C HALLENGES OF
S USTAINABLE
E NTREPRENEURS
I NSIGHTS FROM THE P RACTICE
MASTER THESIS
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Master of Science in Social Sciences Organisational Innovation & Entrepreneurship STUDENT
Christine Jama, BSc
SUPERVISOR
Irina Papazu, Adjunkt PhD
Number of pages: 75
Number of characters: 160,113
May 15th, 2017
A BSTRACT
This master thesis explores the phenomenon of sustainable entrepreneurship by the use of a multiple case study approach. Two case organisations, Løs Market and Phenix Denmark, have been studied in order to illuminate certain aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship. Firstly, the very definition of sustainable entrepreneurship concept is explored more deeply as the academic discourse has not reached consensus yet.
Secondly, it is examined which specific challenges and tensions sustainable entrepreneurs are confronted with in relation to reaching their environmental goals while being economically profitable.
The research is mostly based on empirical data and has been complemented by extant literature from the field. The data suggests that sustainable entrepreneurs need to change certain behaviours of individuals and businesses as well as inform and educate them about environmental issues in order to be able to reach their environmental missions. Furthermore, the pursuance of a variety of goals, namely environmental, economic as well as social ones, creates tensions and frictions within the companies and represents a major challenge. Lastly, it is suggested that further research needs to explore the underlying issues of these challenges which I identify to be unsustainable systems, habits and norms as well as competing value systems in an otherwise value- free economic sphere.
Keywords
sustainable entrepreneurship, environmental entrepreneurship, ecopreneurship, triple bottom line, circular economy, tensions, challenges, environmental values
I want to thank my supervisor Irina Papazu for her great support during the entire research and writing process of this thesis. She continuously provided me with valuable insights and useful tips for my research and guided me as needed throughout the process. I learned a lot from her and highly appreciated the insightful and friendly supervision she provided me with.
I further want to thank my interview partners from the case organisations, Løs Market and Phenix Denmark, for offering their support and participating in my project. Thank you to August Septimius Krogh, Charlotte Boyer Chammard and Frédéric Hamburger for contributing your time and insights to my research as well as for being very open and helpful during the entire process.
Thank you!
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1. Problem ... 1
1.2. Purpose ... 3
2. Methodology ... 5
2.1. Secondary data ... 5
2.2. Primary data ... 7
2.2.1. Case Study Approach ... 7
2.2.2. Interpretive Frame ... 8
2.2.3. Sample Choice ... 9
2.2.4. Participants & Interviews ... 11
2.2.5. Data Analysis ... 13
2.2.6. Data Validity ... 15
2.2.7. Limitations ... 16
3. Theoretical Background ... 18
3.1. Entrepreneurship ... 18
3.2. Sustainability ... 22
3.3. Sustainable Entrepreneurship ... 23
3.3.1. Discourse on Sustainable Entrepreneurship ... 23
3.3.2. Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship ... 25
3.3.3. Types of Sustainable Entrepreneurs ... 27
3.3.4. Definition ... 27
3.4. Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs ... 28
4. Case Organisations ... 30
4.1. Løs Market ... 31
4.1.1. About Løs Market ... 31
4.1.2. The Concept ... 32
4.1.1. The Organisation ... 34
4.1.2. Business Aspects ... 35
4.2.1. About Phenix ... 37
4.2.2. Phenix’ Services ... 38
4.2.1. The Organisation ... 39
4.2.2. Business Aspects ... 40
4.2.1. Motivations ... 42
5. Analysis ... 43
5.1. What Defines Sustainability & Sustainable Entrepreneurship? ... 43
5.2. Types of Sustainable Entrepreneurs ... 47
5.3. The Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs ... 51
5.3.1. Business as Usual ... 51
5.3.2. Additional Challenges ... 54
6. Discussion ... 68
7. Conclusion ... 71
7.1. Limitations ... 73
7.2. Future Research Implications ... 74
Bibliography ... 75
Appendices ... 84
1. I NTRODUCTION 1.1. P ROBLEM
“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” as Friedman (1970) saw it, is an outdated view of our current economic system. Companies have increasingly acknowledged their responsibility which goes much further than simply providing employment opportunities and maximising their profits. The social responsibility entails a broader view of the entrepreneurs’ environment and takes the organisation’s stakeholders, natural environment as well as social aspects into consideration.
Therefore, companies are ultimately acting for the benefit of society at large (Carroll, 1999).
Entrepreneurs with social or environmental missions have emerged whose aim is first and foremost to solve a current social or environmental issue by using innovative business models. In general, profits are being reinvested and rather play the role of a means to an end instead of being the only goal to be achieved. The for-profit organisation is used as a tool to fulfil their social or environmental mission (Parrish, 2010).
Some of the literature suggests that sustainable entrepreneurs are often not capable of focusing on various goals at the same time and they remain to focus on their idealistic, social or environmental goals (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). On the other hand, there is exploratory research which argues that sustainable organisations, even though sustainability-driven, focus on the profit parameter first during the start-up phase in order to sustain themselves (Bell & Stellingwerf, 2012).
The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship is still vague as there is no universal definition for researchers and practitioners to work with. It has emerged almost 30 years ago in the academic discourse, using other terms as well such as environmentally orientated entrepreneurship or ecopreneurship, even though the focus was still heavily put on creating economic value (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Sustainable
entrepreneurship as many researchers understand it today and how I will use the term in this thesis, however, view it as the process in which to “contribute to solving societal and environmental problems through the realization of a successful business” (Schaltegger
& Wagner, 2011, 223-224), hence not making the economic aspect the first priority.
As the definition of the concept is not entirely clear yet, so are other aspects such as the challenges and issues sustainable entrepreneurs are confronted with (Hockerts &
Wüstenhagen, 2010, Gast, Gundolf & Cesinger, 2017). New times and problems require new solutions and literature lacks insights on how entrepreneurship can contribute to moving towards a sustainable system of production and consumption (Boons, Montalvo, Quist & Wagner, 2013).
The academic discourse on sustainable entrepreneurs is still lacking more practical insights, as previous research has mainly been conducted on a conceptual and theoretical level (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Only a small amount of exploratory studies within sustainable entrepreneurship could be identified (Gast, Gundolf &
Cesinger, 2017) thus I aim to contribute to this sparsely explored field with my empirical findings. A more detailed description of my research approach as well as exploratory research, in general, can be found in chapter 2.
