IJESB Beheaded & Disembedded 2012-06-17

http://www.diva-portal.org

Postprint

This is the accepted version of a paper published in International Journal of Entrepreneurship and SmallBusiness. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-correctionsor journal pagination.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Levinsohn, D. (2013)

Disembedded and beheaded? A critical review of the emerging field of sustainability

entrepreneurship.

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 19(2): 190-211

http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2013.054963

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-23692

Int. J. , Vol. x, No. x, xxxx 1

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Disembedded and beheaded?

- a critical review of the emerging field of

sustainability entrepreneurship

Abstract

Sustainability entrepreneurship (SuE) is an emergent field of study that focuses on the

founding and growth of firms that combine the creation of economic value with the pursuit

of the environmental and social objectives of sustainable development. A review of the SuE

literature is carried out from a Critical Management Studies perspective and five main

themes are identified. The article notes that the field is powerfully influenced by its roots in

“green” entrepreneurship and that authors are generally uncritical of the concepts of

“sustainable development” in relation to entrepreneurship. From the perspective of bottom-

of-the-pyramid populations it is suggested that these trends involve both risks and

opportunities. The author calls upon scholars to integrate a broader range of voices and

entrepreneurial topics under the sustainability entrepreneurship umbrella, and suggests that

the field make greater use of concepts of sustainable development that are participatory and

embedded in nature.

Keywords

sustainable entrepreneurship, sustainability entrepreneurship, sustainable

development, critical management studies, bottom-of-the-pyramid,

embeddedness, inclusive entrepreneurship, SMEs, corporate sustainability

6 797 words, including headings

The author would like to thank his two anonymous reviewers for their

insightful and constructive comments on the original manuscript.

of 33

Introduction

“Entrepreneurship and the small businesses it generates are vital sources of

jobs, business dynamism and innovation” (2011). In a recent issue of IJESB

Robert Smith notes the vital role played by entrepreneurs and networks in

the development of communities. Although Smith employs a British case-

study, his writing reflects a global interest in the impact of entrepreneurship

on development. Many authors suggest that entrepreneurship can contribute

to economic, environmental and social prosperity, and do so in a sustainable

manner. Consequently, writers often discuss entrepreneurship in relation to

sustainable development (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010). In recent years such

discussions have taken place in journals such as Journal of Business Venturing

and Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice. This suggests that the topic is of

societal relevance and timely in terms of academic interest.

The linking of entrepreneurship research to societal issues such as poverty

and ecological degradation has coincided with an increase in the study of

specific forms of entrepreneurship. These include “community” (Johanisson

& Nilsson, 1989; Johnstone & Lionais, 2004), “social” (Dees, 1998; Mair &

Martí, 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006) and “institutional” entrepreneurship

(Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009). An emerging body of literature also

exists on inclusive entrepreneurial activity among the billions of people that

earn less than $2 USD a day at the “bottom [or base] of the pyramid”

(London, 2007; Prahalad & Hart, 2002). Nevertheless, until recently no single

approach has set out to address all of these issues at the same time. Indeed,

readers may wonder whether the entrepreneurial “niches” identified by

researchers are mutually exclusive – or could entrepreneurs tackle the

challenges of “profit, poverty, planet and place” simultaneously?

A research stream that embraces such a combination is sustainability

entrepreneurship1. Authors such as Pacheco, Dean and Payne (2010) suggest

that it is possible for entrepreneurship to be “consistent with sustainable

1 In this paper I use the term “sustainability entrepreneurship” and abbreviate it as “SuE” to distinguish it from social entrepreneurship (SE).


development goals”, while involving “the discovery, creation, evaluation, and

exploitation of opportunities.” Nevertheless, substantial controversy is

associated with the field of sustainable development. In recent decades

authors have noted that the term “sustainability” is often linked to only

environmental issues (Davis, 2011), while practitioners are said to use the

term “sustainable development” in a shallow, unreflective manner (Jermier &

Forbes, 2003; Springett, 2003). These comments are important to note,

because they are linked to critique directed at the most cited documents on

sustainable development (the WCED report “Our common future” and the

NRC follow-up “Our common journey”)(Brundtland & Khalid, 1987;

National Research Council, 1999). Weaknesses identified include the reports’

failure to emphasise participation in the development process, their

underestimating of limits to growth, their ignoring of the links between

developed nations’ prosperity and developing nations’ poverty – and their

disregard for the ties between culture, social structure and poverty (Björk &

Wiklund, 1993; Bossel, 2000; Daly, 1990; Lélé, 1991). It is therefore

important to examine the literature on sustainability entrepreneurship and

discuss how authors have related entrepreneurship research to this contested

concept.

In this paper I address two questions. The first addresses the content of the

SuE conversation: what are the main themes within the academic literature that

explicitly identifies itself as dealing with “sustainability entrepreneurship” or “sustainable

entrepreneurship”? If sustainability entrepreneurship is a distinct, but nascent

research field (as I believe); then it is important for researchers to be aware of

what characterises our conversations, in order to identify neglected themes

and topics for future study. Consequently I focus on writing that frames itself

in the two terms introduced above (or in very similar language). My purpose

is not to survey all of the movements within entrepreneurship research that

address sustainable development!

of 33

This paper’s second question relates to research “gaps”. Having identified

primary themes within the literature, I then ask: to what extent does the academic

conversation coincide with the perspectives of BoP communities, as regards sustainable

development? In this article I adopt what I term a base-of-the-pyramid1 (BoP)

perspective on sustainable development. I do so first of all because I have

lived for many years among low-income people in emerging economies2 (and

experienced some of the tensions associated with the “rubber” of sustainable

development “hitting the road”). Less subjectively, I suggest that the size of

the BoP population confers a certain “democratic obligation” on scholars, to

prioritise research that focuses upon the concerns of society (Boyer, 1996;

Flyvbjerg, 2001). Finally, a BoP perspective is legitimised by the multi-

faceted, contested nature of the SD concept – given that definitions of the

sustainable development mirror the ideologies of those who define it (Hall, et

al., 2010; Sen, 1999).

In this paper readers are first of all introduced to the concept of sustainability

as it relates to business organisations. In order to answer the two questions

introduced above I then conduct a literature survey from the perspective of

Critical Management Studies (CMS). Prior to doing so I describe the CMS

perspective and the method used to survey the literature. I identify the main

themes apparent in these publications and discuss them in relation to

alternative understandings of sustainable development. In doing so I

contribute to the SuE literature by providing an overview of the current state

of the field and by identifying areas of study that are of special relevance to

global society, but which have received less attention from researchers.

