:34)
Culture and education are two elements that are highly interwoven.
This is not an easy issue in Austria because we are not such an entrepreneurial country. I
think we even have a more positive culture when it comes to sustainability because there
is a lot of awareness compared to other countries, but less entrepreneurial culture. We are
used to the fact that the social state takes over a lot, that there are a few NGOs, but they
are also openly connected to the state or even supported and even founded by the state.
And bringing THAT together is a fascinating topic for me, which also goes very much into
education. But it is also a cultural topic. There is a strong approach. Austrian start-ups
always have a nice saying: Entrepreneurship must be like skiing. Every child must have
taken an entrepreneurship course at an early age, because only then can it change. This
is a cultural topic that has to be applied on a large scale, and I believe that it has to be
done at a very young age". (Participant A, part I, 00:18:52)
September 29, 2020 72/82
Conceptual Framework
Figure 23: Conceptual framework (own depiction)
September 29, 2020 73/82
Figure 23 illustrates the conceptual framework representing the output of the whole research
process regarding the thesis at hand. In sum, all characteristics from the theoretical framework
were adopted. The pillar of Context goes into the conceptual framework without any adjustments.
In the following, only those elements and factors will be delineated in detail, which differ from the
theoretical framework and, thus, constitute new findings derived from the qualitative study (the
respective elements and factors are highlighted in red in Figure 23).
In terms of Complexity in SEEs, following a triple bottom line approach is, in many cases,
connected to trade-offs. This increases the challenge of sustainable entrepreneurs in
simultaneously balancing economic, environmental, and social objectives. Although objectively,
an entrepreneur might fulfill the defining criteria for sustainable entrepreneurship, in practice, it is
not easy to act upon the three goals equally. Economic pressure might put the well-being of
sustainable entrepreneurs under risk, for instance, concerning mental and physical burnout
(notably, burnout is a topic that is already taken up by scholars, see in terms of social
entrepreneurs and personal resource depletion, e.g., Kibler, Wincent, Kautonen, Cacciotti, &
Obschonka, 2018).
Regarding the pillar of Geography, findings suggest addressing the gap between urban and non-
urban areas regarding the mobilization and development of resources. Since EEs are generally
bounded to a specific geographical region, access to resources might be restricted to sustainable
entrepreneurs and actors operating in non-urban areas. An important outcome was that
sustainable entrepreneurship necessitates not only adequate financing resources but different
measurements of success and performance that align to the sustainability focus while considering
that impact and sustainable growth need time to come to the fore. Moreover, a generally accepted
definition of what impact means and how to measure it is not present, which aggravates the topic
of financial resources in SEEs.
In the case of Agency, it is not enough to speak of one sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem as
sustainable development, and the UN SDG framework is far too big to name and display the
relevant requirements and expectations of the involved actors. Instead, it could be useful to
develop sub-ecosystems within existing SEEs that reflect the thematic foci. In such cases, actors
could draw on the resources and actors of the general SEE and the specialized sub-SEE.
Another factor concerns the plethora of roles of individuals, which may change over time. Anda
change in roles goes hand in hand with a change in contribution. The leverage effects may become
an important topic. Besides, new actors become highly relevant for SEEs. As awareness-building
corresponds directly with communication, it is crucial to actively perceive media and
communication actors as essential stakeholders and multipliers in SEEs.
Concerning the pillar of Network, it is not only the sustainable entrepreneur networking and
partnering with other actor groups. Instead, it becomes increasingly essential that sustainable
entrepreneurs meet and exchange ideas and experiences in physical and virtual peer-to-peer
settings. Moreover, cross-sectoral networking with actors from other EEs is a crucial factor not
only for the future orientation and activities of SEEs but for advancing sustainability transformation
on multiple levels.