This master thesis is to explore the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship as well as emerging challenges and issues of practitioners. The aim is to gain insights from the practice on what the term entails and whether sustainable entrepreneurship ventures are able to successfully balance various goals at the same time.
My research questions representing the basis and starting point for my research are:
1. What is sustainable entrepreneurship?
2. What are the specific challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs in relation to reaching their environmental goals while being economically profitable?
These research questions will be answered throughout this thesis by drawing on insights from my empirical research. I will be complementing these with secondary literature I gained from the scientific field. The following section will provide insights on the purpose
of my research, in order to get a better understanding of the importance of answering these research questions
1.2. P URPOSE
As of today, academic literature on sustainable entrepreneurship is just in its beginnings and still underrepresented in the media and the attention of policy makers. Relatively few empirical studies have been undertaken to explore the combination of sustainable development goals with the concept of entrepreneurship (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).
Entrepreneurship literature suggests that entrepreneurship is one of the main drivers of working against environmental and social issues as entrepreneurs discover and create opportunities to diminish environmental degradation (York & Venkataraman, Cohen &
Winn, 2007, Dean & McMullen, 2007). This view is leaving out the fact that through the very activities of entrepreneurs who are following economic goals only, the issues at hand are created in the first place (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011, Hall, Daneke & Lenox, 2010). Entrepreneurship is therefore not the one and only true salvation for today’s environmental and social issues, as it is also the cause of it.
However, sustainable and social entrepreneurship is undoubtedly an important aspect of tackling environmental and social issues. Thus, we need to know more about the underlying concept of sustainable entrepreneurship as well as the different challenges these entrepreneurs are facing.
“[…] it remains an open question as to what extent entrepreneurs have the potential for creating sustainable economies, how they motivated and incentivized, if there are structural barriers to the capture of economic rents for sustainable ventures and if
sustainability-oriented entrepreneurs differ from traditional entrepreneurs.” (Hall, Daneke & Lenox, 2010, 440)
This quote shows the various aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship still sparsely explored and point to the need for further research to be undertaken in this field. By extending research on these topics, we can gain a better understanding of issues and
structural barriers revolving sustainable entrepreneurship that will eventually help not only (future) entrepreneurs active in this field, but also policy makers to tackle real-life issues with relevant measures to facilitate the emergence of sustainable ventures.
Additionally, scholars are provided with empirical insights and potential starting points for future research.
The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to explore different definitions of sustainable entrepreneurship as seen in the literature as well as in my empirical data. Furthermore, the thesis reveals insights from the practice about how sustainable entrepreneurs conduct their initiatives and which barriers and tensions they encounter throughout the process of following their environmental mission.
My research is built on a multiple case study approach, analysing two different organisations based in Copenhagen, Denmark. Both of these companies are aiming at reducing environmental degradation through their very business activities. On the one hand, I am analysing Løs Market, which is a packaging-free supermarket supporting local and organic produce. On the other hand, the Danish counterpart of the French organisation Phenix is explored on a deeper level. Phenix redistributes and repurposes unsold food and non-food products of supermarkets and retailers to charity organisations or other associations and therefore significantly reduces waste and extends product life cycles. A more detailed description of the case organisations can be found in chapter 2.2.3. as well as in chapter 4.1
The following chapter provides detailed insights on how I designed the research process as well as how I analysed the data and developed theories about sustainable entrepreneurship and the challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs.
1In the following, the Danish branch of Phenix, Phenix Denmark, will simply be referred to as Phenix.
2. M ETHODOLOGY
In the following section, I am providing an overview on the research process and which methods I used to collect and analyse data, in order to make the process transparent and understandable for readers.
In this thesis, I have chosen a narrative approach of writing i.e. myself being the narrator, for two reasons. Firstly, I argue for a better flow of the story by using this narrative approach and therefore guaranteeing easier readability for the readers. Using myself as the narrator instead of continuously using the passive form enables the reader to follow my thought processes and therefore fully grasp how my empirical data led to my findings and conclusions.
Secondly, I have chosen this form of narrating in my thesis as I cannot deny my personal involvement throughout the whole data collection process, the subsequent analysis as well as drawing conclusions from it. Every decision I took, starting from which organisations I chose to which questions the interviewees will be asked, were determined by personal interest and what I thought to be viable for the success of empirical findings. As I am using a social constructivist approach throughout this thesis (see chapter 2.2.2.), I am also applying my subjective meaning of experiences on my findings and am acknowledging that my personal background and subjectivity is shaping the research process and its outcome (Creswell, 2013). Even though I draw on a lot of secondary literature as well, a substantial amount of my findings and conclusions are based on primary data. Therefore, I am not distancing myself as a narrator and writer but rather make it clear for readers that I was constantly involved in the process.
2.1. S ECONDARY DATA
The thesis draws on both secondary as well as primary data. Secondary data has been gained in order to create substantial background knowledge of the sustainable entrepreneurship field as well as to complement the findings from my empirical data.
The literature collection process took place on a continuous basis throughout the whole research process. In the beginning, I studied literature on sustainable entrepreneurship, critical entrepreneurship studies as well as the challenges that occur for sustainable entrepreneurs with a focus on internal challenges such as financial barriers. However, over the course of my empirical data collection, the initial focus on the internal challenges moved towards external challenges of sustainable organisations as well as systemic issues they are confronted with.
My empirical findings clearly suggested that the main challenges of these entrepreneurs do not, in fact, lie on internal challenges as I previously assumed, such as balancing financial with sustainable aims. This belief also emerged due to the fact that much of the literature explores these issues on the firm level (Linnanen, 2002). Much rather than sustaining themselves financially, the case organisations were struggling with different issues that lie outside of their organisational boundaries such as government regulations, supply chain systems, societal norms or consumer behaviour (Interview Boyer Chammard, 2017a, Interview Septimius Krogh, 2017a, Interview Hamburger, 2017).