Sustainability and enterprise

An important base for understanding sustainability entrepreneurship is

provided by the literature on corporate sustainability (CS). This literature

1 I.e.: the four billion people at Prahalad’s “base-of-the-pyramid” who earn less than $2 USD a day.

2 Colombia and Mozambique


informs and influences the field and consequently, some key concepts are

introduced below.

The sustainability concept perhaps most familiar to business scholars is

known by several names, including the “triple bottom line” (Elkington,

1997), and the “3 P’s”1(Shell, 1999). Both terms refer to the understanding

that emerged in the mid-1980s, that business sustainability involves taking

into account not only the economic profitability of a firm, but also its social

and environmental sustainability (Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995) - see

figure 1. Consequently, although several writers have critiqued the model

(Giddings, Hopwood, & O'Brien, 2002; Thin, 2002), most authors frame

their discussions around the triple bottom-line.

[insert figure 1 here?]

What is not always apparent in studies of sustainability are the ethical

assumptions underpinning the diverse approaches. Often these assumptions

adopt either a consequentialist (teleological) perspective, or a deontological

view. Humans and the environment are thus viewed from either a utilitarian

perspective (depicting social and environmental damage as a “cost” in terms

of resources that can compensated for or replaced) – or from a standpoint

suggesting these resources possess inherent value that cannot be expressed in

economic terms, nor adequately replaced. Nilsen (2010) describes this

distinction in terms of a tension between “weak” and “strong” sustainability.

Parrish (2008) echoes her idea and categorizes approaches to sustainability as

either “humans and ecosystems” (sustainability requires tweaking the market

system) or “humans in ecosystems” (implying market transformation).

Accordingly, recent CS approaches suggest that firms need to move from an

“efficiency” mindset (minimising social and environmental impact) to one of

1 I.e.: People, planet and profits.

of 33

“effectiveness” (eliminating impact and either preserving, or enhancing social

and environmental resources)(McDonough & Braungart, 2002).

Critical Management Studies

Critical Management Studies (CMS) is an approach to studying management

that is “critical” in the general sense that it identifies and questions the

ideologies underpinning managerial behaviour (Fournier & Grey, 2000).

Researchers (as educators of business students and executives) are one

source of management ideology. It is therefore reasonable to extend CMS

studies beyond the “doers” of management, to those of us who “theorise”

about management – and to researchers of sustainable enterprise.

Fournier and Grey (ibid) describe CMS as involving the study of individuals

and organisations without a bias towards performance (non-performative

intent), a focus on the provision of alternative interpretations of taken-for-

granted ideas (denaturalization), and a demand that scholars reflect on their

own roles and assumptions in research (reflexivity). Sotirin and Tyrell (1998)

suggest furthermore that CMS research tends to take note of context, that it

views communication as constitutive (or performative) and that it both

identifies and intervenes in “relations of oppression”. Parker (2005) suggests

that the perspective provides an alternative managerial standpoint that

counteracts tendencies to ignore issues of injustice and environmental

degradation.

CMS scholars approach the task of studying organisations in an “intrinsically

suspicious” frame of mind (Alvesson, 2008). A key task of CMS scholars is

to bring to the surface patterns of understanding and power that are not

initially obvious. In the context of this study, this implies that thematic

patterns within the literature are not necessarily viewed as “innocent

coincidences”, but instead as indicators of a more systemic bias (or ideology).

Nonetheless, CMS researchers are advised to move beyond a questioning of

taken-for-granted ideas and suggest alternative explanations. Alvesson and

Deetz (2000) label this final step “transformative redefinition”.


Method

The literature included in this study was identified by means of online

searches using the Publish or Perish© (PoP) software tool and the ISI Web of

knowledge. The search initially included publications up to 15 years old, but

was subsequently limited to a ten year time period (2001-2011) when few

articles were identified prior to 2002. Due to the narrowly specified goal of

this paper (an analysis of the content of literature identifying itself with

sustainability entrepreneurship), the terms used in these searches centred on

the term "sustainable entrepreneurship" and variations of it (for example:

“sustainability entrepreneur*”). By limiting the search criteria to these terms

the article reflects the CMS assumption that language is “performative” and

that scholars define rather than discover the content and boundaries of their

fields. A weakness of the search is its reliance on English as a medium of

communication, especially in view of the languages spoken by significant

BoP populations (such as Chinese and Hindi). Future reviews could extend

the findings of this study by including non-English publications.

The PoP search resulted in an extensive list of publications that included

books, working papers and conference presentations, with the search in the

ISI Web of knowledge adding only a further six articles to the list. The

publications were listed on an MS Excel spreadsheet and filtered to exclude

literature that the software identified with both “entrepreneurship” and

“sustainability”, but which was unrelated to the SuE field. The resulting list

included 65 publications. In order to assess the relative importance of each

publication, columns for “cites per year” and “ranking” were including based

on PoP statistics.

The initial list of publications was used to gain an overview of the literature

and its development, prior to a more formal analysis. This was useful as it

often revealed publication “paths” (conference paper to article) and

of 33

influential publications never published as journal articles (e.g.: Gerlach,

2003; Parrish, 2008). It was assumed that journal/book publication is a

reasonable proxy for “influence” in academic circles and consequently, the

list was filtered a second time. At this point only journal articles and book

chapters were included that clearly portrayed themselves as part of the SuE

conversation by including the search terms in the title, abstract or keywords.

The final list was thus narrowed down to 38 publications, of which four were

book chapters.

The “filtered” publication list was analysed in a manner that paid particular

attention to the concepts of sustainability referred to in the papers surveyed,

and to their primary foci (or themes). Note was taken of what authors

explicitly wrote in their publications and of what they implicitly inferred by

means of their examples. This process corresponds to the “insight” stage of

the CMS perspective. A note was also made of the nationality of the

institution at which the author(s) were based at the time of writing, the

journal in which the article was published, additional emphases and

theoretical perspectives. Authors’ definitions of the SuE concept were also

documented.

Findings

Publications on SuE

There has been a marked increase in academic writing that explicitly

identifies itself with the field of sustainability entrepreneurship during the

past decade (starting around 2002). From the perspective of BoP

communities however, it is important to ask not only if academics are taking

an interest in issues of sustainability entrepreneurship, but which academics

are doing so. The discussion of sustainability issues with global ramifications

will arguably benefit if the perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups are

included.