Ultimately, findings concerning Governance suggest that it is not enough to increase the relevance
of sustainable entrepreneurship in institutions. Instead, it needs intended anchoring of
September 29, 2020 74/82
sustainability and sustainable entrepreneurship in formal institutions, which include not only
government and economy, but also education. The latter is identified as a significant driver to
increase the sustainability orientation of actors. With reference to formal institutions, the structural
flexibility of institutions was stated as a pre-requisite for adapting institutional changes aiming at
fostering and enhancing sustainable entrepreneurship. All interviewees emphasized
entrepreneurial and sustainability culture.
September 29, 2020 75/82
5. Conclusion
This chapter gives a résumé about the significant theoretical and practical implications and
answers the research questions pointedly. It concludes with the limitations of the study and
potential avenues for future research.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
This subchapter highlights the significant implications for theory and practice by recapitulating the
research question and the respective subquestions guiding the thesis at hand.
Subquestion 1: Based on academic literature, what are the core elements and driving
factors of traditional and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems?
Before answering this question, it is essential to agree on a common definition of sustainable
entrepreneurship. For the thesis at hand, sustainable entrepreneurship is characterized by a
strong value orientation following a triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental goals.
The focus is put on both sustainability and development, which integrates a long-term perspective.
Driven by a strong sustainability-orientation, entrepreneurial action focuses on the implementation
of sustainable businesses and sustainability innovation. This is contrasted by traditional
entrepreneurs whose primary goal is to create an economically successful business, to generate
profit, and to increase performance.
Acknowledging the fact that entrepreneurs do not act in isolation but are embedded in broader
contexts brings the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems to the center of attention. An
entrepreneurial ecosystem is a concurrence of six overarching pillars: context, complexity,
geography, agency, network, and governance. Importantly, each entrepreneurial ecosystem
shows a different configuration of elements and a distinct interplay of dynamics, which leads to
heterogeneity of ecosystems. Analogous to the difference between traditional and sustainable
entrepreneurs, the primary difference between traditional EEs and SEEs lies in the distinct
sustainability-orientation of all elements and actors. The theoretical framework in subchapter 2.4.
gives a comprehensive overview of the elements and factors derived from academic literature.
Subquestion 2: From actors’ perspectives, which elements and factors are relevant in
entrepreneurial ecosystems to explicitly support and enhance sustainable
entrepreneurship?
All elements and factors derived from the literature review and assembled in the theoretical
framework were supported by the interviewees. Though, they added essential statements.
Looking at the unique configurations of SEEs, it comes to the fore that specific elements, such as
finance, still need a lot of development to meet the needs of sustainable entrepreneurs fully. The
development of sub-ecosystems is suggested to provide targeted support and collaboration to
sustainable actors. Although various means of support are given, it is vital for sustainable
entrepreneurs to balance economic, social, and environmental objectives and to deal with
emerging trade-offs that might not only lead to unintended failure but also diminished the well-
being of individuals. Gaps between urban and non-urban areas need to be reduced for sustainable
entrepreneurship to flourish ubiquitously. Another critical factor is the definition and
implementation of appropriate measurements for impact, success, and performance concerning
sustainable entrepreneurship; otherwise, it remains difficult to build up relevant financial markets,
products, and services.
September 29, 2020 76/82
Moreover, individual actors may hold a number of different roles, affecting their contribution to the
ecosystem. New actors may enter the SEE that are pivotal for propelling sustainability agendas.
The interviewees also stated the importance of peer-to-peer exchange between sustainable
entrepreneurs and cross-sectoral involvement with actors of other EEs. Formal and informal
institutions must also play an active and decisive role in promoting and enhancing sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Central research question: Which elements and factors shape an entrepreneurial
ecosystem facilitating sustainable entrepreneurship?
Derived from the previous literature review and the qualitative study, the conceptual framework
(see subchapter 4.7.) portrays a holistic picture of elements and factors relevant for a sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem. The six pillars of Context, Complexity, Geography, Agency, Network,
and Governance must be thought integratively to understand the scope of a sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Findings suggest that sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems are
more extensive than traditional ones as they involve a strong and stringent thematic orientation
that influences every sphere of the ecosystem.
