Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Doing business in a green way: A systematic review of the ecological

sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research
directions
Johanna Gast a, b, *, Katherine Gundolf a, Beate Cesinger c
a
Montpellier Business School e MRM, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France
b
School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
c €lten, Austria
New Design University, Mariazeller Strasse 97a, 3100 St. Po

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In line with an intensified call for conducting business in a greener and more sustainable way,
Received 10 March 2016 sustainability-related entrepreneurship has become an important subfield of entrepreneurship research.
Received in revised form The variety of terms, such as “sustainable entrepreneurship”, “ecopreneurship”, “environmental entre-
9 January 2017
preneurship/enviropreneurship”, and “green entrepreneurship”, reflects the fragmented and inconsis-
Accepted 11 January 2017
Available online 13 January 2017
tent findings of this research field. Based on the one-pillar model of sustainable development, i.e.,
ecological sustainability, we present the first systematic review of the literature on ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship. This analysis of 114 scientific articles reveals a strong focus on the drivers of
Keywords:
Sustainability
engagement in ecological sustainable entrepreneurship, the drivers of conducting business in an
Entrepreneurship ecological sustainable way, the strategic actions taken by ecological sustainable enterprises, and the
Environment outcomes, enabling factors and challenges of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship. Based on this
Systematic review thematic clustering, we develop an integrative framework for ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
and a coherent agenda for future research. This work may help researchers to take stock of the existing
literature and advance this research field.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. Foundations and state of the research field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.1. Delineating sustainability and sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2. Motives to engage in ecological sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3. Ecological sustainable entrepreneurship as a field of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1. Research approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2. Data collection, preparation, and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.1. Overview of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2. State of the field of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.1. Drivers of engaging in ecological sustainable entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.2. Drivers of conducting business in an ecological sustainable way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.3. Strategic actions of ecological sustainable enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2.4. Outcomes of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

* Corresponding author. Montpellier Business School e MRM, 2300 avenue des

Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France.
E-mail addresses: j.gast@montpellier-bs.com (J. Gast), k.gundolf@montpellier-
bs.com (K. Gundolf), beate.cesinger@ndu.ac.at (B. Cesinger).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.065
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56 45

4.2.5. Factors that enable ecological sustainable entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.2.6. Challenges for ecological sustainable entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1. The state of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2. Development of an integrative framework for ecological sustainable entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.3. Future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.4. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

1. Introduction of these labels refer to entrepreneurs and businesses that base their
activities on sustainable, environmentally friendly, and green
Today’s consumers and producers attempt to make the world a principles, searching to minimize their impact on the environment.
cleaner and greener place to live in (Linnanen, 2002; Sumathi et al., By answering researchers’ calls for convergence of the presently
2014) and growing commitment to sustainable principles as well as independent streams of research (e.g., Schaltegger and Wagner,
higher demand for green products and services can be observed 2011), our systematic review presents a comprehensive analysis
(Gliedt and Parker, 2007; Sumathi et al., 2014). Society has recog- of the state of the field of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
nized the need to incorporate sustainability and environmental and develops an integrative framework. This framework is based on
concerns into “considerations of the bottom line” (Allen and Malin, core principles of entrepreneurship and will thus help achieve
2008, p. 829). The economy’s potentially negative impact on the convergence among scholars. As a result, comparability across
environment has triggered concerns among practitioners and studies will be facilitated to evolve and elaborate the core charac-
scholars of sustainability, sustainable development, and the envi- teristics of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship as a subdomain
ronment (Cohen and Winn, 2007). Whereas Allen and Malin (2008) of entrepreneurship research. We also help advance the current
argue that additional environmentally concerned entrepreneurs and growing body of literature on ecological sustainable entre-
are needed to address present environmental challenges, such as preneurship by presenting future research directions.
global warming and the potential energy crunch, Harini and The remainder of this article is structured as follows: we first
Meenakshi (2012) note a general increase in environmentally present the foundations of the research field. After explaining the
friendly, sustainable and green firms. These firms should engage in methodology, we reveal the scope and breadth, as well as the
sustainable initiatives seeking to minimize their impact on the identified central themes of ecological sustainable entrepreneur-
environment, contribute to improvements for society as a whole ship research. Finally, we discuss the current state of research,
and for local communities, provide purposeful employment (Choi present an integrative framework, provide future research di-
and Gray, 2008b), and find solutions to balance business goals rections, and address the study’s limitations.
with sustainability and environmental management (Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen, 2010). Thus, beyond traditional economic concerns,
2. Foundations and state of the research field
societal and environmental issues should be taken into account.
The Brundtland Report represents the starting point of attention
In the following section, we present and delineate the research
paid to environment dilemmas (Sneddon et al., 2006), and it
field, and highlight previous research on sustainability-related
introduced the three-pillar model of sustainable development
entrepreneurship.
including ecology, society, and economy to scholars and practi-
tioners. Although three-pillar models (such as the Brundtland
concept and the three Ps, people, planet and profit) are commonly 2.1. Delineating sustainability and sustainable development
applied (Crals and Vereeck, 2005), the one-pillar model of sus-
tainable development, which prioritizes the ecological dimension, According to Santillo (2007), some three hundred definitions of
is gaining momentum. As natural resources and ecosystems are sustainability and sustainable development exist, and definitional
finite (Santillo, 2007) and the economy is a major cause of consensus has not been achieved (Redclift, 2005; Sneddon et al.,
numerous environmental problems (Littig and Grießler, 2005), the 2006). The Brundtland Commission defines sustainable develop-
focus of sustainability shifts to the ecological pillar. Hence, sus- ment as “… development that meets the needs of the present
tainable development is linked to the preservation of ecological without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
systems and resources as the basis of life for future generations their own needs” (World Development Commission on
(Littig and Grießler, 2005). Extant research asserts that entrepre- Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). This definition rests
neurs need to take active roles in balancing economic and ecolog- on three pillars (ecology, society, economy), and like the popular
ical goals (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010). As a result, the field marketing principles, sustainable development concerns three Ps,
of sustainability-related entrepreneurship has become an impor- people, planet and profit (Crals and Vereeck, 2005).
tant domain in entrepreneurship research (Koe and Majid, 2014b). In the “concentric circles approach”, these three pillars are
Since the present entrepreneurship literature on ecological replaced by three concentric circles depicting the environmental
sustainability is rather young, emergent (Linnanen, 2002; Rodgers, sphere in the outer, the social sphere in the middle, and economic
2010; Schaltegger, 2002), and fragmented, scholars do not yet agree sphere in the inner circle (Lehtonen, 2004; Lozano, 2008). For our
on a definition of this phenomenon. Rather, the literature proposes study, we acknowledge the concentric model’s idea that “economic
several labels for the concept of ecological sustainable entrepre- activities should be in the service of all human beings while at the
neurship: “sustainable entrepreneurship”, “ecopreneurship”, same time safeguarding the biophysical systems necessary for hu-
“environmental entrepreneurship/enviropreneurship”, “green man existence” (Lehtonen, 2004, p. 201) but rely on the three-pillar
entrepreneurship” (for an overview see Melay and Kraus, 2012). All approach introduced by the Brundtland Report. This report not only
served as a historical marker for sustainability and sustainable
46 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
development but also provided a starting point for scholars and
practitioners concerned with environment dilemmas (Sneddon
et al., 2006). Further, according to the Brundtland Report’s defini-
tion of sustainable development, priority is not given to one of the
pillars but balancing economic, social, and environmental needs
and goals.
Compared to three-pillar models of sustainable development,
one-pillar models prioritize the ecological dimension because
natural resources and ecosystems are finite (Santillo, 2007) and the
economy is considered the main cause of environmental problems
(Littig and Grießler, 2005). At the same time, they can also be
important drivers towards sustainability by applying sustainable
management principles. According to Santillo (2007), it is therefore
necessary to define sustainability with an emphasis on the
environment.
Development that targets ecological sustainability then aims to
reduce the exploitation of valuable resources and ecosystems and
to engage in resource extraction at a level that does not exceed
sustainable yields (Brown, 1994; Daly and Cobb, 1994; Littig and
Grießler, 2005). Further goals include minimizing the production
and use of harmful substances, reducing environmental pollution,
and ensuring that waste levels do not exceed assimilative capacity
(Brown, 1994; Daly and Cobb, 1994; Littig and Grießler, 2005). As a
result, sustainable development helps to preserve the ecological
systems and resources necessary to meet future economic and so-
cial needs (Littig and Grießler, 2005).
Thus, the economic domain, here startups and established small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), has means to influence the
social as well as the environmental pillar while the concept of
needs, in particular related to public goods (such as air and water),
gives priority to environmental protection. Our approach thus im-
plies that the economic pillar is considered as given and we pri-
marily analyze the effects of this domain regarding the
environmental one while it can also affect the social domain (for
instance, education). As such, we follow the suggestion that
entrepreneurial actors in the economic domain, i.e.,
environmentally-oriented entrepreneurs in start-ups and estab-
lished SMEs, are described to be driven by their motivation to earn
financial benefits by contributing to solving environmental prob-
lems and ecological degradation (Dean and McMullen, 2007;
Hansen and Schaltegger, 2013; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011;
York and Venkataraman, 2010). Our approach is linked to the
concentric circle model, but we do not isolate the different spheres
as strict as this model does and we do not treat the social sphere as
in-depth as the model would suggest due to our focus on the
economic sphere.