As one of the main sources for relevant literature, the scientific online platform “Web of Science” as well as “Google Scholar” has been used by searching for the following keywords:
• entrepreneurship theory
• green growth
• green entrepreneur
• green entrepreneurship
• sustainable entrepreneurship
• business model innovation
• environmental entrepreneurship
• ecopreneurship
• ecological economics
• ecological modernization
• industrial ecology
• circular economy
• sustainability + economics
• resilience
• barriers
• challenges
• organisation studies
• green start-ups
• green enterprise
• social enterprise + challenges
• environmental sustainability
• paradox theory
In addition to the relevant field of literature, I gathered a multitude of background information on the case organisations through their online presence in order to ensure a strong foundation for the research (see chapter 4 for case descriptions).
Secondary data was used to build up my understanding of the academic discourse on sustainable entrepreneurship prior, during and after the data collection phase.
Eventually, extant literature was used to analyse my empirical findings (see chapter 5).
I will explain the primary data collection in more detail within the next section (2.2.) in which I provide insights on why I chose a case study approach, how I conducted the research as well as information about the validity and reliability of the data.
2.2. P RIMARY DATA
2.2.1. Case Study Approach
As I could identify a clear lack of insights from the practice about the challenges and structural barriers of sustainable entrepreneurs, I aimed to gain two partner organisations and build case studies around them in order to generate practical perspectives and empirical findings on the issue. Case studies explore one or multiple real-life systems over time by conducting in-depth data collection and using multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2013) and are suitable to be used an interpretive approach for theory building (Bhattacherjee, 2012, see also next section 2.2.2. for the interpretive frame).
By the use of a multiple case study approach I intended to critically reflect on the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing environmental thinking in a business venture as well as showcase two cases of sustainability challenges in practice. Case studies provide valuable insights and represent a viable scientific research method to explore certain phenomena in-depth as it contributes to knowledge accumulation within the scientific field (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Using multiple cases instead of a single-case study allows the exploration of the proposed research question as well as the theoretical evolution to be wider (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Exploratory research is often used with new and unexplored concepts. It is characterised by a high level of flexibility and a broad scope for interviews and data collection. An explorative approach aims at generating new ideas and theory from data (Stebbins, 2001). This type of research about sustainable entrepreneurs, however, is rare due to its quite recent emergence and needs to be expanded in order to understand tensions and challenges that emerge in sustainability-driven organisations.
Therefore, I have chosen this exploratory approach of research to gain further knowledge in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship. The next section will provide more insights on my chosen research approach.
2.2.2. Interpretive Frame
There are several different research philosophies which researchers can adopt and which are dependent on the researchers’ view on the world and her or his underlying assumptions. This is reflected in the research strategy and the method chosen (Saunders, 2011). Within this thesis, I am using an interpretive frame that is typically used in qualitative research namely social constructivism. This paradigm postulates that the researcher is creating subjective meaning from the participants’ input, allowing myself to develop a variety of theories by opening up the perspectives. I am creating meaning from my empirical data and recognise that I am significantly shaping the research process as well as the analysis and outcome myself (Creswell, 2013).
As already mentioned before, this interpretive approach to research is also suitable for analysing my case studies and deriving theory from it. In opposition to quantitative research which relies mostly on numeric data, I am making use of non-numeric data such as interviews and observations within my qualitative research (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
Interpretive research designs such as the one I chose are well-suited for investigating the research questions I am proposing, as this approach is helpful for “exploring hidden reasons behind complex, interrelated, or multifaceted social processes, such as inter- firm relationships” (Bhattacherjee, 2012, 105). They are also suitable for exploring concepts with a lack of pre-existing theory on it, which applies to my scope of research
as well (see chapter 1.1.). Additionally, this approach enables me to identify implications for future research (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
In the next section, I will explain the sample choice for my case study approach and how I found Løs Market and Phenix suitable for my research purposes.
2.2.3. Sample Choice
In order to be able to conduct an in-depth analysis, I was aiming to partner with two local organisations. By picking two organisations, I could make sure that both could enrich each other’s perspectives and critically reflect on arguments due to multiple perspectives. Looking at two different organisations allowed me to gain more insights into the practice of sustainability-driven organisations rather than building the case around a one-sided argument. Using multiple cases instead of a single-case study provides me with a stronger basis for theory building (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
However, I have not chosen a comparative case study approach, which means that the aim of the thesis is not to systemically compare the two selected cases and draw conclusions from that. I am rather using the different input and views from interview partners to enrich the research with a variety of different perspectives.
Further, I was specifically aiming to find local organisations from the Copenhagen area, as in-person interviews allow me to get to know the interview partners on a personal level and gain deeper insights into the entrepreneurs’ motivations and their vision.
Furthermore, it allowed me to visit the organisations on-site and thus gain additional observations from that. Lastly, it also enabled me to re-interview my interview partners as needed.
By conducting online research, I had identified the following ten local organisations as potentially suitable case organisations for my thesis:
Organisation Activity Website
WeFood
Denmark’s first supermarket selling surplus food.
https://donate.danchurchaid .org/wefood
Too Good To Go Raising awareness of food waste by making surplus restaurant food available
for collection. http://toogoodtogo.dk Astrid och Aporna Organic and vegetarian/vegan
supermarket, restaurant and soon-to-be
webshop. http://www.gonaked.dk
Souls Restaurant in Copenhagen serving plant-
based food only. http://www.soulscph.dk Emiliano’s Cacao Mexican cacao supply in different flavours
supporting the local Mexican cacao
farmers. http://www.emilianos.co/
Løs Market Packaging-free supermarket supporting
local and organic produce. http://www.loes-market.dk Aarstiderne Home-delivery of organic and local
produce. https://www.aarstiderne.com
Foopla Handpicked and organic surplus foods
from local suppliers. https://www.foopla.dk One Bowl Pay-as-you-want community restaurant in
Copenhagen. http://onebowl.dk
Phenix Handling of unsold food and non-food products, reduces waste using the flows of
the circular economy. http://danmark.wearephenix.com
Rather than choosing organisations on a random basis, I was looking for similar organisations for example in terms of the industry they work in. Hence, I decided to contact WeFood, Løs Market and Phenix.
WeFood is a local supermarket selling surplus foods that otherwise would go to waste and therefore substantially contributes to the fight against food waste. Løs Market, too, is a driver of the fight against wasting food by offering flexible quantities of their products to their customers in their packaging-free supermarket. And lastly, Phenix’
core activities lie in offering services to companies, retailers and wholesalers to reduce their food waste to a minimum and guarantee a more sustainable supply chain for these organisations.