As the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems is increasingly used by practitioners and
policymakers, and in response to the sustainable development paradigm in global politics and
society, this thesis contributes to a first orientation towards the defining characteristics of
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. This may act as a starting point for real-life actors to
understand the heterogeneity of different ecosystems in context, complexity, geography, agency,
network, and governance. Hence, tailored instruments and actions can be developed and taken,
which contrast with one-size-fits-all approaches. This supports the healthy growth and
sustainment of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, which will ultimately foster both positive
social and environmental impact and regional economic development.
Limitations of the Study
The first limitation concerns the nature of the conceptual framework. It is a static compilation of
findings from literature and conducted qualitative research. The six pillars of context, complexity,
geography, agency, network, and governance characterizing any form of entrepreneurial
ecosystems stand individually on their own. But as ecosystems comprise a notable quantity of
actors and elements, there are dynamic interactions and interdependencies which were not
explored in this study. Moreover, the collection of factors and elements in both the theoretical and
conceptual framework are not a comprehensive assemblage of all possible ones but may serve
as a first orientation.
In terms of the research design, the number of interviews could be increased. Taking again the
stakeholder model of Bischoff and Volkmann (2018) under consideration, out of all groups of
actors, at least two representatives could be interrogated to increase the holistic picture of
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. This qualitative research could be extended by
quantitative research methods resulting in a mixed-method approach. This could increase the
reliability (i.e., replication and consistency) and validity (i.e., appropriateness of the measures, the
accuracy of result analysis, and generalizability of the findings). In doing so, the time horizon could
be expanded from a cross-sectional towards a longitudinal study. (Saunders et al., 2019)
September 29, 2020 77/82
A further limitation concerns the critical discussion of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept.
Fritsch, Sorgner, Wyrwich, and Zazdravnykh (2019) argue that the persistence of
entrepreneurship in a region is due to awareness of the regional entrepreneurial history. In this
regard, pre-existing economic structures (such as industries and firm sizes) may explain today’s
place-specific endowments and economic activity. If we follow this assumption, then the
entrepreneurial ecosystem approach might fall too short in explaining any form of successful
entrepreneurship. Subsequently, it is not sufficient to explore existing or missing entrepreneurial
ecosystem elements and driving factors, but to shed light on the “historical experience with
entrepreneurship in a certain industry” (Fritsch et al., 2019: 799). In this case, this would involve
the examination of the awareness of sustainable entrepreneurship across generations in Austria.
Avenues for Future Research
The present study sheds new light on both the sustainability orientation of actors and stakeholder
involvement. In contrast to the prevailing question of how actors such as large incumbent firms
can support sustainable entrepreneurs with resources or specific forms of engagement, findings
suggest that the question shifts more to what sustainable entrepreneurs can do for large
incumbent firms or other groups of actors in terms of sustainability orientation. This stands in
connection with the concept of sustainable intrapreneurship, whereby established companies
incorporate sustainability in their business agendas. It needs to be examined if the deliberate
combination of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship can leverage the sustainability topic.
Regarding sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, stakeholder collaboration between
entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs could go into the direction of joint sustainability innovation.
Exploring the settings and formats appropriate for networking and partnering could be a new
avenue for future research.
Productive, high-growth entrepreneurship is seen as the primary output of conventional
entrepreneurial ecosystems. But does this also count for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems?
While entrepreneurial ecosystem performance is frequently linked to the rise of unicorns, i.e., new
ventures valued more than 1 billion dollars (see Acs et al., 2017), it remains unclear how impact,
performance, growth, and success is defined and measured in sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Therefore, it needs to be explored how to determine impact, performance, and
success with respect to sustainable entrepreneurship. In a second step, to explore how these
factors can be measured. In relation to this, it may also become relevant to examine the conditions
and factors under which sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems become successful.