2.2. Motives to engage in ecological sustainability
Relevant literature (Banerjee et al., 2003; Harrison and Freeman,
1999; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999) distinguishes four major
motives for ecological sustainability: regulation, public concern,
expected competitive advantage, and top management commit-
ment. External stakeholders such as lawmakers and public concern
represent powerful means to push ecological sustainability for-
ward, but enterprises do only react to these external forces by
developing and implementing environmental strategies (Banerjee
et al., 2003). Expected competitive advantage is an internal and
external economic force for ecological sustainability because it
arises from the management’s belief that the company can
outperform its competitors by introducing an environmental
strategy (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995). Finally, top manage-
ment’s commitment is the fourth antecedent of ecological sus-
tainability (Drumwright, 1994; Starik and Rands, 1995). Whereas
some measures of established firms may be “greening” strategies to
increase the sustainability of their value chains, Bramwell (1989)
stresses that an ecological sustainable strategy has to be proac-
tively planned and implemented by the company’s management. In
this context, research has pointed out that managerial perceptions
of threats and opportunities associated with environmental issues
can have an impact on corporate environmental responses
(Banerjee, 2001; Lee and Rhee, 2006). For this, environmental
orientation, defined as “the recognition by managers of the
importance of environmental issues facing their firm”, is at the core
(Banerjee et al., 2003, p.106). Based on environmental orientation, a
true and proactive ecological sustainability strategy then plans its
activities proactively and systematically, and then integrates them
comprehensively in its corporate strategy for the long term (Cater
et al., 2009). It also considers ecological issues in all its decisions
(e.g., starting a new business, the choice of technology or produc-
tion locations, or marketing) (Banerjee et al., 2003; Cater et al.,
2009).
2.3. Ecological sustainable entrepreneurship as a field of research
Entrepreneurship is generally accepted as the process of op-
portunity discovery, creation, and exploitation (Venkataraman,
1997). According to Bygrave (2004), this process involves “all the
functions, activities, and actions associated with perceiving op-
portunities and creating organizations to pursue them” (p. 7). This
implies that the basis of entrepreneurial actions is the perception of
opportunities upon which entrepreneurs then act. Accordingly,
entrepreneurship is fundamentally action based, involving an
interrelated set of creative, strategic, and organizing actions (Moroz
and Hindle, 2012). Entrepreneurs thereby act proactively and
innovatively, and take risks (Runyan et al., 2008). Acting proactively
and innovatively is however not limited to starting new ventures
but can also happen in established SMEs. Therefore, we define
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship as “the process of identifying,
evaluating and seizing entrepreneurial opportunities that minimize a
venture’s impact on the natural environment and therefore create
benefits for society as a whole and for local communities”.
Although entrepreneurship has contributed to economic
growth and development (Kelley et al., 2011), market failures are
also associated with negative environmental implications (Cohen
and Winn, 2007). In this vein, scholars and practitioners have
asserted that entrepreneurs need to take an active role in seeking to
balance economic goals with sustainability and environmental
goals (Allen and Malin, 2008; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010).
The tight link between sustainability and innovation, as opposed to
traditionally defined economic growth, essential in framing new
opportunities for sustainable development (Santillo, 2007), con-
firms the role ecologically sustainable entrepreneurs may take.
Sustainability-related entrepreneurship has become an essen-
tial area in entrepreneurship research (Koe and Majid, 2014b). This
has spurred scholars to review subfields of this literature
(Fellnhofer et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2010; Melay and Kraus, 2012;
Schaefer et al., 2015). Extant literature has pointed out that the
relationships between entrepreneurship, the environment, and
sustainable development have been examined by various streams
of thought and addressed by several different terms (Schaltegger
and Wagner, 2011). In this vein, Melay and Kraus (2012) propose
that a distinction can be made between: “ecopreneurship” (e.g.,
Linnanen, 2002; Schaltegger, 2002), “environmental entrepre-
neurship/enviropreneurship” (e.g., Dean and McMullen, 2007),
“green entrepreneurship” (e.g., Gliedt and Parker, 2007), and
“sustainable entrepreneurship” (e.g., Choi and Gray, 2008b;
Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010; Lordkipanidze et al., 2005).
Analyzing the different terms, their definitions, and the foci of
the respective literature illustrates that existing literature is either
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
primarily environmentally-oriented (e.g., Jolink and Niesten, 2015;
Linnanen, 2002; Schaltegger, 2002; York and Venkataraman,
2010) or sustainability-oriented (e.g., Choi and Gray, 2008b; Dean
and McMullen, 2007; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010;
Lordkipanidze et al., 2005; Parrish, 2010). Environmentally-
oriented literature on ecological and environmental entrepre-
neurship examines, for instance, the entrepreneurs’ attitudes
regarding their enterprises’ environmental goals and policies, the
ecological profiles of their products/services, as well as their
management and communication of environmental issues (Jolink
and Niesten, 2015; Schaltegger, 2002). Environmentally-oriented
entrepreneurs follow their motivation to earn financial benefits
by helping to decrease environmental problems and ecological
degradation (Dean and McMullen, 2007; Hansen and Schaltegger,
2013; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011; York and Venkataraman,
2010). Sustainability-oriented literature tends to explore the re-
lationships between sustainable development and entrepreneur-
ship (Lordkipanidze et al., 2005) and focuses on entrepreneurs’
“efforts and achievements towards sustainability” (Choi and Gray,
2008b, p. 558). Sustainable entrepreneurs typically seek to solve
societal and environmental problems through their entrepre-
neurial activities (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). As such, they are
likely to focus on environmental, social, and economic issues
simultaneously (Lordkipanidze et al., 2005).
Thus, like definitions of sustainability and sustainable devel-
opment (Redclift, 2005; Santillo, 2007; Sneddon et al., 2006),
definitional consensus on environmental- and sustainability-
related entrepreneurship has not been achieved. Rather, common
ground is on improving the environment in which businesses are
operating and initiating environmental and societal changes by
means of entrepreneurship. In other words, given the scarcity of
natural resources and ecosystems (Santillo, 2007) and the
numerous environmental problems caused by economic activity
(Littig and Grießler, 2005), the goal is to engage in sustainable
initiatives to minimize businesses’ impact on the environment,
which then contributes to improvements in society and local
communities and potentially provides purposeful employment for
people (Choi and Gray, 2008b). This view underlines the position
that sustainability-related entrepreneurship, as a vehicle for sus-
tainable development, should be based on the one-pillar model, i.e.,
on ecological sustainability. Hence, emphasis should lie on the
ecological dimension of sustainability.
Given our definition of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship,
which can take place in start-ups and established SMEs, the four
motives (Banerjee et al., 2003; Harrison and Freeman, 1999;
Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999) for ecological sustainability (i.e.,
regulation, public concern, expected competitive advantage, and
top management commitment) may also apply to the entrepre-
neurship context. “Truly” entrepreneurial enterprises, however,
would focus on the discovery of opportunities and proactive stra-
tegies guided by the management’s commitment to and orientation
towards ecological sustainability and less on reactive measures
caused by pressures from external stakeholders. Competitive
advantage may indeed be a driving force in entrepreneurial en-
terprises because strategic entrepreneurship (SE) as “the nexus of
strategic management and entrepreneurship” “is concerned with
advantage-seeking and opportunity-seeking behaviors resulting in
value for individuals, organizations, and/or society. This means that
SE involves actions taken to exploit current advantages while
concurrently exploring new opportunities that sustain an entity’s
ability to create value across time” (Hitt et al., 2011, p. 57).
Ecological entrepreneurs would then be sensitive and committed to
ecological issues, and include ecological matters in their entire
decision making. Ecological entrepreneurial start-ups would build
their corporate strategy on ecological issues from the beginning
47
whereas ecological entrepreneurial established SMEs may re-
engineer their strategy proactively towards ecological sustainabil-
ity. On the functional level, both groups of firms and their entre-
preneurs will orientate their purchasing, production, marketing
and personnel on ecological sustainability in pursuit of competitive
advantage.
So far, existing literature has not yet analyzed prior research
from such an integrated perspective of ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship. Existing conceptual frameworks have concen-
trated either on environmental (e.g., Schaltegger, 2002) or sus-
tainability issues (e.g., Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010;
Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). On the one hand, Schaltegger
(2002), for example, has proposed five basic positions of entre-
preneurs according to their firms’ level of environmental orienta-
tion and market impact. In doing so, ecopreneurs are positioned
based on their relation to other forms of environmental manage-
ment. On the other hand, Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010) have
presented a model of how new and incumbent firms engage in
sustainable entrepreneurship and pursue sustainability-related
opportunities.
Further, research has not yet attempted to synthesize the
existing body of literature focusing on both, entrepreneurial start-
ups as well as established entrepreneurial SMEs. Hence, what is
missing is a framework that takes on the perspective of ecological
sustainable entrepreneurship by exploring how truly entrepre-
neurial enterprises (i.e., start-ups and established SMEs alike) apply
proactive strategies guided by their management’s commitment to
and orientation towards ecological sustainability.
To contribute to a better understanding of ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship, we thus present the state of the field and provide
insights into present and future research directions. To do so, we
review studies that fall within the scope of the research field (i.e.,
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship). This will allow us to map
existing concepts and empirical findings, contributing to a better
overview, a critical evaluation of the body of literature (Ginsberg
and Venkatraman, 1985), and present paths for future research.
Further, we provide scholars and ecological sustainable entrepre-
neurs alike with an understanding of the antecedents and impli-
cations of these enterprises and offer guidance for their business
activities.
3. Methods
This section presents the research method, data collection, data
preparation, and phases of analysis of our study.
