Social,Environmental and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research

Abstract

What process of socioeconomic transformation might move humanity towards sustainability-as-flourishing, an ideal view of sustainability where life flourishes indefinitely on Earth? We suggest entrepreneurship as one such process and review the literature on three types of entrepreneurship said to transform society by creating value beyond profit: social, environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship. From environmental and social scientific literature, we distil a set of requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing, a topic of growing interest. We then review the literature on social, environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship relative to these requisites. Findings show contributions and also limitations towards sustainability-as-flourishing reflected in research on each type of entrepreneurship. We propose a research agenda to address the most glaring limitations including a failure to study critical reflection processes that can shape entrepreneurs’ actions and a lack of emphasis on the Earth’s physical carrying capacity. Future research could also zero in more on complex systems thinking and consider root causes.

Keywords

social entrepreneurship environmental entrepreneurship sustainable entrepreneurship sustainability-as-flourishing transformational change literature review

Introduction

Business has been challenged with a bold, new view of sustainability, namely “sustainability-as-flourishing,” defined as “the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on Earth forever” (Cooperrider & Fry, 2012; Ehrenfeld, 2008, p. 6; G. B. Grant, 2012; Laszlo et al., 2012). Based on a broader notion of “sustainability”, sustainability-as-flourishing is a dynamic systems construct (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Bradbury, 2003; Stead & Stead, 1994) and an aspirational ideal future state (Sharma & Kearins, 2011) that goes beyond surviving (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). We will know it has been manifested when we see self-actualized individuals (Keyes, 2003), radiant health, flourishing relationships, prospering enterprises, humming communities (Laszlo et al., 2014, p. 9) and a thriving natural environment (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). This bold new view stands in contrast to most existing research, which portrays sustainability and sustainable development as business-as-usual augmented by incremental environmental or social initiatives (Roome, 2012) that reduce risk/costs or increase reputation and revenues (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Day & Arnold, 1998). Such initiatives are described as merely decreasing unsustainability rather than engendering sustainability (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013).

We contend that to meet the challenge of sustainability-as-flourishing, business needs to create transformational, not incremental change. Transformational change towards sustainability-as-flourishing involves fundamental change in society’s culture and collective consciousness that enables the creation of new collective beliefs and values (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Harman, 1998). We propose entrepreneurship as a process that may contribute to bringing about this transformation (Driver & Porter, 2012), even if its commercial version is criticized for being unequal and exploitative (Tedmanson, Verduyn, Essers, & Gartner, 2012). This article focuses on entrepreneurship that creates social and/or environmental value beyond private economic wealth (Thompson, Kiefer, & York, 2011). We understand entrepreneurship as a process that has the potential to transform industries, institutions and societies (Driver & Porter, 2012; Pacheco, Dean, & Payne, 2010; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009). Research documents its transforming role in terms of creating new ventures, products and services in the social (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009; Zahra et al., 2009) as well as in the environmental domain (Anderson, 1998).

Existing literature lays the groundwork for understanding entrepreneurship as a process for achieving sustainability-as-flourishing (Laszlo et al., 2014). In particular, scholars describe and investigate types of entrepreneurship considered to be a panacea for social and environmental issues (Gibbs, 2009; Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010; Tilley & Young, 2009). These types include social (Corner & Ho, 2010; Mair & Marti, 2009), environmental (Isaak, 2002; Kirkwood & Walton, 2010) and sustainable entrepreneurship (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Parrish, 2010). Taken together, these types of entrepreneurship are proposed to not only reduce unsustainability (Dean & McMullen, 2007) but also to create social and environmental value, and to bring about transformational change (Driver & Porter, 2012; Zahra et al., 2009), highlighting their potential to contribute to sustainability-as-flourishing. To date, little analysis has been done to see whether research on the three types of entrepreneurship reflects this potential.

The broad purpose of this article is to critically review entrepreneurship research to determine what aspects of sustainability-as-flourishing are explicitly addressed. More specifically, we critically review existing research on social (SocE), environmental (EnvE) and sustainable (SustE) entrepreneurship to assess the extent to which it acknowledges sustainability-as-flourishing.

To serve this purpose, we begin by compiling requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing from existing environmental and social scientific literature on sustainability. We then conduct a focused literature review on SocE, EnvE and SustE and critically assess identified research against the requisites. Finally, we propose a research agenda that addresses the limitations of existing research as revealed through our critical analysis. Importantly, the proposed research agenda highlights scholarship that could enhance knowledge of entrepreneurship as a process for the creation of value beyond profit and has the potential to contribute to a debate on the socioeconomic transformation needed to achieve sustainability-as-flourishing. We contend that such knowledge will not only extend entrepreneurship theory beyond its current focus on financial outcomes but also be of interest to the burgeoning number of organisations investing in social and environmental value creation.

Background: Social, Environmental and Sustainable Entrepreneurship

To help understand the role of entrepreneurship in moving towards sustainability-as-flourishing, this section describes three different types of entrepreneurship, SocE, EnvE and SustE¹, and attempts to tease out distinctions among them. There is a plethora of various definitions for these terms in the wider management literature (Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, 2010; Tilley & Young, 2009), and scholars continue to debate how these types overlap (Hall et al., 2010; Lenox & York, 2012; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; Thompson et al., 2011). We considered it essential to include all three types in order to avoid privileging one type. Below, we describe the three types as implemented in this research.

We begin with SocE, which is defined as an entrepreneurial process that focuses on the creation of social value or value for people and communities, according to several review articles (Dacin et al., 2010; Short et al., 2009; Smith, Gonin, & Besharov, 2013; Zahra et al., 2009). In a more narrow sense, it is described as entrepreneurship that uplifts marginalised and disadvantaged groups (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Mair & Martí, 2006; Martin & Osberg, 2007). Profit is regarded as a means to that end, and the social agenda is often placed ahead of economic outcomes (Thompson et al., 2011). SocE is considered distinct from SustE and EnvE because it involves a selfless and caring concern for solving social issues beyond a concern for financial returns (Thompson et al., 2011). A well-known example is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, founded by Muhammad Yunus. It not only contributed—and still does—to alleviating poverty for several million people but also changed conventional thinking regarding creditworthiness in the banking sector (Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010).

EnvE involves the creation of environmental value (preservation and regeneration of the natural environment) as well as the economic value of conventional entrepreneurship (Isaak, 2002; Lenox & York, 2012). These for-profit enterprises (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010) have an environmental mission (Pastakia, 1998) that generally is of lesser or equal importance to economic value creation (Thompson et al., 2011). EnvE is considered a unique type of entrepreneurship due to its focus on solving environmentally relevant market failures and examination of opportunities that produce both economic and ecological benefits (Thompson et al., 2011, p. 216). Solar energy organisations offer an example of environmental enterprises in the United States and elsewhere. Solar technology depends on the “renewable” and nondepleting energy of the sun to create heat or electricity, as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels with associated air emissions and other negative environmental impacts. As a “better” alternative, the technology creates value for the environment while simultaneously generating increasing economic value (Meek, Pacheco, & York, 2010).