When the authorship of the publications surveyed was analysed, a somewhat

(but not entirely) familiar picture emerged. Europe and North America are


over-represented in terms of the number of authors published and several

countries are exceptionally active with regards to SuE authorship, most

notably the Netherlands. Nonetheless, several highly-cited articles make

extensive use of sources that are not available in English (particularly articles

in German). This suggests that there is a risk of underestimating the

contribution of nations such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Authors

from emerging economies and developing nations are also underrepresented

(see figure 2).


With regards to the type of journals in which SuE articles are published, figure

3 shows that authors tend to publish in journals that focus on ethics, the

environment, development and agriculture. With the exception of the Journal

of Business Venturing, entrepreneurship journals have not yet begun to publish

articles on the SuE theme on a regular basis.


Terminology and definitions

The survey revealed that the definition of sustainability entrepreneurship is

contested, with different scholars preferring different terms. The most

popular term is “sustainable entrepreneurship”, although some researchers

argue that this term could refer to any type of sustainability – or simply to the

capacity of a firm or individual to continue innovating. Several authors

therefore follow the suggestion of the 2007 World Symposium on

Sustainable Entrepreneurship and adopt the term “sustainability

entrepreneurship” (Parrish, 2008). A less common term is

“sustainopreneurship” (Abrahamsson, 2007; Schaltegger, 2000). If the initial

65-publication survey is included in our discussion other terms are used with

of 33

regards to both the enterprise and the entrepreneur. For example: “values-

oriented entrepreneurs” (Choi & Gray, 2008), “sustainability-motivated

entrepreneurs” (Cohen, Smith, & Mitchell, 2008), “sustainability-driven

enterprise” (Schlange, 2009) and “integrated enterprise” (Schieffer & Lessem,

2009). Closely related concepts include: “responsible” and “ethical”

entrepreneurship (Azmat & Samaratunge, 2009; Fuller & Tian, 2006; C.

Moore & de Bruin, 2003).

Sustainability entrepreneurship has been defined in three main ways in the

literature. First of all, several writers imply that “green” is largely

synonymous with “sustainable”. The key traits put forward by Schaper (2005)

in his book subtitled “developing sustainability entrepreneurship” represent

two emphases of this “green” definition, namely: i) environmental impact and

ii) intentionality – whereby it is possible to “separate green entrepreneurs from

"accidental ecopreneurs"”.

A second approach suggests that sustainability entrepreneurship is a general

concept, under which sub-themes such as “ecopreneurship” and “business

social entrepreneurship” may exist. Schaltegger and Wagner (2011) for

example, define SuE as entrepreneurship that involves: "break-through

environmentally or socially beneficial market or institutional innovations" (my

italics). This definition allows for ventures that emphasise a “double-bottom

line”, and does not require firms to pursue sustainability at all three of the

traditional “pillars” of the sustainability model.

A third way in which SuE has been defined is represented by authors such as

Gibbs (2009), Tilley, Parrish and Young (2006; 2009) and Schlange (2009).

Schlange suggests that a venture qualifies as sustainability-driven “if it

combines opportunities and intentions to simultaneously create value from an

economic, social and ecological perspective" (my italics). This definition

emphasises the idea that entrepreneurial behaviour needs to address all three

pillars of the sustainability model if it is to qualify as sustainable.

The definition of sustainability entrepreneurship that most clearly takes their

interests of BoP populations into account is that of Spence, Gherib & Biwolé


(2010). They suggest that SuE consists of “the ability to demonstrate

responsible creativity while achieving viable, liveable, and equitable

development through the integration and management of natural and human

resources in business".

Themes in the discourse on Sustainability Entrepreneurship

Several themes in the sustainability entrepreneurship literature, with some

themes and traits more prevalent than others. These themes are discussed

below.

Sustainability entrepreneurship = “green” entrepreneurship

The initial background survey of the literature suggests that SuE thinking has

been significantly influenced by publications in the field of environmental or

“green” entrepreneurship. Authors such as Isaak (1999), Gladwin et al

(1995), Schaper (2002) and Schaltegger (2002) have all had a considerable

impact on the field. Understandably much of the SuE literature therefore

favours an environmentalist interpretation. Frequently the terms

“ecopreneurship”, “sustainable entrepreneurship” and “sustainable

development” are used either interchangeably, as illustrated by Gibbs (2009)

who writes of “sustainable entrepreneurs or ecopreneurs”. Even where

authors define the term as including social issues, the examples provided

suggest that the concept associated with sustainability entrepreneurship is a

green one. Schaltegger & Wagner (2011) exemplify this in a section entitled

“When do sustainable entrepreneurs emerge and who are they?”, where the

firms that illustrate their discussion are clearly “green” in character. Similarly,

in Kuckertz and Wagner’s (2009) operationalization of “sustainability

orientation”, four of six indicators refer to environmental concerns.

In a later section I suggest that studies of green entrepreneurship offer useful

insights for scholars in other entrepreneurship fields such as social

of 33

entrepreneurship. The insights from green entrepreneurship that I suggest

might be readily exported are noted below.

Within environmental entrepreneurship authors have suggested several

typologies of both firm and entrepreneur. Both Isaak (2005) and Volery

(2002) write of “green businesses” and “green-green businesses”, and thus

distinguish between existing businesses that develop a “green streak” due to

opportunity discovery, or legislation – and those more purposive businesses

that are founded with the goal of promoting ecological sustainability. Walley

and Taylor (2005) introduce a similar typology, but also discuss the role of

ambition and structural influences. The four different types of “green”

entrepreneur that they subsequently identify are arguably also identifiable

among “social” entrepreneurs. Schaltegger (2002) suggests a similar

framework to the above authors, but emphasises the importance of a

concern for growth on the part of the ecopreneur and the type of innovation

generated. He therefore categorises “green” firms on the basis of their

market aspirations and position, on a scale ranging from “alternative” to

“mass” markets. In later papers Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010), and

Schaltegger and Wagner (2011) develop these ideas and link the innovation

process to firm size, suggesting that over time SMEs and larger firms

complement one another in the area of product and process innovation.

These findings appear to have relevance for the study of social innovation,

even if social enterprises may possibly be more concerned with service (as

opposed to product) innovation.


The individual as a source of entrepreneurial values and identity

Many authors suggest that sustainability entrepreneurship is characterised by

“values” and “causes” closely linked to the motivation, identity and cognition

of the individual. Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) term such studies the

“psychological perspective” and stress their importance in SuE research.