3.1. Research approach
Following suggestions to improve the methodological rigor of
reviews of management literature (Denyer and Neely, 2004; Thorpe
et al., 2005) and to consolidate the literature across the field of
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship, we conduct a systematic,
evidence-informed literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003). This
method is characterized by a well-documented, replicable and
transparent search process, which is driven by a theory-based un-
derstanding of the phenomenon of interest and improves the
quality of the review process. This method has been frequently
applied in recent business/management research (Bouncken et al.,
2015; Cesinger et al., 2012).
3.2. Data collection, preparation, and analysis
To identify all publications within the scope of ecological sus-
tainable entrepreneurship, we defined the following search terms
and combinations to identify relevant publications: “green”,
48 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
“sustainable”, “ecological”, “environmental”, “entrepreneur*”
(entrepreneur, entrepreneurial, entrepreneurship), “ecopreneur*”
(ecopreneur, ecopreneurial, ecopreneurship), “enviropreneur*”
(enviropreneur, enviropreneurial, enviropreneurship). To cover the
full range of scientific articles, we searched the following databases
for studies published through the end of 2015: ABI Informs/Pro
Quest, EBSCOhost/Business Source Premier, JSTOR, Science Direct,
Springer Link, Wiley and Google Scholar. Since peer-reviewed
journal articles are considered the most valid (Ordanini et al.,
2008; Podsakoff, 2005), we excluded books, book chapters, re-
views, discussion papers and other non-refereed publications, as
well as introductions to special issues and previously published
literature reviews. This search strategy yielded an initial sample of
543 peer-reviewed articles, which were then manually screened.
After exclusion of non-business-related disciplines, non-English,
and unrelated articles, the final sample for the systematic litera-
ture review consisted of 114 documents.
Next, we collected and organized all relevant information (i.e.,
author name(s), publication year, publication title, journal, study
subject, research question, methodology, and main findings) for the
remaining 114 publications in an electronic database. To identify
the main topics in the literature on ecological sustainable entre-
preneurship, the sample was scanned multiple times to iteratively
identify patterns and clusters of recurrent themes.
This identification consisted of two steps, namely, (1) searching
for similarities in content and (2) subsequently interpreting these
similarities. In the first step, after carefully reading the individual
documents, common topics and focal points were identified within
the articles based on major occurrences. These topics were then
grouped into overarching patterns. As such, we formed heteroge-
neous clusters containing homogenous elements. In the second
step, we deepened our understanding of these clusters and iden-
tified connections among them. This interpretation led to the
development of the integrative framework proposed in our
discussion.
To increase the validity, reliability, and overall quality of the
analysis, we applied the multiple assessor method; i.e., all partici-
pating scholars read through and examined the publications,
noting the study subjects, research questions, and findings. All re-
searchers formed clusters independently and proposed a frame-
work. These individual assessments were compared and discussed
several times in group meetings to reach consensus on the analysis.
4. Results
After the presentation of the method applied, we now turn to
the results of the systematic literature review.
4.1. Overview of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship research
Since 1996, the number of academic research articles exploring
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship has exhibited an uptrend,
with a clear peak in 2013 when 18 scientific articles were published
(see Fig. 1). Overall, this increase in the number of publications per
year mirrors the increased attention paid to ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship in specific academic journals. Journals that pub-
lished more than six articles on this subject between 1996 and 2015
are Greener Management International and Journal of Organiza-
tional Change Management (six articles each), Business Strategy
and the Environment and Journal of Business Venturing (eight ar-
ticles each), and the Journal of Cleaner Production (nine articles).
The reviewed studies use a variety of methodological ap-
proaches. The majority of studies reviewed (55) applied qualitative
research methods, whereas 18 articles relied on quantitative ap-
proaches. Only five studies in the sample relied on a mixed-
methods approach, i.e, applied both quantitative and qualitative
methods. Further, 36 studies are conceptual. The focus on qualita-
tive and conceptual research indicates that ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship is still a young field of research.
4.2. State of the field of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
research
In the present body of literature on ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship, we identify six main clusters and 10 subthemes.
Based on the quantity of studies, cluster 2 (drivers of conducting
business in an ecological sustainable way) and cluster 3 (strategic
actions of ecological sustainable enterprises), with 64 and 48 pa-
pers, respectively, have received the most attention from
researchers.
4.2.1. Drivers of engaging in ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship
Cluster 1 centers on why some individuals intend to become
ecological sustainable entrepreneurs and the factors that stimulate
the creation of such ventures (N ¼ 17).
The entrepreneurship literature commonly distinguishes be-
tween opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship (Reynolds et al.,
2005). Whereas opportunity entrepreneurs start a business to
pursue an entrepreneurial prospect, necessity entrepreneurs seek
to make a living by starting their own venture (Reynolds et al.,
2005). Like opportunity entrepreneurs, ecological sustainable en-
trepreneurs identify a need for a green product and/or service that
is presently unmet in the market (Kirkwood and Walton, 2010).
Such a venture is considered an opportunity to “create value in the
ecological sphere” (Schlange, 2006, p. 17), and its identification may
depend on the entrepreneur’s knowledge of natural and communal
environments (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011). Based on market im-
perfections, these ecological sustainable entrepreneurs recognize a
market gap as an opportunity to start a business; others do not
necessarily strive to earn great wealth (Allen and Malin, 2008; Choi
and Gray, 2008b) but want to earn enough money to make a living
and support their families (Choi and Gray, 2008b; Kirkwood and
Walton, 2010). The entrepreneurship literature would categorize
such persons as necessity entrepreneurs.
Ecopreneurs’ motivations to start ecological sustainable enter-
prises are also closely linked to their individual values. As do other
entrepreneurs, some ecopreneurs seek independence and auton-
omy (Gliedt and Parker, 2007; Kirkwood and Walton, 2010), but
their primary motivations to engage in sustainable entrepreneur-
ship are to spread their green values, to educate society, and to
follow their passion for a green business idea (Kirkwood and
Walton, 2010; Shepherd et al., 2013). Koe and Majid (2014a,
2014b) further argue in their conceptual papers that attitudes and
values linked to sustainability (i.e., a sustainability orientation)
motivate individual entrepreneurs to engage in environmentally
friendly practices and positively affect their intention to engage in
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship. Some studies, however,
demonstrate that ecological sustainable entrepreneurs do not
necessarily strive to change the world (Allen and Malin, 2008; Choi
and Gray, 2008b). Thus, not all ecologically sustainable entrepre-
neurs can be considered as such because they do not exhibit a
defined ecological orientation.
Meek et al. (2010) suggest that the institutional context also
affects ecological sustainable new venture creation. Both decen-
tralized (determined by social norms) and centralized institutions
(created by governmental authorities) promote the creation of new
ecological sustainable ventures. The authors find that state-level
incentives, environmental consumption norms, and family inter-
dependence norms are linked to new firm formation in this
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
context. These entrepreneurs are thus rather reactive towards
pressures or demand from external stakeholders. Accordingly, they
do not act truly entrepreneurial.
4.2.2. Drivers of conducting business in an ecological sustainable
way
The drivers of doing business in an ecological sustainable way
can take various forms (Gibbs, 2009). In cluster 2, we grouped these
drivers into three categories. Micro-level drivers refer to triggers
such as the entrepreneur’s personal values and ideals (N ¼ 21),
meso-level drivers include those related to markets and industries
(N ¼ 19), and macro-level drivers result from politics, legislation,
and other institutions (N ¼ 24).
4.2.2.1. Micro-level drivers. Entrepreneurs’ favorable attitudes to-
wards ecological sustainable entrepreneurship in established en-
terprises are also described by a number of studies (Braun, 2010;
Dixon and Clifford, 2007; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010;
Kearins and Collins, 2012; Pastakia, 2002; Schaltegger and
Wagner, 2011). Typically, family background has influenced these
entrepreneurs’ environmental awareness since their childhoods
(Schick et al., 2002). These so-called value-driven entrepreneurs
tend to be female (Braun, 2010) and to engage voluntarily in sus-
tainable and environmentally friendly business practices, as they
believe that environmental and social benefits can be achieved
through their engagement (Parrish and Foxon, 2006; Schick et al.,
2002). Their ventures are new, small, and innovative, and they
give at least equal importance to social and environmental objec-
tives as to economic objectives (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010;
Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). Motivated by personal values and
passions for green products and/or services (Allen and Malin, 2008;
Gagnon, 2012; Kearins and Collins, 2012; Kirkwood and Walton,
2010; Schaltegger, 2002) and operated by true idealists (Hockerts
and Wüstenhagen, 2010), the “raison d’e ^tre” of these enterprises
is often linked to ethical standards (Gagnon, 2012; Rodgers, 2010).
The firms reflect green entrepreneurs’ conscious and genuine
choices to integrate environmental goals into their business and to
focus on social and environmental justice (Allen and Malin, 2008)
to such an extent that “ecopreneurs constitute and shape the ‘face’
of their company” (Schaltegger, 2002, p. 47). Particularly, firms with
a large stock of free resources and firms with a broad set of
developed markets proactively embrace sustainable business
practices (Montiel and Husted, 2009). This effect is likely to be even
stronger in regions where the government is unable to implement
or enforce environmental policies by law (Montiel and Husted,
2009). A common theme in all these studies is that entrepreneurs
in established SMEs proactively engage in ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship.
4.2.2.2. Meso-level drivers. Compared to the first category, market-
driven enterprises do not actively engage in environmental man-
agement practices but react to external pressures from other
market players, such as customers, suppliers, investors, or com-
petitors (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010; Pastakia, 2002; Rao,
2008; York and Venkataraman, 2010). In contrast to proactive
players, these are typically old, large, and incumbent firms in which
economic objectives are prioritized over social and environmental
objectives (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010). The latter are simply
seen as complementary goals (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010).
