Search

This paper contributes to the contemporary scholarly conversation on sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) by empirically evaluating its antecedents and outcomes. It examines whether there is any relation between a nation's SE levels and its progress on sustainable development. In addition, the composition of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (SEE) is proposed, and its efficacy at macro- and micro-levels is assessed. Extant research suggests a positive relationship between SE and sustainable development, but empirical evidence appears incoherent. Panel regressions were used to test (a) the influence of SE density (share of total firms in the nation) on the nation's sustainable development and (b) the influence of SEE vis-à-vis traditional entrepreneurial ecosystems on the abundance and performance of SE firms. For this purpose, a dataset comprising 5621 SE firms from 76 nations was curated for five years (2018–2022). The results show that a higher density of SE firms is positively related to sustainable development, and a favorable SEE fosters the copiousness and performance of SE firms. Additional analyses demonstrate the robustness of results for alternate methods, different variable measurements, and the moderating role of nations' income levels. The established relevance of SE provides implications for policymakers and practitioners to devise a favorable SEE that engenders sustainable entrepreneurship. • This study examines whether there is any relation between a nation's share of Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE) and its sustainable development. • The density of SE firms in the nation is found to be positively related with its progress on sustainable development. • To understand what leads to higher density of SE firms in a nation, efficacy of conventional entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) is tested. National EEs are found to be poor explainers of copiousness of SE firms. • Considering the requirements of SE which may differ from those of conventional entrepreneurship, this study proposes three sustainability elements to be integrated with the EE to develop 'Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystem' (SEE). • Through the assessment of a panel dataset comprising 5621 SE firms from 76 countries over 5 years, it is found that the SEE significantly influences the density and performance of SE firms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Entrepreneurial activities are considered a commitment to economic growth with the motivation of deriving ecological sustainability. The main objective of this paper is to capture the environmental effects of entrepreneurship development on the ecological footprint of croplands and grazing lands in 14 developing, emerging, and developed countries of different sizes during 2002–2018. Empirical analyses are anchored on a set of estimation procedures; 45 different models were estimated to assess the independent effects of the entrepreneurship indices. Then, the panel data estimator of Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) is applied. It was found that (1) a 1% increase in energy intensity has a positive, significant effect on the ecological footprint of the agriculture sector. This arises from a decreased efficiency in the production sector. (2) A 1% increase in governmental support and policies, governmental programs, and internal market dynamics had a positive, significant effect on croplands. Moreover, the commercial and professional infrastructure and the physical and services infrastructure also had positive, significant effects on grazing lands. Meanwhile, such positive effects are not stable in all entrepreneurship indicators, and an increase in the physical and services infrastructure and internal market dynamics had significant, negative effects on croplands and grazing lands, respectively. Therefore, improvement of most of the entrepreneurship indicators can facilitate alleviation of environmental degradation through improvement of technological conditions. However, entrepreneurial indicators contribute to an increase in the negative environmental consequences of increased energy intensity. (3) Finally, an increase in most of the entrepreneurship indicators significantly steepens the Kuznets curve. Hence, it can be concluded that an increase in entrepreneurship indicators reduces the effects of economic growth on the ecological footprint in low-income countries and increase it in high-income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental entrepreneurship has tremendous potential to deliver radical and disruptive technology innovation that can safeguard our biosphere. However, we lack insights into how green ventures can cultivate dynamic capabilities that allow these ventures to thrive. The existing dynamic capability framework does not adequately capture the unique challenges and opportunities facing early-stage green ventures. Consequently, in this study we ask: what are the micro-foundations underpinning dynamic capabilities in early-stage green ventures? How are these dynamic capabilities cultivated? How do these dynamic capabilities correspond to and co-develop with external factors in flux when disruptive green innovation is commercialized? This paper is based on an exploratory case study of 14 ventures developing green innovations in the biofuel, bioenergy, biochemistry, and biomaterial sectors. Our study conceptualizes the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities related to sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capabilities. Moreover, it develops a detailed and comprehensive framework of dynamic capability building for early-stage green ventures, which links