Examples of this perspective include Kuckertz and Wagner (2009) and

Krueger et al (2005; Krueger, Hansen, Michl, & Welsh 2011) who adapt the

ideas of entrepreneurial cognition to the SuE conversation and discuss the

impact of experience and mental models (perceptions of feasibility and

desirability) on entrepreneurial intention. Schlange (2006, 2009) emphasises

the importance of entrepreneurs’ motivation in the venturing process. He

also notes the role of entrepreneurs’ worldviews, an emphasis echoed by

O’Neill, Hershauer and Golden (2009) in their study of entrepreneurship

among the Navajo. The general emphasis however is not on cultural

embeddedness, but rather on individuals’ values and their sense of

participating in an important endeavour. Choi and Gray (2008) for example:

use the terms “mission-oriented” and "values-oriented” to describe the

activities of the 21 “sustainable” entrepreneurs they studied. Hockerts and

Wüstenhagen (2010) note however, that this “pronounced value-based

approach” may be compromised as the businesses grows.

Importantly, several SuE authors are begin to add the factor of skill to

discussions of entrepreneurial cognition. Cohen, Smith and Mitchell (2008)

note that sustainability entrepreneurs are not only “sustainability-motivated”,

but also adept at taking first-order optimisation decisions (decisions that

require the combination of all three “triple bottom-line” criteria). Choi and

Gray (2008), and Rodgers (2010) provide further examples of a more

process-oriented perspective that focuses on the individual entrepreneur’s

development.



Sustainability entrepreneurship as “opportunity-oriented”

In keeping with traditional studies of entrepreneurship SuE researchers have

also begun to discuss the concept of opportunity at an early stage. Presently,

only two papers provide typologies of the SuE concept of opportunity

(Cohen & Winn, 2005; and Dean & McMullen, 2007), but many others

discuss the concept at length, frequently operationalizing it and relating it to

case studies.

Conceptually, several SuE publications portray opportunities from the

perspective of classical entrepreneurship theory, suggesting they appear as a

result of market imperfections. Cohen and Winn (2007) identify four types of

opportunity that arise from such imperfections, which sustainability

entrepreneurs may take advantage of (inefficient firms, the existence of

externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and imperfectly distributed

information). Dean and McMullen (2007) also discuss market imperfections

and suggest that five distinct types of sustainability entrepreneurship match

these opportunities (coasian, institutional, market appropriating, political and

informational). Several of the ideas suggested by these authors are similar to

one another (for example: their ideas on the role of information), but on the

whole Cohen and Winn restrict their discussion of opportunity to the

traditional, commercial realm of business more than authors such as Dean

and McMullen, and Klein Woolthuis (2010) – who argue for an expansion of

the concept of entrepreneurship. In this sense, Cohen and Winn’s approach

reflects the initial logic behind Prahalad and Hart’s (2002) strategic move

towards the base of the pyramid, as they focus more on “business

opportunity” than “sustainability”. Keskin, Brezet and Diehl (2009) also fit

this category, as they portray sustainability entrepreneurship (through the

product-service systems lens) as a means of commercialising sustainable

innovations.


In addition to underlining the “business case” for sustainability

entrepreneurship, several authors suggest that sustainability entrepreneurship

could provide a new perspective on opportunity. Patzelt and Shepherd (2010;

2011) argue for an expansion of the opportunity concept and suggest that

individuals’ knowledge with regards to the potential for sustainable

development is a key factor. In keeping with Krueger (2005) they identify the

importance of analysing why some individuals act on opportunities, while

others do not (first-person vs. third-person opportunity). Together with

authors such as Hofstra (2007) they align themselves with several of Dean

and McMullen’s ideas and propose entrepreneurial action in areas not

traditionally included in the business fold, but which have an impact on

business and society (most obviously the institutional framework).

Several SuE articles discuss the opportunity theme from a more empirical (as

opposed to conceptual) position. Moore and Manring (2009) for example,

adopt a SME perspective and suggest that smaller companies possess

business models and are exposed to competitive forces in a manner that

often gives them the edge over larger companies. De Palma and Dobes

(2010) portray sustainability entrepreneurship as an opportunity for eco-

efficiency in an eastern European context. Finally, Jenkins (2009) discusses

sustainability entrepreneurship from a CSR perspective and introduces the

concept of Corporate Social Opportunity (CSO) as a source of competitive

advantage for SMEs. These examples of corporate [sustainability]

entrepreneurship demonstrate the utility of the opportunity concept, which

can be applied at both an individual and firm (or industry) level.

Sustainability entrepreneurship as Innovation

Within SuE publications there exists a stream of literature that emphasises

the links between sustainability entrepreneurship and innovation. Authors are

often of Dutch/German origin, as exemplified by Gerlach (2003) who

of 33

portrays sustainability entrepreneurs as “promoters of innovation processes

for sustainable development”. Publications in this category tend to adopt

either a micro or macro perspective on innovation. Authors in the “micro”

group focus on innovation at the firm level, discussing its degree

(incremental vs. radical), its focus (social, process or product) or the factors

that affect it. In the SME context the work of Bos-Brouwers (2010) is

particularly useful, as she identifies seven key factors that affect sustainability

innovation (duty, skilled personnel, suppliers, trade associations, degree of

formalization, customers and national governmental institutions).

In the second group Schaltegger and Wagner (2011) note the different

innovation roles that firms adopt according to size (as discussed earlier).

Klein Woolthuis (2010) includes emphases from both groups in her writing,

but complements Cohen and Winn’s ideas of market failure with a theory of

“system failures”, emphasising the interplay of the entrepreneur with

networks and institutions. These idea are echoed by Vollenbroek (2002) who

positions innovation as an actor in the field of “sustainability transitions”.

Sustainability entrepreneurship as an expansion of “entrepreneurship”

In the section on “SuE as opportunity” it was hinted that an implication of

the multi-disciplinary nature of sustainability is that “entrepreneurship”

might also be conceptualised in more than just the traditional “business-

oriented” sense. This point is made by Dean and McMullen (2007), who

argue that “the domain of the field may extend substantially beyond current

perspectives”. Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) consolidate this idea by

suggesting that future research include perspectives from the fields of

economic development, psychology and institutional theory.