Although value-driven small firms introduce green products and/or
services to niche markets, incumbent firms advance these products
and/or services in mass markets and reinforce trends (Hansen and
Schaltegger, 2013). In fact, incumbent firms can easily and quickly
catch up to sustainable pioneers by, e.g., launching copycat prod-
ucts because they have greater market power, a larger resource
49
base, and stronger innovation capacity (Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen, 2010).
4.2.2.3. Macro-level drivers. In various economies and industries,
businesses have to comply with tight regulatory frameworks and
requirements created by governmental and non-governmental
(e.g., Greenpeace) bodies (Azzone and Noci, 1998; Pastakia, 2002;
Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). Accordingly, firms engage in sus-
tainable business practices as a reaction to external pressures from
a variety of stakeholders demanding environmental or social im-
provements (Crals and Vereeck, 2005; Schaltegger and Wagner,
2011). Such compliance-driven adaptation of management prac-
tices implies that enterprises respond to external pressure of na-
tional laws and regulations and of potential penalties (Arend, 2014;
Crals and Vereeck, 2005; Gray et al., 2014; Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen, 2010; O’Neill et al., 2006; Pastakia, 2002; Rao,
2008; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011; York and Venkataraman,
2010). Accordingly, these firms would not be considered entre-
preneurial in their strategy towards ecological sustainability.
4.2.3. Strategic actions of ecological sustainable enterprises
Cluster 3 addresses the strategic actions of ecological sustain-
able firms. A total of 28 articles focus on these firms’ business
practices, and 20 articles on their networking strategies.
4.2.3.1. Business practices. Personal values and passion for sus-
tainability influence the conduct of business in an ecological sus-
tainable way (Choi and Gray, 2008a; Keogh and Polonsky, 1998;
Schaltegger, 2002). As such, “environmentalism forms a part of
the bedrock of the company’s day to day activities” (Dixon and
Clifford, 2007, p. 334), and “social values and pro-environmental
behaviors are often intertwined with the vision of the owners
and the operation of the business” (Holt, 2011, p. 241). Moreover,
the potential environmental impact of business practices affects
corporate strategies (Menon and Menon, 1997; Parrish, 2010), and
in an increasing number of (ecological sustainable) enterprises,
environmental responsibility has become “a vital component of the
business’s identity” (Allen and Malin, 2008, p. 836). These firms
integrate sustainability concerns into their strategic actions
(Ciasullo and Troisi, 2013; Mun ~ oz and Dimov, 2015; Vickers and
Lyon, 2012) by redesigning their business practices and aligning
them with environmental needs (Schick et al., 2002).
Research has presented several examples of how environmental
concerns impact business practices. For example, Menon and
Menon (1997) discuss the concept of an enviropreneurial market-
ing strategy, which integrates environmental concerns into social
performance goals, corporate entrepreneurial orientations, and the
enterprise’s marketing strategy. Furthermore, environmental con-
cerns have implications for supply chain activities, both primary
and support activities, and thus trigger their redesign (Azzone and
Noci, 1998; Ciasullo and Troisi, 2013; Marshall et al., 2015). For
example, in operations management, green practices seek to
reduce energy consumption and waste (Azzone and Noci, 1998;
Ciasullo and Troisi, 2013). In human resource management,
ecological sustainable entrepreneurs emphasize hiring personnel
who share their personal values (Choi and Gray, 2008a). In fact, the
overlap between entrepreneurs’ and potential employees’ personal
values are found to be more important than their professional
competencies and other conventional attributes (Choi and Gray,
2008a). Additionally, training courses to increase employees’
environmental awareness are frequently introduced in ecological
sustainable ventures (Azzone and Noci, 1998). In line with ecolog-
ical management literature, ecological sustainable business prac-
tices in established SMEs concern the corporate as well as the
functional level whereas management’s commitment to and
50 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
orientation towards ecological sustainability is a major driver for
conducting business in an ecological sustainable way.
4.2.3.2. Networking with external stakeholders. The entrepreneur-
ship literature emphasizes that small and resource constrained
firms can mitigate their liabilities through social capital (Chollet
et al., 2014). Social networks are particularly important for gain-
ing access to a variety of resources (tangible and intangible) (Greve
and Salaff, 2003). This also appears to be crucial for ecological
sustainable entrepreneurs and their enterprises. Their support
networks can take on important functions: (1) connecting entre-
preneurs to information services; providing access to (2) capital, (3)
low-cost support services, and infrastructure; (4) representing
opportunities to share ideas and resources; and (5) strengthening
the local entrepreneurial culture (Kimmel and Hull, 2012).
The extant literature on ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
also argues that ecological sustainable entrepreneurs need to create
and alter their relationships with external stakeholders. Ecological
sustainability-minded entrepreneurs need to be able to influence
key actors and opinion leaders in society who are capable of
establishing (Block and Paredis, 2013) and modifying (Azzone and
Noci, 1998) powerful relationships among different actors. Thus,
ecological sustainable entrepreneurs’ interactions with the external
environment are critical (Ahmed and McQuaid, 2005; Kibler et al.,
2015; Meyskens and Carsrud, 2013; Vickers and Lyon, 2012), and
entrepreneurs ought to interact with formal and informal in-
stitutions (Pacheco et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2011; Pinkse and Groot,
2015) or cooperate and support each other in networks (Barrutia
and Echebarria, 2012; Cohen, 2006; Larsson, 2012; Ndubisi and
Nair, 2009).
Another important goal of ecological sustainable entrepre-
neurial networks is creating a favorable institutional context for
sustainable development (Pinkse and Groot, 2015; Woolthuis et al.,
2013). This requires several collective action tactics, including
framing and developing a vision of sustainability; theorizing moral
and pragmatic reasons to legitimize sustainable development;
collaborating to co-create new developments; lobbying to influ-
ence local governments; negotiating new contractual forms; and
defining new standards to create a competitive edge (Woolthuis
et al., 2013). Pinkse and Groot (2015) and Gliedt and Parker
(2007) propose a similar approach, as collective action is believed
to be necessary to approach institutions, to overcome hurdles
through common agreements on standards and industry norms, to
obtain support for the development of new infrastructure, and to
gain equal access to governmental support structures. Collective
action thus concerns bundling and mobilizing available resources
to improve the status quo and achieve environmental goals (Pinkse
and Groot, 2015). Peters et al. (2011) also argue for the need for and
significance of capabilities to build close interactions with multiple
stakeholders. The integration of other firms or local authorities is
an essential capability of ecological sustainable enterprises and
may positively influence the formulation of proactive sustainable
strategies. Pacheco et al. (2010) highlight a similar escape route
through the alteration and creation of institutions, i.e., norms,
property rights, and government legislation. To improve their
competitiveness, ecological sustainable entrepreneurs need to
change the rules of the game and develop the necessary institutions
to enable the successful exploitation of sustainable and green
business opportunities. As such, the ecological sustainable entre-
preneur should be a “creator of institutional structures that
improve the competitiveness of sustainable behaviors” (Pacheco
et al., 2010, p. 465). Gliedt and Parker (2007, 2014) explore effects
of external shocks (i.e., losing external funding) and define a crea-
tive collective response among environmental non-profit organi-
zations as “green community entrepreneurship”. This implies that
ecological sustainable ecological sustainable businesses bundle
their resources to improve the sustainable use of resources (such as
clean air, water, and soil) and thus of overall environmental sus-
tainability. The collective action strategies building on social capital
advocated by Pacheco et al. (2010) include partnerships with in-
dividual or civil organizations to approve the rules of conduct, to
implement third-party certification schemes, to improve the
assignment of property rights, and to create favorable legislation.
Spence et al. (2001) propose that support networks should be
created for sustainable entrepreneurs, especially for ecological
sustainable SMEs. Networks can help them adopt sustainable
practices and communication. Their findings, however, reveal that
the nature of support programs should be aligned with entrepre-
neurs’ motives, firms’ openness to sustainability, socio-cultural
practices, and countries’ priorities. In summary: compared to
ecological sustainable management literature, the literature on
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship interprets social capital as
powerful and important means to initiate change in the economic,
environmental, and societal domain.
4.2.4. Outcomes of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
Cluster 4 includes studies that address the outcomes of
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship. A total of 11 studies
demonstrate micro-level outcomes. At the macro-level, 23 articles
are concerned with how these firms attempt to change people’s
mindsets and improve society’s ecological sustainability, whereas
three studies reveal meso-level effects of ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship, i.e., how these ventures change markets.
4.2.4.1. Micro-level outcomes. Ecological sustainable entrepreneurs
and firms can seek to earn profits (Kearins and Collins, 2012), and
firms must be profitable to survive (O’Neill et al., 2006); however,
profits frequently represent a means to solve environmental
problems (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). In fact, ecological sus-
tainable entrepreneurs show less interest in economic success
(Allen and Malin, 2008), as they do not always seek to earn great
wealth (Allen and Malin, 2008; Choi and Gray, 2008b) but simply to
earn a living for themselves and their families (Choi and Gray,
2008b; Kirkwood and Walton, 2010). Thus, financial objectives
(Choi and Gray, 2008a; Rodgers, 2010) and growth (Kearins and
Collins, 2012) are hardly the primary goals of ecological sustain-
able firms; rather, they focus on truly sustainable value, i.e., the
creation of economic, social, and environmental value (Kearins and
Collins, 2012; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). Moreover, firm
stakeholders typically expect similar outcomes, i.e., “value beyond
profit and market penetration” (O’Neill et al., 2006, p. 44e45).
