All over the world entrepreneurs drive changes. They develop new products and services, inspire others and take decisions that result in growth of their businesses. But the world around entrepreneurs is changing and so are entrepreneurs. Life-long selfemployment or permanent wage employment are of the past. And the way people perceive self-employment is changing as well. And so must our thinking. Changes in our society call for policies and programmes in support of enterprising people. Diversity, mobility and connectivity offer new opportunities for enterprising people. Markets are changing, become more accessible and there is less need to be bound physically to one place for an entrepreneur. New avenues for business are open thanks to our improved access to information, our connectivity globally through social media and our ability to travel freely and frequently from one country to another. With less focus on life-long (self) employment people now combine paid work (or unpaid – house- work) with self-employment, or opt for just parttime entrepreneurship. New, hybrid forms of enterprising emerge. This combining of work with self-employment is rather common in developing countries, but in Europe it is a phenomenon not yet reported on in statistics and for which policy makers and service providers have no answers yet. Neither exist clear definitions or classifications. This book may serve as an eye-opener: hybrid entrepreneurs are indeed around us and deserve our attention. The research unit Financial Inclusion and New Entrepreneurship of The Hague University of Applied Science challenges policy makers, academics and service providers (such as educational institutes, business advisers and financial institutions) to pay more attention to hybrid entrepreneurs, those enterprising people who intend to create new values for a fair and sustainable society. They might not yet been seen, but they exist…..
DOCUMENT
Background: The full potential of social entrepreneurship remains challenging to achieve, despite continuous efforts in various economies, including South-East Asia. Several obstacles need to be addressed, such as the scarcity of skilled employees, limited business understanding among founders, difficulties accessing funding and infrastructure, and the absence of proper social impact measurement. Higher education institutions (HEIs) often face constraints in engaging and supporting early entrepreneurial activities, exacerbating the imbalance in the social entrepreneurship landscape. This imbalance has been observed in both Thailand and Myanmar. Research objectives: The Erasmus+ funded project, STEPup, running from 2020 to 2023, recognized an opportunity to foster innovative social entrepreneurship practices tailored for disruptive business settings in these two countries. By applying the challenge-based learning approach through interactive case challenge proceedings involving social entrepreneurs, faculty mentors and students, the development of the entrepreneurial mindset of the latter group was studied. Research design and methods: To accomplish this, a multi-method research design was chosen, which involved a case-challenge experience within the framework of 6 universities, a questionnaire-based survey conducted among the student population which took part in the case-challenge experience and desk research. Results: The study revealed the necessity for a self-organizing and organic support system for social entrepreneurship. The objective of this paper is to present recommendations and strategic guidelines to enhance access and opportunities for existing social enterprises and social entrepreneurs seeking to establish and sustain a social enterprise ecosystem. The proposed framework leverages the support, expertise, and structure of existing higher education institutions. Conclusions: Higher Education Institutions can serve as excellent cases demonstrating how to design and develop resource hubs for social enterprise practitioners and engage stakeholders from all sectors to address social issues and promote awareness.
DOCUMENT
Sustainable entrepreneurs need to balance social, environmental and economic goals. However, some put sustainable goals first whereas others prioritize economic outcomes. This suggests differences in types of sustainable entrepreneurs. We study sustainable entrepreneur archetypes based on their motivations to start a venture and on their entrepreneurial orientation (EO). This is important to understand since the degrees of EO and motivations determines not only the sustainability of a venture but also its success and activities of sustainable entrepreneurs. Based on the extant literature and an exploratory, mixed-method study of 24 sustainable fashion firms we put forward four distinct sustainable entrepreneurship archetypes which differ in motivation and EO, namely: Idealists, Evangelists, Realists and Opportunists. Implications for practice, theory and future research are suggested.
DOCUMENT
This chapter discusses the role of education in the preparation of the next generation of entrepreneurs in nature conservation. Departing from the traditional conservation education, which emphasizes ecological management, the chapter is a plea for incorporating entrepreneurship in the curricula of educational programmes on rewilding ecosystems. An Erasmus Intensive Programme on European Wilderness Entrepreneurship is presented as a case study. A set of competences is defined and operationalized based on the evaluation of the first edition of the programme undertaken in Rewilding Europe’s pilot area in Western Iberia. Aspects of the learning strategies and learning environment are presented and reviewed. The conclusion of this chapter is that to learn wilderness entrepreneurship competences, an environment should be created in which students, teachers and stakeholder co-learn at the boundaries of their comfort zones.