internal dynamic capability building processes with influential external factors in flux. • Shows the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities for environmental entrepreneurship. • Develop a framework on how dynamic capabilities co-develop with external factors. • Orchestrating dynamic capabilities is crucial for successful green innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the recent stream of econometric entrepreneurship research by introducing the environmental orientation of new ventures as a key factor for sustainable development. It empirically assesses whether relationships exist between national shares of green entrepreneurial activity (GEA) and economic, social, and environmental development. Theory and first empirical evidence suggest that – compared to conventional new ventures – new green ventures have a more positive economic and social impact and are less harmful or even beneficial to environmental quality. OLS regressions were estimated to empirically test the impact of GEA rates (share of total entrepreneurial activity) on GDP, the modified HDI, and CO 2 emissions. For this purpose, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data for 11,909 early-stage entrepreneurs was aggregated to the macro-level of 53 countries and merged with further international datasets. The results confirmed that higher shares of GEA are positively related to economic and social development but not to environmental development. Additional tests proved the robustness of the results for different economic development levels, time-lag variations, and different measurements of dependent and independent variables. The identified economic and social importance of GEA warrants intensified policy efforts to support the discovery, creation, and exploitation of green business opportunities. Potential explanations for the counterintuitive non-significant environmental impact are discussed, leading to new research avenues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interest in environmental entrepreneurship (EE) is growing. Notably, environmental entrepreneurs are hybrid individuals, who meet commercial and ecological identities. Their entrepreneurial identity (EI) plays a key role in successfully starting and continuing entrepreneurial activities. Given that scholars have recognized the pivotal concept of EI for understanding EE, and that they have called for research on EI in hybrid contexts – such as EE –, we believe a deeper understanding of EI may provide insights to better comprehend environmental entrepreneurial behaviors. In particular, the research is aimed to catch how EI of environmental entrepreneurs evolves. Identities are, in fact, fluid and emergent. EI is not stable, but rather, is 'achieved'. To understand its evolution, we adopt the theoretical perspective of identity work, which conceives identity as a process. According to this conceptualization, entrepreneurs are engaged in forming, repairing, strengthening or revising their identity to achieve coherence. Drawing on information obtained from semi-structured interviews with and additional data on 36 entrepreneurs working in the Italian wine industry, we show that EI develops according to an initial emergence of EI to an acquired self-consciousness as an environmental entrepreneur. This identity work includes moments of EI contestation and/or elaboration, triggered by the interplay between environmental and place identity. Our paper contributes to identity work research in environmental entrepreneurship. • Environmental consciousness increases during entrepreneurial identity work. • Entrepreneurial identity work includes moments of identity contestation/elaboration. • Environmental identity and place identity foster entrepreneurial identity evolution. • Environmental entrepreneurs are related to, but also influenced by, places. • Environmental entrepreneurial behavior is progressively reinforced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although entrepreneurial activities are of key importance in a properly functioning innovation system, the micro level of actors is often neglected in the innovation systems' literature. The goal of this paper is to show how the configuration of innovation systems shapes entrepreneurs' perceptions and behaviors. The originality of the present article rests upon a novel framework that distinguishes between the willingness, capability, and perceived opportunities of entrepreneurs embedded in specific innovation systems. We explore the perceptions of 30 entrepreneurs from two European bioeconomy cluster regions who are engaged in R&D and collaborative experimentation in the chemical, plastics, and construction materials industries. Our findings show that with documented innovation willingness, entrepreneurs' innovation capacity is not the decisive bottleneck. Rather, bioeconomy actors perceive that innovation opportunities are blocked by institutions at the national and international levels. The configuration of relevant sectoral innovation systems and value-chains is crucial. We conclude that bioeconomy promotion should emphasis the demand side and systemic multi-level policies that address innovation barriers with due consideration for industry-specific innovation systems and value-chain configurations. • Bottom-up perspective on bioeconomy innovation systems for integrated analysis. • Entrepreneurs' opportunity orientation reveals (inter)national innovation hurdles. • Chemical, plastic and construction industries require different support measures. • Policy shall act on bioeconomy market-making and value chain reconfigurations. • Innovation opportunities in the bioeconomy presuppose societal deliberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]