WeFood turned down to be a part of my research, as they had just recently been involved in a similar research project. Apart from that, they are organised as a non-profit organisation and therefore might not have been as suitable for my research purposes
after all. The other two organisations, Løs Market and Phenix, have shown interest to contribute to my research from the very beginning. After having a first meeting to get to know each other and to present them the details of my planned research, both organisations agreed to partner with me to contribute to my thesis work.
With Løs Market and Phenix I identified their commonalities in the focus on fighting against food waste as already mentioned before. Additionally, both of the organisations embrace the idea of a circular economy approach in supply chains and aim for a sustainable system in this regard. The concept of a circular economy will be described more closely in chapter 5. In the next section, I elaborate on how I conducted my primary research through interviews and provide more information about my interview partners.
2.2.4. Participants & Interviews
The aim of this thesis is to gain a more in-depth view on the organisations and their challenges. Therefore, I conducted multiple interviews with three different actors from the two case organisations.
Company Interviewee Interviewee’s role Number of
interviews
Løs Market Frédéric Hamburger Founder and CEO 1
Løs Market August Septimius Krogh Marketing and PR Manager 2 Phenix Charlotte Boyer Chammard Director Phenix Denmark 2
My interview partners at Løs Market were Frédéric Hamburger, founder and CEO as well as August Septimius Krogh, responsible for Marketing and Public Relations. At Phenix, I interviewed Charlotte Boyer Chammard, director of Phenix Denmark who has also initially set up the Danish counterpart of Phenix. Two out of the three interview partners have been interviewed twice so as to build upon the knowledge gained and test my own interpretations from the first interviews.
All of the five interviews I conducted took place in person. The interviews have been recorded via a digital voice recording device as a basis for the subsequent transcription of the interviews. I prepared interview questions beforehand and followed a semi-
structured guideline to have a common thread for the conversation in mind. At the same time, I was also able to let the conversation flow according to the interviewees’ input.
Another reason for choosing a semi-structured approach is, that by keeping the questions somewhat open, I am allowing the interviewees to interpret the meaning, therefore fostering the process of a flowing discussion (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, this interview style allowed me to vary the order of the interview questions when needed.
Above that, I was enabled to add additional questions to explore potential new concepts that emerged during the interview process (Saunders, 2011).
The interviews with my interview partner, Boyer Chammard, from Phenix took place at the office spaces of “Greencubator”. Greencubator is a co-working space located in central Copenhagen that hosts start-ups aiming for environmental sustainability (Greencubator | Et bæredygtigt iværksætterhus, 2017). Phenix has been based in this shared office ever since their Danish branch has been established in November 2016.
The interviews with both Frédéric Hamburger and August Septimius Krogh from Løs Market took place at a café close to their shop as the office space in their location is rather small. However, I still got to experience Løs Market on site, where I got to observe the set-up of the shop as well as the atmosphere and general communication within the store.
The first interviews took place at the beginning of February 2017. The relationships with the respective contact person from each organisation were of a very friendly nature from the start. The interviews lasted for 20 - 50 minutes and have been of very friendly and casual nature. All the information received during the interviews was naturally determined by the questions I decided to ask. Subsequently, interviewees have in reverse been influenced by myself, for example, by how I responded to their answers in a verbal but also in a non-verbal matter. Even though I aimed for a high level of objectivity of the data, my personal influence on the data cannot be denied, as interviews are always collaboratively produced by both the interviewee and the interviewer (Rapley, 2001). In general, the atmosphere was quite casual during interviews, allowing me to ask all the questions I intended to ask.
The next section addresses how I analysed the data I had gained from the interviews.
2.2.5. Data Analysis
For the analysis of the primary data, I have used one of the most common and far-spread methods for qualitative data analysis, the Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) following a social constructivist approach (Creswell, 2013). The Grounded Theory approach follows an inductive approach as new knowledge and insights are created by deriving it from the empirical data (Corbin & Strauss 2008). Therefore, theory follows data rather than the other way around as is the case with deduction (Saunders, 2011).
Another noteworthy aspect is that the data analysis started simultaneously with the data collection. Continuous comparison of data and theory enabled me to engage in a process of constant revision of theories and allowed me to redefine interview questions (Remenyi, 2014). As a result, the prepared interview questions differed from interview to interview (see Appendices B-F for the complete set of interview questions). This process enhanced my understanding of emerging concepts as well as theory while still being in the midst of the data collection process (Remenyi, 2014).
All interviews have been fully transcribed upon completion by using the software
“Atlas.ti” and by following simple transcription rules. I have adapted colloquial language as needed and kept the transcription of most of the non-verbal gestures to a minimum in order to ensure better readability (Dresing, Pehl & Schmieder, 2015).
In a next step, I have labelled the statements in the transcripts with codes.
“A code is a descriptive word or short phrase that describes a piece of data. It’s essentially a label. Codes can indicate the subject of a comment, the nature of the comment (a question, a feature request, etc), its tone (“anger”, “praise”, etc), its speaker,
or whatever else makes sense for the analysis. Each code will likely describe multiple items, and the same item can have multiple codes.” (Goodman & Moed, 2013, 425) As I engaged in an open coding process, I could identify concepts and patterns throughout the raw data of the interviews. Open coding in Grounded Theory is the process of attaching certain labels (“codes”) to the data at hand in order to describe it more closely. The use of the coding approach enabled me to grasp more details of the
interviews and identify underlying concepts that I would have potentially failed to notice otherwise.
“The end goal of coding is to categorize the data into code groups.” (Goodman & Moed, 2013, 425)
Thus, in a next step, I have grouped similar codes to categories while new codes emerged using an iterative approach in the process. After each iteration, the codes have been analysed on their validity and were adapted where needed (Miles & Huberman 1994). Through this process, I could gain many relevant quotes for the analysis and discussion directly from the raw materials.