Regarding sustainable-oriented ecosystems, little is known about the key actors, processes,
conditions, and dynamics that drive and shape the emergence and development of sustainable
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Researchers can shed light on whether sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems are either naturally evolving or intentionally designed, or if other dynamics and forms
of coming-into-existence apply for SEEs. This process-oriented exploration resonates with the
view on EEs as complex adaptive systems as promoted by Roundy et al. (2018) whereby EEs
show an inherent complexity, which increases the challenge to grasp the emergence process as
this involves forces, interactions, and dynamics on multiple levels. Hence the primary question is,
how do sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge? What are the driving forces and
conditions in the emergence process? Who are the major actors in the emergence process? How
does the emergence process look like?
September 29, 2020 78/82
6. References
Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. 2017. The lineages of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1): 1–10.
Aeeni, Z., Motavaseli, M., Sakhdari, K., & Dehkordi, A. M. 2019. Baumol's theory of entrepreneurial
allocation: A systematic review and research agenda. European Research on Management and
Business Economics, 25: 30–37.
Arenas, D., Strumińska‐Kutra, M., & Landoni, P. 2020. Walking the tightrope and stirring things up:
Exploring the institutional work of sustainable entrepreneurs. Business Strategy and the
Environment, forthcoming.
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. 2017. Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework
conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5): 1030–1051.
Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. 2019. Entrepreneurial
ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of technology transfer,
44(2): 313–325.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. 2014. Entrepreneurial innovation: The
importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7): 1097–1108.
Baumol, W. J. 1990. Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Business
Venturing, 11(1): 3–22.
Baumol, W. J. 1993. Entrepreneurship, Management, and the Structure of Payoffs. London: MIT
Press.
Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. 2017. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 26(1): 1–17.
Bischoff, K. 2019. A study on the perceived strength of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems on the
dimensions of stakeholder theory and culture. Small Business Economics, forthcoming.
Bischoff, K., & Volkmann, C. K. 2018. Stakeholder support for sustainable entrepreneurship - a framework
of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,
10(2): 172–201.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. 2014. A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65: 42–56.
Brown, R., & Mason, C. 2017. Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1): 11–30.
Cantner, U., Cunningham, J. A., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. 2020. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a
dynamic lifecycle model. Small Business Economics: 1–17.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: present debates and
future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4): 1291–1321.
Cohen, B. 2006. Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15(1): 1–14.
Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 29–49.
Colombelli, A., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. 2019. Hierarchical and relational governance and the life cycle
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(2): 505–521.
Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. 2010. How Opportunities Develop in Social Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 34(4): 635–659.
Criado-Gomis, A., Cervera-Taulet, A., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M.-A. 2017. Sustainable Entrepreneurial
Orientation: A Business Strategic Approach for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 9(9): 1667.
September 29, 2020 79/82
Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., & Shelton, R. 2005. Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It,
and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing
environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1):
50–76.
Divito, L., & Ingen-Housz, Z. 2017. Sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystem emergence and
development: a case study of Amsterdam Denim City. Working Paper. Amsterdam School of
International Business, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Divito, L., & Ingen-Housz, Z. 2019. From individual sustainability orientations to collective sustainability
innovation and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 43(1).
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. NY: Harper & Row.
Eliasson, G., & Henrekson, M. 2004. William J. Baumol: An Entrepreneurial Economist on the Economics
of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 23: 1–7.
European Commission. 2019. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. Downloaded on June 12,
2020, from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588580774040&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640.
Farley, J., Baker, D., Batker, D., Koliba, C., Matteson, R., Mills, R., & Pittman, J. 2007. Opening the policy
window for ecological economics: Katrina as a focusing event. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3): 344–
354.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. 2015. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action
Revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3): 363–390.
Filser, M., Kraus, S., Roig-Tierno, N., Kailer, N., & Fischer, U. 2019. Entrepreneurship as Catalyst for
Sustainable Development: Opening the Black Box. Sustainability, 11(16): 4503.
