Received: 16 December 2018 Revised: 3 March 2019
DOI: 10.1002/csr.1763
REVIEW ARTICLE
Towards a conceptual understanding of sustainability‐driven
entrepreneurship
Stuti Haldar
Centre for Studies in Economics and Planning,
School of Social Sciences, Central University of
Gujarat, Gandhinagar, India
Correspondence
Stuti Haldar, Centre for Studies in Economics
and Planning, School of Social Sciences,
Central University of Gujarat, Sector 29,
Gandhinagar 382030, Gujarat, India.
Email: stuti.haldar@cug.ac.in
Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;266:1157–1170.
Accepted: 25 March 2019
Abstract
In common discourse, economic activities run by profit‐oriented managers and entre-
preneurs are considered to be at the root of social and ecological crisis and hence,
hamper sustainable development. With this perspective, government, policymaking
institutions, and civil societies take the center stage in shaping a sustainability‐
oriented industry by using the tools of command and control to curb the negative
environmental and social impacts of business. However, this view not only overesti-
mates the role of legal regulations and policies but also underestimates and, in a sense,
distorts the relationship between innovative entrepreneurial activities and sustainable
development. With growing impetus in the domain of sustainable entrepreneurship
since the early 1990s, researchers have increasingly advocated sustainability‐driven
entrepreneurs and managers as the core movers of sustainable production and con-
sumption. Presently, sustainable entrepreneurship remains an extremely relevant yet
under researched area of investigation. Debates regarding semantic and practical
approaches to sustainability‐oriented entrepreneurs impede empirical and theoretical
developments in this area. Hence, in the context of the existent gap in literature, this
study adopts a qualitative approach to conceptualize sustainable entrepreneurship, by
building upon a typology of this phenomenon. In doing so, the overlapping yet con-
ceptually distinct terms, “green” entrepreneurship, “social” entrepreneurship, and
“institutional” entrepreneurship are incorporated to understand how entrepreneurs
induce sustainable innovations to meet the objectives of social benefits and profit
maximization in the context of changing market indicators. The relevance of the study
lies in its theoretical as well as practical implications as it attempts to develop a frame-
work to identify, under which specific conditions a particular firm is most likely to
adopt sustainable innovations, hence, indicating the need to refine and extend the
existing models of sustainable entrepreneurship with respect to motivations for sus-
tainability innovations.
K E Y W OR D S
entrepreneurship, green entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship,
sustainability
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1157

1158
1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
Growing concerns among policymakers, academia, and scientific com-
munities towards the perils of climate change have brought forth dis-
cussions and researches on ways to attain sustainable development,
most commonly defined as per The Brundtland Report, 1987, “develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” Sustainable development is a dynamic concept that requires
a sound understanding of the complex interplay of ecological, social,
and economic factors at various levels ranging from local to global.
As industry is a major driver of socioeconomic growth, growing eco-
logical and social consciousness among entrepreneurs has led to a par-
adigm shift from traditional to sustainable entrepreneurial practices,
which relies on a mix of social and ecological goals along with profit
maximization. The nexus between innovation, entrepreneurship, and
sustainable development has been emphasized by several managerial
as well as economic studies that sponsor that innovation and entre-
preneurship are the most effective tools to diffuse the values of sus-
tainability, ensuring economic security simultaneously.
In the policy‐oriented approaches to sustainability, the role of pol-
icy instruments, legislative guidelines, and nongovernment organiza-
tions have been romanticized, as businesses and industry at large are
considered the cause of social and environmental disruptions. How-
ever, market‐oriented approaches identify that sustainability‐driven
innovations and entrepreneurship lie at the core of achieving eco-
nomic, ecological, and societal benefits by introduction of environ-
mentally superior products and services that are also economically
viable in the market place. Organizational and technological innova-
tions at the firm level are brought about by sustainability‐oriented
entrepreneurs not necessarily by accident but as these individuals
intentionally establish their founding on the three pillars of sustainable
development (Elkington, 1999). Hence, sustainability‐oriented entre-
preneurs foster innovative products and services, organizational and
technological modes that have a net positive environmental impact
on one hand and substantially improve the quality of life on the other
(Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011).
Although recent discourse in the field of market‐driven approaches
to sustainable development advocates the role of entrepreneurship in
reconciling the principles of sustainability with profitability at the firm
level, yet there exist semantic as well as practical debates that emerge
as significant bottlenecks in creating a theoretical understanding and
empirical researches on sustainable entrepreneurship. The roots of
sustainability‐oriented entrepreneurship can be traced back to the
1950s when Bowen (Bowen & Johnson, 1953) brought the concept
of “social responsibility” of businessmen into the discourse of modern
literature on the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). His initial defini-
tion of social responsibility (now termed as CSR) argues that, “it refers
to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make
those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable
in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen & John-
son, 1953; p. 6). It was in the 1960s that there were significant
attempts to formalize and define the concept of CSR accurately
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
(Carroll, 1999). One of the most prominent scholars in the domain of
CSR, Keith Davis defined social responsibility as “businessmen's deci-
sions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm's
direct economic or technical interest” (Davis, 1960; p. 70). In another
major contribution to the definitional aspect of CSR in 1960s, Joseph
W. McGuire proposed that, “the idea of social responsibilities sup-
poses that the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations
but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these
obligations” (McGuire, 1963; p. 144). More recent studies post 2000
address CSR as a broader phenomenon that incorporates situations
where firms “engage in actions that appear to further some social
good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by
law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright,
2006). Although the evolving concept of CSR touches on organiza-
tion's strategic impact on social and environmental performance, it is
skewed in the direction of calibrating the firm's performance in line
with business standards, norms, regulations, and stakeholder demands
for CSR rather than being intentionality and consciousness driven.
Hence, sustainable entrepreneurship is a wide‐ ranging concept
wherein the corporate leaders are driven by environmental and social
consciousness to set up and run businesses to produce environmental,
economic, and social value right from the inception rather than incor-
porating environmental and social practices in later phases of produc-
tion (for instance, utilizing part of excess revenues) to comply with
standards and legal regulations/norms. The present study attempts
to fill the gap in sustainable entrepreneurship literature by building
upon the typology of sustainable entrepreneurs proposed by
Schaltegger (2002) by extending the existing framework to include
the concepts of social, institutional, and environmental entrepreneur-
ship. Hence, the study would have practical implications as it attempts
to develop a theoretical understanding of the specific conditions
under which sustainability‐driven entrepreneurship and innovations
may emerge spontaneously. It also clarifies how sustainable entrepre-
neurship is distinct from other forms of social responsibility and cor-
porate environmental economic practices.
In this context, the first part of the paper deals with the relation-
ship between sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innova-
tion. The next section analyzes the points of convergence and
divergence between the various forms of sustainability‐oriented
entrepreneurship, that is, ecopreneurship, social entrepreneurship,
and institutional entrepreneurship and in doing so proposes a frame-
work to define sustainable entrepreneurship. The third section con-
cludes the study.
2 | P O S I T I O N I NG S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N
E N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P L I T E R A T U R E : KE Y
CONCEPTS
As sustainable development is an extensive and complex phenome-
non, it has been approached by academia, policymakers, and scientific
community from various perspectives. The relevance of entrepreneur-
ship in diffusing sustainability in production and consumption