In the last step, I identified aggregated themes which emerged from the codes and categories I had identified beforehand. One example of the theme “sustainable entrepreneurship” that emerged from the coding process is given in the following, showing a brief overview of the groups it consists of as well as an excerpt of the associated codes:
Theme Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Groups Sustainability Circular
Economy Sustainable
Entrepreneurship Opportunities Triple Bottom Line
Codes
alternatives change activism alternatives alternatives
avoid waste circular
economy advocating avoid waste business model
barriers to
sustainability definitions alternatives economic value capitalism
changing lifestyle economy avoid waste economy change
charity organizations enable change business model efficiency economic value
circular economy impact vs profit change expansion economy
consumption linear economy changing lifestyle failure enable change corporate
responsibility recycling circular economy financial incentives environmental value
A complete overview of all codes, categories and themes can be found in Appendix M and N.
Throughout the research process, I have been using an inductive approach to build theory from my empirical findings, rather than testing the extant theory. This is due to
the fact that the specific challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs, that I am investigating, have not been widely discussed in the academic discourse yet, leaving a lack of empirical evidence. Therefore, one of the goals of this research was to develop theory and not test it (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). My intention was to create meaning and sense from my empirical findings and putting them to academic use (Creswell, 2013). By using analytical generalisation as opposed to statistical generalisation, I was able to develop sound theory based on my empirical data (Gibbert, Ruigrok & Wicki, 2008).
Data collection terminated after two interview rounds due to time restrictions as well as due to the fact that consistent theory of the phenomenon of challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs have emerged. “Theoretical saturation” was reached as iterations between my empirical data and theory provided no further new insights, therefore completing the theory building process (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
The next section elaborates on the validity and reliability of the data I gained throughout my empirical research.
2.2.6. Data Validity
As I undertook a qualitative and interpretive research approach (see section 2.2.2.), the question of validity and reliability of the empirical data at hand arises due to subjectivity influencing the research process. However, in order to limit my own subjective influence on the data, I aimed to increase its validity and reliability. On the one hand, I did so by analysing the empirical data with the extant theory:
“[…] the researcher should compare the emergent constructs and hypotheses with those reported in the prior literature to make a case for their internal validity and generalizability. Conflicting findings must not be rejected, but rather reconciled using creative thinking to generate greater insight into the emergent theory.” (Bhattacherjee,
2012, 97)
As the author suggests, theory was also derived even if there was no concrete evidence to be found in the literature. However, parts of my empirical findings could be identified in prior academic discourse (see chapter 5 for the analysis of my findings).
In addition to that, I placed a special focus on reiteration of interviews, so as to ensure validity as well as the reliability of my empirical data.
“Reliability is the degree to which the measure of a construct is consistent or dependable. In other words, if we use this scale to measure the same construct multiple
times, do we get pretty much the same result every time, assuming the underlying phenomenon is not changing?” (Bhattacherjee, 2012, 56)
By conducting two interview rounds with two out of the three interview partners, I could revisit emergent concepts from the first interview rounds, clarify potential ambiguities as well as strengthen arguments by reiterating on important aspects of the research. The second interview rounds enabled me to test the interpretations I had developed so far and allowed for a verification of my theories. Additionally, as both of the case organisations are aiming for similar environmental goals and are both in an early stage of their existence and growth phase, they could complement and enrich each other’s perspectives and offer a more varied perspective on the matter.
I argue for high validity and reliability of my empirical data, yet certain limitations of my research have to be acknowledged, which will be pointed out in the next section.
2.2.7. Limitations
I acknowledge, that the findings of my research also entail certain limitations. Firstly, the sample choice for my empirical research was rather small including two organisations, three interviewees and a total of five interviews. However, I still argue, that relevant theory can be developed from my empirical findings:
“Neither single nor multiple case studies allow for statistical generalization, for example, inferring conclusions about a population (Yin, 1994:31; Numagami 1998: 3). This does
not mean, however, that case studies are devoid of generalization. Methodologists
differentiate between statistical generalization and analytical generalization. Analytical generalization is a process separate from statistical generalization in that it refers to the
generalization from empirical observations to theory, rather than a population (e.g. Yin, 1994, 1999).” (Gibbert, Ruigrok & Wicki, 2008, 1468)
By using analytical generalisation, I could, thus, develop a sound theory on the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship as well as the tensions and challenges sustainable entrepreneurs face. Flyvbjerg (2006) argues that it is indeed possible to draw conclusions about the broader population from case studies:
“It is correct that the case study is a “detailed examination of a single example,” but as we see below, it is not true that a case study “cannot provide reliable information about
the broader class.”” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 220)
The two cases chosen for my research both represent very young organisations, acting on the European, or more specifically on the Danish market. Insights, therefore, might not be directly transferable to other members of this population who act in a highly diverging environment. However, I do argue that my empirical findings provide valuable insights into the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship, as a case study represents a viable approach for this type of exploratory and early-stage research (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
Flyvbjerg (2006) also argues that a case study approach has proven to be a highly valuable source of new findings in different fields of science and cannot be discredited as a viable scientific research method. One has to find the right method for the phenomenon and research questions to be explored and as I already pointed out in section 2.2.1., a case study approach is suitable for my research purposes.
In regards to the interviews conducted, there was usually enough time and an open attitude by the interviewees, enabling me to ask all the questions needed for my research as well as extend on certain concepts. One out of the five interviews, however, has been subject to a time constraint by the interviewee. This interview, therefore, did not enable me to create the depth of insights that I could reach in the other interviews.
Nonetheless, I argue, that my empirical findings and conclusions drawn from my analysis, are providing valuable insights about sustainable entrepreneurship in practice
and which issues and tensions this phenomenon entails. This chapter elaborated on the methodological approach of my research to provide the reader with a detailed understanding of the research process.
In the next chapter, I will elaborate more deeply on the theoretical background of my research before presenting the two case organisations as well as the analysis of my data.
3. T HEORETICAL B ACKGROUND
As already demonstrated in chapter 1, the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship and its underlying challenges and issues are relatively sparsely explored yet by academia.
Thus, I proposed the following research questions:
1. What is sustainable entrepreneurship?
2. What are the specific challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs in relation to reaching their environmental goals while being economically profitable?
The following theoretical background addresses various definitions of entrepreneurship and sustainability as well as different challenges and tensions revolving the combination of the two concepts. Firstly, I will provide definitions on the terms entrepreneurship, sustainability and sustainable entrepreneurship. Subsequently, I will set forth extant literature on potential barriers and tensions emerging from including a sustainability paradigm within a profit-driven entrepreneurial organisation. The theoretical background provides the theoretical foundation for the analysis and conclusion of my empirical data as it will be revisited in chapter 5 and 6.