To classify ecological sustainable entrepreneurs based on their
goals and to describe how they intend to create and capture value,
Jolink and Niesten (2015) developed the ecopreneurial business
model. The authors propose four categories of ecological sustain-
able entrepreneurs: “those who aim to make a better world”, “those
who aim to make the world better”, “those who consider making
money a means”, and “those who consider making money an end”
(p. 395). Using four business cases, the authors reveal that each
group has distinct goals (Jolink and Niesten, 2015).
Ecological sustainable entrepreneurs are thus not necessarily
motivated by financial goals. The entrepreneurial opportunity
based nature of their ventures is thus not given although they
create value in a different, yet sustainable way.
4.2.4.2. Meso-level outcomes. Proactive, small, and innovative
ecological sustainable ventures can develop new markets for green
products/services (York and Venkataraman, 2010), or introduce
these products/services to niche markets (Hansen and Schaltegger,
2013). These sustainable pioneers can also pave the way for
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
followers as they facilitate and support the diffusion of green
management practices (Montiel and Husted, 2009). These ventures
e because of their innovative nature e would indeed be seen as
truly entrepreneurial.
4.2.4.3. Macro-level outcomes. The majority of the literature argues
that ecological sustainable firms and their entrepreneurs can
“contribute to socio-economic development” (Pastakia, 1998, p.
157), as they may change the environment- and sustainability-
oriented mindset of society (Bergset, 2015; Del Baldo, 2012;
Kirkwood and Walton, 2010; Moskwa et al., 2015; Marsden and
Smith, 2005; Oguonu, 2015; Parrish and Foxon, 2006). By serving
as role models (Choi and Gray, 2008a) (Pastakia, 1998; Zamfir,
2014), or “wealth generators of the future” (Tilley and Young,
2006, p.79), they are said to promote a greener future (Ciasullo
and Troisi, 2013; Ristovska, 2010). They provide solutions to envi-
ronmental problems and ecological degradation (Dean and
McMullen, 2007; York and Venkataraman, 2010) and, therefore,
promote the transition to more sustainable production and con-
sumption (Belz, 2013; Keijzers, 2002; Vickers and Lyon, 2012).
Additionally, ecological sustainable firms facilitate a process of co-
evolution in which businesses and communities move towards a
more ecological sustainable orientation (Del Baldo, 2012; O’Neill
et al., 2006). Moreover, by mobilizing key actors in the commu-
nity (Marsden and Smith, 2005), ecological sustainable entrepre-
neurs can, for instance, initiate a change in mindset among their
customers and in the surrounding community. For example, by
organizing special community events, e.g., food trainings, they may
be able to increase awareness of and interest in local products and
promote the use of sustainable design and consumption (Moskwa
et al., 2015).
Although e as mentioned before e some firms do not attempt
financial success, they create value for the environment and society.
Creating value is a core characteristic of entrepreneurship but the
emphasis in ecological sustainable enterprises is different than in
traditional enterprises.
4.2.5. Factors that enable ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
Overall, cluster 5 is concerned with the factors that enable
ecological sustainable enterprises (N ¼ 22). These studies address
the changing role of business schools and the adaptation of
curricula.
Traditionally, business schools teach students a profit-first
mentality (Lourenço et al., 2012), including concepts such as
profit optimization and self-interest maximization. Sustainability
and entrepreneurship are taught separately (Lans et al., 2014). Until
recently, sustainable entrepreneurship has received scant attention
in most curricula (Nadim and Singh, 2011) but educators, re-
searchers, and practitioners have called for the integration of
sustainability-related subjects into entrepreneurship education,
since they argue that “business schools can use enterprise educa-
tion to deliver sustainability-related topics” (Lourenço et al., 2012,
p. 16) such that sustainable development is not a burden but a true
entrepreneurial opportunity. For example, Parra (2013) reports that
the “United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment” aims to incorporate sustainability-related principles, values,
and practices into education to stimulate behavioral changes and
create a more sustainable future.
Parra (2013) claims that a sustainable entrepreneurial vision can
promote the launch of new ventures that operate responsibly in
environmental and sustainable terms and are profitable in financial
terms. Courses designed to promote the identification of green
business opportunities (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean and
McMullen, 2007; Pacheco et al., 2010) or innovations (Hockerts
and Wüstenhagen, 2010; York and Venkataraman, 2010) will also
51
attract individuals who are opportunity driven. As soon as such
courses are part of entrepreneurship programs, these individuals
may identify sustainability-related business opportunities more
easily and may be more likely to engage in environmentally
friendly and sustainable business practices.
In the context of undergraduate engineering education, results
from the Dutch Delft University of Technology show that the
integration of entrepreneurship, sustainability, and project educa-
tion in one course can be achieved successfully (Bonnet et al.,
2006). By teaching students how to generate business ideas,
formulate business plans, and integrate sustainability concerns,
they not only enhance their business- and entrepreneurship-
related skills and capabilities but also learn to consider business
matters more holistically (Bonnet et al., 2006). Testing the link
between sustainability education and the attitudes of nascent en-
trepreneurs, Lourenço et al. (2012) reveal the specific value of
opportunity-driven sustainability courses for nascent entrepre-
neurs. These courses positively influence intentions to act in an
environmentally friendly manner.
Hence, sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship education can
play a role in promoting ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
and sustainable development (Lans et al., 2014; Lourenço et al.,
2012). In this vein, it is suggested that these subjects, which are
traditionally addressed separately, sustainability and entrepre-
neurship, can reinforce each other (Lans et al., 2014).
4.2.6. Challenges for ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
Cluster 6 addresses the factors that inhibit ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship. A total of 13 articles focus on the financial
challenges of ecological sustainable enterprises, whereas nine ar-
ticles reveal market barriers.
4.2.6.1. Financial challenges. Like other startups, it is difficult for
ecological sustainable firms to obtain necessary financial resources
(Bayraktar and Arif, 2011; Choi and Gray, 2008b; Dixon and Clifford,
2007; Schick et al., 2002; Plieth et al., 2012; Yaacob, 2010). In
addition, these firms face a variety of particular challenges (Bergset,
2015). First, finding investors who share the entrepreneurs’ envi-
ronmental ideals and objectives and who believe in the ecological
sustainable entrepreneurs’ vision is difficult (Linnanen, 2002).
Furthermore, investors tend to question ecological sustainable
entrepreneurs’ knowledge of the investment community and
financial markets, and they are prone to believe that ecological
sustainable entrepreneurs “fail to grasp the investor’s interest”
(Linnanen, 2002, p. 76). Consequently, startup financing for
ecological sustainable ventures consists primarily of the following
forms: private funding (including financial assistance from family
and friends) (Choi and Gray, 2008b; Plieth et al., 2012), boot-
strapping (Choi and Gray, 2008b), angel investors (Choi and Gray,
2008a), or government funding (Gliedt and Parker, 2007). Relying
only on government sources has proven highly risky because a
change in national or local government can alter funding activities
and lead to the loss of core funding (Gliedt and Parker, 2007, 2014).
As a result, ecological sustainable ventures may not be able to
grow as much as ventures with sufficient financing. This limits
them to serving niche markets and staying entrepreneurial. In this
sense, they still react to their limited financial resources in pursuing
an entrepreneurial growth path.
4.2.6.2. Market challenges. Ecological sustainable ventures face
barriers to market entry as well as to success in the market. As the
public still discredits environmental and sustainable business
practices, it can be challenging to convince a critical mass to buy a
green product or service (Linnanen, 2002). Additionally, sustainable
entrepreneurs and businesses lack technical expertise, skilled
52 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
human resources, and top management team commitment (Rao,
2008), which can impede market creation, product development,
or innovation. Linnanen (2002) emphasizes that the most distinc-
tive obstacle faced by ecological sustainable firms is the entrepre-
neur’s ethical reasoning. Although this attitude can have positive
side effects, such as the ecological sustainable entrepreneurs’
willingness to make the world a better place, it complicates man-
agement due to the strong focus on value-led leadership and the
fact that their organizations are typically managed in a rather non-
profit manner (Linnanen, 2002). Likewise, the customers of green
enterprises often do not fully grasp the benefits of green products/
services compared to traditional offerings (Sumathi et al., 2014).
Ecological sustainable ventures therefore have to educate potential
customers about their green products and/or services (Sumathi
et al., 2014), which is another significant challenge (Rodgers, 2010).
Furthermore, these firms face market barriers related to in-
efficiency, such as the nature of public goods, inefficient resource
use, monopoly power, externalities (e.g., flawed pricing mecha-
nisms), and imperfect information (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Pinkse
and Groot, 2015; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). Due to these
market-related barriers and obstacles, entrepreneurs face govern-
ment intervention (i.e., environmental regulation and green legis-
lation). At the same time, their ability to engage in political
activities (e.g., information-based activities, expert opinion influ-
encing activities, or self-regulation activities) and, thus, to gain
access to policy makers and exert influence on public policy is
limited (Pinkse and Groot, 2015). For example, entrepreneurs in the
Philippines are forced by law to adopt green manufacturing pro-
cesses, whereas in the UK, entrepreneurs are less constrained by
institutions and thus act more proactively (Rao, 2008).
Accordingly, ecological sustainable start-ups may face more
challenges than traditional start-ups, including the not only
financial barriers but also significant market barriers which they
have to overcome in order to be successful in the long-run.