HALDAR
practices has been emphasized by different streams of thought in the
field of managerial economics and business administration. The con-
cepts of “ecopreneurship,” “green entrepreneurship,” “social entrepre-
neurship,” and, in a sense, even “institutional entrepreneurship” can be
positioned in the discourse on sustainable development.
2.1 | Ecopreneurship
In context of the existing literature, the discussion on how
entrepreneurship can be related to sustainability emerged in the early
1990s when the concept of environmental entrepreneurship/
ecopreneurship was first brought to light by several authors (Cohen,
2006; Lehmann, Christensen, & Larsen, 2004; Schaltegger, 2002; Isaak,
2017; Lober, 1998; Pastakia, 1998; Staber, 1997; Anderson & Leal,
1997; Bennett, 1991; Berle, 1991; Blue, 1990). Studies on
ecopreneurship exclusively focus on the attributes, behavior, and impli-
cations of environmentally oriented entrepreneurs. It may be argued
that environmental/green entrepreneurship is based on the economic
and environmental principles of sustainability. Environmentally con-
scious entrepreneurs deal with the organizational challenge of integrat-
ing better environmental performance in the fabric of the economic
business logic. Economic goals or multiplying the number of green busi-
nesses through developing comparative advantage in terms of environ-
mentally superior products being the end for such enterprises (Hockerts
& Wüstenhagen, 2010).
In emerging academic literature, an ecopreneur is portrayed as an
individual who embodies the skills of a conventional entrepreneur as
well as the intentionality of an environmental activist to more or less
degrees (Beveridge & Guy, 2005). We consider few pioneering studies
that further the understanding of ecopreneurship through typologies
for ideal types of green entrepreneurs. Walley and Taylor (2002)
FIGURE 1 Ideal forms of green entrepreneurs.
Source: adapted from Walley and Taylor (2002) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1159
founded a typology of ecopreneurship by drawing from Gidden's ideas
regarding structure and action, that is, the relationship between
individual's actions and the structures within a society define the
social changes. Hence, entrepreneurial action is shaped by social
structure and vice versa (Beveridge & Guy, 2005). The various types
of green entrepreneurs can be characterized on the basis of
external/structural influences and the internal factors, that is, the per-
sonal motivations of the entrepreneurs. The “orientation axis” depicts
economic orientation (considers profits and some form of green orien-
tation as minimum criteria) and sustainability orientations (combina-
tion of economic, green, and social/ethical motives). Walley and
Taylor (2002) proposed four ideal forms of green entrepreneurs based
on the matrix formed by the two axes, that is, influence and motives
(Figure 1).
The innovative opportunist emerges from the interaction between
hard structural influences such as economic incentives, economic
demands, tastes of consumers, and government regulations and high
internal motivation to achieve economic gains. Thus, an innovative
opportunist is basically a financially motivated entrepreneur who
intends to exploit a particular niche or business opportunity. Walley
and Taylor's (2002) visionary champion differs from the innovative
opportunist in his/her strong sustainability orientation. This type of
entrepreneur harbors a vision of a sustainable future that envisages
hard structural transformation. This typology of green entrepreneur
complies with Isaak's (2017) description of “ecopreneur” who founds
his business on the principle of sustainability. Ethical maverick on the
other hand also has sustainability orientations but is driven by rather
soft structural factors (Giddens, 1984; Taylor & Pandza, 2003) such
as past experiences, family and friends, education, and personal net-
works. Being less visionary in approach, this type of green entrepre-
neurs tends to operate small businesses outside the mainstream
industry. The fourth type is ad hoc enviropreneur who is more

1160
financially driven than value driven and is influenced by soft structural
forces such as family and friends rather than environmental standards
and government regulations.
Similar to the typology of Walley and Taylor (2002), Linnanen
(2016) suggested four ideal types of ecopreneurship. However, he
based his typology entirely on internal factors/motives, that is, the
desire for profit and to change the world through environmental
improvements. Linnanen's (2016) self‐employer are mainly small‐scale
entrepreneurs who have low desire to grow and bring about substan-
tial environmental improvements. Hence, such ecopreneurs who are
satisfied with cash–flow sufficient enough to attain a reasonable stan-
dard of living belong to this category (Figure 2). This type is compara-
ble with the ethical maverick of Walley and Taylor (2002). The
nonprofit business refers to the type of ecopreneurs who process
strong desire to influence the society but do not have high entrepre-
neurial motivation to grow as a successful business (Linnanen, 2016).
The opportunist is an ecopreneur who has strong desire for profits
but low environmental motivations. This type is comparable with the
ad hoc enviropreneur of the innovative opportunist of Walley and
Taylor (2002). The fourth type of green entrepreneur proposed by
Linnanen (2016) is the successful idealist (similar to visionary champion)
who combines the strong desire for profits with a strong aspiration to
change the world (Figure 2).
Pastakia (2002), in his study on ecopreneurship in India, observed
the interaction between external factors (i.e., socioeconomic legal
environment) and internal forces (i.e., ideological and strategic con-
cerns). He identifies external forces as push factors such as judicial
activism, regulatory principles and civil societies and pull factors
including conducive policy environment, investors support, and con-
sumer preferences. If the existing industrial structure does not support
development of alternative products and processes, in such a scenario,
the potential ecopreneurs internal desire to assert sustainability may
lead to changes in the world view. On the other hand, external forces
FIGURE 2 Typology of green entrepreneur.
Source: adapted from Linnanen (2016) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
also condition ideologies and beliefs of potential ecopreneurs. Thus, as
the ideas and internationalities of ecopreneurs are not formed in isola-
tion to external factors, Pastakia (2002) posits that change can be trig-
gered in favor of ecopreneurship by either of the two forces.
However, in order for a green venture to sustain, support must be pro-
vided by the other factors. For instance, a green business may be
established if financial incentives are provided; however, in the
absence of entrepreneurial motivation, it may not succeed (Beveridge
& Guy, 2005).
In addition to the typology of “ideal” ecopreneurs, the extant lit-
erature also outlines barriers to emergence of environmentally ori-
ented entrepreneurs. Linnanen (2016) pointed out that certain
challenges such as financial barrier, challenges of market creation,
and ethical jurisdiction must be addressed by successful ecopreneurs
who are often arbitrary to conventional entrepreneurs. In addition to
the ability to materialize a good business idea into a successful busi-
ness venture and acquire sufficient financial support for the busi-
ness, the most distinctive attribute of an ecopreneur is his
explicitly expressed (positive or negative) ethical reasoning. On the
positive side, strong personal commitment to transform the world
increases trustworthiness and market credibility of a business. How-
ever negative impacts of ethical “raison d'tre” often impedes the
management from taking difficult but necessary decisions for making
the venture successful (Linnanen, 2016).
Isaak (2017) posits “maintenance patterns,” that is, tendency to
stabilize and maintain the existing structures to be a major obstacle
faced by all entrepreneurs in general and ecopreneurs in particular.
The challenge of breaking the preexisting patterns of carrying out
business is central to ecopreneurs as they intend to alter the funda-
mental practices and beliefs in which natural endowments are used
and to introduce innovative business practices. In order to attain a
sustainable future, ecopreneurs play central role by operating beyond
the common concerns of risk minimization, maximization of efficiency,