SustE focuses on creating products and ventures that address environmental, social and economic market failures simultaneously (Hall et al., 2010; Parrish, 2010; Thompson et al., 2011). This type of entrepreneurship involves both a social and environmental mission (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011) as well as the need to create economic value similar to conventional entrepreneurship (Schlange, 2009). Some scholars suggest that SustE focuses on profit as a means to an end, with the proviso that the enterprise must be financially self-sustaining (Thompson et al., 2011). SustE can be regarded as distinct from SocE and EnvE because it focuses on the creation of both social and ecological benefits in conjunction with economic value (Thompson et al., 2011, p. 210). The case of U.S. enterprise NativeEnergy provides an example of SustE (Parrish & Foxon, 2009). It offers projects whereby corporations can attempt to offset their carbon emissions by funding energy projects such as wind farms for communities in need, as NativeEnergy states on its website in 2014.

In sum, each type of entrepreneurship provides a perspective on entrepreneurship as a process for socioeconomic transformation where business creates value beyond profit. The types offer promising avenues for studying key questions about how entrepreneurship can promote “a better way of living” (Thompson et al., 2011, p. 223) akin to sustainability-as-flourishing. We thus focus on SocE, EnvE and SustE research for our critical review.

Requisites for Sustainability-as-Flourishing

To achieve sustainability-as-flourishing, scholars from a variety of disciplines advocate transformational change in our economic, social and political systems (Capra, 2002; Costanza et al., 2013; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Eisler, 2008; G. B. Grant, 2012; Harding, 2006; Harman, 1998; Jackson, 2011; Kubiszewski et al., 2013). Ehrenfeld (2012), who coined the term sustainability-as-flourishing, argued for change in two beliefs underlying our thinking about these systems: (1) authentic human nature is based on caring rather than needing and (2) large systems are best understood using a complexity perspective. Building on these two beliefs, we reviewed respected environmental and social scientific research to develop a set of requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing by distilling what earlier research deemed necessary to achieve such an ideal. We started by compiling requisites that were mentioned frequently in the literature. We then condensed several of the requisites until we arrived at a number of requisites that was manageable for the review but still covered the important dimensions. We stopped condensing when we considered the requisites to be internally homogenous and externally heterogeneous. In addition to Ehrenfeld’s work (2005, 2012; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013), the research base included the following: the Worldwatch Institute’s report State of the world 2013; the Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (Bansal & Hoffman, 2012), Berkes et al. (2003), Rockström et al. (2009), and earlier work by Gladwin, Newburry, and Reiskin (1997). Other references used to develop the requisites that echo the need for profound socioeconomic transformation were Jackson (2011), Laszlo et al. (2012), OECD (2011), Scharmer and Kaufer (2013), the United Nations’ (2014) millennium development goals report and the World Bank (2013) report on poverty.

The resulting set of eight requisites were grouped into three categories—Beliefs and Values, Diagnosis, and Responsibility. These categories broadly indicate an implementation model that suggests a possible sequence for embracing the requisites and associated changes in organizations that could, over time, move us closer to sustainability-as-flourishing. We started with Beliefs and Values, as these have the potential to influence perception and thus shape the diagnosis and resulting behaviour. We considered beliefs and values in an organization to be reflected through Requisites 1 and 2. Second, we suggest a thorough Diagnosis in regards to the social/environmental problem that is to be solved. Diagnosis is represented by Requisites 3, 4 and 5. As a third step, we recommend adopting responsible behaviour—in other words, Responsibility, expressed through Requisites 6, 7 and 8. The next sections review research on SocE, EnvE and SustE relative to these requisites.

Beliefs and Values

Requisite 1

Sustainability scholars contend that life on Earth cannot flourish until society recognizes and enables the best rather than the worst of human nature (Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 1992). Those promoting sustainability-as-flourishing go so far as to say that this ideal state is not possible until human society is “transformed to foster love” (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013, p. 89). Such love would be a compassionate love and reflect an awareness of human interconnectedness (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). Consequently, scholars intent on sustainability-as-flourishing argue for a change in assumptions about human nature. Specifically, researchers object to the notion of homo economicus, which assumes humans act rationally and purely out of self-centredness (Khozein, Karlberg, & Freeman, 2013; Welford, 1998). A move away from homo economicus is recognized by a growing body of research in sustainability, psychology and sociology, which indicates that selfishness is not integral to human nature but that humans exhibit positive traits like moral, social and caring behaviours (Ehrenfeld, 2005, 2012; Harré, 2011; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Increasing numbers of studies find that humans are emotionally rewarded for prosocial behaviour by positive pleasant feelings (Haidt, 2000; Harré, 2011). Additionally, recent research maintains that prosocial behaviour promotes creativity and thus leads to the generation of ideas that are both novel and useful—particularly for others (A. M. Grant & Berry, 2011; Polman & Emich, 2011). And creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems are required if humanity is to move towards a flourishing future (G. B. Grant, 2012). This discussion reflecting humanity’s capacity to care gives rise to our first requisite for a process that can bring about an ideal form of sustainability—(1) human behaviour involves caring for others and for nature.

Requisite 2

Scholars also point to notions of social equity and justice being enacted in order to ensure that all have the opportunity to flourish on Earth (Raworth, 2013). However, humanity is currently facing high levels of social distress (Raworth, 2013) with increasing social inequalities even in high-income nations (OECD, 2011). Although one of the Millennium Development Goals—dividing global poverty into half—was achieved ahead of the 2015 time frame (United Nations, 2014), extreme human deprivation, social exclusion and vulnerability remain acute for one third of the population worldwide (The World Bank, 2013).

Predominant causes of excessive resource use are the exorbitant consumption of the richest 10% of the world’s population and the resource-intensive production practices of businesses offering products for their consumption (Raworth, 2013, p. 34). Scholars advocate transforming society to include principles of a fair, equal and balanced distribution of environmental and financial resources (Shrivastava, 2012). This view of social equity and justice suggests the second requisite for change that moves humanity towards sustainability-as-flourishing—(2) principles of social justice and equity are enacted.

Diagnosis

Requisite 3

Increasingly, scholars contend that complex systems thinking is vital for flourishing (Capra, 2002; Ehrenfeld, 2012; Levy & Lichtenstein, 2012; Roome, 2012) and would embrace the understanding that humans are embedded in the ecosystem (Davidson-Hunt & Berkes, 2003). Such thinking is in stark contrast to the Western-oriented reductionist and mechanistic view that has dominated business thinking and research (Ehrenfeld, 2012; Roome, 2012; Welford, 1998). Complex systems thinking acknowledges the interrelationship among multiple systems, such as the material economy, wider society and ecological life-support systems (Costanza et al., 2013). This interrelationship must be acknowledged through a holistic and complex systems view of business and the wider economy (Costanza et al., 2013), a view that embraces nonlinearity, uncertainty and surprise (Berkes et al., 2003; Davidson-Hunt & Berkes, 2003). Additionally, complex systems thinking requires extremely long-term horizons for decision making (Laszlo et al., 2012), knowledge obtained by holistic experiential understanding (Shrivastava, 2012) and pragmatism (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). We thus propose the third requisite for enabling sustainability-as-flourishing—(3) complex systems thinking and holistic approaches are adopted.