3.1. E NTREPRENEURSHIP
Defining this holistic term of entrepreneurship has become a major task. As research has been constantly growing over the last 30 years on this concept, so have the approaches to define entrepreneurship, thus resulting in a variety of different ways to define it.
Historically speaking, I need to start with Schumpeter, as he described the process of
“creative destruction” that naturally happens when recombining existing resources and methods. In today’s terms, we would call it entrepreneurship and innovation (1934).
Gartner (1990) added an important aspect to the jungle of definitions on entrepreneurship with the following statement:
“Some of us may believe that entrepreneurship must involve risk-taking individuals who start new ventures that are innovative and experience rapid growth. Others may be concerned only about entrepreneurship as starting new ventures. What we must all be concerned about is making sure that when we talk about entrepreneurship we recognize
that it has many different meanings attached to it.” (Gartner, 1990, 28)
This still holds true today, as no consensus has been reached on defining entrepreneurship in the literature. Thus, a certain reflection level and acceptance of ambiguity concerning the phenomenon of entrepreneurship should always be embraced.
According to Gartner, it is not the individual entrepreneur we should be trying to identify by traits but rather use a behavioural approach in order to understand the process of entrepreneurship better. He sees entrepreneurship as “a role that individuals undertake to create organisations” (Gartner, 1988, 64). The main notion in the whole concept of entrepreneurship for him tends to be the creation of new organisations.
Yet, how can entrepreneurial activities arise in the first place? Venkataraman identifies two premises in order for entrepreneurship to happen:
“The first, which I call the weak premise of entrepreneurship, holds that in most societies, most markets are inefficient most of the time, thus providing opportunities for enterprising individuals to enhance wealth by exploiting these inefficiencies. The second, which I call the strong premise of entrepreneurship, holds that even if some markets approach a state of equilibrium, the human condition of enterprise, combined
with the lure of profits and advancing knowledge and technology, will destroy the equilibrium sooner or later.” (1997, 121)
The first premise assumes that inefficient markets provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to exploit these by offering solutions aimed at transforming the markets towards a more efficient direction. The latter premise is reflecting the before mentioned process of creative destruction by Schumpeter (1934) as entrepreneurship eventually destroys certain systems established on the market by providing a new market solution.
However, he also argues that research is lacking insights on where these opportunities actually come from (Venkataraman, 1997). A few years later Shane and Venkataraman explored these aspects on a deeper level, defining entrepreneurship to be concerned
“with the discovery and exploitation of profitable opportunities.” (2000, 217), arguing again that the two premises stated above have to be present (Venkataraman, 1997).
Many entrepreneurship definitions revolve around opportunity recognition and exploitation by entrepreneurial individuals. Other, more recent definitions move away from the view that opportunities are already out there, essentially waiting for entrepreneurial individuals to be explored and exploited. Thus, some of the contemporary literature is counteracting the conventional understandings of entrepreneurship.
For instance, Steyaert looks at entrepreneurship as more of a creative process (2007) where said opportunities are created by individuals themselves. He also argues, that entrepreneurship studies have neglected more practice-based and relational-materialist approaches as they have focused on interpretive, social constructionist and pragmatist uses in the past (Steyaert, 2007). He suggests that by adapting the view on entrepreneurship as a creative process, many new perspectives become possible. On the one hand, it breaks with the more conventional view of opportunity recognition and exploitation as entrepreneurship is suddenly seen as a creation process. On the other hand, a lot more and new research positions occur by opening up these new perspectives, leaving room for social-theoretical as well as more philosophical aspects of the matter (Steyaert, 2007):
“Therefore, I see the term entrepreneuring as a travelling concept, as a potential space for theorizing and undertaking conceptual experimentations in relation to the idea of
process, rather than freezing or stabilizing the thinking that has just begun.” (Steyaert, 2007, 471)
Like Gartner, Steyaert does not assume entrepreneurship to be a fixed concept but rather as a flowing one, where a final definition will not be reached as it stays subject of scientific discourse (Steyaert, 2007, Gartner, 1990). Other studies have also acknowledged entrepreneurship as a process of organisation-creation, of becoming and a continuous process of creativity and “entrepreneuring” (Hjorth, Holt & Steyaert, 2015, Hjorth & Holt, 2016).
Going even further, Hjorth and Holt suggest that entrepreneurship is primarily a social force, bringing about transformations of the existing systems as well as value-creation that changes structures of society:
“Here the entrepreneurial is primarily social as it potentially transforms the relations we have with institutional facts we otherwise accept.” (Hjorth & Holt, 2016, 52)
As I pointed out, the perspectives and definitions on entrepreneurship are manifold. One prominent notion in the literature is arguing for defining entrepreneurship as the act of recognising and exploiting opportunities that can be found on the market. The other prominent view on it, which I pointed out, argues more for a creational process of entrepreneurship, suggesting that opportunities are created rather than discovered.
For my purposes, I will use a broader definition of entrepreneurship, aiming to combine these two notions. Thus, entrepreneurship entails the recognition of existing opportunities on the market as well as the creation of those. Individuals or groups aim to exploit these opportunities by building a community or organisation aimed at adapting, changing or even transforming existing systems. The eventual aim is to create value for its customers, society or other stakeholders involved.
Before I will elaborate more deeply on the definition of sustainable entrepreneurship, I will set forth extant literature on the concept of sustainability itself in the following chapter.
3.2. S USTAINABILITY
Sustainability is a term that has been widely spread and used all over the business world, politics, sociology and many other disciplines. Thus, many different definitions of this term emerged over the years as well.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) came to be mostly known as the Brundtland Commission, as it was headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland and aimed to unite countries in the strive for sustainable development. Back in the 1980s, the UN General Assembly realised the distinct need for the implementation of sustainable measures due to the heavy deterioration of the natural environment.
Therefore, the Brundtland Commission was established. The Commission published a well-known report about sustainable development called “Our Common Future”, which is mostly known as the “Brundtland Report” ("WCED: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform", 2017). The definition of sustainability used within their report is based on the idea that needs and resources are only being met and exploited to the extent that they will still be available for future generations:
“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)
Ever since, this definition of sustainable development became the reference and starting point for many researchers as well as practitioners. Many definitions in the academic discourse are based on the idea of sustainable development by WCED (Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund & Hansen, 2016, Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010, Cohen & Winn, 2007, Pacheco, Dean & Payne, 2010).