HALDAR
and maintenance of stability within an organization (Isaak, 2017).
Hence, ecopreneurs adapt entrepreneurial and creative perspectives
to introduce pathways for development of new markets, products
and services, jobs, and socioeconomic and political solutions to sus-
tainability issues.
Hence, the existing literature on green entrepreneurship focuses
on three dimensions: the skills and internal motivations/beliefs of an
individual, the external environment that shapes ecopreneurship, and
the relationship between these factors. The skills and environmental
beliefs of an entrepreneur form the basis of his or her desire to change
the world. Successful ecopreneurs share the common characteristics
of willingness to take risks, judgement, and ability to act independently
using their creativity and expertise in a given field. However, it is the
psychology of ecopreneurs/organizations on the whole that distin-
guish them from conventional entrepreneurs. Hence, examining the
perceptions/internal motivations of the ecopreneur/organization is
vital to determine the commercial and moral/ethical impact of a green
business on its surroundings. External agents such as social, economic,
technological, and political factors influence creation of spaces condu-
cive to green businesses by exploiting the skills and personal beliefs of
ecopreneurs. In conclusion, the relationship between external and
internal factors is the key to fully understand the triggers and barriers
of green entrepreneurship (Beveridge & Guy, 2005).
2.2 | Social entrepreneurship
Studies on social entrepreneurship also advocate that there exist over-
lapping goals of such businesses with sustainability principles (Borzaga
& Solari, 2001; Bright, Fry, & Cooperrider, 2006; Brinckerhoff, 2000;
Bull, 2008; Desa & Kotha, 2006a, 2006b; Hockerts, Mair, & Robinson,
2006; Milstein, London, & Hart, 2006; Nicholls, 2008; Prahalad &
Hammond, 2002; Ridley‐Duff, 2008). Social entrepreneurship refers
to entrepreneurship that thrives to offer innovative solutions to unre-
solved societal issues (OECD, 2010). Such entrepreneurship may be
for profit or charitable or not for profit organizations as well. Social
entrepreneurship majorly concerns with providing the members
access to club goods and how to make specific deprived market seg-
ments penetrable for innovations (Desa & Kotha, 2006a). This concept
is highly relevant in attaining sustainable development for developing
economies and emerging markets that require access to base‐of‐the‐
pyramid innovation (Prahalad, 2006; Prahalad & Prahalad, 2005).
Owing to its nature to address social problems while securing ade-
quate financial security, social entrepreneurship is often characterized
by a specific type of structure of ownership (e.g., Mair & Noboa,
2003). Hence, the organizational challenge encountered by socially
oriented entrepreneurs is to efficiently amalgamate economic goals
with the core logic of providing solutions to social problems (Mair &
Marti, 2006; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009).
Researches on social entrepreneurship posit that leadership qualities
such as personal credibility and ability to draw the commitment of fol-
lowers by framing a project in terms of social rather than purely eco-
nomic values are integral to social entrepreneurs (Lewis, 1980;
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1161
Waddock & Post, 1991). Similarly, community models highlight the
role played by social entrepreneurs in improving the quality of life
for the underprivileged and marginalized sections of the society (e.g.,
Cornwall, 1998). On the other hand, scholars such as Wallace (1999)
argue that social entrepreneurship incorporates establishment of
social purpose ventures that function similar to any other commercial
business; however, they return their economic gains to a socially ori-
ented organization. In this regard, social entrepreneurs differ from
traditional/conventional entrepreneurs only in terms of their goals.
A major perspective from which entrepreneurship is studied in aca-
demic literature is value creation through innovation (Drucker, 2014;
Schumpeter, 2017). As applied to offering solutions to social issues,
this concept assumes eclectic meanings. Certain studies for instance
refer to social entrepreneurship as a process of amalgamating com-
mercial ventures with social impacts. According to this perspective,
entrepreneurs employ their knowledge and skills to establish commer-
cially viable business, which can simultaneously create social value
(Emerson & Twersky, 1996). Not‐for‐profit organizations may set up
commercial subsidiaries that generate employment and create reve-
nues that can be diverted to serve social causes. Similarly, for profit
enterprises might utilize a part of their profits or even base their busi-
ness on the principle of social benefit (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004).
Another set of studies on social entrepreneurship consider it as a pro-
cess of innovating to create social impact. Scholars of this approach
focus on changes in social organizations and innovations that concern
social problems. Hence, social entrepreneurship lays relatively less
emphasis on economic benefits as is in the case for conventional
entrepreneurship (Dees, 1998). Such entrepreneurship implies genera-
tion of innovative initiatives, new social organizational patterns, and
mobilization of resources for social benefits rather than market‐based
criteria. More recent literature that treats social entrepreneurship as a
means to catalyze social transformation is relevant to the study of this
concept through the lens of sustainability. According to this approach,
the scope of social entrepreneurship extends beyond providing solu-
tions to initial social issues as it has the capability to initiate small
changes in the short term that catalyze larger changes in the long term
by reverberating through the existing social systems (Ashoka innova-
tors for the Public, 2000). In order to bring about social transforma-
tions in the long‐term, social entrepreneurs need to acquire an
understanding of not only the immediate social problems but also of
the various interdependencies that exist in the larger social system.
By identifying critical leverage points and introducing innovative
arrangements at these points, social entrepreneurs enforce cascades
of mutually reinforcing transformation in social structure (Alvord
et al., 2004). Hence, mobilizing resources and socially oriented
innovations are key ingredients for attaining sustainable social
transformations.
Certain other strands of literature on organization theory, develop-
ment studies, and social movement research are also relevant in
understanding the sustainability impacts of social entrepreneurship.
Organizational theorists focus on special attributes, visions, goals,
and strategies of agencies that catalyze social transformation and
development; their organizational structure and their ability to acquire