Requisite 4

Sustainability-as-flourishing involves addressing root causes rather than symptoms of issues when consciously developing products and services² (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Zahra et al., 2009). Identifying the underlying causes of unsustainability is an imperative first step for addressing them (Rimanoczy, 2013). People’s beliefs and values are identified as a primary cause for unsustainability (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Rimanoczy, 2013). Getting at a root cause may involve identifying and transforming beliefs and values and their associated social structures so that structures and systems that support flourishing are possible (Pacheco et al., 2010; Zahra et al., 2009). This logic gives rise to the fourth requisite—(4) root causes of issues are addressed.

Requisite 5

There is a growing awareness that critical reflection by individuals on their habitual mental and emotional patterns can facilitate value creation for society and nature (Laszlo et al., 2012; Pavlovich & Corner, 2014). First, critical reflection enhances a person’s capacity to identify assumptions underlying decisions made and actions taken (Argyris, 1991). Identifying assumptions can lead to the realisation that they are inaccurate, providing an opportunity to change them and the decisions that result from them (Argyris, 1991). Second, critical reflection facilitates a deeper connection with intuition and insight (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Rosenblatt & Thickstun, 1994), which enables humans to expand their connectedness to self, other humans and nature (Laszlo et al., 2012). In particular, this feeling of connectedness is essential for humans to address the challenge of establishing businesses that can contribute to sustainability-as-flourishing (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Jackson, 2011; Laszlo et al., 2012). Researchers claim critical reflection enhances understanding of complex systems (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laszlo et al., 2012; Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013; Shrivastava, 2012), a consideration already identified as essential for sustainability-as-flourishing. Following this logic, we propose the fifth requisite for change to bring about sustainability-as-flourishing—(5) processes of enactment are underpinned by critical reflection.

Responsibility

Requisite 6

While profit is still vital, it has a role within sustainability-as-flourishing that is different from its role in much conventional business thinking. Profit shifts from being an almost exclusive focus of business to being a means whereby a more essential goal can be accomplished—development of “human well-being and quality of life” (Costanza et al., 2013, p. 126). Such a view is in contrast to the current concept of capitalism, which builds on a growth-dependent market system, encouraging business to grow in economic terms and seek to make profit without restraint (Costanza et al., 2013; Jones, 2011). Even the Brundtland conception of sustainable development retains economic growth and the resulting profit “as the operative concept” (Ehrenfeld, 2005, p. 23). What is needed for sustainability-as-flourishing is something closer to the notion of shared value,³ wherein business’s first priority is to create social and environmental value, and profit serves merely as a means to create this value (Driver & Porter, 2012). We thus suggest moving beyond a paradigm of unbridled economic growth so that profit is viewed as a means to an end, and present the sixth requisite—(6) profit is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Requisite 7

Sustainability-as-flourishing requires recognition of “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al., 2009). Stated differently, Earth has a limited carrying capacity to support life, which must be acknowledged to ensure human and other life forms’ safety in the first instance (Folke, 2013; Rockström et al., 2009) and indefinite flourishing in the long run (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). Unfortunately, human activity is currently exceeding crucial biophysical boundaries (Engelman, 2013). Out of nine interlinked planetary boundaries⁴, three have already been crossed: climate change (Folke, 2013; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013; Rockström et al., 2009), rate of biodiversity loss and human interference with the nitrogen cycle (Folke, 2013; Rockström et al., 2009). This situation is particularly alarming, given that all life on Earth is critically dependent on and inextricably intertwined with the biosphere’s functioning and life supporting services and resources (Folke, 2013; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013). Unless immediate and powerful action on a global scale is achieved, the trend of diminishing ecosystems is “measurably unsustainable” (Engelman, 2013, p. 12; Stern, 2006). We therefore suggest the seventh requisite with regard to societal transformation that would support sustainability-as-flourishing—(7) planetary boundaries are respected and operated within.

Requisite 8

Researchers encourage participative and collaborative approaches to business and other activities in order to manifest sustainability-as-flourishing. Competition tends to be rooted in an either/or logic that casts enterprises as rivals and separates them into winners and losers (Rimanoczy, 2013). Even where enterprises compete, they generally still need to collaborate however. Competitive behaviour has been considered to contribute to social and environmental problems (Prayukvong & Rees, 2010). Therefore, scholars suggest a shift from egosystems based on competition towards ecosystems based on collaboration (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). Participative approaches enhance sustainability (Khozein et al., 2013) and resilience to absorb and adapt to change (Berkes et al., 2003) through collaborative innovation across sectors like business, society and politics (Hart & Sharma, 2004; Roome, 2012) and the cocreation of a flourishing future (Laszlo et al., 2012). Similarly, collaborative approaches build communities and nurture human relationships as well as natural ecosystems (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013, p. 67). We agree with these scholars and advance the eighth and final requisite for manifesting sustainability-as-flourishing—(8) participative and collaborative approaches are embraced.

Method

These eight requisites are used to critically review the existing literature on SocE, EnvE and SustE. This section describes first how articles were identified for this review and then explains how we determined the extent to which the three literature streams acknowledged the eight requisites. We began by casting a wide net, looking for all articles published on the three types of entrepreneurship. Specifically, the first author completed an extensive keyword search in ABI Inform (ProQuest) and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), the two main online databases of published journal articles in business-related disciplines (Kolk, Rivera-Santos, & Rufín, 2014). She searched the titles, abstract, and subject heading for the following keywords: “social enterprise*” OR “social entrepreneur*”; “sustainab* entrepreneur*” OR “sustainab* enterprise*” OR “sustainability-driven entrepreneur*”; “ecopreneur*” OR “environmental entrepreneur*” OR “ecological entrepreneur*” OR “environmental enterprise*” OR “ecological enterprise*” OR “green ent*15” (for a similar approach, see Ucbasaran, Shepherd, Lockett, & Lyon, 2013). She imposed no time period but did restrict the search to peer-reviewed journals. This initial search located more than 700 items.

The next step involved reviewing the titles and abstracts of the 700 articles to screen out articles not relevant to our purpose. Examples of articles that were eliminated include book reviews and articles that addressed the search terms in only a minor way (similar to Kolk et al., 2014). Others were eliminated because they predominantly dealt with not-for-profit and nongovernmental organizations focusing merely on adding another income stream. About 200 articles remained after this screening-out process. The critical review of all articles yielded by this search was not practical. We therefore included articles to review against the requisites in three ways. First, we included 10 review articles—articles that had as their main focus reviewing research in SocE, EnvE, or SustE. Eight were recent journal articles, and two were book chapters (Lenox & York, 2012; Thompson et al., 2011). A careful reading of these publications suggested that together they provided an excellent summary of the mainstream research on SocE, EnvE and SustE to date. These articles are identified by an asterisk (*) in the reference list. Six of the 10 publications are on SocE (Dacin et al., 2010; Hill, Kothari, & Shea, 2010; Lehner & Kansikas, 2013; Short et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2013; Zahra et al., 2009), one covers EnvE (Lenox & York, 2012), two review SustE (Hall et al., 2010; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), and one compares SocE, EnvE and SustE (Thompson et al., 2011).