Fritsch, M., Sorgner, A., Wyrwich, M., & Zazdravnykh, E. 2019. Historical shocks and persistence of
economic activity: evidence on self-employment from a unique natural experiment. Regional Studies,
53(6): 790–802.
Gast, J., Gundolf, K., & Cesinger, B. 2017. Doing business in a green way: A systematic review of the
ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 147: 44–56.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. 2018. Sustainable business model innovation: A review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 198: 401–416.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2016. Understanding and Tackling Societal
Grand Challenges through Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 1880–
1895.
George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. 2020. Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship: How
Digital Innovations Are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1): 104225871989942.
GIIN. 2020. Global Impact Investing Network. Website. Downloaded on September 13, 2020, from:
https://thegiin.org/.
Giones, F., Ungerer, C., & Baltes, G. H. 2020. Balancing Financial, Social, and Environmental Values:
Can New Ventures Make an Impact without Sacrificing Profits? International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Venturing, 12(1).
Hakala, H., O'Shea, G., Farny, S., & Luoto, S. 2020. Re‐storying the Business, Innovation and
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concepts: The Model‐Narrative Review Method. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 22(1): 10–32.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. 2010. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 439–448.
September 29, 2020 80/82
Hanohov, R., & Baldacchino, L. 2018. Opportunity recognition in sustainable entrepreneurship: an
exploratory study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(2): 333–358.
Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids - Theorizing about the
role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(5): 481–492.
Impact Hub Vienna. 2019. Impact Report.
Isenberg, D. 2011b. Introducing the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: Four Defining Characteristics. Blog
Post. Downloaded on June 14, 2020, from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danisenberg/2011/05/25/introducing-the-entrepreneurship-ecosystem-
four-defining-characteristics/#5efd12395fe8.
Isenberg, D. 2011a. The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic
Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project.
Presentation at the Institute of International and European Affairs. Babson College, Babson Park: MA.
Isenberg, D. 2010. The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard Business Review.
Downloaded on April 13, 2020, from: https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-
entrepreneurial-revolution.
Isenberg, D. 2014. What an Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Actually Is. Harvard Business Review.
Downloaded on June 9, 2020, from: https://hbr.org/2014/05/what-an-entrepreneurial-ecosystem-
actually-is.
IUCN. 1980. World Conservation Srategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable
Development. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, United Nations
Environment Programme, and World Wildlife Fund.
Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. 2019. Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A Review and
Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(2):
104225871988536.
Kibler, E., Wincent, J., Kautonen, T., Cacciotti, G., & Obschonka, M. 2018. Why Social Entrepreneurs Are
So Burned Out. Harvard Business Review. Downloaded on September 26, 2020, from:
https://hbr.org/2018/12/why-social-entrepreneurs-are-so-burned-out.
Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. 2010. The Influence of Sustainability Orientation on Entrepreneurial Intentions
— Investigating the Role of Business Experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 524–539.
Lüdeke‐Freund, F. 2020. Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: Integrative
framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2):
665–681.
Mack, E., & Mayer, H. 2016. The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies,
53(10): 2118–2133.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and
delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 36–44.
Malecki, E. J. 2018. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3).
Mason, C., & Brown, R. 2014. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship.
Background paper prepared for the workshop organised by the OECD LEED. The Hague,
Netherlands.
Muñoz, P. 2013. The Distinctive Importance of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Current Opinion in
Creativity Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1): 1–6.
Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. 2018. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3): 300–322.
Muñoz, P., & Dimov, D. 2015. The call of the whole in understanding the development of sustainable
ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.
September 29, 2020 81/82
Muñoz, P., Janssen, F., Nicolopoulou, K., & Hockerts, K. 2018. Advancing sustainable entrepreneurship
through substantive research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
24(2): 322–332.
Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. 2004. An Entrepreneurial System View of New
Venture Creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2): 190–208.
Neumeyer, X., & Santos, S. C. 2018. Sustainable business models, venture typologies, and
entrepreneurial ecosystems: A social network perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172:
4565–4579.