1162
expertise from experience in changing contexts (Abed & Chowdhury,
1997; Brown & Covey, 1987; Smillie & Hailey, 2001). As development
literature emphasizes on political, economic, and social challenges of
social change; types of innovations to solve developmental challenges;
and the vitality of local capacity building for sustainable development
(Korten, 1980; Paul, 1982; Uvin, Jain, & Brown, 2000), it is relevant in
understanding the process of social entrepreneurship. Additionally,
scholars of social movement are of a collective view rather than being
individualist in nature. This stream of literature examines the impact
and characteristics of collective action in redressing social problems.
Issues of resource mobilization, political opportunity structures, and
tactics and strategies come under the purview of social movement
theories that explain leadership and organizational traits, nature of
innovations, and social impacts of social entrepreneurship (Tarrow,
2011; McAdam, McCarthy, Zald, & Mayer, 1996).
Most definitions of social entrepreneurship identify innovativeness
as an essential attribute (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Perrini & Vurro,
2006; Shaw & de Bruin, 2013). In the context of the characteristics of
organization and leadership in social enterprises, certain studies focus
predominantly on personal attributes and skills of individuals (Gardner,
2011; Heifetz, 1994), but others primarily deal with cultural impacts
rather than emphasizing on individualism (Paul, 1982; Thake & Zadek,
1997). Scientific enquiry also asserts that institutional and organiza-
tional patterns play significant role in development of and expansion
of the impacts of social entrepreneurship (Paul, 1982; Uphoff, Esman,
& Krishna, 1998). Hence, we come across the basic question that what
is the distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship that separates it
from its for‐profit counterparts? As opposed to the common notion
that the difference between the two sets of entrepreneurship can be
simply ascribed to motivation, that is, profit maximization and altruism,
Martin and Osberg (2007) argue that as in most cases, entrepreneurs
(market driven/not for profit) are never compensated fully for their
effort, time, capital investments, and risk, the critical distinction
between the two forms lies in their respective value propositions.
For the conventional entrepreneurs, value proposition concerns with
anticipation and organization of markets that can favorably sustain
new products and services and thus generate financial profits for the
entrepreneur and investors. Thus, financial gain is a means to attain
the ends of large‐scale market adoption and ultimately, establishment
of new equilibrium. On the contrary, value proposition for social
entrepreneurs refer to attainment of large‐scale transformational ben-
efits for underserved, highly disadvantaged, or neglected population
that lacks financial and political means to achieve transformative ben-
efits on their own (Martin & Osberg, 2007). This does not mean that
social entrepreneurs necessarily shun profit‐making value proposi-
tions. Social entrepreneurs may create not‐for‐profit or for‐profit ven-
tures that cater social issues by means of revenue/income generated
by these ventures. Studies examining the success of various for‐profit
as well as not‐for‐profit socially oriented ventures propose that the
choice of organizational form depends on the nature of the social
needs addressed, scope of raising capital, amount of resources
required, and the ability to exploit economic value (Mair & Marti,
2006). Hence, social entrepreneurship comprises the following three
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
elements: (a) identification of a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium
that excludes or marginalizes certain sections of the society from
attaining transformative benefits, (b) identification of opportunities in
this unjust equilibrium and challenging the hegemony of stable state
through creativity, courage, fortitude, direct action, and inspiration,
and (c) formation of a new stable equilibrium that unleashes the
potential or mitigates the sufferings of the targeted groups hence
ensuring a better future for the society at large.
Researches on social entrepreneurship have also identified drivers
and challenges specific to such entrepreneurial ventures (Gumbe &
Towera, 2016; Razavi, Asadi, Esfandabadi, & Ekbatani, 2014). Low
standards of living and allied social problems serve as significant
drivers to social entrepreneurship (Agbényiga & Ahmedani, 2008).
Limited government participation in matters of social welfare or
increased privatization or government run welfare schemes, like provi-
sion of primary health care services and child protection programs
along with shrinking public funding for social welfare serve as major
drivers for social entrepreneurship (Nandan, London, & Bent‐Goodley,
2015; Nandan & Scott, 2013). Studies on hindrances to development
of social entrepreneurship posit that the inward looking social work
curriculum that fails to promote creativity, excellence, and innovation
among individuals so that they can venture in social entrepreneurship
is a barrier to fostering socially oriented entrepreneurs (Bent‐Goodley,
2002; Germak & Singh, 2009). Perceptions of social workers also hin-
der social entrepreneurship as they lack the necessary training and
vision to do business (Germak & Singh, 2009; Gumbe & Towera,
2016). Lack of efficient and sustainable business models for social wel-
fare sectors such as education and health care is another barrier to
growth of social entrepreneurship. Although initial microfinance spurts
the growth of social entrepreneurs, yet poor business models impede
their long term sustainability. Moreover, studies also suggest that lack
of legal framework to cater to social enterprises hinder social entre-
preneurs from finding necessary support to attain financial objectives
while blending socially (Gumbe & Towera, 2016).
2.3 | Institutional entrepreneurship
Despite adoption of environmentally and socially beneficial product
and organizational innovations, unfavorable market conditions might
limit the effect of sustainability‐oriented entrepreneurial practices.
Hence, literature on environmental entrepreneurship as well as social
entrepreneurship acknowledge the role of corporate actors in
transforming the regulatory framework and market conditions in favor
of sustainable production and consumption behavior, simultaneously
influencing social change (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). In this con-
text, institutional entrepreneurship, which aims at changing the socie-
tal, regulatory, and market institutions in favor of sustainable
development, can be linked to the sustainable development discourse.
Institutional entrepreneurship is central to sustainable industrial trans-
formation as it has the potential to initiate and/or accelerate changes
in the formal and informal institutions by either creating innovative
institutions or by transforming the preexisting (Leca, Battilana, &

HALDAR
Boxenbaum, 2008; DiMaggio, 1988). Hence, studies in this area con-
ceptualize institutional entrepreneurs as influential individuals, groups,
or organizations (Fligstein, 1997; Garud & Karnøe, 2003) that displace
or reform the existing unsustainable institutions even in the face of
their affinity to stasis (Ostrom, 2015; Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum,
2009; Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002; Holm, 1995).
Eisenstadt (1980) identified institutional entrepreneurship as one
of the variables that influence the process of social transformation.
Institutional entrepreneurship refers to adoption of leadership roles
by individuals and/or groups in episodes of institution building
(Colomy, 1998). Analyzed under the framework of institutional theory,
the concept of institutional entrepreneurship emphasizes the role of
actors and agency in the process of institutional change. DiMaggio
(1988) argues that new institutions arise when institutional entrepre-
neurs (organized actors with adequate resources) identify in them an
opportunity to realize goals that are highly valued by them. Hence,
deriving from the existing studies on institutional entrepreneurship,
it can be argued that institutional entrepreneurs are agents of change,
but not all agents of change can be termed as institutional entrepre-
neurs (Battilana et al., 2009). Actors must satisfy two criteria to be
referred as institutional entrepreneurs. First, initiate divergent
changes, that is, change that disrupt the existing institutionalized tem-
plate for organizing within an institutional context (Amis, Slack, &
Hinings, 2004; Battilana, 2006; D'aunno, Succi, & Alexander, 2000).
The institutionalized template of organizing or the institutional logic
refers to a field's shared understanding of the goals to be pursued
and the means by which they are to be achieved (Dobbin, 1994; Scott,
2008; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Thornton, 2002, 2004). Diver-
gent changes do not align with the institutional environment in which
they are embedded and can be initiated within the boundaries of an
organization and/or within the context of the broader institutional
environment in which a particular actor is embedded. Second, the
actors must actively participate in the efforts of change and mobilize
resources to implement changes in the institutional context, so as to
be regarded as institutional entrepreneurs (Battilana et al., 2009). In
the era of globalization, local markets are opening up to institutional
trade that implies a spurt in the number of competitors in various
organizational fields (Rothwell, Stavros, Sullivan, & Sullivan, 2009).
With a paradigm shift in the consumption and production practices
towards sustainable products and services, organizations strive to
acquire competitive advantage and manage their resources by produc-
ing environmentally superior goods and services (Fernández, Junquera,
& Ordiz, 2003; Haldar, 2019). With growing pressure on firms caused
by green consumer and investor preferences and environmentally
inclined insurance companies that push businesses to realize the stra-
tegic vitality of green/environmental challenges (Azzone & Bertelè,
1994), institutional entrepreneurs can help achieve competitive
advantage by embedding green practices in their actions and institu-
tionalized structures involving them (Füssel & Georg, 2000). Several
authors have recognized the opportunity of implementing green
change through application of emergent environmental strategies.
The maintenance or modification of existing institutional structures
is facilitated by institutional entrepreneurs who develop new and
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1163
innovative strategies and are mostly driven by economic incentives
of gaining competitive advantage (Battilana, 2006; Garud, Hardy, &
Maguire, 2007). Hence, the actors who change existing institutional-
ized practices by establishing environmentally sustainable practices
as day‐to‐day practices are referred as green institutional entrepre-
neurs (Assadian & Cordero Vargas, 2010).
Studies concerned with exploring how actors emerge as institu-
tional entrepreneurs despite pressure of stasis suggest that enabling
factors range from the characteristics of individual to the environmen-
tal conditions in which these actors are embedded (Strang & Sine,
2002). Field characteristics and the social position of actor are
interlinked enabling factors for institutional entrepreneurship. Differ-
ent types of (often interrelated) field‐level factors enable actors to
introduce innovative ideas. Field‐level conditions of crisis and jolts
caused by technological disruptions, social upheaval, competitive dis-
continuity, and changes in regulatory structures tend to disrupt the
field‐level consensus, thus inviting new innovations and ideas (Child,
Lu, & Tsai, 2007; Fligstein, 2001; Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings,
2002; Holm, 1995). Degree of institutionalization and heterogeneity
is important organizational field characteristics that enable institu-
tional entrepreneurship. The existence of multiple heterogeneous
institutional orders is likely to result in institutional incompatibilities
and consequently manifest as opportunity for agency/institutional
entrepreneurship (Clemens & Cook, 1999; Sewell, 1992). Lower
degrees of institutionalization result in higher uncertainty levels in
the institutional order that opens up opportunities for strategic action
by institutional entrepreneurs (Lawrence & Phillips, 2004; Déjean
et al., 2004; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Garud, Jain, &
Kumaraswamy, 2002). In addition to a range of field‐level conditions,
the specific characteristics of actors also enable institutional entrepre-
neurship: social position occupied by an actor within an organization
being a significant factor. The actor's social position impacts both
his/her access to the necessary resources (Lawrence, 1999) and
his/her perception of a field (Bourdieu & Nice, 1977). Hence, social
position of an actor determines not only his perception of the field
condition but also his capacity to implement divergent change. Studies
also express that actors' position across fields due to intersection
between various fields also spawn the actors' or organizations' likeli-
hood to engage in institutional entrepreneurship (Phillips, Lawrence,
& Hardy, 2000; Rao, Morrill, & Zald, 2000).
3 | S U S T A I N A B LE EN T R E P R E N E U R S H I P— A
H E T E RO D O X P E RC E P T I O N OF
E NT R EP RE N E U R S H I P C O NC E P T S
With the growing concerns of the global community towards the eco-
logical and social threats posed by unconstrained exploitative indus-
trial practices, the concept of “sustainable development” first
acquired the center stage when the World Commission on Environ-
ment and Development formulated its report Our Common Future or
the Brundtland Report, 1987. In this context, academicians, scholars,
and policymakers interested in suggesting pathways to sustainability