Second, we read the abstracts of all the other nonreview articles identified by the database search and included those that had the potential to shed light on the entrepreneurial processes in relation to requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing. We looked specifically at whether the articles referred to key concepts we had distilled in the requisites (e.g., caring, complex systems thinking, or critical reflection) explicitly and through the use of other terms that would connote similar meaning. Third, a thorough reading of the review articles surfaced additional articles and book chapters that we deemed suitable to include because they were either frequently cited or very relevant to the research topic. All told, 31 articles in addition to the ten review articles were included for critical review relative to the requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing. The additional articles that spread out evenly across the fields of SocE, EnvE and SustE are marked with double asterisks (**) in the reference list.

For the purpose of the critical review and to assess the extent to which research on each of the three types of entrepreneurship acknowledged the requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing, we engaged in the following steps. First, we sorted all articles by type of entrepreneurship predominantly addressed. We highlight two instances in which categorization into one of the three types of entrepreneurship was challenging. The Gibbs (2009) article was ultimately classified in both in EnvE and SustE because it explores both types. The other instance was the Dean and McMullen (2007) article. We classified it as EnvE because it was essentially about an entrepreneurial response to environmental degradation even though it used the term “sustainable entrepreneurship” in the title. Our classification of it is consistent with that of other authors (Lenox & York, 2012; Pacheco et al., 2010).

Second, we read through the 41 articles selected to see whether each addressed any of the eight requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing. We considered the articles individually and collectively for each type of entrepreneurship and determined the extent to which the body of research acknowledged each requisite. The criteria used to determine the level of acknowledgement was as follows: (1) “acknowledged” meant many of the articles addressed a requisite, (2) “partially acknowledged” indicated only some of the articles addressed the requisite or a requisite was incompletely considered, and (3) “unacknowledged” signified that there were (almost) no articles touching on the requisite.

Findings From Analysis

This section reports findings from our analysis of research on SocE, EnvE and SustE with respect to the requisites. In particular, it reports an assessment of each type of entrepreneurship literature separately beginning with SocE. Table 1 summarizes the analysis and shows the extent to which each type acknowledges the requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing described above.

Table 1.

Summary of Analysis for Entrepreneurship Types Using Requisites for Sustainability-as-Flourishing.

Requisite	Social entrepreneurship: Requisites acknowledged = 4, Partially acknowledged = 2, Unacknowledged = 2	Environmental entrepreneurship: Requisites acknowledged = 0, Partially acknowledged = 5, Unacknowledged = 3	Sustainable entrepreneurship: Requisites acknowledged = 0, Partially acknowledged = 7, Unacknowledged = 1
Beliefs and values
1. Caring view of human nature	Requisite acknowledged: Humans viewed as potentially caring (Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Humans often viewed as self-centred with rational economic motivations (Lenox & York, 2012; Meek et al., 2010), but exceptions exist (Dixon & Clifford, 2007; Pastakia, 1998)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Human nature conceptualized beyond self-centredness (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010; Parrish, 2010), but economic self-centred interests exist (Thompson et al., 2011)
2. Social justice and equity	Requisite acknowledged: Principles of social justice and equity central to SocE (Di Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010; Martin & Osberg, 2007), but competing demands between social and economic value creation are acknowledged (Lehner & Kansikas, 2013; Smith et al., 2013)	Requisite unacknowledged: Such principles rarely considered; focus is on environmentally relevant market failures (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Thompson et al., 2011)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Such principles considered as part of triple bottom line (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010) but focus often on environmental and economic dimension, neglecting social issues (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Parrish & Foxon, 2009)

Diagnosis
3. Complex systems thinking	Requisite partially acknowledged: Complexity incorporated through embeddedness of social issues in wider society (Nicholls & Young, 2008; Zahra et al., 2009), connectedness to other humans (Miller et al., 2012) and structuration theory (Short et al., 2009), but unanticipated negative results usually ignored (Dacin et al., 2010)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Techno-optimistic thinking (Gibbs, 2009; Isaak, 2002) and little focus on holistic operational approaches to environmental problems often limits complexity, but complexity incorporated by acknowledging connectedness to nature (Anderson, 1998; Kirkwood & Walton, 2010)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Systems thinking sometimes integrated through holistic cognition and extremely long-term horizons (Gagnon, 2012; Parrish, 2010), but focus on techno-optimistic solutions (Gibbs, 2009; Hall et al., 2010) underlines efficiency-based, narrowly focused, disconnected thinking (Shrivastava, Ivanaj, & Persson, 2013)
4. Root causes	Requisite partially acknowledged: Underlying social structure often addressed as root cause by “social engineers” (Driver & Porter, 2012; Hill et al., 2010; Zahra et al., 2009), but some SocE merely involves trying to create social value from a good idea (Corner & Ho, 2010; Zahra et al., 2009)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Addressing root causes limited by focus on financially attractive opportunities and institutional forces shaping EnvE (Lenox & York, 2012), rather than EnvE influence on institutions (Thompson et al., 2011); underlying institutional issues sometimes addressed (Gibbs, 2009; York & Venkataraman, 2010)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Underlying social or economic institutions sometimes addressed (Pacheco et al., 2010; Parrish & Foxon, 2009) but sustainable development (Hall et al., 2010; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011) favours business-almost-as-usual
5. Critical reflection	Requisite unacknowledged: Critical reflection (e.g. on thinking patterns or connectedness to self, other humans and nature) rarely considered, but starting to be (Pavlovich & Corner, 2014)	Requisite unacknowledged: Critical reflection rarely considered in EnvE research	Requisite unacknowledged: Critical reflection rarely considered in SustE research

Responsibility
6. Profit as means, not an end	Requisite acknowledged: Profit described as a means for creating social value (Dacin et al., 2010; Short et al., 2009)	Requisite unacknowledged: Profit described as having equal or more importance to environmental value creation (Thompson et al., 2011)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Profit important for financial sustainability (Thompson et al., 2011), but social and environmental complementary to economic value creation (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011)
7. Planetary boundaries	Requisite unacknowledged: Such boundaries rarely considered, focus is on social not ecological value creation, but starting to be acknowledged (Patel & Mehta, 2011)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Planetary boundaries rarely considered due to assumption of unbridled economic growth; limited resources and environmental degradation often examined from an economic efficiency, not physical capacity of planet perspective (Isaak, 2002; York & Venkataraman, 2010)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Planetary boundaries rarely considered due to assumption of unbridled economic growth, instead economic efficiency perspective applied (Hall et al., 2010) to examine resource scarcity and environmental degradation (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), but exceptions exist (Parrish, 2010)
8. Participative collaboration	Requisite acknowledged: Collaborative behaviour (Alvord et al., 2004) acknowledged through examination of community-based enterprises and social capital (Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012) but some research assume hero entrepreneur acting alone (Dey & Steyaert, 2010; Lehner & Kansikas, 2013)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Collaboration acknowledged (Keogh & Polonsky, 1998) but often focus on gaining competitive advantage (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Meek et al., 2010)	Requisite partially acknowledged: Collaboration often limited to occasions where competitive advantage can be gained (see, e.g., Cohen & Winn, 2007; Pacheco et al., 2010); calls for more transdisciplinarity both for researchers and practitioners exist, endorsing dialogue and discussion (Shrivastava et al., 2013)

Note. SocE = social entrepreneurship, EnvE = environmental entrepreneurship, SustE = sustainable entrepreneurship.