“The notion of sustainability used in this article refers to a normatively defined state of the world that is to be achieved via a sustainable development of the natural environment, society, and economy.” (Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund & Hansen, 2016) Thus, the consensus on the term sustainability usually entails the vital development of the natural environment as well as society and economy. My understanding of
sustainability for the purposes of this thesis, therefore, describes the concept of using all kinds of resources such as natural, human, social, financial and economic, in such a way as the healthy development of our natural environment can be sustained in the long- term.
After having defined both terms entrepreneurship and sustainability, I will address the combination of the two in the next section. I will provide an overview on the academic discourse about entrepreneurship being paired with sustainability issues, called sustainable entrepreneurship.
3.3. S USTAINABLE E NTREPRENEURSHIP
In pursuance of true sustainability in the economic sphere, sustainable entrepreneurs set themselves up on an environmental mission. Many similar terms such as environmental entrepreneurship, green entrepreneurship, eco-entrepreneurship, ecopreneurship or social entrepreneurship have long immersed the business world and have also gained the interest of researchers around the globe. The variety of terms reflects the inconsistencies currently present in the academic discourse. Defining sustainable entrepreneurship becomes even more difficult as there is not even consensus about the term ‘entrepreneurship’ itself (Tan, Williams & Tan, 2005).
Therefore, I want to address a few of these definitions in the following to showcase the varieties, as well as present the definition of sustainable entrepreneurship I will be working with.
3.3.1. Discourse on Sustainable Entrepreneurship
According to Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund and Hansen sustainable entrepreneurship involves the exploration and exploitation of market opportunities with innovative tools in order to solve environmental and social problems of unsustainability (2016). Also, Carrillo-Hermosilla & Könnölä use the term ‘eco-innovation’ to describe “innovation that improves environmental performance” (2010, 1075). Another definition that leans very much on the conventional definition of entrepreneurship which is focused on opportunities, defines environmental entrepreneurship as “the process of discovering,
evaluating, and exploiting economic opportunities that are present in environmentally relevant market failures” (Dean & McMullen, 2007, 58).
Cohen & Winn argue that market imperfections like inefficient firms, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and information asymmetries contribute, on the one hand, to environmental degradation, however, on the other hand, also provide opportunities for sustainable entrepreneurs to act on it by creating innovative technologies and new business models (Cohen & Winn, 2007). Other voices in the academic resource also argue for a multitude of opportunities that emerge due to environmental degradation (York & Venkataraman, 2010, Dean & McMullen, 2007). Even though it might be true that more opportunities arise to establish a profitable business, it leaves out the fact that much of the environmental degradation we are faced with today, has been caused by inefficient entrepreneurial action in the first place (Cohen & Winn, 2007).
Therefore, it is often suggested that sustainable entrepreneurs have to take the “3Ps”
into consideration: people, planet and profits.
“In summary, we argue that an entrepreneurial activity can only be labelled sustainable, and therefore satisfy sustainable development, if there is an equal blending of the 3Ps within the business initiative. Sustainable Entrepreneurship, which as we know derives from sustainable development, with the aim to approach each ‘P’ with equal weight and
consideration, therefore sustainability, is at the core of Sustainable Entrepreneurship.” (Bell & Stellingwerf, 2012, 15).
The 3Ps stem from the concept of the “triple bottom line” approach (Elkington, 1998) and measure the ecological, societal as well as economic performance of an organisation (Langdon, 2010) rather than simply aiming for economic goals.
“The emerging stream of academic literature on sustainable entrepreneurship adds a new dimension to the general promise of entrepreneurship. No longer is
entrepreneurship supposed to merely result in economic success: sustainable entrepreneurs manage to the “triple bottom line” by balancing economic health, social equity and environmental resilience through their entrepreneurial behavior.” (Kuckertz &
Wagner, 2010, 525)
However, the concept of the triple bottom line is problematic as the balancing of
“economic health, social equity and environmental resilience” as stated above, is difficult to deploy and represents a major challenge for entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, I consider the concept of the triple bottom line to be an important basis for discussion, as the concept was quite prominent in my empirical data as well (see chapter 5 and 6).
Not only the concept of the triple bottom line discusses the inclusion of a social dimension in sustainable entrepreneurship. The literature often suggests that sustainable entrepreneurs follow social goals as well. Therefore, the next section will address the concept of social entrepreneurship and how it can be distinguished from sustainable entrepreneurship.
3.3.2. Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship
A plethora of the sustainable entrepreneurship literature includes social aspects as well which makes it difficult to distinguish the concept from social entrepreneurship as definitions are often overlapping. Therefore, the commonalities and the differences between the two concepts will be discussed in the following.
Some researchers have found common ground on the definition of a sustainable entrepreneur, however, the distinction to social entrepreneurship still remains vague.
For instance, Gerlach (2003) includes a social dimension in her definition of sustainable entrepreneurship. Many other researchers, too, agree that a sustainable entrepreneur is someone who or an organisation that brings about environmental and social progress through their core business (Hall, Daneke & Lenox, 2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011;
York & Venkataraman, 2010).
“From this perspective, sustainable entrepreneurship is a sustainability mission-driven process of solving environmental and social problems of unsustainability by means of
the exploration and exploitation of market opportunities created with innovative business models.” (Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund & Hansen, 2016, 5)
Social entrepreneurship, like sustainable entrepreneurship, has been a matter of research for over 20 years and definitions are manifold. Dacin, Dacin and Matear provide a comprehensive overview of what researchers chose to define as social
entrepreneurship (2010). Many of these definitions are somewhat broad in the sense, that the distinction to sustainable entrepreneurship sometimes seems vague. For example, Bornstein defines social entrepreneurs as follows:
“Social entrepreneurs are people with new ideas to address major problems who are relentless in the pursuit of their visions…who will not give up until they have spread their
ideas as far as they possibly can.” (Bornstein, 2004, 1-2)
Drayton (2002) names some essential factors like creativity, widespread impact and entrepreneurial quality which again, does not provide us with a clear differentiation from sustainable entrepreneurship and like Bornstein (2004) provides only a broad concept of the term. However, the distinction becomes a bit clearer when Dees (1998) describes social entrepreneurs as those with a specific social mission. More specifically, Light (2006) also focused on the essential factor of addressing significant social problems which can happen by the action of an individual, a group, network, organisation or an alliance of them.