1164
through business administration, economics, and management have
addressed the potential of entrepreneurial activities in achieving sus-
tainable development in a comprehensive manner. Sustainability‐
driven entrepreneurship draws from the earlier concepts of social,
environmental, and institutional entrepreneurship and caters to use
of creative/innovative business organization to offer solutions to
issues related to environmental and social sustainability while seeking
economic progress simultaneously (Abrahamsson, 2007; Schaltegger,
2002). Sustainable entrepreneurship is hence a dynamic and ambitious
approach that not only deals with sustainable development of a
venture/organization but also formulates ways in which the
firm/venture can significantly contribute to the sustainable develop-
ment of the market and society on the whole while respecting the
environmental boundaries (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Thus, social
responsibility, knowledge creation, adoption of sustainability innova-
tions, progressiveness, dynamism, leadership, and competitiveness in
order to obtain economic benefits while creating social values are
essential traits of sustainable entrepreneurship (Kriščiūnas &
Greblikaitė, 2007). In addition, it is important to analyze the role of
sustainability‐driven entrepreneurs in achieving sustainable develop-
ment from the perspective of innovation (Gerlach, 2003). In this
regard, small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises are recognized as drivers
of sustainable development through implementation and development
of sustainability innovation, competitiveness, and entrepreneurial
spirit (Kardos, 2012). Sustainable innovation is made successful by
entrepreneurial actors who gain competitive advantages/economic
gains by application of innovative social and/or environmental produc-
tion, service, and/or organizational practices.
As sustainable entrepreneurship is a dynamic concept that
integrates social, economic, and environmental aspects, this section
synthesizes the various streams of entrepreneurship literature
(ecopreneurship, social, and institutional entrepreneurship) to derive a
framework to define the phenomenon of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Although these types of entrepreneurship have distinct historic trajec-
tories, the question arises whether they are dichotomous or overlapping
approaches directed towards the ultimate goal of achieving sustainabil-
ity in production behavior? It is hence noticeable that, although these
concepts have distinct historical points of emergence, yet they seem
to converge with respect to their underlying motivations. Table 1
expresses the various convergent and divergent attributes of these
rather currently independent concepts under the domain of entrepre-
neurship, so as to derive a conceptual understanding of the heterodox
concept of sustainability‐driven entrepreneurship.
Thus, sustainable entrepreneurship draws from the above men-
tioned forms of entrepreneurship in certain aspects, as they contribute
to a particular dimension of the broader phenomenon of sustainable
development (Table 1). Sustainable entrepreneurship is relatively less
oriented towards technical procedures and management processes
and is concerned primarily with the personal motives, initiatives, and
skills of an individual or organization directed towards realizing large‐
scale social transformation and market success by means of environ-
mental and/or social innovations. Personal concerns or ethical reason-
ing of all these types of entrepreneurs form the basis of their
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
entrepreneurial activities. Hence, sustainability‐driven entrepreneurs'
convergence with social, institutional, and green entrepreneurs lies in
environmental and social preferences and personal concerns. Thus,
sustainable entrepreneurs embody a mix of economic, social, and envi-
ronmental value propositions along with a zealous entrepreneurial
attitude (Schaltegger, 2002).
Table 2 discusses the enabling factors and barriers to the above‐
mentioned forms of entrepreneurship and tries to draw the points of
overlap between them with reference to the overarching concept of
sustainable entrepreneurship.
In generic sense, sustainable entrepreneurship can be associated
with innovative start‐up or established firm supplying environmentally
and/or socially beneficial products and services with a large‐scale mar-
ket potential. Achieving substantial market success through compara-
tive advantage in socially and environmentally beneficial goods and
services is not just a phenomenon limited to start‐ups, but it can also
be observed in established ventures or in the process of creation of
spin‐offs and corporate ventures and so on.
Thus, incorporating the traits from social, environmental, and insti-
tutional entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship can be
broadly defined as an innovative, market‐oriented (for‐profit) and
personality‐driven process of creating societal and economic value
by embedding breakthrough environmentally or socially beneficial
market or institutional (organizational) innovations (Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011). As the economic success of such businesses is
strongly associated with their sustainability performance, sustainable
entrepreneurs hold social and environmental concerns at the core of
their business model. The literature on sustainability illustrates its
unique characteristic wherein entrepreneurs are motivated by their
sustainability‐driven ideology to exploit market opportunities while
realizing a combination of objectives. Certain studies argue that sus-
tainable entrepreneurship is a subset of social entrepreneurship owing
to its inherent attribute to solve societal issues (e.g., Dean &
McMullen, 2007). However, according to the premise of this study,
the scope of sustainable entrepreneurship extends beyond resolution
of social issues, as it focuses on striking a balance between social,
environmental, and economic benefits through business ventures
(Young & Tilley, 2006). Although some sustainability‐oriented entre-
preneurs may address social issues, yet it is certainly not their sole
objective. Another point of divergence between social and sustainable
entrepreneurship is that although sustainability incorporates the social
dimension yet, all socially driven entrepreneurial activities are not nec-
essarily sustainable in nature (i.e., environmentally and economically
beneficial). Because social entrepreneurship prioritizes societal benefit
over economic and environmental benefits, it is more likely to be
driven by altruistic motivations rather than market and/or environ-
mental orientations; hence, not all social entrepreneurial ventures
can be referred as sustainability‐driven businesses. Moreover, sustain-
able entrepreneurship diverges from conventional profit‐driven entre-
preneurship in terms of its organizational structure that focuses on
balancing multiple goals of sustainable development rather than just
one dimension of it. The sustainability‐oriented entrepreneurs forge
their “whole enterprise design” by amalgamating aspects of economic,