5. Discussion and conclusion
To determine the current state of research on ecological sus-
tainable entrepreneurship and to present a complete picture of this
field, we conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature
review. The analysis of 114 scientific articles resulted in six main
research streams, including the drivers of engaging in ecological
sustainable entrepreneurship, drivers of conducting business in an
ecological sustainable way and entrepreneurial management of
their enterprises. Further, the outcomes and the enabling and
inhibiting factors of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
formed three more sub-clusters in this research field.
The major scientific value and contribution of our paper lies in
laying the groundwork for scholars and their future research ef-
forts. As such, this work helps to advance our understanding of the
emerging and fragmented research field of ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship. For this, we provided an overview, summary,
and synthesis of a large number of scientific studies, and below, we
propose an integrative framework that may help future researchers
grasp the core of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship.
5.1. The state of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship research
According to Reichers and Schneider (1990), theories and con-
cepts typically evolve in three stages: (1) introduction and elabo-
ration, (2) evaluation and augmentation, (3) consolidation and
accommodation. Our analysis demonstrates that research on
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship is presently between the
first and the second stage. Although there has been a steady in-
crease of academic attention to ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship, the first article in our systematic literature re-
view was published as recently as 1996, and of the 114 peer-
reviewed studies, more than 50% applied conceptual or qualita-
tive approaches. This indicates that the field is still emerging. In
particular, scholars tend to build and develop theories in this field
by relying on qualitative studies that present insights from, for
instance, case studies or semi-structured interviews (Miles et al.,
2014). So far, studies have explored and described the field of
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship (and/or the discussed
related concepts), which explains why in-depth qualitative ana-
lyses are generally used (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since only 18 of 114
studies used quantitative research methods, ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship research is still in its infancy.
Furthermore, our analysis reveals that researchers have defined
the field and have started to synthesize and critically review the
existing theoretical and empirical knowledge. Therefore, the
research field has moved out of the first stage. The lack of a
consensus regarding a definition and limited work on the scope and
application of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship, however,
deters its advancement to the second phase. To advance, consensus
must be reached on what ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
is about and how it is defined. In line with Schaltegger and Wagner
(2011), we suggest that researchers should strive for a higher de-
gree of convergence in the terminology used to address entrepre-
neurs and firms engaging in sustainable entrepreneurship. We
further suggest that productive development of the research field
extends beyond definitional consensus. Rather, ecological sustain-
able entrepreneurship e as a subfield of entrepreneurship e has to
rely on well-accepted concepts and principles of entrepreneurship
and then elaborate and develop its distinct characteristics.
5.2. Development of an integrative framework for ecological
sustainable entrepreneurship
To synthesize existing research on ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship and to advance the development of this research
field, we propose an integrated framework (Fig. 2) for ecological
sustainable entrepreneurship. The six clusters identified in the
literature review indicate that research in ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship mirrors the well-established process of entre-
preneurship: opportunity discovery, creation and exploitation
(Venkataraman, 1997).
As previously highlighted, this process involves “all the func-
tions, activities, and actions associated with perceiving opportu-
nities and creating organizations to pursue them” (Bygrave, 2004,
p. 7) which is not limited to starting new ventures but can also
occur in established SMEs. Such truly entrepreneurial enterprises
apply proactive strategies which are initiated by their manage-
ment’s commitment to and orientation towards ecological
sustainability.
In light of these essential characteristics of entrepreneurship as
a process, we limit the discussion of our framework and sugges-
tions for future research to linkages that reflect these characteris-
tics but tailor them to our definition and to the research field of
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship as the process of identi-
fying, evaluating and seizing entrepreneurial opportunities that
minimize a venture’s impact on the environment and therefore
render benefits for society as a whole and for local communities.
Articles in the first cluster address the drivers (opportunity,
necessity, and personal values) of starting ecological sustainable
ventures, whereas the second cluster concerns established
ecological sustainable SMEs and why they adopt sustainable busi-
ness practices (i.e., value-driven, market-driven, and compliance-
driven ecological sustainable entrepreneurship). The first cluster
reveals that entrepreneurs are not necessarily opportunity driven
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
20
15
10
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Fig. 1. Trend in publications/year.
Fig. 2. Conceptual model of the process of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship.
in creating ventures. Rather, entrepreneurs are intrinsically moti-
vated by sustainability. Entrepreneurs of established enterprises
also show a strong motivation to adopt ecological sustainable
business practices for personal reasons. In fact, value-driven
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship has received the most
attention in this cluster and refers to the voluntary adaptation of
ecological sustainable practices. Value-driven entrepreneurs in
both groups of firms engage in ecological sustainable entrepre-
neurship because they are convinced that their behavior will
induce ecological and social benefits. Although they are not driven
primarily by economic reasoning, both groups of entrepreneurs act
in proactive and innovative and, thus, in entrepreneurial ways.
They do not necessarily strive for superior business performance
but to change people’s mindsets and society in general and to
create value for the environment and society. Personal values will
then e according to our conceptual model e determine whether
ecological sustainable entrepreneurs achieve the primary goal of
their endeavor (paths 1a and 1b). In research on ecological sus-
tainable entrepreneurship, networks have received considerable
attention. The existing literature underlines the need for collabo-
ration between ecological sustainable enterprises and external
stakeholders, such as formal or informal institutions, because
53
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
entrepreneurs’ abilities to influence public policy in their favor are
limited. While research on ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
has advocated the need for collective action among ecological
sustainable entrepreneurs, they suffer from liabilities common to
all young, small enterprises. The social network perspective with a
long and rich history in entrepreneurship demonstrates that small
enterprises and their owners/managers may interact with external
resources to mitigate liabilities (e.g., Davidsson and Honig, 2003;
Jarillo, 1989). Granovetter’s (1973) strong and weak tie differenti-
ation has become an established paradigm. Zhang et al. (2011) for
example observe that strong ties are particularly valuable for
resource acquisition. Accordingly, we suggest that strong ties may
mitigate the financial and market challenges faced by ecological
sustainable entrepreneurs (path 2a).
The last central factor in our framework and for future research
is the role of business schools, universities, and other educational
providers. Current research has recognized that the traditional role
of business schools is changing and that entrepreneurship curricula
have to be adjusted to ecological sustainability. According to our
framework, educational providers play a fundamental role because
of their responsibility to create awareness of entrepreneurship and
sustainability, to encourage participants to consider ecological
54 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
sustainable entrepreneurship as a career, and to support the crea-
tion of new enterprises and re-orientation of existing small busi-
nesses. According to our model, business schools can play an active
role in advancing opportunity-based ecological entrepreneurship
(path 3a), enabling entrepreneurs to better meet market and
financial challenges (path 3c), and successfully re-designing busi-
ness models to focus on ecological sustainability (path 3b).
5.3. Future research directions
To extend the present understanding of ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship, we propose several future research directions
based on the insights of our literature review and framework. To
solve theoretical and definitional dilemmas, future research should
aim to clearly identify the potential similarities and differences
between the different streams of thought and definitions described
in this research field so far. Furthermore, scholars should develop
presently known concepts, such as sustainable entrepreneurship
and green entrepreneurship. In this regard, qualitative studies
appear to be particularly valuable because only they can enhance
knowledge about factors, which distinguish concepts such as sus-
tainable entrepreneurship or ecopreneurship. Moreover, qualita-
tive studies can help to contextualize ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship as a specific phenomenon in entrepreneurship.
Future research should also be based on larger samples to allow
quantitative tests of the relevant theories and hypotheses. In doing
so, the validity and generalizability of existing research can be
improved. Transdisciplinary approaches could be of particular
value because they furnish a complementary understanding and
will help to delineate the field.
Concerning the interrelationship between the drivers and out-
comes of ecological sustainable entrepreneurship, future research
should analyze, for instance, how ecological sustainable entrepre-
neurs and their ventures, as well as value-driven firms, influence
communities and society. Second, the specific values that drive
ecological sustainable entrepreneurs and whether these values
differ in various contexts remain unexplored. A closely related
question is whether passion pays off in terms of performance (i.e.,
micro-level outcomes). Further, research should compare the three
types of enterprises (i.e., value-based vs. compliance-driven vs.
market-driven firms) to determine which achieve higher perfor-
mance and/or growth. Longitudinal designs may be particularly
valuable for analyzing whether firms stay on their initial path. For
example, do ventures that are created from personal sustainability
motives remain value-based enterprises, or do they change their
strategic orientations as they grow?
Regarding the relationship between the networking activities of
ecological sustainable enterprises and their perceived challenges,
future research should investigate the qualitative (e.g., strong ties
vs. weak ties; trust; formal vs. informal) and quantitative (e.g.,
number of network partners) dimensions of networks and how
they mitigate the market and financial challenges of ecological
sustainable startups and established SMEs.
Finally, although the present research has recognized the
changing role of business schools, we still have a limited under-
standing of how ecological sustainable entrepreneurship can be
taught and what kind of changes business schools have to imple-
ment to increase students’ and thus future entrepreneurs’ aware-
ness of sustainable development and the market opportunities
therein. While students still need to develop their business skills,
more attention needs to be paid to the development of their
ecological entrepreneurial behaviors. For educational providers to
successfully address this issue, more research is needed on how to
teach ecological sustainable entrepreneurship and what types of
modifications are needed in existing programs (e.g., curricula,
learning environments). Future research could also assess whether
individuals who participate in such programs show a higher
intention to start ecological sustainable ventures, whether these
ventures are primarily opportunity based, and whether these
ventures exhibit a better market performance. Second, do in-
dividuals with such educational backgrounds compete and perform
better on the market because they manage financial and market
challenges differently?