DOCUMENT
Our paper investigates the microfoundations of sustainable entrepreneurship and aims to shed light on trade-offs made in decisions about social, ecological and economic sustainability. Balancing the three dimensions of sustainability (social, ecological and economic) inherently requires choices in which one dimension or another has less optimal outcomes. There is not much known about the rationale that sustainable entrepreneurs use for making such trade-offs. Thus, we ask how does entrepreneurial orientation affect decisions and trade-offs on sustainability impact? Our study is an exploratory, qualitative study of 24 sustainable entrepreneurs. We collected data about entrepreneurial orientation and sustainability trade-offs and held in-depth interviews with a subsample of six firms. We conducted a cluster analysis based on four entrepreneurial orientations (innovativeness, proactiveness, riskiness and futurity) and three sustainability trade-off dimensions (environmental, social and economic). From the findings, we derive a typology of three types of sustainable entrepreneurs: green-conflicted, humanitarian-oriented and holistically-oriented. We uncover salient characteristics and aspects of entrepreneurial orientation in relation to trade-off decisions. We find that the entrepreneurs accept slower economic growth or lower performance in order to maintain the integrity of their social and ecological principles and values.
DOCUMENT
For environmental governance to be more effective and transformative, it needs to enhance the presence of experimental and innovative approaches for participation. This enhancement requires a transformation of environmental governance, as too often the (public) participation process is set up as a formal obligation in the development of a proposed intervention. This article, in search of alternatives, and in support of this transformation elaborates on spaces where participatory and deliberative governance processes have been deployed. Experiences with two mediated participation methodologies – community art and visual problem appraisal – allow a demonstration of their potential, relevance and attractiveness. Additionally, the article analyzes the challenges that result from the nature of these arts-based methodologies, from the confrontational aspects of voices overlooked in conventional approaches, and from the need to rethink professionals’ competences. Considering current environmental urgencies, mediated participation and social imaginaries still demonstrate capacities to open new avenues for action and reflection.
DOCUMENT
In this policy evaluation report, the results of the first 2 years of the Interreg funded ABCitiEs project are presented. In total 16 entrepreneurship collectives have been studied in 5 partner regions, i.e. Athens, Vilnius, Varazdin-Cakovec, Manchester and Amsterdam. The report contains an analysis of the cases and gives an overview of the most important opportunities and challenges faced by these cases. On the basis of these result, 4 policy directions have been selected in which improvement are considered most successful, i.e. access to funding, intermediaries, monitoring and experimental learning environments. Also, the report presents the action plans that have been formulated on the basis of these policy directions for the cities involved in this project. In the last 2 years of the project, project partners will implement these action plans in their respective cities.
MULTIFILE
Our planet’s ecology and society are on a collision course, which manifests due to a contradiction in the assumptions of unlimited material growth fueling the linear economic paradigm. Our closed planetary ecosystem imposes confined amounts of space and a finite extent of resources upon its inhabitants. However, practically all the economic perspectives have been defiantly neglecting these realities, as resources are extracted, used and disposed of reluctantly (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). The circular economy attempts to reconcile the extraction, production and usage of goods and resources with the limited availability of those resources and nature’s regenerative capabilities This perspective entails a shift throughout the supply chain, from material science (e g non-toxic, regenerative biomaterials) to novel logistical systems (e g low-carbon reverse logistics). Because of this, the circular economy is often celebrated for its potential environmental benefits and its usefulness as a blueprint for sustainable development (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Unfortunately, the promise of the circular economy aiming at enhanced sustainability through restorative intent and design (McDonough & Braungart 2010), is often inhibited by institutional barriers posed by the current linear economy of take, make, use and waste (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Underlying those barriers our cultural paradigm celebrates consumerism, exponential growth and financial benefit instead of human values such as diversity, care and trust. Based on a mapping exercise of the circular economy discourse in the Netherlands and an overview of international (academic) literature (Van den Berg 2020) supplemented with collaborative co-creation sessions, visiting events, conferences, giving talks and classes, we have defined a gap leading to the focus of the Professorship. First, we highlight the importance of a process approach in studying the transition from a linear to a circular economy, which is why we use the verb ‘entrepreneuring’ as it indicates the movement we collectively need to make. The majority of work in the field is based on start-ups and only captures snapshots while longitudinal and transition perspectives - especially of larger companies - are missing (Merli et al. 2019; Geissdoerfer et al. 2018; Bocken et al. 2014). We specifically adopt an entrepreneurship-as-practice lens (Thompson, Verduijn & Gartner 2020), which allows us to trace the doings – as opposed to only the sayings - of organizations involved in circular innovation. Such an approach also enables us to study cross-sector and interfirm collaboration, which is crucial to achieve ecosystem circularity (Raworth 2019). As materials flow between actors in a system, traditional views of ‘a value chain’ slowly make way for an ecosystem or value web perspective on ‘organizing business’. We summarize this first theme as ‘entrepreneurship as social change’ broadening dominant views of what economic activity is and who the main actors are supposed to be (Barinaga 2013; Calás, Smircich & Bourne 2009; Steyaert & Hjorth 2008; Nicholls 2008). Second, within the Circular Business Professorship value is a big word in two ways. First of all, we believe that a transition to a circular economy is not just a transition of materials, nor technologies - it is most of all a transition of values We are interested in how people can explore their own agency in transitioning to a circular economy thereby aligning their personal values with the values of the organization and the larger system they are a part of Second, while circularity is a broad concept that can be approached