What Defines Sustainability & Sustainable Entrepreneurship?

S USTAINABLE E NTREPRENEURSHIP ?

How do the two case organisations that I identified as sustainable entrepreneurship organisations, actually define the very concept of sustainability and sustainable entrepreneurship? We can recall that finding a universal definition for these terms seems to be quite a difficult task. However, as laid out in chapter 3.2., the term sustainability has been widely acknowledged in the academic discourse by using the understanding of the Brundtland commission (WCED, 1987):

“49. Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future.” (WCED, 1987, Chapter: 1,

49)

Within my research I found, that this definition of sustainability is not only widely accepted in academia, but apparently also in practice, as Septimius Krogh, Løs Market’s Communication and Public Relations Manager, pointed out. He himself uses the WCED definition for his understanding of sustainability as a concept. He also argued, that sustainability to him is a very exclusive concept:

“But on the other hand, you cannot say “more sustainable”. Either you are sustainable or you are not sustainable. You cannot be more self-sustainable. Either it can hold itself, or

not. It cannot hold itself a little.” (Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b)

This statement reflects, that Løs Market aims to not make any compromises on that which I could also gain from our first meeting where both Septimius Krogh and Hamburger argued that “sustainability always comes first” (Field Notes Løs Market, 2017).

However, another noticeable aspect of my research was, that Løs Market did not yet decide on an official definition to use for sustainability (Septimius Krogh, 2017b).

I’m doing the communication normally and I don’t use it very often. But of course, we use it, when we are saying “At Løs Market, we give you a sustainable alternative, or a more

sustainable alternative, to do your grocery shopping.” (Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b, Appendix L, 129)

Septimius Krogh describes sustainability to have turned into a somewhat empty concept as it has been alienated from its original meaning (Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b).

The original meaning in this context refers to the definition of the Brundtland commission (WCED, 1987). Yet, sustainability is still seen as a highly relevant concept.

As the term has been used and misused in many places resulting in no agreed upon meaning, it is feared to have become an empty signifier which cannot represent the true meaning anymore that Løs Market wants to communicate. Therefore, they aim to establish a concept which is informed and shaped by their own practice and beliefs

(Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b). If definitions are unclear, so are the underlying goals and the organisation’s vision. Clear visions are of high importance as they motivate and provide direction for all members of the organisation (Conger & Benjamin, 1999) as well as guide the business through phases of change (Yukl, 2002). I argue that this vagueness might make Løs Market more vulnerable to change and other challenges they might encounter.

Despite the fact that no clear definition of sustainability emerged in my empirical data, interviewees had a clear understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in mind. The data at hand provided me with insights on the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship, as we find similarities amongst how the two organisations Løs Market and Phenix understand this concept:

“Sustainable entrepreneurship is a mix of environmental sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability. Because you can do something very great for

the environment, but if you can’t do it for very long, it’s not sustainable in the long-run.

Then you just launched something that will die very quick and that is not very sustainable in an environmental way. And one also needs to take people into account. Companies

are for the society. The society is not for the companies. Hence the company should take society and people into account – in any part of the process.” (Interview Septimius

Krogh, 2017b, Appendix L, 128)

A very similar notion and way of thinking was reflected in Boyer Chammard’s statements from Phenix:

“For me, it’s very much about the triple bottom line basically. Acting on a market, that actually makes economic sense, but also in a way that is environmentally friendly and socially just. Basically, counter the effects of capitalism. If capitalism is let loose, it would

increase inequality and there is no market control. By integrating sustainability, you balance it out more.” (Interview Boyer Chammard, 2017b, Appendix K, 122)

Both, Boyer Chammard and Septimius Krogh have provided me with definitions on sustainable entrepreneurship that correspond very much with the concept of the triple bottom line. As already pointed out in chapter 3, the idea of the triple bottom line argues

that business performance should be monitored according to economic, environmental as well as social perspectives (Elkington, 1998).

The concept of the triple bottom line cannot be equalised with sustainable entrepreneurship in academic terms, as the latter has its very core mission on an environmental level, whereas the triple bottom line tries to add additional layers to an existing economic aspect. The triple bottom line has often been criticised to be used by larger corporations to add vague social and environmental goals to their organisations.

For many firms, it is easy to embrace the concept of the triple bottom line while they do not make any commitments to fulfilling any of the social or environmental aspects at hand (Norman & MacDonald, 2004). Potentially, both interviewees provided me with these similar definitions, as the triple bottom line reflects a mainstream discourse on the topic, however, the difference between the concepts has to be acknowledged.

What both, Septimius Krogh and Boyer Chammard, criticise and try to diminish by being active in their organisations, is that current supply chains work in a very linear way, i.e.

that resources are turned into products which are quickly being thrown out as garbage.

Therefore, inherent resources that might have had a much longer product life cycle are wasted (Interview Boyer Chammard, 2017b, Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b).

“It’s the way we produce things – now it is more a linear economy, which is the opposite of the circular economy. In a circular economy, you create loops so that every product that is used in your value chain – you don’t have a waste product. If you input something

in your value chain, either all of it becomes a product or if you have waste, it is not considered waste, but they are used as resources for other value chains or other products. […] That is the idea of circular economy, that the whole market economy would

be completely functional without waste products. […] We just stop thinking in a very linear way.” (Interview Boyer Chammard, 2017b, Appendix K, 122)

Thus, they aim to have an impact on the existing supply chain and add more circular components of reusing, repurposing and recycling products within the value chain. They argue for a. new value chains where waste is reduced to a minimum and products and resources along the supply chain are being reused and used very efficiently as well as sustainably. Within a circular economy approach, which stems from the principles of

industrial ecology, the focus lays on resource minimisation and the use of clean technologies. Industrial ecology implies “that a circular economy will be beneficial to society and to the economy as a whole” (Andersen, 2007, 133).

Septimius Krogh also pointed out that in order to change supply chains into more circular ones, there is a strong need for logistics being organised more efficiently (Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b). These inefficiencies represent an opportunity on the market (Cohen & Winn, 2007) which Phenix recognised and exploited quite successfully so far on the French market.

Some of the academic discourse actually does reflect the definitions I could gain from my empirical data but also the confusion, as no universal definition emerges. Many researchers argue that sustainable entrepreneurship is characterised by taking the 3Ps – planet, people, profits - into account when measuring and capturing business performance (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010, Bell & Stellingwerf, 2012, Elkington, 1998). The same thinking of including environmental, social as well as economic aspects within your organisation in order to be a sustainable venture, could be identified in both of the case organisations Løs Market and Phenix (Interview Boyer Chammard, 2017b, Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017b).

During the research process, I learned that there is not only one definition and also not one type of a sustainable entrepreneur as many differences also arise in practice.

Therefore, the next section will reveal different forms of sustainable entrepreneurs that I could observe in the case organisations.