Traditionally, scholars have studied entrepreneurship as a business

phenomenon that takes place in a societal context. Some authors suggest

however that sustainability entrepreneurship can involve institutional change,

and that entrepreneurs might reshape “broader socioeconomic institutions”

(Gibbs, 2009). Several authors concur and point out that SuE can involve

“market or institutional innovations” (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Indeed,


Pacheco, Dean and Payne (2010) identify three specific areas that

entrepreneurs might address (industry norms, property rights and

government legislation).

Another way in which researchers suggest the field of sustainability

entrepreneurship might be expanded has to do with organisations.

Abrahamsson (2007) writes of SuE as “creative organising” (citing

Johannisson 2005), a theme also taken up by Parrish (2010), and Seelos and

Mair (2005). Parrish suggests that sustainability entrepreneurship often

involves “redesigning” organisations and that five generative rules can be

seen to govern this process (relating to organisational purpose, efficiency,

trade-offs, criteria and inducement). Katsikis and Kyrgidou (2007) describe

organisational change as one of the key sustainability-related activities they

observed in the renewal of the mastiha industry on the Greek island of Chios.

A final “transformational” theme in the SuE literature is that of the concept

of “value” (or “rent” in economic terms). Cohen, Smith and Mitchell (2008)

note that the dependent variables used by most researchers reflect only one of

seven possible concepts of value. In view of entrepreneurs’ capacity suggest

entrepreneurs’ for focusing on “first order objectives1” they argue that other

variables need to be included in research if studies are to accurately portray

the impact of entrepreneurship on sustainability. This idea is echoed by

scholars such as Hofstra (2007), and Johnstone and Lionais (2004) who view

sustainability entrepreneurs as the potential authors of paradigmatic change.

1 I.e.: “high level socio-enviro-economic objectives” (p.116)



Enterprise and sustainable development – a critique

Based on my survey of the SuE literature and in addition to the five themes

identified above, two trends emerge that relate to the linking of

entrepreneurship to sustainable development. First of all, most authors

explicitly link the SuE field to the SD concept, a pattern that is laudable from

the perspective of BoP populations. Nonetheless, the second trend is less

positive and has to do with the tendency of SuE writers to discuss

sustainable development very briefly and with reference to only one or two

publications. The first: “Our Common Future1” was published in 1987 by

the United Nations, while the second: “Our Common Journey” was

published by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1999.

In my introduction I described the contested nature of the SD concept and

briefly noted some of the criticisms that have been directed at (primarily) the

influential Brundtland report. In view of these weaknesses one might expect

to find more diversity among SuE authors with regards to the way in which

sustainable development is conceptualised and related to entrepreneurship.

Alternatives (or complements) to the UN and NRC publications are for

example the writings of Amartya Sen (1999) and Bobby Banerjee (2002) who

provide not only additional perspectives on sustainable development, but

also outlooks that closely reflect the concerns of BoP populations. My survey

of the literature suggests however, that such diversity is not yet apparent in

the SuE conversation and that with very few exceptions (for example:

Parrish, 2008), scholars are making uncritical use of what Alvesson and

Deetz (2000) term “taken-for-granted goals, ideas, ideologies and

discourses”. Is this a problem? I believe it is for two main reasons and I

introduce these in the following paragraphs.

1 Produced by the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) and also known as ”the Brundtland Report”.


The “beheading” of sustainable development

In my description of the themes that characterise the SuE conversation I

noted that the literature is very “green” in character. This emphasis on the

importance of environmental sustainability is one of the key messages of the

UN/WCED report that the majority of SuE scholars refer to. However, it is

not the only one, as the report also emphasises the importance of issues such

as peace, security and legal change. Many scholars and business leaders

appear to be using the Brundtland report in a selective manner: using it to

support a focus on environmental issues, but not incorporating the entire

“body” of the publication’s ideas on sustainable development (Banerjee,

2002). In a sense therefore, we have “beheaded” the SD concept presented

by Gro Brundtland and her colleagues, even if scholars of sustainability

entrepreneurship are not alone in doing so. For as Cook and Smith (2012)

point out in their discussion of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable

Development, the “social aspect [of sustainable development] remains weak

and marginalized” at a more general level. From the perspective of BoP

communities this is an unfortunate trend which suggests that the answer to

the second question posed by this paper, is that the academic conversation

about SuE only addresses the concerns of BoP populations to a limited

degree. Some authors however do seem to be addressing this gap, as a recent

edited book includes a section entitled “Entrepreneurship, innovation and

sustainability in developing countries” (Wagner, 2012).

…and its “disembedding”

In the above paragraphs I suggest that many SuE scholars tend to relate

entrepreneurial activity to only one of the emphases in the most well-known

and “global” publication on sustainable development (i.e.: the Brundtland

report). By doing so I suggest that we risk ignoring the fact that for the

majority of the world’s population, sustainability is necessarily an embedded

concept. By this I mean that the type of sustainability that communities

of 33

prioritise is affected not only by their social contexts (Granovetter, 1985), but

also by their time-bound environmental and historical circumstances. In the

context of social entrepreneurship Lumpkin et al (2011) point out that

entrepreneurial processes are ”deeply influenced and restricted by [the]

requirements of a social venture’s environment”. Nevertheless, the

importance of embeddedness is not just an academic question of

“contextualizing entrepreneurship theory” in studies of sustainability

enterprise (Welter, 2011), but also an idea with ethical ramifications. Cook

and Smith (2012) suggest that in the context of sustainable development

“diverse local values, knowledge and practices […] are marginalized in

dominant development policies”. This observation mirrors the arguments of

authors such as Amartya Sen (1999), who are critical of global SD policies

and instead propose that that development goals be established with the

participation of those at whom interventions are aimed.

The ideas outlined in the above paragraph imply that significant weaknesses

are associated with the uncritical reference by SuE scholars to “universal”

concepts of sustainable development that are unrealistically detached from

local development priorities. There appears to be a need therefore, to adopt

concepts of sustainable development that are more dynamic and “native” in

nature (Quental, Lourenço, & da Silva, 2011). Such an approach could have

significant ramifications for the way in which scholars portray both the

objectives and the processes associated with sustainability entrepreneurship.

It is also possible that the relevance of SuE theory for practitioners will

increase substantially as researchers “engage” with the specific challenges to

sustainability encountered by local communities (Van de Ven, 2011).

Alternative accounts of sustainability entrepreneurship

A key idea in critical management studies is that scholars should not only

critique existing interpretations of managerial behaviour, but also provide

“alternative accounts” (Willmott, 2005). In this section I suggest ways in

which scholars of sustainability entrepreneurship could broaden the scope of


the SuE field and thus include the concerns of BoP populations to a greater

extent in their writing.