through different lenses, the way in which things are valued and how value is created and extracted lies at the heart of the transition (Mazzucato 2018). If we don’t understand value as collectively crafted it will be very hard to change things, which is why we specifically focus on multiplicity and co-creation in the process of reclaiming value, originating from an ethics of care Third, sustainability efforts are often concerned with optimization of the current – linear – system by means of ecoefficient practices that are a bit ‘less bad’; using ’less resources’, causing ‘less pollution’ and ‘having less negative impact’. In contrast, eco-effective practices are inherently good, departing from the notion of abundance: circular thinking celebrates the abundance of nature’s regenerative capacities as well as the abundance of our imagination to envision new realities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). Instead of exploiting natural resources, we should look closely in order to learn how we can build resilient self-sustaining ecosystems like the ones we find in nature. We are in need of rediscovering our profound connection with and appreciation of nature, which requires us to move beyond the cognitive and employ an aesthetic perspective of sustainability This perspective informs our approach to innovating education: aesthetics can support deep sustainability learning (Ivanaj, Poldner & Shrivastava 2014) and contribute to facilitating the circular change makers of the future. The current linear economy has driven our planet’s ecology and society towards a collision course and it is really now or never: if we don’t alter the course towards a circular economy today, then when? When will it become urgent enough for us to take action? Which disaster is needed for us to wake up? We desperately need substitutes for the current neo-liberal paradigm, which underlies our linear society and prevents us from becoming an economy of well-being In Entrepreneuring a regenerative society I propose three research themes – ‘entrepreneurship as social change’, ‘reclaiming value’ and ‘the aesthetics of sustainability’ – as alternative ways of embracing, studying and co-creating such a novel reality. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-poldner-a003473/
MULTIFILE
Business innovation is a multidisciplinary area of expertise that bridges the gap between traditional areas of study such as business administration, organizational studies, marketing, design, engineering and entrepreneurship. Business innovation focuses on creating, accelerating and managing new and sustainable business models through innovation (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Keeley, Walters, Pikkel, and Quinn, 2013).
DOCUMENT
Since the film of Al Gore An inconvenient truth, sustainability stands high on the national agenda of most countries. Concern for the environment is one of the main reasons in combination with opportunities to innovate. In general, innovation and entrepreneurship are important in the realm of national economies because they hold the key to the continuity and growth of companies (e.g. Hage, 1999; Cooper, 1987; Van de Ven, 2007) and economic growth within a country. It is therefore obvious that national governments are investing money to enable and improve innovation management and entrepreneurial behaviour within organizations with sustainability in mind. Policy measures are aimed at reduction of carbon dioxide emission, waste management and alternative use of energy sources and materials. In line with these measures companies are urged to integrate sustainability in their business processes and search for innovative sustainable solutions. While on a national level policy measures towards a more sustainable society are defined, enterprises - and especially small and medium sized companies - lag behind and fail in incorporating these measures appropriately in their day-to day business. As a result research for sustainability has become an important driver for innovation. Within the Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CI&E) at The Hague University of Applied Sciences we have taken the initiative to develop an innovation and research program for the construction industry to help small and medium sized companies (SME's) integrate sustainability in their business processes, while simultaneously professionalizing students and lecturers. This paper is part of ongoing research among 40 companies in the region of South-Holland. The companies are mostly SME's varying from very small (6 employees) to middle-sized (more than 100). According to Rennings (2000) while innovation processes toward sustainable development have received increasing attention during the past years, theoretical and methodological approaches to analyse these processes are poorly developed. This paper describes a theoretical approach developed at our university's Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which combines education and research. It is an inductive approach that departs from real-life problems encountered by companies, and is aimed at developing a model that supports companies in integrating sustainability in their business and innovation processes. We describe the experiences so far with a number of companies in the construction industry, which participate in the innovation and research program described above and the barriers they encounter. Our sustainable program is centred on four themes: cradle-to-cradle, social corporate responsibility, climateneutral construction and sustainability and customer orientation in the building process. It is an exploratory research in which students and undergraduates are involved under the supervision of a lecturer as senior researcher of this program. Through an in-depth analysis of the companies, participant observation and indepth interviews with the owners/directors of the companies, experts and prominent sustainable trendsetters, insight is gained in innovation processes towards sustainable development. Preliminary conclusions show that on a company level one of the main bottlenecks is the dilemma posed by the need for profit for the continuity of a company, while taking into account people and planet. The main bottleneck is however the inability of companies to translate policy measures into strategy and operations. This paper is set up as follows. In section 2 we give an account of European and Dutch policy measures geared at stimulating sustainability in a business context and especially the building and construction industry. In section 3 an overview is given of the economic importance and characteristics of the Dutch building and construction industry and the problems in this sector. These problems are offset against the opportunity of sustainability as a strategic option for SME's in this sector. In section 4 the innovation and research program developed at the CI&E is introduced in the context of the main research question. Following that in section 5, methodological choices are addressed and the research design is presented. We finalize this paper in section 6 with our conclusions and recommendations for further research.
DOCUMENT