Social Entrepreneurship Research

The critical review suggested that four of the requisites are acknowledged within SocE research as follows: caring view of human behaviour (Requisite 1), principles of social justice and equity (Requisite 2), profit as a means to an end (Requisite 6) and participative collaboration (Requisite 8). The acknowledgement can be seen in the descriptions provided for each requisite in Table 1. We are not suggesting that there is no further research needed on these requisites; we are highlighting that the SocE research captured in the literature review adequately acknowledges these requisites. Notably, the other two types of entrepreneurship research did not fully acknowledge any of the requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing (see first row of Table 1).

It was found that two of the requisites are partially acknowledged within SocE research. As shown in Table 1, they included complex systems thinking (Requisite 3) and addressing root causes (Requisite 4). Table 1 indicates the ways in which each of these requisites are not yet fully acknowledged in SocE research. Finally, findings reveal two requisites that remain unacknowledged—critical reflection (Requisite 5) and planetary boundaries (Requisite 7). Critical reflection was unacknowledged by all three types of entrepreneurship research and thus appears as a limitation for them all. However, planetary boundaries are partially acknowledged in the EnvE and SustE literature. As such, the fact that research on SocE rarely considered Earth’s limited carrying capacity is more of a limitation for this research than for the other two types. This finding is not surprising given SocE’s focus on the creation of social value, particularly value for marginalized and disadvantaged people. Despite this limitation, it appears that SocE research, as compared to EnvE and SustE (discussed below), was the only one of the three types that evidenced requisites as fully acknowledged. Specifically, Table 1 reports in the first row that the SocE literature acknowledged four requisites in comparison to zero for both EnvE and for SustE.

Environmental Entrepreneurship Research

The critical review indicated that none of the requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing are fully acknowledged within EnvE research. Again, the reader is referred to Table 1 for details supporting this conclusion. Findings show that EnvE research partially acknowledges five requisites, including caring view of human behaviour (Requisite 1), complex systems thinking (Requisite 3), addressing root causes (Requisite 4), planetary boundaries (Requisite 7) and participative collaboration (Requisite 8). Taken collectively, these findings are consistent with other research which points out that EnvE research, despite its focus on solutions to environmental problems, has substantive limitations when considering sustainability-as-flourishing (Ehrenfeld, 2005, 2012). These limitations likely emanate from enterprises’ predominant focus on economic growth (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Welford, 1998) and an assumption that technology is the solution to environmental problems (Gladwin et al., 1997). Findings showed three requisites as unacknowledged within EnvE research. These are the following: principles of social justice and equity (Requisite 2), critical reflection (Requisite 5) and profit as a means to an end (Requisite 6). The finding regarding the social justice and equity requisite was anticipated given EnvE’s main focus on environmental issues (e.g., Kirkwood & Walton, 2010) as opposed to social or humanitarian issues.

Compared with research in SocE and SustE, EnvE was found to acknowledge the fewest number of requisites for sustainability. It is especially noteworthy that the EnvE literature does not acknowledge three requisites in comparison to one for SustE and two for SocE. This finding, in conjunction with the EnvE literature not fully acknowledging any of the requisites, points to substantive limitations with respect to EnvE as currently conceived contributing to sustainability-as-flourishing, according to existing research.

Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research

Our analysis suggested none of the requisites are fully acknowledged within SustE research. The reader is again referred to Table 1 for details. Seven requisites are partially acknowledged comprising: caring view of human nature (Requisite 1), principles of social justice and equity (Requisite 2), complex systems thinking (Requisite 3), addressing root causes (Requisite 4), profit as a means to an end (Requisite 6), planetary boundaries (Requisite 7) and participative collaboration (Requisite 8). As such, the SustE literature surpasses the EnvE literature in terms of partially acknowledged requisites (see first row of Table 1). This finding might be expected given SustE’s explicit focus on the triple bottom line (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010), the creation of social and environmental value to complement profit (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Nevertheless, partial acknowledgement does imply limitations for the SustE research with respect to a focus on sustainability-as-flourishing. This finding coheres with other research, which indicates that social and environmental value can be minimized within triple bottom line thinking in order to maximise economic value (Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, & Preuss, 2010). Scholars imply that trading off social and environmental value creation in favour of profit is due to the drive for continuous economic growth of enterprises that underlies much SustE research (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Welford, 1998).

One requisite, critical reflection (Requisite 5), was found to be relatively unacknowledged within the SustE literature. The same conclusion was reached for both SocE and EnvE suggesting that this requisite is generally unacknowledged in research on the types of entrepreneurship that explicitly incorporate value creation other than profit. Encouragingly, Table 1 does report one article that begins to bring critical reflection into SocE research.

Finally, SustE research does appear to have fewer limitations than EnvE when considering sustainability-as-flourishing because it partially acknowledges seven of the requisites compared with EnvE’s five (see Table 1). This type of entrepreneurship research, however, arguably falls short of SocE since the latter type fully acknowledges four of the requisites. Nevertheless, we highlight that all three types of entrepreneurship research have limitations with respect to sustainability-as-flourishing, despite their focus on value creation other than profit. The research agenda presented below summarizes areas of research that address these limitations and potentially furthers our understanding of entrepreneurship as a process for societal and economic transformation that can bring our world closer to sustainability-as-flourishing.

Discussion and a Research Agenda for Transformational Change

The purpose of this article was to critically review three types of entrepreneurship research to determine the extent to which they explicitly addressed sustainability-as-flourishing. We first developed eight requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing from the broad environmental and social scientific literature. We then reviewed the existing literature on SocE, EnvE and SustE—all types of entrepreneurship that embrace value creation beyond profit—relative to the requisites.

Our major finding was that research on all three types had limitations with respect to sustainability-as-flourishing. Importantly, the juxtaposition of these types of entrepreneurship research and sustainability-as-flourishing suggested limitations that potentially retard progress towards sustainability-as-flourishing. The most fundamental limitation was that profit still dominates as the prevailing goal expressed in EnvE and SustE research. Our analysis called this view of profit into question, highlighting the notion of profit as a means to other ends. The analysis also pointed to a lack of acknowledgement in existing research regarding how critical reflection can inform and shape entrepreneurship that may contribute to a flourishing future. Our review gives rise to the following research agenda that may enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship’s potential to engender the socioeconomic transformation necessary to bring about sustainability-as-flourishing. While we do not suggest that all research papers focusing on the three types of entrepreneurship need to address all eight requisites, we discuss the four requisites that were least acknowledged to date. Moreover, we present issues of research methodology to be considered when designing suggested future research on sustainability-as-flourishing.