O’Shea, G., Farny, S., & Hakala, H. 2019. The buzz before business: a design science study of a
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, forthcoming.
Pankov, S., Velamuri, V. K., & Schneckenberg, D. 2019. Towards sustainable entrepreneurial
ecosystems: examining the effect of contextual factors on sustainable entrepreneurial activities in the
sharing economy. Small Business Economics, forthcoming.
Parrish, B. D. 2010. Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25(5): 510–523.
Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. 2011. Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4): 631–652.
Radinger-Peer, V., Sedlacek, S., & Goldstein, H. 2018. The path-dependent evolution of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) – dynamics and region-specific assets of the case of Vienna (Austria).
European Planning Studies, 26(8): 1499–1518.
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. 2018. The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A
complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research, 86: 1–10.
Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. 2017. The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8(11): 99–104.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. 2019. Research Methods for Business Students (Eighth
edition). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Scaringella, L., & Radziwon, A. 2018. Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems:
Old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136.
Schaefer, K., Corner, P. D., & Kearins, K. 2015. Social, Environmental and Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Research, 28(4): 394–413.
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. 2016. Business Models for Sustainability: Origins,
Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organization & Environment, 29(1): 3–10.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. 2011. Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Innovation:
Categories and Interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4): 222–237.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard economic studies 46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy
of Management Review, 25(1): 217–226.
Shepherd, D. A. 2015. Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity
based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4): 489–
507.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. 2011. The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying
Entrepreneurial Action Linking “What Is to Be Sustained” With “What Is to Be Developed”.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 137–163.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. 2017. Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship: Creating New Paths for
Understanding the Field. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
September 29, 2020 82/82
Simatupang, T. M., Schwab, A., & Lantu, D. C. 2015. Introduction: Building Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 26(4): 389–398.
Spigel, B. 2017. The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 41(1): 49–72.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. 2018. Towards a Process Theory of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12: 151–168.
Spilling, O. R. 1996. The Entrepreneurial System: On Entrepreneurship in the Context of a mega-event.
Journal of Business Research, 36(1): 91–103.
Stam, E. 2015. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European
Planning Studies, 23(9): 1759–1769.
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. 2016. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Discussion Paper Series 16-13. Utrecht
University, School of Economics.
Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. 2018. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Systems Perspective. Working
Paper 18-06. Utrecht University, School of Economics.
Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics,
56(2).
Thananusak, T. 2019. Science Mapping of the Knowledge Base on Sustainable Entrepreneurship, 1996–
2019. Sustainability, 11(13): 3565.
Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. 2011. Distinctions not Dichotomies: Exploring Social, Sustainable,
and Environmental Entrepreneurship. In G. T. Lumpkin & J. A. Katz (Eds.), Social and Sustainable
Entrepreneurship: 205–233. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.
Tilley, F., & Young, W. 2009. Sustainability Entrepreneurs. Greener Management International, (55):
79–92.
Torraco, R. J. 2005. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource
Development Review, 4(3): 356–367.
UN Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. Report of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment. UN Conference in Stockholm/Sweden, 5-16 June 1972.
United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Sustainable Development Knowldge Platform. Downloaded on June 12, 2020, from:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Velt, H., Torkkeli, L., & Laine, I. 2020. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Bibliometric Mapping of the
Domain. Journal of Business Ecosystems, 1(2): 1–31.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In J. Katz & Brockhaus R.
(Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth: 119–138. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Volkmann, C., Fichter, K., Klofsten, M., & Audretsch, D. B. 2019. Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems:
an emerging field of research. Small Business Economics, 43(3).
WCED. 1987. Brundtland Report - Our Common Future. United Nations World Commission of
Environment and Development.
Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing Entrepreneurship - Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 165–184.
Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. 2019. Three waves and counting: the rising tide of contextualization
in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 52(2): 319–330.
World Economic Forum. 2013. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth
Dynamics. Downloaded on April 13, 2020, from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/entrepreneurial-
ecosystems-around-globe-and-company-growth-dynamics.