HALDAR
TABLE 1 Forms of entrepreneurship (core principles and motivation)
Type of
entrepreneurship Core principle
Ecopreneurship Catering to environmental
challenges and creating
economic value
Social Creating value for society
entrepreneurship and solving social problems
Institutional Social transformation by
entrepreneurship modifying regulatory,
market, and societal
institutional logic in
which they are
embedded
Sustainable Environmental and social
entrepreneurship value through realization
of economically profitable
businesses
Note. Source: author's compilation.
Main motivation
Comparative advantage in
environmentally superior
goods and services (means);
economic gains (ends)
Economic goals (means); solutions to
social issues and social value creation
(ends)
Transforming the institutional template
or organizing (means); economic gains
(means/ends)
Ecological, economic, and social value
(ends); economic gains (means and
ends)
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1165
Major studies
Cohen, 2006; Lehmann et al., 2004;
Schaltegger, 2002; Isaak, 2017;
Lober, 1998; Pastakia, 1998, 2002;
Staber, 1997; Anderson & Leal, 1997;
Bennett, 1991; Berle, 1991;
Blue, 1990; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen,
2010; Beveridge & Guy, 2005;
Walley & Taylor, 2002;
Giddens, 1984; Taylor & Pandza,
2003; Linnanen, 2016
Bull, 2008; Ridley‐Duff, 2008;
Nicholls, 2008; Desa & Kotha, 2006a,
2006b; Bright et al., 2006;
Milstein et al., 2006; Hockerts et al.,
2006; Prahalad & Hammond, 2002;
Borzaga & Solari, 2001; Brinckerhoff,
2000; Prahalad & Prahalad, 2005;
Prahalad, 2006; Mair & Noboa, 2003;
Zahra et al., 2009; Mair & Marti,
2006; Lewis, 1980; Waddock & Post,
1991; Wallace, 1999; Emerson &
Twersky, 1996; Alvord et al., 2004;
Dees, 1998; Smillie & Hailey, 2001;
Abed & Chowdhury, 1997;
Brown & Covey, 1987; Uvin et al., 2000;
Paul, 1982; Korten, 1980; Tarrow, 2011;
McAdam et al., 1996; Gardner, 2011;
Heifetz, 1994; Thake & Zadek, 1997;
Uphoff et al., 1998; Martin & Osberg, 2007;
Gumbe & Towera, 2016; Razavi et al., 2014;
Agbényiga & Ahmedani, 2008;
Nandan et al., 2015; Nandan & Scott, 2013;
Germak & Singh, 2009; Bent‐Goodley, 2002
Leca et al., 2008; DiMaggio, 1988;
Garud & Karnøe, 2003; Fligstein, 1997, 2001;
Ostrom, 2015; Battilana, 2006; Battilana
et al., 2009; Dacin et al., 2002; Holm, 1995;
Eisenstadt,1980; Colomy, 1998; Amis et al.,
2004; D'aunno et al., 2000; Scott, 2008;
Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005;
Thornton, 2004; Thornton, 2002; Dobbin,
1994; Rothwell et al., 2009; Fernández et al.,
2003; Azzone & Bertelè, 1994; Füssel &
Georg, 2000; Garud et al., 2007; Assadian &
Cordero Vargas, 2010; Strang & Sine, 2002;
Child et al., 2007; Greenwood et al., 2002;
Sewell, 1992; Clemens & Cook, 1999;
Lawrence & Phillips, 2004; Déjean et al.,
2004; Maguire et al., 2004; Garud et al.,
2002; Lawrence, 1999; Rao et al., 2000;
Phillips et al., 2000
Abrahamsson, 2007; Schaltegger, 2002;
Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011;
Kriščiūnas & Greblikaitė, 2007; Gerlach,
2003; Kardos, 2012; Dean & McMullen,
2007; Young & Tilley, 2006; Gibbs, 2009;
Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010;
Thompson, Kiefer, & York, 2011
 15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1166 HALDAR

TABLE 2 Types of entrepreneurship (enablers and barriers)

Enablers Barriers

Type of External factors/structural External factors/structural

entrepreneurship forces
Ecopreneurship Economic incentives,
demand for eco‐friendly
product, friends and
family, past experiences,
environmental standards,
and government
regulations
Social Economic gains, social
entrepreneurship challenges, organizational
and institutional patterns,
scope of raising capital,
resource availability, and
limited government
participation/increased
privatization
Institutional Resource availability,
entrepreneurship market demand,
economic benefits,
field‐level conditions
(crisis and jolts), tech.
barriers, social upheaval,
changes in regulatory
structure, competitive
discontinuity, higher
degree of heterogeneity,
and lower degree of
institutionalization
Sustainable Market demand, economic
entrepreneurship incentive, environmental
standards and
regulations, market
opportunity (social/
environmental
challenges), technological
competence, resource
access and availability,
institutional and
organizational structure,
social perception, friends
and family, and past
experiences
Internal factors
Environmental and economic
orientation/personal
motivation,
entrepreneurial skill,
education, ethical
reasoning, innovativeness,
risk bearing, creativity,
capability to act
independently, and
expertise
Entrepreneurial skill,
knowledge/expertise,
innovativeness, creativity,
vision, altruism,
leadership, risk bearing,
and perception/ethical
reasoning
Actors' perception, social
position, innovativeness,
active participation in
institutional
transformation, expertise,
creativity, and leadership
Sustainability orientation,
skill/expertise, risk
bearing, innovativeness,
creativity, entrepreneurial
motivation, leadership,
judgement, social position
of actor, and ethical
reasoning
forces
Financial barriers, market
uncertainty, maintenance
patterns, technological
incompetence, and
political resistance
Lack of capacity building
through education,
sustainable business
models and legal support,
knowledge barriers,
financial barriers, and
political resistance
Pressure of stasis, high
degree of
institutionalization, low
degree of institutional
heterogeneity, resource
barriers, and financial and
tech. barriers
Market uncertainty,
challenge of market
creation, lack of capacity
building, bureaucratic
hassles, financial
constraints, tech.
incompetence, lack of
skilled labor, unfavorable
policy ecosystem,
resource constraints, and
inefficient legal
framework
Internal factors
Strategic concerns,
ideological concerns/
ethical reasoning, and
low entrepreneurial
motivation
Low level of
entrepreneurial
motivation, ideological
and strategic concerns,
and lack of skill/expertise
Social position of actor,
ethical reasoning,
strategic concerns, and
lack of entrepreneurial
skill and technical
knowhow
Weak entrepreneurial
motivation, ethical
reasoning, lack of
technical knowledge and
expertise, weak
sustainability orientation,
social position of actor,
and risk averseness

Note. Source: author's compilation.

social, and environmental sustainability within their organizational
design so as to achieve unique objectives (Young & Tilley, 2006).
The whole enterprise design refers to resources and factors needed
to achieve sustainability in long run rather than just short‐term bene-
fits, which is the key distinctive element between sustainable entre-
preneurship and social and environmental entrepreneurship. As
sustainable entrepreneurs function contrary to profit seeking business
managers, they resort to “alternative” business practices to capitalize
on sustainable opportunities in early evolution of industries (Gibbs,
2009; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Sustainable opportunities
can be rapidly exploited by new sustainable entrepreneurship ven-
tures as incumbent firms although respond to new entrants by
adopting green practices, but the adjustments would be hampered
by inertia from existing market practices. Hence, sustainable entrepre-
neurship ultimately creates new incentives and competitive opportu-
nities for sustainable development by catalyzing new entrants as
well as incumbents (Thompson et al., 2011). Thus, creation of sustain-
able socioeconomies and industries rely on the mutual coevolution of