Although the decision to engage in ecological sustainable
entrepreneurship is influenced by personal, economic, political,
and socio-cultural factors (Gherib and Berger-Douce, 2012), the
roles of culture and national differences in personal attitudes to-
wards ecological sustainable startups and business practices have
not been studied. All research proposed may be worth extending to
cross-cultural and cross-national studies.
5.4. Limitations
As in all studies, the limitations of this work have to be
acknowledged. First, the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the
systematic literature review can be criticized. Although the review
is comprehensive, we cannot guarantee that all relevant work on
ecological sustainable entrepreneurship is included and synthe-
sized. However, due to the rigorous and transparent procedure of
the systematic data collection process, we believe that the resulting
literature base represents as complete as possible a sample and that
the resulting analysis portrays the structure, foundations, and main
themes in present ecological sustainable entrepreneurship
research. Additionally, concerns could be raised regarding the ob-
jectivity of the data analysis. Bibliographic reviews, data collection,
analysis, and interpretation are subjective. Other groups of re-
searchers might recognize different central themes or might
interpret the results differently. To address this limitation, the
multiple assessor method was applied. Individual assessment of all
articles was discussed with all involved researchers until consensus
was reached.
Furthermore, the framework could be criticized for being
insufficiently comprehensive. Although we included insights from
our literature review and discussed several interrelationships
among the individual components, this discussion might not be
comprehensive, and scholars may identify additional linkages
through further research. Nevertheless, we believe that the pre-
sented framework represents a useful building block with the po-
tential to advance our present understanding of ecological
sustainable entrepreneurship.
References
Ahmed, A., McQuaid, R.W., 2005. Entrepreneurship, management, and sustainable
development. World Review of Entrepreneurship. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 1, 6e30.
Allen, J.C., Malin, S., 2008. Green entrepreneurship: a method for managing natural
resources? Soc. Nat. Resour. 21, 828e844.
Arend, R.J., 2014. Social and environmental performance at SMEs: considering
motivations, capabilities, and instrumentalism. J. Bus. Ethics 125, 541e561.
Azzone, G., Noci, G., 1998. Seeing ecology and “green” innovations as a source of
change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 11, 94e111.
Banerjee, S.B., 2001. Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Manag. Decis.
39, 36e46.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2003. Corporate environmentalism: ante-
cedents and influence of industry type. J. Mark. 67, 106e122.
Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., 2012. Greening regions: the effect of social entrepre-
neurship, co-decision and co-creation on the embrace of good sustainable
development practices. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 55, 1348e1368.
Bayraktar, M.E., Arif, F., 2011. Venture capital opportunities in green building
technologies: a strategic analysis for emerging entrepreneurial companies in
South Florida and Latin America. J. Manag. Eng. 29, 79e85.
Belz, F.-M., 2013. Shaping the future: sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship.
Soc. Bus. 3, 311e324.
Bergset, L., 2015. The rationality and irrationality of financing green start-ups. Adm.
Sci. 5, 260e285.
 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
Block, T., Paredis, E., 2013. Urban development projects catalyst for sustainable
transformations: the need for entrepreneurial political leadership. J. Clean.
Prod. 50, 181e188.
Bonnet, H., Quist, J., Hoogwater, D., Spaans, J., Wehrmann, C., 2006. Teaching sus-
tainable entrepreneurship to engineering students: the case of Delft University
of Technology. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 31, 155e167.
Bouncken, R., Gast, J., Kraus, S., Bogers, M., 2015. Coopetition: a review, synthesis,
and future research directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 9, 577e601.
Bramwell, A., 1989. Ecology in the 20th Century: a History. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Braun, P., 2010. Going green: women entrepreneurs and the environment. Int. J.
Gend. Entrepreneursh. 2, 245e259.
Brown, L.R., 1994. State of the World 1994: a Worldwatch Institute Report on
Progress toward a Sustainable Society. Norton, New York.
Bygrave, B., 2004. The entrepreneurial process. In: Bygrave, W.D., Zacharkis, A.E.
(Eds.), The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship. ohn Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ,
pp. 1e28.

Cater, 
T., Prasnikar, J., Cater, B., 2009. Environmental strategies and their motives
and results in Slovenian business practice. Econ. Bus. Rev. Central South-East.
Eur. 11, 55e74.
Cesinger, B., Fink, M., Madsen, T., Kraus, S., 2012. Rapidly internationalizing ven-
tures: how definitions can bridge the gap across contexts. Manag. Decis. 50,
1816e1842.
Choi, D.Y., Gray, E.R., 2008a. Socially responsible entrepreneurs: what do they do to
create and build their companies? Bus. Horiz. 51, 341e352.
Choi, D.Y., Gray, E.R., 2008b. The venture development processes of ‘‘sustainable’’
entrepreneurs. Manag. Res. News 31, 558e569.
Chollet, B., Geraudel, M., Mothe, C., 2014. Generating business referrals for SMEs:
the contingent value of CEOs’ social capital. J. Small Bus. Manag. 52, 79e101.
Ciasullo, M.V., Troisi, O., 2013. Sustainable value creation in SMEs: a case study. TQM
J. 25, 44e61.
Cohen, B., 2006. Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Bus. Strategy En-
viron. 15, 1e14.
Cohen, B., Winn, M.I., 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable
entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 22, 29e49.
Crals, E., Vereeck, L., 2005. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certi-
fication for SMEs. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 12, 173e183.
Daly, H.E., Cobb, J.B., 1994. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston.
Davidsson, P., Honig, B., 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 301e331.
Dean, T.J., McMullen, J.S., 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship:
reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. J. Bus.
Ventur. 22, 50e76.
Del Baldo, M., 2012. Family and territory values for a sustainable entrepreneurship:
the experience of loccioni group and varnelli distillery in Italy. J. Mark. Dev.
Compet. 6, 120.
Denyer, D., Neely, A., 2004. Introduction to special issue: innovation and produc-
tivity performance in the UK. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 5, 131e135.
Development W.C.o.E.a, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Dixon, S.E., Clifford, A., 2007. Ecopreneurship - a new approach to managing the
triple bottom line. J. Organ. Change Manag. 20, 326e345.
Drumwright, M.E., 1994. Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental
concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. J. Mark. 58, 1e19.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 14, 532e550.
Fellnhofer, K., Kraus, S., Bouncken, R., 2014. Sustainable entrepreneurship: a current
review of literature. Int. J. Bus. Res. 14, 163e172.
Gagnon, M.A., 2012. Sustainable minded entrepreneurs: developing and testing a
values-based framework. J. Strategic Innovation Sustain. 8, 9e25.
Gherib, J., Berger-Douce, S., 2012. Entrepreneurial profile and environmental
commitment of SMEs: a comparative analysis in franceand in Tunisia. Int. Bus.
Res. 5, 1.
Gibbs, D., 2009. Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the development of
a sustainable economy. Green Manag. Int. 63e77.
Ginsberg, A., Venkatraman, N., 1985. Contingency perspectives of organizational
strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10,
421e434.
Gliedt, T., Parker, P., 2007. Green community entrepreneurship: creative destruction
in the social economy. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 34, 538e553.
Gliedt, T., Parker, P., 2014. Green community entrepreneurship 2.0: collective
response or individual adaptation strategy to funding cuts in Canada (2006-
2012). Int. J. Soc. Econ. 41, 609e625.
Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360e1380.
Gray, B.J., Duncan, S., Kirkwood, J., Walton, S., 2014. Encouraging sustainable
entrepreneurship in climate-threatened communities: a Samoan case study.
Entrepreneursh. Regional Dev. 26, 401e430.
Greve, A., Salaff, J.W., 2003. Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneursh.
Theory Pract. 28, 1e22.
Hall, J.K., Daneke, G.A., Lenox, M.J., 2010. Sustainable development and entrepre-
neurship: past contributions and future directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 439e448.
Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2013. 100 per cent organic? A sustainable entrepre-
neurship perspective on the diffusion of organic clothing. Corp. Gov. 13,
583e598.
Harini, V., Meenakshi, D.T., 2012. Green entrepreneurship: alternative (business)
solution to save environment. Asia Pac. J. Manag. Entrepreneursh. Res. 1, 79e89.
55
Harrison, J.S., Freeman, R.E., 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and perfor-
mance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 42,
479e485.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1999. The relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad.
Manag. J. 42, 87e99.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Sirmon, D.G., Trahms, C.A., 2011. Strategic entrepreneurship:
creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Acad. Manag. Per-
spect. 25, 57e75.
Hockerts, K., Wüstenhagen, R., 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids -
theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable
entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 481e492.
Holt, D., 2011. Where are they now? Tracking the longitudinal evolution of envi-
ronmental businesses from the 1990s. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 238e250.
Jarillo, J.C., 1989. Entrepreneurship and growth: the strategic use of external re-
sources. J. Bus. Ventur. 4, 133e148.
Jolink, A., Niesten, E., 2015. Sustainable development and business models of en-
trepreneurs in the organic food industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 24, 386e401.
Kearins, K., Collins, E., 2012. Making sense of ecopreneurs’ decisions to sell up. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 21, 71e85.
Keijzers, G., 2002. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 10,
349e359.
Kelley, D., Bosma, N., Amoro  s, J.E., 2011. Global entrepreneurship monitor 2010
global report.
Keogh, P.D., Polonsky, M.J., 1998. Environmental commitment: a basis for environ-
mental entrepreneurship? J. Organ. Change Manag. 11, 38e49.