A first suggestion stems from my survey of the geographical “homes” of SuE

authors. Academics with backgrounds in regions with large BoP populations

are underrepresented in the SuE literature and it is probable that if they

participated to a greater extent in the academic “conversation” a greater

range of topics and perspectives might develop. This is illustrated by the fact

that the only article in my survey that included the term “equity” in its

definition of sustainability entrepreneurship was co-authored by researchers

from Cameroon and Tunisia (Spence, et al., 2010).

A second suggestion has to do with the need for SuE scholars to achieve in

practice the balance between the various pillars of sustainability that many

writers eschew in their theoretical definitions of sustainability

entrepreneurship. My analysis of the journals in which articles were published

suggests that from the perspective of the entrepreneurship researcher, there

is a trend towards constructing sustainability entrepreneurship in terms of

“green” entrepreneurship, opportunity and conceptual renewal. All three of

these emphases are valuable from the perspective of BoP communities, even

if the full potential of the SuE approach will not be fulfilled if attention is

only paid to the environmental aspects of sustainability. Articles that are

more questioning of the primarily “green” logic of sustainability

entrepreneurship (for example: Spence, et al., 2010; Tilley & Parrish, 2006)

have however not yet been published in the leading entrepreneurship

journals. If this trend continues it may hamper the development of the field,

if the “cites per year” figures are an indication of publication impact. Of the

six journal articles in the field that are cited more than ten times a year, five

adopt a position that defines sustainability entrepreneurship as primarily

“green” (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011 being the exception). This is a worrying

trend from the perspective of BoP populations, as many of the sustainability-

of 33

related problems they face are also of a social, institutional or economic

nature. Consequently, there appears to be a need for the integration of at

least two more “Ps” into the SuE model of sustainability. I suggest that these

are represented by “principle” (Van Marrewijk & Werre, 2003) and “place”

(Beatley & Manning, 1997). In other words by the recognition that

sustainable development (and hence sustainability entrepreneurship) involves

both ethical concerns, and a greater understanding of its embeddedness in

time and place.

By relating sustainability entrepreneurship to five “Ps” (principles, people,

place, planet and profit) instead of just three, it is possible that SuE authors

will achieve both increased balance with regards to sustainability and greater

relevance to the concerns of BoP populations. At this point it is important to

underline that this balance does not necessarily involve a weakening of the

“green” emphasis (planet), but instead both a strengthening of the other

emphases and the sharing of entrepreneurial insights between the

sustainability “pillars”. The potential for such sharing is seen in the writing of

Schaltegger (2002) and his categorisation of environmental entrepreneurs.

Many scholars of social entrepreneurship will immediately recognise the

applicability of these categories to their own field and the opportunity to put

their own expertise to use in refining Schaltegger and Wagner’s (2011)

extended model. Accordingly, figure 4 depicts the possibility of employing

“sustainability entrepreneurship” as an umbrella term under which other

entrepreneurship fields relating to sustainability may be grouped, including

that of entrepreneurial ethics (Hannafey, 2003). This suggestion reflects the

ideas of authors such as Dean and McMullen (2007) and Gibbs (2009) who

have already suggested that green entrepreneurship be considered a

“subclass” of sustainability entrepreneurship. The figure also portrays the

tendency of particular fields of entrepreneurship research to be associated

with specific sustainability pillars and identifies risks that may accompany a

failure to integrate insights from other fields.



In this paper space prohibits an extensive discussion of the specific insights

that each field of entrepreneurship research could share with the others.

Nevertheless, it is important to underline the importance of the fields of

social, institutional and community entrepreneurship to the future SuE

conversation. Scandinavian scholars have termed these topics “societal

entrepreneurship” and note that “social” entrepreneurs often engage in

activities that are clearly of a political or institutional nature (Gawell,

Johannisson, & Lundqvist, 2009). Similar reasoning is present in the writing

of Dean and McMullen (2007), and McMullen (2011) who suggest that both

sustainability and development entrepreneurship broaden their perspectives

to include individuals’ engagement in institutional and “political”

entrepreneurship. For the purposes of this paper however, the key point to

be drawn from these examples is the need for a greater integration of the

“people” side of sustainability into the SuE conversation, where “people” is

seen to include not only individuals, but also the groups, cultures and

institutions they relate to. This may be achieved by drawing not only on the

field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) where attempts to define

social sustainability have taken place (in, for example: Hutchins &

Sutherland, 2008), but above all on studies of social and institutional

entrepreneurship, where the diverse processes by which social sustainability

is achieved are discussed.

The above paragraph suggests several ways in which writers can reduce the

risk of SuE authors “beheading” the concept of sustainable development and

weakening the field’s contribution to social sustainability. In this section I

suggest that there is also a need to “re-embed” sustainability

entrepreneurship in the particular contexts of local communities. Here

authors receive less help from CSR research than is the case with social

sustainability. Indeed, CSR scholars have noted the difficulties the field

encounters in attempting to turn rhetoric into reality in local communities,

particularly among BoP populations (Newell, 2005). Nevertheless CSR

of 33

scholars do point out that smaller firms appear to have an advantage over

multinational corporations when it comes to adapting their activities to the

particular contexts in which they operate (Jamali, Zanhour, & Keshishian,

2009). This observation parallels the discussion of scholars such as

Schaltegger and Wagner (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011) about the impact of

firm size on the innovation roles that sustainable enterprises adopt.

If SuE scholars include the concept of “place” in their conversations to a

greater extent (as development theorists such as Lélé infer that they should),

the field of community entrepreneurship (CE) can be expected to make a

major contribution. Many CE researchers grapple with sustainability issues

that are not only of a “glocal” nature (Johanisson, 2009), but that also take

into account the long-term value that people attribute to community (Ekins

& Newby, 1998; Johnstone & Lionais, 2004; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006;

Smallbone, North, & Kalantaridis, 1999). Furthermore, many of these

authors are clearly aware of issues of embeddedness, with Norton (2005)

noting that a key question as regards sustainable development is whether

“society has developed practices and institutions that are responsive to, and

sustainable in, their local environment”. There are also clear links between

the types of entrepreneurial small firm identified by Schaltegger and Wagner,

and the communities in which they thrive (Holt, 2011). Observations such as

these strongly imply that small businesses play a key, but under-researched

role in contributing to the sustainability of both local communities and

indigenous culture (O'Neill, et al., 2009). It is also clear that if individuals are

allowed to participate in the definition of “sustainable development” (as

Amartya Sen suggests), then issues of “community” may very well prove to

be as important as the environmental concerns presently emphasised by SuE

research. This is a key message in Shepherd and Patzelt’s (2011) recent

article.