HALDAR
new entrants and incumbents. Hence, it can be inferred that there are
certain aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship that are similar as well
as distinct from commercial, social, environmental, and institutional
entrepreneurship as it is a heterodox concept that focuses on address-
ing environmental, institutional, and societal market failures while
simultaneously achieving economic goals in the long run.
4 | C O N CL U S I O N
The survey of various strands of sustainability‐oriented entrepreneur-
ship literature offers a framework for understanding how the concept
of sustainability entrepreneurship serves as an umbrella term to depict
the contribution of entrepreneurial activities to solve environmental
and social challenges. Hence, the present study has certain important
implications. First, it positions the concept of sustainability in entre-
preneurship literature so as to propose the heterodox phenomenon
of sustainable entrepreneurship, which is yet an emerging area of
research in entrepreneurship and economic disciplines. Second, the
study clearly asserts that social and environmental issues serve as
opportunities that appeal the personal orientations and ethical logic
of sustainable entrepreneurs, wherein they employ innovative techno-
logical or institutional solutions to build their venture's comparative
advantage. Third, the study explores that sustainable entrepreneurs
are driven by a mix of ecological, social, and economic objectives,
which cannot be distinctly compartmentalized or for that matter prior-
itized. Hence, in contrast to social entrepreneurship, which mainly
concerns with not for profit businesses aiming for social transforma-
tion, sustainable entrepreneurship is closer to the concept of
ecopreneurship, which considers economic gains as important element
of market success through environmentally superior products and ser-
vices, the major distinction being its affinity to long‐term benefits
rather than short‐term gains. The study attempts to address the gap
in the conceptualization of sustainability‐driven entrepreneurship;
however, being theoretical in nature, it opens opportunities for exten-
sive quantitative analysis in this domain that is not covered under the
scope of this study. To conclude, the study suggests that sustainable
entrepreneurship in for‐profit corporations lead to creative destruc-
tion of unsustainable production and consumption business para-
digms. Influx of venture capital or public sector funding to green
technologies can bring about positive impacts in terms of sustainable
businesses creating societal, economic, and environmental value
rather than just managing market risks. External factors/structural
influences and personal internal attributes and orientations are both
critical for sustainable enterprise formation and success.
ORCID
Stuti Haldar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8664-5018
RE FE R ENC E S
Abed, F. H., & Chowdhury, A. M. R. (1997). The Bangladesh Rural Advance-
ment Committee: How BRAC learned to meet rural people's needs
through local action. In A. Krishna, N. Uphoff, & M. Esman (Eds.),
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1167
Reasons for hope: Instructive experiences in rural development. West
Hartfort, CT: Kumarian.
Abrahamsson, A. (2007). Sustainopreneurship‐business with a cause:
Conceptualizing entrepreneurship for sustainability. Master Thesis in
Business Administration, Vaxjö University School of Management and
Economics, Sweeden.
Agbényiga, D. L., & Ahmedani, B. K. (2008). Utilizing social work skills to
enhance entrepreneurship training for women: A Ghanaian perspec-
tive. Journal of Community Practice, 16(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10705420802473642
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship
and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021886304266847
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2004). The pace, sequence, and linearity
of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 15–39.
Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (1997). Enviro‐capitalists: Doing good while
doing well. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ashoka Innovators for the Public (2000). Selecting leading social
entrepreneurs.
Assadian, M. S., & Cordero Vargas, I. A. (2010). The Process of Change and
Green Institutional Entrepreneurs: A Human Agency Perspective (Unpub-
lished master's thesis). Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
Azzone, G., & Bertelè, U. (1994). Exploiting green strategies for competi-
tive advantage. Long Range Planning, 27(6), 69–81. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0024‐6301(94)90165‐1
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals'
social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1350508406067008
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change
institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/
10.5465/19416520903053598
Bennett, S. J. (1991). Ecopreneuring: The complete guide to small business
opportunities from the environmental revolution. New York: Wiley.
Bent‐Goodley, T. B. (2002). Defining and conceptualizing social work
entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 291–302.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779098
Berle, G. (1991). The green entrepreneur: Business opportunities that can
save the earth and make you money, Blue Ridge Summit Pennsylvania.
Beveridge, R., & Guy, S. (2005). The rise of the eco‐preneur and the messy
world of environmental innovation. Local Environment, 10(6), 665–676.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830500321972
Blue, R. J. (1990). Ecopreneuring: Managing for results. London: Scott,
Foresman.
Borzaga, C., & Solari, L. (2001). Management challenges for social enter-
prises. In The emergence of social enterprise (Vol. 333, No. 349) (pp.
333–349). Belgium: ROUTLEDGE in association with GSE Research.
Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Vol. 16).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511812507
Bowen, H. R., & Johnson, F. E. (1953). Social responsibility of the business-
man. Harper.
Bright, D. S., Fry, R. E., & Cooperrider, D. L. (2006). Transformative innova-
tions for the mutual benefit of business society, and environment.
BAWB Interactive Working Paper Series, 1(1), 17–31.
Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2000). Social entrepreneurship: The art of Mission‐based
venture development. New York: Wiley.

1168
Brown, L. D., & Covey, J. G. (1987). Development organizations and orga-
nization development: Towards an expanded paradigm for organization
development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1,
59–87.
Bull, M. (2008). Challenging tensions: Critical, theoretical and empirical per-
spectives on social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 14(5), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/135
52550810897641
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a defini-
tional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/
10.1177/000765039903800303
Child, J., Lu, Y., & Tsai, T. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship in building
an environmental protection system for the People's Republic of China.
Organization Studies, 28(7), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840607078112
Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism:
Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1),
441–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.428
Colomy, P. (1998). Neofunctionalism and neoinstitutionalism: Human
agency and interest in institutional change. In Sociological forum (Vol.
13, No. 2) (pp. 265–300). Springer.
Cornwall, J. R. (1998). The entrepreneur as a building block for community.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 141.
D'aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional
and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667016
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?
California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/
41166246
Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable
entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entre-
preneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76,
54–69.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and
social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Conver-
gences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1),
32–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053
Déjean, F., Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An
institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human
Relations, 57(6), 741–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704
044954
Desa, G., & Kotha, S. (2006a). Ownership, mission and environment: An
exploratory analysis into the evolution of a technology social venture.
In Social entrepreneurship (p. 155). 179, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Desa, G., & Kotha, S. (2006b). Technology social venture and innovation:
Process at Benetech. In F. Perrini (Ed.), The new social entrepreneur-
ship: What awaits social entrepreneurial ventures? Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L.G.
Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations culture and environ-
ment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and
France in the railway ageCambridge university press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781139174183
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurshipRoutledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315747453
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1980). Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs,
and social change: Comparative analysis of traditional civilizations.
American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 840–869. https://doi.org/10.
1086/227091
Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom‐line reporting: Looking for balance. Aus-
tralian CPA, 69, 18–21.
Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (Eds.). (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The
success, challenge and lessons of non‐profit enterprise creation. The
Homeless Economic Fund, the Roberts Foundation.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and
human resources in the environmental issue: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 634–656.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000057628
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral
Scientist, 40(4), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642970
40004003
Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory,
19(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735‐2751.00132
Füssel, L., & Georg, S. (2000). The institutionalization of environmental
concerns: Making the environment perfom. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 30(3), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00208825.2000.11656794
Gardner, H. E. (2011). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. UK:
Hachette.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship
as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organiza-
tion Studies, 28(07), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840607078958
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneur-
ship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case
of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal,
45(1), 196–214.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed
and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy,
32(2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048‐7333(02)00100‐2
Gerlach, A. (2003). Sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29–30.
Germak, A. J., & Singh, K. K. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: Changing the
way social workers do business. Administration in Social Work, 34(1),
79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100903432974
Gibbs, D. (2009). Sustainability entrepreneurs, ecopreneurs and the
development of a sustainable economy. Greener Management
International, 55, 63–78.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the structuration
theory. Cambridge: Polity.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change:
The role of professional associations in the transformation of institu-
tionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.
Gumbe, S. M., & Towera, T. (2016). Exploring the barriers to social entre-
preneurship in Zimbabwe: The case of graduate professional social
workers in Harare. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development, 26,
37–43.
Haldar, S. (2019). Green entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector
—A case study of Gujarat. Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, 10(1), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-12-
2017-0070