Kibler, E., Fink, M., Lang, R., Mun ~ oz, P., 2015. Place attachment and social legitimacy:
revisiting the sustainable entrepreneurship journey. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 3,
24e29.
Kimmel, C.E., Hull, R.B., 2012. Ecological entrepreneurship support networks: roles
and functions for conservation organizations. Geoforum 43, 58e67.
Kirkwood, J., Walton, S., 2010. What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses? Int.
J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 16, 204e228.
Koe, W.-L., Majid, I.A., 2014a. A Model for predicting intention towards sustainable
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Information. Bus. Manag. 6, 256.
Koe, W.-L., Majid, I.A., 2014b. Socio-cultural factors and intention towards sus-
tainable entrepreneurship. Eurasian J. Bus. Econ. 7, 145e156.
Lans, T., Blok, V., Wesselink, R., 2014. Learning apart and together: towards an in-
tegrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher
education. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 37e47.
Larsson, M., 2012. Environmental entrepreneurship in organic agriculture in J€ arna,
Sweden. J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 153e179.
Lee, S.Y., Rhee, S.K., 2006. The change in corporate environmental strategies: a
longitudinal empirical study. Manag. Decis. 45, 196e216.
Lehtonen, M., 2004. The environmentalesocial interface of sustainable develop-
ment: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol. Econ. 49, 199e214.
Linnanen, L., 2002. An Insider’s experiences with environmental entrepreneurship.
Green Manag. Int. 71e80.
Littig, B., Grießler, E., 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political
pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 8, 65e79.
Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., Backman, M., 2005. The entrepreneurship factor in
sustainable tourism development. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 787e798.
Lourenço, F., Jones, O., Jayawarna, D., 2012. Promoting sustainable development: the
role of entrepreneurship education. Int. Small Bus. J. 31, 841e865.
Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
1838e1846.
Marsden, T., Smith, E., 2005. Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development
in local communities through quality food production and local branding.
Geoforum 36, 440e451.
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., McGrath, P., Claudy, M., 2015. Going above and beyond:
how sustainability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sus-
tainability supply chain practice adoption. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J. 20,
434e454.
Meek, W.R., Pacheco, D.F., York, J.G., 2010. The impact of social norms on entre-
preneurial action: evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context.
J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 493e509.
Melay, I., Kraus, S., 2012. Green entrepreneurship: definitions of related concepts.
Int. J. Strategic Manag. 12, 1e13.
Menon, A., Menon, A., 1997. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence of
corporate environmentalism as market strategy. J. Mark. 51e67.
Meyskens, M., Carsrud, A.L., 2013. Nascent green-technology ventures: a study
assessing the role of partnership diversity in firm success. Small Bus. Econ. 40,
739e759.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: a Methods
Sourcebook, 3 ed. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Montiel, I., Husted, B.W., 2009. The adoption of voluntary environmental man-
agement programs in Mexico: first movers as institutional entrepreneurs. J. Bus.
Ethics 88, 349e363.
Moroz, P.W., Hindle, K., 2012. Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing
multiple perspectives. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 36, 781e818.
Moskwa, E., Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Gifford, S., 2015. Sustainability through food and
conversation: the role of an entrepreneurial restaurateur in fostering engage-
ment with sustainable development issues. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 126e145.
Mun ~ oz, P., Dimov, D., 2015. The call of the whole in understanding the development
of sustainable ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 30, 632e654.
56 J. Gast et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 147 (2017) 44e56
Nadim, A., Singh, P., 2011. A System’s view of sustainable entrepreneurship edu-
cation. J. Strategic Innovation Sustain. 7, 105.
Ndubisi, N.O., Nair, S.R., 2009. Green entrepreneurship (GE) and green value added
(GVA): a conceptual framework. Int. J. Entrepreneursh. Innov. 13, 21e24.
O’Neill, G., Hershauer, J.C., Golden, J.S., 2006. The cultural context of sustainability
entrepreneurship. Greener Manag. Int. 33.
Oguonu, C., 2015. Business strategies for effective entrepreneurship: a panacea for
sustainable development and livelihood in the family. Int. J. Manag. Sustain. 4,
10.
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., DeFillippi, R., 2008. The many moods of inter-
organizational imitation: a critical review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 10, 375e398.
Pacheco, D.F., Dean, T.J., Payne, D.S., 2010. Escaping the green prison: entrepre-
neurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. J. Bus.
Ventur. 25, 464e480.
Parra, S., 2013. Exploring the incorporation of values for sustainable entrepre-
neurship teaching/learning. J. Technol. Manag. Innovation 8, 11e20.
Parrish, B.D., 2010. Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: principles of organiza-
tion design. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 510e523.
Parrish, B.D., Foxon, T.J., 2006. Sustainability entrepreneurship and equitable tran-
sitions to a low-carbon economy. Greener Manag. Int. 47.
Pastakia, A., 1998. Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society.
J. Organ. Change Manag. 11, 157e173.
Pastakia, A., 2002. Assessing ecopreneurship in the context of a developing country:
the case of India. Green Manag. Int. 93e108.
Patzelt, H., Shepherd, D.A., 2011. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable devel-
opment. Entrepreneursh. Theory Pract. 35, 631e652.
Peters, N.J., Hofstetter, J.S., Hoffmann, V.H., 2011. Institutional entrepreneurship
capabilities for interorganizational sustainable supply chain strategies. Int. J.
Logist. Manag. 22, 52e86.
Pinkse, J., Groot, K., 2015. Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political
activity: overcoming market barriers in the clean Energy sector. Entrepre-
neursh. Theory Pract. 39, 633e654.
Plieth, H., Bullinger, A.C., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Sustainable entrepreneurship in the
apparel industry-the case of manomama. J. Corp. Citizensh. (45), 123e136.
Podsakoff, P.M.S.B.D.P.N., 2005. The influence of management journals the 1980s
and 1990s. Strategic Manag. J. 2005, 473e488.
Porter, M.E., Van der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 73, 120e134.
Rao, P., 2008. Environmental initiatives undertaken by entrepreneurs in the
Philippines. J. Entrepreneursh. 17, 73e81.
Redclift, M., 2005. Sustainable development (1987e2005): an oxymoron comes of
age. Sustain. Dev. 13, 212e227.
Reichers, A., Schneider, B., 1990. Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In:
Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. Jossey-Bass, San Fran-
cisco, pp. 5e29.
Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P.,
Chin, N., 2005. Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and
implementation 1998e2003. Small Bus. Econ. 24, 205e231.
Ristovska, M., 2010. The role of the business sector in promoting a“greener” future.
Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 9, 21e27.
Rodgers, C., 2010. Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs: a case study analysis.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17, 125e132.
Runyan, R., Droge, C., Swinney, J., 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation versus small
business orientation: what are their relationships to firm performance? J. Small
Bus. Manag. 46, 567e588.
Santillo, D., 2007. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. - Int. 14, 60e66.
Schaefer, K., Corner, P.D., Kearins, K., 2015. Social, environmental and sustainable
entrepreneurship research what is needed for sustainability-as-flourishing?
Organ. Environ. 28, 394e413.
Schaltegger, S., 2002. A framework for ecopreneurship: leading bioneers and
environmental managers to ecopreneurship. Green Manag. Int. 45e58.
Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2011. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability
innovation: categories and interactions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 222e237.
Schick, H., Marxen, S., Freimann, J., 2002. Sustainability issues for start-up entre-
preneurs. Greener Manag. Int. 38, 59e70.
Schlange, L.E., 2006. Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship.
Greener Manag. Int. 13.
Shepherd, D.A., Patzelt, H., Baron, R.A., 2013. “I care about nature, but…”: disen-
gaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Acad. Manag. J. 56,
1251e1273.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a
post-Brundtland world. Ecol. Econ. 57, 253e268.
Spence, M., Gherib, J.B.B., Biwole , V.O., 2001. Sustainable entrepreneurship: is
entrepreneurial will Enough? A northesouth comparison. J. Bus. Ethics 99,
335e367.
Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multi-
system perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 20, 908e935.
Sumathi, K., Anuradha, T., Akash, S., 2014. Green business as a sustainable career for
women entrepreneurs in India an opinion survey. Adv. Manag. 7, 46.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., Pittaway, L., 2005. Using knowledge within
small and medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence. Int. J.
Manag. Rev. 7, 257e281.
Tilley, F., Young, W., 2006. Sustainability entrepreneurs: could they be the true
wealth generators of the future? Greener Manag. Int. 79e92.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14, 207e222.
Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship. Adv. Entre-
preneursh. 3, 119e138.
Vickers, I., Lyon, F., 2012. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of
environmentally-motivated social enterprises. Int. Small Bus. J. 32, 449e470.
Woolthuis, R.K., Hooimeijer, F., Bossink, B., Mulder, G., Brouwer, J., 2013. Institu-
tional entrepreneurship in sustainable urban development: Dutch successes as
inspiration for transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 91e100.
Yaacob, M.R., 2010. A preliminary study of green micro-entrepreneurs in Kelantan,
Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 5, 81.
York, J.G., Venkataraman, S., 2010. The entrepreneureenvironment nexus: uncer-
tainty, innovation, and allocation. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 449e463.
Zamfir, P.-B., 2014. Supporting green entrepreneurship in Romania-Imperative of
sustainable development. Romanian Econ. Bus. Rev. 9, 35.
Zhang, J., Soh, P.-H., Wong, P.-K., 2011. Direct ties, prior knowledge, and entrepre-
neurial resource acquisitions in China and Singapore. Int. Small Bus. J. 29,
170e189.