In conclusion, this paper identifies the tension within the field regarding how

sustainability entrepreneurship should be defined as a topic for further

discussion. Do ventures need to take every aspect of sustainability into

account in order to be considered sustainable (as authors such as Parrish

suggest)? Or should a less rigorous definition be used (echoing the ideas of


Schaltegger and Wagner)? This articles suggests that the concept of

entrepreneurial embeddedness may provide relevant middle ground between

these two poles. From the perspective of the enormous populations earning

less than $2 USD a day it is also important to question whether BoP ventures

necessarily need to be associated with social entrepreneurship, as Schaltegger

and Wagner imply (2011, p. 223). A recent edited book by Wagner (2012) on

entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainability includes several chapters that

position BoP perspectives within the SuE field (for example: Bjerregaard &

Lauring, 2012), suggesting that this is not always the case. Further work is

therefore needed in order to more clearly define the boundaries of the field.

However, from the perspective of this paper it is important that these

boundaries be not only constructed, but that their construction be a product

of the increased participation of scholars from emerging economies in the

sustainability entrepreneurship conversation.



References

Abrahamsson, A. (2007). Researching Sustainopreneurship–conditions, concepts,

approaches, arenas and questions. Paper presented at the 13th

International Sustainable Development Research Conference.

Alvesson, M. (2008). The future of Critical Management Studies. In D. Barry & H.

Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management

and organization (pp. 13-26). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (Eds.). (2000). Doing critical management research:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Azmat, F., & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible entrepreneurship in

developing countries: understanding the realities and complexities.

Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 437-452.

Banerjee, S. B. (2002). Organisational Strategies for Sustainable Development:

Developing A Research Agenda for the New Millennium. Australian

Journal of Management, 27(1 suppl), 105-117.

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How Actors Change Institutions:

Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. The Academy of

Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107.

Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for

environment, economy, and community: Island Pr.

Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). The social sustainability of

entrepreneurship: an ethnographic study of entrepreneurial balancing

of plural logics. In M. Wagner (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, innovation and

sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Björk, T., & Wiklund, J. (1993). Den globala konflikten: om miljön och framtiden.

Paper presented at the SEED-Forum, Stockholm.

Bos-Brouwers, H. (2010). Sustainable innovation processes within small and

medium-sized enterprises. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Bossel, H. (2000). Book Review: National Research Council Board on Sustainable

Development. 1999. Our common journey, a transition toward

sustainability. Conservation Ecology, 4(1), 17.

Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American

Academy of Arts and Sciences, 49(7), 18-33.

Brundtland, G., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our common future.


Choi, D. Y., & Gray, E. R. (2008). The venture development processes of

“sustainable” entrepreneurs. Management Research News, 31(8), 558-

569.

Cohen, B., Smith, B., & Mitchell, R. K. (2008). Toward a sustainable

conceptualization of dependent variables in entrepreneurship research.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 107-119.

Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and

sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29-

49.

Cook, S., & Smith, K. (2012). Introduction: Green Economy and Sustainable

Development: Bringing back the ‘social’. Development, 55(1), 5-9.

Daly, H. E. (1990). Operational principles for sustainable development.

Ecological Economics, 2(1), 1-6.

Davis, P. (2011, June 30). The private sector must assume a central role in global

development.

De Palma, R., & Dobes, V. (2010). An integrated approach towards sustainable

entrepreneurship - Experience from the TEST project in transitional

economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(18), 1807-1821.

Dean, T., & McMullen, J. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable

entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through

entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76.

Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Paper presented at

the White Paper.

Ekins, P., & Newby, L. (1998). Sustainable Wealth Creation At The Local Level In

An Age Of Globalization. Regional Studies, 32(9), 863-871.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty First

Century Business. Mankato, MN: Capstone

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and

how it can succeed again (S. Sampson, Trans.). Cambridge Cambridge

University Press.

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: conditions and prospects

for critical management studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7.

Fuller, T., & Tian, Y. (2006). Social and symbolic capital and responsible

entrepreneurship: an empirical investigation of SME narratives. Journal

of Business Ethics, 67(3), 287-304.

of 33

Gawell, M., Johannisson, B., & Lundqvist, M. (2009). Entrepreneurship in the

Name of Society. Stockholm: KK-stiftelsen.

Gerlach, A. (2003). Sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. Paper

presented at the Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management

Gibbs, D. (2009). Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the

development of a sustainable economy. Greener Management

International, 55, 63-78.

Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and

society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable

Development, 10(4), 187-196.

Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for

sustainable development: Implications for management theory and

research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874-907.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of

embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

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.

Hannafey, F. T. (2003). Entrepreneurship and Ethics: A Literature Review.

Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 99-110.

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.

Hofstra, N. (2007). Sustainable entrepreneurship in dialogue. Progress in

Industrial Ecology, an International Journal, 4(6), 495-514.

Holt, D. (2011). Where are they now? tracking the longitudinal evolution of

environmental businesses from the 1990s. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 20(4), 238-250.

Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social

sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688-1698.

Isaak, R. A. (1999). Green logic: Ecopreneurship, theory, and ethics: Kumarian

Press.

Isaak, R. A. (2005). The making of the ecopreneur. In M. Schaper (Ed.), Making

ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 13-26).

Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.


Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Peculiar Strengths and

Relational Attributes of SMEs in the Context of CSR. Journal of Business

Ethics, 87(3), 355-377.

Jenkins, H. (2009). A ‘business opportunity’ model of corporate social

responsibility for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics:

A European Review, 18(1), 21-36.

Jermier, J. M., & Forbes, L. C. (2003). Greening organizations: Critical issues. In

M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp.

157–176). London: Sage Publications.

Johanisson, B. (2009). Glocalization as a Generic Entrepreneurial Strategy.

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Johanisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: networking for

local development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(1), 3-

19.

Johnstone, H., & Lionais, D. (2004). Depleted communities and community

business entrepreneurship: revaluing space through place.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(3), 217-233.

Katsikis, I. N., & Kyrgidou, L. P. (2007, 2007/08/). The concept of sustainable

entrepreneurship: A conceptual framework and empirical analysis.