HALDAR
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. London, England:
Harvard University Press.
Hockerts, K., Mair, J., & Robinson, J. (Eds.) (2006). Social entrepreneurship.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerg-
ing Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants
in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5),
481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005
Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation
processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
398–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393791
Isaak, R. (2017). Green logic: Ecopreneurship, theory and ethicsRoutledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351283168
Kardos, M. (2012). The Relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation
and sustainable development. Research on European Union Countries.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 1030–1035. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S2212‐5671(12)00269‐9
Korten, D. C. (1980). Community organization and rural development: A
learning process approach. Public Administration Review, 40, 480–511.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3110204
Kriščiūnas, K., & Greblikaitė, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship in sustainable
development: SMEs Innovativeness in Lithuania. Engineering Economics,
54(4), 20–26.
Lawrence, T. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2),
161–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500203
Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2004). From Moby Dick to Free Willy:
Macro‐cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerg-
ing institutional fields. Organization, 11(5), 689–711. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1350508404046457
Leca, B., Battilana, J., & Boxenbaum, E. (2008). Agency and institutions: A
review of institutional entrepreneurship (pp. 08–096). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School.
Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., & Larsen, J. M. (2004). Self‐regulation and
new institutions: The case of green network in Denmark. In GRONEN
RESEARCH WORKSHOP.
Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic
political power: The organizational lives of Hyman Rickover, J. Edgar Hoo-
ver, and Robert Moses. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Linnanen, L. (2016). An insider's experiences with environmental entrepre-
neurship. In M. Schaper (Ed.), Making Ecopreneurs: Developing
Sustainable Entrepreneurship (pp. 71–88). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lober, D. J. (1998). Pollution prevention as corporate entrepreneurship.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 26–37. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09534819810369554
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneur-
ship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1),
36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2003). Emergence of social enterprises and their place
in the new organizational landscape. Barcelona: IESE Business School.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for
definition (Vol. 5, No. 2) (pp. 28–39). Stanford, CA: Stanford social inno-
vation review.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., Zald, M. N., & Mayer, N. Z. (Eds.). (1996).
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities,
mobilizing structures, and cultural framingsCambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803987
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1169
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw‐hill.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A
theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1),
117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies,
43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2006.00580.x
Milstein, M. B., London, T., & Hart, S. (2006, August). Capturing the
opportunity of creating a more inclusive capitalism. In Academy of Man-
agement Meeting.
Nandan, M., London, M., & Bent‐Goodley, T. (2015). Social workers as
social change agents: Social innovation, social intrapreneurship, and
social entrepreneurship. Human Service Organizations: Management,
Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 38–56.
Nandan, M., & Scott, P. A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship and social work:
The need for a transdisciplinary educational model. Administration
in Social Work, 37(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.
2012.684428
Nicholls, A. (Ed.) (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable
social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2010). OECD studies on SMEs and entrepreneurship: SMEs, entre-
preneurship and innovation.
Ostrom, E. (2015). Governing the commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Pastakia, A. (1998). Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a
sustainable society. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
11(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819810212142
Pastakia, A. (2002). Assessing ecopreneurship in the context of a develop-
ing country. Greener Management International, 38, 93–108.
Paul, S. (1982). Managing development programs; the lessons of success.
Boulder: Westview.
Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and
social change across theory and practice. In Social entrepreneurship
(pp. 57–85). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter‐organizational
collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of
Management Studies, 37(1), 23–43.
Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The innovation sandbox. Strategy and Business, 44,
62.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world's poor, profit-
ably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–59.
Prahalad, C. K., & Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the
pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Wharton School Pub.
Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social
movements and collective action create new organizational forms.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237–281. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0191‐3085(00)22007‐8
Razavi, S. M., Asadi, M., Esfandabadi, H. M., & Ekbatani, H. (2014). Barriers
to social entrepreneurship in Iran: An application of grounded theory.
Journal of Entrepreneurship Organ Management, 3(2), 2–5.
Ridley‐Duff, R. (2008). Social enterprise as a socially rational business.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(5),
291–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810897669
Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., Sullivan, R. L., & Sullivan, A. (Eds.) (2009).
Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change (Vol.
34). San Fransisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Schaltegger, S. (2002). A framework for ecopreneurship. Greener Manage-
ment International, 38, 45–58.

1170
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
Schumpeter, J. A. (2017). Essays: On entrepreneurs, innovations, business
cycles and the evolution of capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Los
Angeles, California: Sage.
Sewell, W. H. Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and trans-
formation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/
10.1086/229967
Shaw, E., & de Bruin, A. (2013). Reconsidering capitalism: the promise of
social innovation and social entrepreneurship? International Small
Business Journal, 31(7), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242
613497494
Smillie, I., & Hailey, J. (2001). Managing for change. Leadership, Strategy and
Management in Asian NGOs. London, Earthscan
Staber, U. (1997). An ecological perspective on entrepreneurship in indus-
trial districts. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9(1), 45–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629700000003
Strang, D., & Sine, W. D. (2002). Interorganizational institutions. In J. A. C.
Baum (Ed.), Companion to Organizations (pp. 497–519). Oxford: Black-
well Publishing.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/
10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious
politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, D., & Pandza, K. (2003). Networking capability: The competitive
advantage of small firms. In O. Jones, & F. Tilley (Eds.), Competitive
advantage in SMEs. Organising for inovation and change (pp. 156–173).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Thake, S., & Zadek, S. (1997). Practical people. In Noble causes: How to
support community‐based social entrepreneurs. Executive summary. Lon-
don: New Economics Foundation.
Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. (2011). Distinctions not
dichotomies: Exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepre-
neurship. In Social and sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 201–229). UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
15353966, 2019, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1763 by Zhejiang University, Wiley Online Library on [26/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
HALDAR
Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry:
Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(1), 81–101.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organi-
zational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Dacin, T. M., Goodstein, J., & Scott, R. W. (2002). Institutional theory and
institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2002.6283388
Uphoff, N., Esman, M. J., & Krishna, A. (1998). Reasons for success: Learning
from instructive experiences in rural development (No. 307.72 U67). West
Hartford, CT (USA): Kumarian Press.
Uvin, P., Jain, P. S., & Brown, L. D. (2000). Think large and act small: Toward
a new paradigm for NGO scaling up. World Development, 28(8),
1409–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305‐750X(00)00037‐1
Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1991). Social entrepreneurs and catalytic
change. Public Administration Review, 51(5), 393–401.
Wallace, S. L. (1999). Social entrepreneurship: The role of social purpose
enterprises in facilitating community economic development. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153.
Walley, E. E., & Taylor, D. W. (2002). Opportunists, champions, maver-
icks...? Greener Management International, 38, 31–43.
Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency?
The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainabil-
ity debate. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402–415.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.510
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A
typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical
challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007
How to cite this article: Haldar S. Towards a conceptual
understanding of sustainability‐driven entrepreneurship.
Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;26:1157–1170. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1763