Research Agenda

Critical Reflection

Analysis of the existing literature revealed that the requisite of critical reflection largely remains unacknowledged in research on SocE, EnvE and SustE (Requisite 5, Table 1). Stated differently, there is scant research focused on entrepreneurs’ contemplation and awareness of the habitual mental and emotional patterns that shape entrepreneurial processes and outcomes both intended and unintended. Similarly, very little literature in SocE, EnvE and SustE appears to consider how entrepreneurship reflects the connectedness of humans to self, other humans and to all of nature, a component of critical reflection (Laszlo et al., 2012). There is some promising research beginning to surface on this topic in SocE (Pavlovich & Corner, 2014) and commercial entrepreneurship research (Karp, 2006). Such research could identify the beliefs underlying entrepreneurship and shaping its outcomes (Ehrenfeld, 2012). Critical reflection and an awareness of connectedness are regarded as fundamental to transformational change towards sustainability-as-flourishing (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laszlo et al., 2012). We thus encourage scholars to conduct research on this topic including an investigation of questions like “How do habitual thinking patterns and emotional reactions shape entrepreneurship?” Similarly, researchers could explore how awareness of connectedness influences entrepreneurial behaviour and decision making. In addition, research on how entrepreneurs’ feelings of connectedness inspire critical reflection on their thinking and emotional patterns could be useful. We also think that research on critical reflection could extend knowledge regarding the trade-offs inherent in achieving sustainability-as-flourishing. Such research could explore the extent to which reflection surfaces awareness of trade-offs between different types of value creation. This research would be consistent with that called for by scholars studying innovation given their conjecture that critical reflection or metacognitive capabilities help integrate the competing demands inherent in innovation such as flexibility versus efficiency (Smith et al., 2013).

Planetary Boundaries

The critical review uncovered limitations in the extant literature regarding planetary boundaries for all three types of entrepreneurship (Requisite 7, Table 1). Analysis suggested limitations emanate from a prevailing focus on economic growth of enterprises for EnvE and SustE and a somewhat exclusive focus on solving social issues for SocE. However, respecting Earth’s limited carrying capacity is crucial for life to flourish (Rockström et al., 2009; Stead & Stead, 1994). As long as researchers remain fixed on notions of an enterprise’s economic growth and profit for its own sake, incremental change towards less unsustainability seems likely to remain the focus of research on the broad topic of sustainability (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). We thus recommend future entrepreneurship research that explicitly explores how planetary boundaries are understood by entrepreneurs and how business decision making is affected.

There is auspicious research beginning to surface in this area. For example, Patel and Mehta (2011) offer a set of principles that could help ensure the planet’s carrying capacity is explicitly recognized in entrepreneurship. Parrish (2010) advocates respecting planetary boundaries by enhancing the quality of natural resources like rivers used in production. Still, the analysis in Table 1 indicated that substantial future research is needed to understand the transformative role entrepreneurship can play in creating business that respects planetary boundaries. In particular, researchers could examine the entrepreneurial processes underlying value creation that do account for the physical limits of the planet and thus contribute to sustainability-as-flourishing. How do these processes differ from those that do not account for planetary boundaries? Which planetary boundaries are respected by entrepreneurs? Which ones are ignored and why? In addition, research could investigate the knowledge needed to engender entrepreneurial processes that acknowledge planetary boundaries.

Complex Systems, Holistic Thinking

Findings revealed a limitation in existing research with respect to complex systems and holistic thinking, a requisite for sustainability-as-flourishing (Requisite 3, Table 1). In particular, existing research is criticized for a narrow focus on somewhat singular outcomes or issues that fail to reflect the multiplicity of issues inherent in a complex system (Shrivastava et al., 2013). A more holistic approach that acknowledges complexity is a necessity for sustainability-as-flourishing (Ehrenfeld, 2012). We thus suggest future research that specifically investigates negative or unintended consequences of entrepreneurship. Are such consequences the result of a narrow focus in entrepreneurial processes? If so, then such research might also offer prescriptions regarding how to expand a narrow focus so that it better captures the complexity of the environment and the social and environmental issues that entrepreneurship attempts to address.

Perhaps research on SocE, EnvE and SustE failure could also reveal ways in which entrepreneurial processes failed to reflect complexity and holistic approaches to problem solving. We also advocate the application of conceptual frameworks such as paradox theory when investigating entrepreneurship given its capacity to identify the seeming contradictions inherent in complex systems (Smith et al., 2013).

Root Causes

Findings suggested a limited acknowledgement of root causes of unsustainability in SocE, EnvE and SustE research (Requisite 4, Table 1). Entrepreneurship research often addressed sustainability issues from the point of view of possible financial gain through social or environmental initiatives. However, the root causes requisite points to researching entrepreneurship to surface and understand the often hidden and complex underlying root causes (Ehrenfeld, 2005; Rimanoczy, 2013). Therefore, we suggest ambitious future research designed to identify the underlying issues that currently contribute to social injustice or environmental degradation and entrepreneurial means of addressing them.

One possible research avenue that could advance our understanding of root causes is on the topic of institutional entrepreneurship (Dacin et al., 2010; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), the creation of novel institutions, or mechanisms of social order (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009), particularly in light of institutional voids (Mair & Martí, 2009). Scholars explore mechanisms that can address root causes by promoting institutional change (Desa, 2012; Parrish & Foxon, 2009; Zahra et al., 2009). Given the challenges SocE, EnvE and SustE face due to the lack of supportive markets and well-functioning social systems, we encourage further research that investigates the processes that SocE, EnvE and SustE engage in when changing current or creating new institutions to overcome unsustainability. We acknowledge that institutional entrepreneurship in some cases addresses mere symptoms of an underlying cause. Therefore, we also encourage additional research avenues to comprehend and adequately address the root of a sustainability issue.

Research Methodologies

Our analysis implies methodologies that could enhance understanding of entrepreneurship’s capacity to engender sustainability-as-flourishing. Given the limitations revealed in existing research, we encourage rigorous qualitative methodologies that allow for theory building that encompasses unconventional intuitive and subjective sources of knowledge (see also Gartner, 2007). More subjective research approaches seem especially useful given the need to explore issues such as critical reflection, while more holistic research that takes context into account appears important in expanding the understanding of complex systems thinking. In contrast, quantitative approaches often reflect a more reductionist, mechanistic world view. Also, they often dissect components of the complex system, for example, by factoring out social and environmental consequences of entrepreneurial behaviour, and studying relationships between other selected variables. Understanding entrepreneurship that focuses on non-economic value creation from a purely positivist perspective has strong limitations (Lehner & Kansikas, 2013).

Shrivastava et al. (2013, p. 241) point out that “we business scholars need to open our minds, as well as our journals, and go beyond the frontiers of scientific rationality”. We advocate subjective and change-oriented research, which is in contrast to the more quantitative, objective research methodologies proposed in some of the articles included in the literature review (see Hill et al., 2010). Furthermore, like Shrivastava et al. (2013, p. 236), we promote transdisciplinary research approaches to entrepreneurship research, which enable non-reductionist inquiry embracing different forms of knowledge, including physical, social, emotional and metacognitive. In particular, we advocate working with scholars in social disciplines, such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, and political science—in line with a similar suggestion made by Short et al. (2009). In addition, we endorse collaborating with researchers in the natural sciences since this field is fundamental for our understanding of planetary boundaries, and also, at times, root causes. Our analysis leads us to recommend the inclusion of these non-business disciplines in addition to traditional business disciplines like accounting, economics and marketing (in contrast to Short et al., 2009).