Keskin, D., Brezet, H., & Diehl, J. (2009). Commercializing Sustainable

Innovations in the Market through Entrepreneurship.

Klein Woolthuis, R., J.A. (2010). Sustainable Entrepreneurship in the Dutch

Construction Industry. Sustainability, 2(2), 505-523.

Krueger, N. F. (2005). Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Broadening the Definition

of ‘Opportunity’. SSRN Accepted Paper Series, 7: Entrepreneurship in a

Diverse World.

Krueger, N. F., Hansen, D. J., Michl, T., & Welsh , D. H. B. (2011). Thinking

“Sustainably”: The Role of Intentions, Cognitions, and Emotions in

Understanding New Domains of Entrepreneurship. In G. T. Lumpkin & J.

A. Katz (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and

growth: Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Vol. 13, pp. 275 - 309):

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2009). The influence of sustainability orientation on

entrepreneurial intentions--Investigating the role of business

experience. Journal of Business Venturing.

of 33

Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World

Development, 19(6), 607-621.

London, T. (2007). A base-of-the-pyramid perspective on poverty alleviation.

Ann Arbor: The William Davidson Institute-University of Michigan-,

Working Paper.

Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2011).

Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: how are they different, if

at all? Small Business Economics, 1-23.

Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1),

36-44.

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Design for the triple top line: new

tools for sustainable commerce. Corporate Environmental Strategy,

9(3), 251-258.

McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the Domain of Development

Entrepreneurship: A Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive

Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185-

193.

Moore, C., & de Bruin, A. (2003). Ethical entrepreneurship. In A. de Bruin & A.

Dupuis (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: New perspectives in a global age (pp.

43-56). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Moore, S. B., & Manring, S. L. (2009). Strategy development in small and

medium sized enterprises for sustainability and increased value

creation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 276-282.

National Research Council. (1999). Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward

Sustainability. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: the limits of the

CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81(3), 541-557.

Nilsen, H. R. (2010). The joint discourse ‘reflexive sustainable development’ —

From weak towards strong sustainable development. Ecological

Economics, 69(3), 495-501.

Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem

management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

O'Neill, G. D., Hershauer, J. C., & Golden, J. S. (2009). The Cultural Context of

Sustainability Entrepreneurship. [Article]. Greener Management

International(55), 33-46.

Pacheco, D. F., Dean, T. J., & Payne, D. S. (2010). Escaping the green prison:

Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable

development. [Article]. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 464-480.


Parker, M. (2005). Writing Critical Management Studies. In C. Grey & H.

Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies: A reader

New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Parrish, B. D. (2008). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: a literature review.

University of Leeds, School of Earth & Environment.

Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of

organization design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 510-523.

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable

Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based

enterprise. The Academy of Management Review 31(2), 309-328.

Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: A critical review

of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

Strategy and Business, 26.

Quental, N., Lourenço, J. M., & da Silva, F. N. (2011). Sustainability:

Characteristics and scientific roots. Environment, Development and

Sustainability, 13(2), 257-276.

Rodgers, C. (2010). Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs: a case study analysis.

Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 17(3),

125-132.

Schaltegger, S. (2000). Vom bionier zum sustainopreneur. Paper presented at

the Rio Impuls Management Forum. Retrieved from

www.rio.ch/Pages/archiv/2000rmf.html

Schaltegger, S. (2002). A framework for ecopreneurship: Leading bioneers and

environmental managers to ecopreneurship. Greener Management

International, 38(Summer), 45-58.

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and

sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy

and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237.

Schaper, M. (2002). The essence of ecopreneurship. Greener Management

International, 38.

of 33

Schaper, M. (2005). Understanding the green entrepreneur. In M. Schaper (Ed.),

Making ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 3-

12). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Schieffer, A., & Lessem, R. (2009). Beyond social and private enterprise: Towards

the integrated enterprise. Transition Studies Review, 15(4), 713-725.

Schlange, L. E. (2006). What drives sustainable entrepreneurs? Paper presented

at the Applied Business & Entrepreneurship Association International.

Schlange, L. E. (2009). Stakeholder Identification in Sustainability

Entrepreneurship. [Article]. Greener Management International(55), 13-

32.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Sustainable development: How social

entrepreneurs make it happen. IESE Working Paper, 611.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Shell. (1999). People, Planet and Profits: An act of commitment.

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.

Smallbone, D., North, D., & Kalantaridis, C. (1999). Adapting to peripherality: a

study of small rural manufacturing firms in northern England.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), 109-127.

Smith, R. (2011). Observing community-based entrepreneurship and social

networking at play in an urban village setting. International Journal of

entrepreneurship and small business, 12(1), 62-81.

Sotirin, P., & Tyrell, S. J. (1998). Wondering about Critical Management Studies.

Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 303.

Spence, M., Gherib, J. B. B., & Biwolé, V. O. (2010). Sustainable

Entrepreneurship: Is Entrepreneurial will Enough? A North–South

Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-33.

Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: a

perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the Environment,

12(2), 71-86.

Thin, N. (2002). Social progress and sustainable development. Bloomfield, CT:

Kumarian Press Inc.

Tilley, F., & Parrish, B. D. (2006). From poles to wholes: facilitating an integrated

approach to sustainable entrepreneurship. World Review of

Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 2(4),

281-294.


Tilley, F., & Young, W. (2009). Sustainability Entrepreneurs: Could They Be the

True Wealth Generators of the Future? Greener Management

International, 55, 79-92.

Wagner, M. (Ed.). (2012). Entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainability.

Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Walley, L., & Taylor, D. W. (2005). Opportunists, champions, mavericks...? A

typology of green entrepreneurs. In M. Schaper (Ed.), Making

ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 27-42).

Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2011). Research Useful for Theory and Practice: an Engaged

Scholarship Perspective. In S. A. Mohrman & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), Useful

Research: Advancing Theory and Practice (upcoming). Los Angeles:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate

sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 107-119.

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and

ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.

Willmott, H. (2005). Studying managerial work: a critique and a proposal. In C.

Grey & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies: A reader. New

York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Volery, T. (2002). Ecopreneurship: Rationale, current issues and future

challenges. Paper presented at the Umbruch der Welt - KMU vor

Höhenflug oder Absturz? (Radical change in the world - will SMEs soar

or crash?), St Gallen, Switzerland.

Vollenbroek, F. A. (2002). Sustainable development and the challenge of

innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 215-223.

IJESB Beheaded & Disembedded 2012-06-17

Documents

Transcript of IJESB Beheaded & Disembedded 2012-06-17