In opposition to social entrepreneurship definitions, however, sustainable entrepreneurship always includes the dimension of sustainability, which in social entrepreneurship is not the focus area. While social entrepreneurship usually entails an altruistic component aimed at helping people, sustainable entrepreneurship is concerned with the transition to a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable society” (Thompson, Kiefer & York, 2011, 221). However, it is argued that the fields of social, sustainable and environmental entrepreneurship cannot be clearly distinguished from each other (Thompson, Kiefer & York, 2011). As we will see in the analysis in chapter 5, the definition used in practice often entails a social dimension as well.
Sustainable entrepreneurship, thus, became a broad field of research also including different types of sustainable entrepreneurs. As distinctions between sustainable entrepreneurs could be identified from my empirical data as well, the next section will elaborate on the relevant academic discourse.
3.3.3. Types of Sustainable Entrepreneurs
It is important to mention that there are different variations and types of sustainable entrepreneurs in both practice and the literature. On the one hand, Parrish (2010) identifies the opportunity-driven entrepreneur who aims at building a profitable organisation by exploiting a market opportunity rooted in sustainability. Sustainability- driven entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are driven by contributing to sustainability while a profitable organisation is simply the means to an end (Parrish, 2010).
York & Venkataraman, too, classify the activities of sustainable entrepreneurs either as
“contributing to helping extant institutions reviewed above in achieving their goals” or, on the other hand, as “creating new, more environmentally sustainable products, services and institutions through doing things incumbent institutions do not, and cannot do.” (York & Venkataraman, 2010, 451-452). I will examine these different types of sustainable entrepreneurs more closely in chapter 5 as they are applicable on the case organisations as well. In the following, I will determine the definition of sustainable entrepreneurship that I will be working with, before I will elaborate more deeply on the challenges of sustainable entrepreneurs.
3.3.4. Definition
As I have already established within my definition of entrepreneurship (see section 3.1.), I do not simply regard entrepreneurship as the process of opportunity recognition but also of opportunity creation.
“We define the act of entrepreneurship as one of discovering and evaluating opportunity (Shane, 2004; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) as well as creating new opportunities and
possibilities (Sarasvathy, 2001; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2009; Sarasvathy and Dew, 2005; Venkataraman, 1997). Entrepreneurs can contribute to solving
environmental problems by 1) contributing to helping extant institutions reviewed above in achieving their goals, and 2) creating new, more environmentally sustainable products,
services and institutions through doing things incumbent institutions do not, and cannot do.” (York & Venkataraman, 2010, 451-452)
As this definition includes the process of both discovering opportunities as well as creating new opportunities, I find it to be suitable for my purposes. Additionally, York and Venkataraman’s (2010) definition is also applicable to the case organisations as I mentioned before (see chapter 5 for further details). The next and last section of the theoretical background provides insights on the academic discourse on the challenges and tensions sustainable entrepreneurs are confronted with.
3.4. C HALLENGES OF S USTAINABLE
E NTREPRENEURS
Naturally, the combination of economic goals and sustainable development goals comes with tensions as the pursuance of goals with different underlying values often results in conflicting targets and objectives. However, on the other hand, it could be a win-win situation and synergies might be created through the exploitation of multi-layered business opportunities. In the following section, I will show an outline of the academic discourse trying to give answers to these questions as well as elaborate on which challenges sustainable entrepreneurs are faced with.
In previous studies, a positive correlation between social and financial performance within companies was found continuously (Margolis & Walsh, 2011), however, this applied to traditionally set up companies whose mission and prioritised aim was not of a social or environmental nature. The focus in research was on how larger companies can gain a competitive advantage by engaging in social and sustainable activities (Esty &
Winston, 2006, King & Lenox, 2001, Willard, 2002 as cited in York & Venkataraman, 2010). However, literature lacks a more entrepreneurial view of the phenomenon and a more exploratory and in-depth analysis of sustainability-driven organisations (York &
Venkataraman, 2010).
To facilitate the process of combating environmental degradation and making solutions more effective, some researchers suggest that sustainable entrepreneurship is a very promising solution to resolve these issues (York & Venkataraman, 2010, Cohen & Winn, 2007, Dean & McMullen, 2007), therefore supporting the win-win argument of
sustainable entrepreneurship for both the economy and the natural environment. They suggest that numerous opportunities emerge from environmental degradation as environmental issues are surrounded to a large extent by uncertainty resulting in a high potential for opportunity. Entrepreneurs take on issues which have not been addressed yet by other means and other players from the field, therefore acting in a highly uncertain field (York & Venkataraman, 2010).
As mentioned in section 3.3. already, this view leaves out the fact, that much of the environmental degradation present today, has been caused by inefficient entrepreneurial action in the first place (Cohen & Winn, 2008). However, it is true that sustainable entrepreneurs face a high amount of risk due to uncertainty and innovative markets.
Additional to these risks involved, sustainable entrepreneurs face a range of challenges, which “traditional” entrepreneurs have to face as well such as financial challenges, market creation and organisational development (Linnanen, 2002).
Above all that, recent literature streams suggest that sustainable entrepreneurs are faced with additional challenges in comparison to traditional entrepreneurs. One of the most present and discussed challenges involves the balancing of various, sometimes conflicting, goals simultaneously.
The different aspects of the triple bottom line (environmental, social, economic) are equally important in the foundation of a sustainable start-up, as research suggests (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Yet, Bell & Stellingwerf (2012) found this to be different. They argue that even though the initial motivation of a sustainable entrepreneur is based on an environmental mission, it will only be proceeded with if the profitability of the enterprise can be ensured. Bell & Stellingwerf also found that these entrepreneurs cannot balance all the three goals simultaneously:
“A Sustainable Entrepreneur will focus the sustainability concerns towards one area. Our analysis contradicted previous research that a Sustainable Entrepreneur will set social and/ or environmental objectives at least as important as economic objectives.” (Bell &
Stellingwerf, 2012, 37)