In conclusion, this article critically reviewed research on SocE, EnvE and SustE against requisites for sustainability-as-flourishing. The analysis revealed limitations in the perspectives underlying SocE, EnvE and SustE research for moving towards sustainability-as-flourishing. The proposed research agenda offers suggestions for future research that could begin to address these limitations to gain further understanding of how entrepreneurship could bring about the fundamental socioeconomic transformation needed to ensure flourishing. It is our belief that the article also points to the transformative potential of the entrepreneurship process, a process that warrants attention by sustainability scholars. Entrepreneurship research can hopefully begin to fulfil its promise of envisioning what the future might look like (Gartner, 2007).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Katrin Schaefer is a recipient of the AUT Vice Chancellor’s Doctoral Scholarship.

Notes

Author Biographies

Katrin Schaefer is a PhD candidate at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. She has previous degrees from her native Germany and her new home country, New Zealand, along with work experience promoting sustainability in business. She is interested in the potential for social entrepreneurship to contribute to transformational change.

Patricia (Trish) Doyle Corner is the Professor of Strategic Entrepreneurship at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. She earned her PhD from Arizona State University in the United States and has published in top journals, including Journal of Business Venturing; Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice; Organization Science; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of the Operations Research Society; and Interfaces. Her current research interests include social and commercial entrepreneurship and advancing human knowledge.

Kate Kearins is Deputy Dean and Professor of Management at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland, New Zealand. Kate’s PhD is from the University of Waikato in New Zealand. She has published on a wide range of accounting and management topics. Her research is currently focused on what it takes to advance sustainability in business and organizational contexts.

References

**Alvord

S. H.

Brown

L. D.

Letts

C. W.

(2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 260-282.

**Anderson

A. R.

(1998). Cultivating the Garden of Eden: Environmental entrepreneuring. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11, 135-144.

Argyris

(1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 4, 4-15.

Arvai

Campbell-Arvai

Steel

(2012). Decision-making for sustainability: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Retrieved from http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Decision-Making.pdf

Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Battilana

Leca

Boxenbaum

(2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65-107.

Berkes

Colding

Folke

(2003). Introduction. In Berkes

Colding

Folke

(Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 1-29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Beschorner

(2013). Creating shared value: The one-trick pony approach. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(17), 106-112.

Bradbury

(2003). Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A whole-systems approach to developing sustainable business practices in management. Journal of Management Education, 27, 172-187.

10.

Burke

Logsdon

J. M.

(1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29, 495-502.

11.

Capra

(2002). Hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability. London, England: HarperCollins.

12.

Carroll

A. B.

Shabana

K. M.

(2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85-105.

13.

**Cohen

Winn

M. I.

(2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 29-49.

14.

Cooperrider

Fry

(2012). Mirror flourishing and the positive psychology of sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 46, 3-12.

15.

**Corner

P. D.

(2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34, 635-659.

16.

Costanza

Alperovitz

Daly

Farley

Franco

Jackson

. . . Victor

(2013). Building a sustainable and desirable economy-in-society-in-nature. In Starke

Assadourian

Prugh

(Eds.), State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp. 126-142). Washington, DC: Island Press/Worldwatch Institute.

17.

Crane

Palazzo

Spence

L. J.

Matten

(2014). Contesting the value of “Creating shared value.” California Management Review, 56, 130-149.

18.

Crossan

Lane

White

(1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.

19.

*Dacin

P. A.

Dacin

M. T.

Matear

(2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 37-57.

20.

Davidson-Hunt

I. J.

Berkes

(2003). Nature and society through the lens of resilience: Toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In Berkes

Colding

Folke

(Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 53-82). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Day

Arnold

(1998). The business case for sustainable development. Greener Management International, 23, 69-92.

22.

**Dean

T. J.

McMullen

J. S.

(2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 50-76.

23.

Desa

(2012). Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36, 727-751.

24.

**Dey

Steyaert

(2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4, 85-108.

25.

**Di Domenico

Haugh

Tracey

. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34, 681-703.

26.

**Dixon

Clifford

(2007). Ecopreneurship: A new approach to managing the triple bottom line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 326-345.

27.

**Driver

Porter

M. E.

(2012). An interview with Michael Porter: Social entrepreneurship and the transformation of capitalism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 421-431.

28.

Ehrenfeld

J. R.

(2005). The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 23-25.

29.

Ehrenfeld

J. R.

(2008). Sustainability by design: A subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

30.

Ehrenfeld

J. R.

(2012). Beyond the brave new world: Business for sustainability. In Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 611-619). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

31.

Ehrenfeld

J. R.

Hoffman

A. J.

(2013). Flourishing: A frank conversation about sustainability. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

32.

Eisler

(2008). The real wealth of nations: Creating a caring economics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

33.

Emerson

(2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35-51.

34.

Engelman

(2013). Beyond sustainababble. In Starke

Assadourian

Prugh

(Eds.), State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp. 3-16). Washington, DC: Island Press/Worldwatch Institute.

35.

Folke

(2013). Respecting planetary boundaries and reconnecting to the biosphere. In Starke

Assadourian

Prugh

(Eds.), State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp. 19-27). Washington, DC: Island Press/Worldwatch Institute.

36.

**Gagnon

M. A.

(2012). Sustainable minded entrepreneurs: Developing and testing a values-based framework. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 8, 9-25.

37.

Gartner

W. B.

(2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 613-627.

38.

**Gibbs

(2009). Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the development of a sustainable economy. Greener Management International, 55, 63-78.

39.

Gladwin

T. N.

Newburry

W. E.

Reiskin

E. D.

(1997). Why is the northern elite mind biased against community, the environment, and a sustainable future? In Bazerman

M. H.

Messick

D. M.

Tensbrunsel

A. E.

Wade-Benzoni

K. A.

(Eds.), Environment, ethics and behavior (pp. 234-276). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.

40.

Grant

A. M.

Berry

J. W.

(2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73-96.

41.

Grant

G. B.

(2012). Transforming sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 46, 123-137.

42.

Hahn

Figge

Pinkse

Preuss

(2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217-229.

43.

Haidt

(2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention & Treatment, 3, 1-5.

44.

*Hall

J. K.

Daneke

G. A.

Lenox

M. J.

(2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 439-448.

45.

Harding

(2006, September 27). It’s time we learned to live in peace with our planet. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/sep/27/comment.environment

46.

Harman

(1998). Global mind change: The promise of the 21st century (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

47.

Harré

(2011). Psychology for a better world: Strategies to inspire sustainability. Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.

48.

Hart

S. L.

Sharma

(2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7-18.

49.

Haugh

H. M.

Talwar

(2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 384-396.

50.

*Hill

T. L.

Kothari

T. H.

Shea

(2010). Patterns of meaning in the social entrepreneurship literature: A research platform. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 5-31.

51.

**Hockerts

Wüstenhagen

(2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 481-492.

52.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis—Summary for policymakers. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

53.

**Isaak

(2002). The making of the ecopreneur. Greener Management International, 38, 81-91.

54.

Jackson

(2011). Societal transformations for a sustainable economy. Natural Resources Forum, 35, 155-164.

55.

Jones

A. W.

(2011). Solving the ecological problems of capitalism: Capitalist and socialist possibilities. Organization & Environment, 24, 54-73.

56.

Karp

(2006). The inner entrepreneur: A constructivistic view of entrepreneurial reality construction. Journal of Change Management, 6, 291-304.

57.

**Keogh

P. D.

Polonsky

M. J.

(1998). Environmental commitment: A basis for environmental entrepreneurship? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11, 38-49.

58.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2003). Complete mental health: An agenda for the 21st century. In Keyes

C. L. M.

Haidt

(Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (1st ed., pp. 293-312). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

59.

Khozein

Karlberg

Freeman

(2013). From competition to collaboration: Toward a new framework for entrepreneurship. In Schultz

(Ed.), Creating good work: The world’s leading social entrepreneurs show how to build a healthy economy (pp. 105-116). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

60.

**Kirkwood

Walton

(2010). What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16, 204-228.

61.

Kolk

Rivera-Santos

Rufín

(2014). Reviewing a decade of research on the “Base/Bottom of the Pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53, 338-377.

62.

Kubiszewski

Costanza

Franco

Lawn

Talberth

Jackson

Aylmer

(2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93, 57-68.

63.

**Kuckertz

Wagner

(2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions: Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 524-539.

64.

Laszlo

Brown

J. S.

Ehrenfeld

Gorham

Pose

I. B.

Robson

. . . Werder

(2014). Flourishing enterprise: The new spirit of business. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

65.

Laszlo

Brown

J. S.

Sherman

Barros

Boland

Ehrenfeld

. . . Werder

(2012). Flourishing: A vision for business and the world. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 46, 31-51.

66.

*Lehner

O. M.

Kansikas

(2013). Pre-paradigmatic status of social entrepreneurship research: A systematic literature review. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4, 198-219.

67.

*Lenox

York

J. G.

(2012). Environmental entrepreneurship. In Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 70-82). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

68.

Levy

D. L.

Lichtenstein

B. B.

(2012). Approaching business and the environment with complexity theory. In Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 591-608). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

69.

Mair

Martí

(2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44.

70.

Mair

Martí

(2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 419-435.

71.

**Martin

R. L.

Osberg

(2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5, 28-39.

72.

McKinsey & Company. (2010). How companies manage sustainability: McKinsey Global Survey results. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how_companies_manage_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results

73.

Meadows

D. H.

Meadows

D. L.

Randers

(1992). Beyond the limits. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.

74.

**Meek

W. R.

Pacheco

D. F.

York

J. G.

(2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 493-509.

75.

**Miller

T. L.

Grimes

M. G.

McMullen

J. S.

Vogus

T. J.

(2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37, 616-640.

76.

**Montgomery

Dacin

(2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 375-388.

77.

**Nicholls

Young

(2008). Preface: Evolving research agendas and conclusions. In Nicholls

(Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. xii-xvi). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

78.

OECD. (2011). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/dividedwestandwhyinequalitykeepsrising.htm

79.

**Pacheco

D. F.

Dean

T. J.

Payne

D. S.

(2010). Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 464-480.

80.

**Parrish

B. D.

(2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 510-523.

81.

**Parrish

B. D.

Foxon

T. J.

(2009). Sustainability entrepreneurship and equitable transitions to a low-carbon economy. Greener Management International, 55, 47-62.

82.

**Pastakia

(1998). Grassroots ecopreneurs: Change agents for a sustainable society. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11, 157-173.

83.

**Patel

Mehta

(2011). Life’s principles as a framework for designing successful social enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2, 218-230.

84.

**Patzelt

Shepherd

D. A.

(2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35, 631-652.

85.

**Pavlovich

Corner

P. D.

(2014). Conscious enterprise emergence: Shared value creation through expanded conscious awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 341-351.

86.

Polman

Emich

K. J.

(2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 492-501.

87.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62-77.

88.

Prayukvong

Rees

(2010). A Buddhist economic approach to employee volunteer programmes. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 38(Summer), 75-91.

89.

Raworth

(2013). Defining a safe and just space for humanity. In Starke

Assadourian

Prugh

(Eds.), State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible? (pp. 28-38). Washington, DC: Island Press/Worldwatch Institute.

90.

Rimanoczy

(2013). Big bang being: Developing the sustainability mindset. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf.

91.

Rockström

Steffen

Noone

Persson

Å.

Stuart Chapin

III Lambin

E. F.

. . . Foley

J. A.

(2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.

92.

Roome

(2012). Looking back, thinking forward: Distinguishing between weak and strong sustainability. In Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 620-629). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

93.

Rosenblatt

Thickstun

(1994). Intuition and consciousness. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 63, 696-714.

94.

Russo

M. V.

(2010). Companies on a mission: Entrepreneurial strategies for growing sustainably, responsibly, and profitably. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

95.

**Schaltegger

Wagner

(2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 222-237.

96.

Scharmer

C. O.

Kaufer

(2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system economies. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

97.

Schlange

L. E.

(2009). Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship: The role of managerial and organisational cognition. Greener Management International, 55, 13-32.

98.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

99.

Sharma

Kearins

(2011). Interorganizational collaboration for regional sustainability: What happens when organizational representatives come together? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 168-203.

100.

*Shepherd

D. A.

Patzelt

(2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “What is to be sustained” with “What is to be developed.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35, 137-163.

101.

*Short

J. C.

Moss

T. W.

Lumpkin

G. T.

(2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161-194.

102.

Shrivastava

(2012). Enterprise sustainability 2.0: Aesthetics of sustainability. In Bansal

Hoffman

A. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 630-638). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

103.

**Shrivastava

Ivanaj

Persson

(2013). Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 230-244.

104.

*Smith

W. K.

Gonin

Besharov

M. L.

(2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 407-442.

105.

Stead

W. E.

Stead

J. G.

(1994). Can humankind change the economic myth? Paradigm shifts necessary for ecological sustainable business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7, 15-31.

106.

Stern

(2006). Stern review: The economics of climate change. London, England: London School of Economics.

107.

Tedmanson

Verduyn

Essers

Gartner

W. B.

(2012). Critical perspectives in entrepreneurship research. Organization, 19, 531-541.

108.

*Thompson

Kiefer

York

J. G.

(2011). Distinctions not dichotomies: Exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. In Lumpkin

G. T.

Katz

J. A.

(Eds.), Social and sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 201-230). Bingley, England: Emerald.

109.

Tilley

Young

(2009). Sustainability entrepreneurs: Could they be the true wealth generators of the future? Greener Management International, 55, 79-92.

110.

Ucbasaran

Shepherd

D. A.

Lockett

Lyon

S. J.

(2013). Life after business failure: The process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 39, 163-202.

111.

United Nations. (2014). The millennium development goals report. New York, NY: Author.

112.

Welford

R. J.

(1998). Editorial: Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: Postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7, 1-12.

113.

The World Bank. (2013). Poverty. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty

114.

**York

J. G.

Venkataraman

(2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 449-463.

115.

Yunus

Moingeon

Lehmann-Ortega

(2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308-325.

116.

*Zahra

S. A.

Gedajlovic

Neubaum

D. O.

Shulman

J. M.

(2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519-532.