Environmental entrepreneurship as a multi‐component and dynamic construct: Duality of goals, environmental agency, and environmental value creation
| Author | Jose Joaquin Cespedes‐Lorente,Raquel Antolin‐Lopez,Javier Martinez‐del‐Rio |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12229 |
| Published date | 01 October 2019 |
| Date | 01 October 2019 |
Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:407–422. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer
|
407
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
We are caught up in a par adox, one which mi ght be
called the par adox of conceptua lization. The pr oper
concepts are ne eded to formulate a go od theory,
but we need a good th eory to arriv e at the proper
concepts.
Abraham Kaplan
1 | INTRODUCTION
In recent years, we h ave witnessed the exace rbation of environmen‐
tal problems , such as climate change, natural dis asters, Arctic melt‐
ing, and water sc arcity, to such a magni tude that they have b een
included on the l ist of societal Grand Ch allenges (Howard‐Grenv ille,
Buckle, Hosk ins, & George, 2014). Grand Cha llenges is a recent term
adopted by schol ars and practitione rs to refer to urgent, unres olved
global problems whose resolution requires innovation, and science
on a grand scal e (George, Howard‐Grenv ille, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016).
Solving the Gr and Challenges requires chang ing conventional b usi‐
ness approach es that have proven insu fficient to fi ght major sus‐
tainabilit y related proble ms in favor of new and ent repreneuria l
approaches to building, designing and leading organizations that
contribute to re‐e stablishin g the balance bet ween nature and e co‐
nomic activi ties (Antolin‐Lopez & M ontiel, 2018).
Given this scenario, environmental entrepreneurship (EE) has be‐
come an important global phenomenon in both academia and prac‐
tice due to its promise to solve urgent environmental challenges (e.g.,
Cohen & Winn, 2007; Dean & McMullen, 2007). EE is conceived as
a conduit to address not only institutional, technological, and mar‐
ket shifts but also the innovations needed to make society more
environmentally friendly (e.g., Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; York
& Venkataraman, 2010). Indeed, environmental entrepreneurs can
bring radical change and have been described as the solution to en‐
vironmental challenges (Antolin‐Lopez & Montiel, 2018). The central
Received:13Marc h2018
|
Revised:20Aug ust2018
|
Accepted:8Marc h2019
DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12229
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Environmental entrepreneurship as a multi‐component and
dynamic construct: Duality of goals, environmental agency, and
environmental value creation
Raquel Antolin‐Lopez | Javier Martinez‐del‐Rio | Jose Joaquin Cespedes‐Lorente
Departamento de Economía y
Empresa, Universidad de Almeria, Almeria,
Spain
Correspondence
Raquel Antolin‐Lopez, Departamento
de Economía y Emp resa, Universid ad de
Almeria, Ct ra. Sacramento s/n, 0 4120, La
Cañada de Sa n Urbano, Almeria , Spain.
Email: raquel.antolin@ual.es
Funding information
Spanish Minis try of Economy, Indus try
and Competitiveness, Agencia Nacional
de Investiga ción‐AEI, and the Eur opean
Regional Development Fund, Grant/Award
Number: R&D P roject ECO2015‐6650 4‐P
Abstract
Environmental entr epreneurship (EE) is a s cholarly field t hat has gained trac tion in
recent years under th e premise that it might represent a sol ution to pressing environ‐
mental grand chal lenges. Despite subs tantial advance s in recent decades , the field
still lacks consens us on the conceptualization of EE. The lack of a set tled and unified
notion of EE hinders the p rogress of the field be cause it challenge s EE’s legitimacy,
hampers theoretical development, creates measurement, and empirical problems. In
this study, we aim to provide an integr ative theoretical conceptualization of EE th at
can help build brid ges between fragmented views of the p henomenon. First, we per‐
form a systematic lite rature review to identify existin g definitions of EE, and second,
we follow an inductive a pproach to analyze th em. Drawing on past definitions, we
propose EE as a multi‐comp onent and dynamic construc t that consists of three inter‐
related core component s: duality of goals, environmenta l agency, and environmental
value creation. Thi s conceptualization of EE might h elp connect the fr agmented lit‐
erature and build inte rnal coherence, and it could be ins trumental to further d evelop‐
ing the current theo retical approaches that inform th e phenomenon.
408
|
ANTOLIN‐LOPEZ ET AL.
idea in the field is that the activities performed by environmental en‐
trepreneurs in pursuit of opportunities do not undermine the natural
environment in which they operate and even contribute to restoring
and sustaining both nature and ecosystems.
EE has developed int o a burgeoning scholarly fiel d that attracts
scholarly at tention across a gr owing range of disci plines (Gast,
Gundolf, & Cesinge r, 2017). The first spe cial issues dedicated to EE
were published i n 1998 in the J. of Organizational Change Management
and in 2002 in Greener Management International. Recently,
there have been sp ecial issues in ent repreneurs hip and manage‐
ment journals on EE [e. g., Small Business Economics J. (Demirel, Li,
Rentocchini, & Tamvada, 2017)] or w ith EE as a core topic [e.g., the
J. of Business Venturin g (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010)] and the J. of
Management Studies (Markman, Russo, L umpkin, Jenn ings, & Mair,
2016). In addition, the re is an EE track in th e Organizatio n and the
Natural Environment division of the Academy of Management, and
conferences on EE (e.g ., Internationa l Conference on Gr een and
Environmenta l Entrepreneur ship) have emerged. A ll of this can be
considered evid ence that EE is gainin g a level of maturit y and dis‐
tinctivene ss as a field of knowledge. Bot h the existence of acade mic
EE centers and the in creasing inclu sion of EE courses in bu siness
curricula worldwide also seem to support that EE is gaining institu‐
tionalized tra ction in academia. F inally, EE has also gained legi timacy
among practitioners and policymakers. For example, many govern‐
ments have speci fic programmes for the promot ion of EE activities
(e.g., H2020 of the Euro pean Union).
However, although rese arch on EE has spann ed a period of al‐
most 30 years (Benn ett, 1991; Berle, 1991; Blue, 1990) and is gain‐
ing legitimac y as a field of knowle dge, the EE field s till must reach
a consensus on the co nceptualizati on of EE (Santini, 2017)—tha t is,
what falls under the u mbrella of EE? It has been ar gued that EE is easy
to recognize but hard t o describe because it encom passes different
phenomena, leading to disparate descriptions (Schaltegger, 2002;
Schaper, 2002). Con sequently, there has bee n a proliferation of defi‐
nitions of EE (one‐third of t he articles on EE have prov ided their own
definitions) tha t largely var y in their descri ptions of the phen ome‐
non. For exampl e, whereas some schola rs center their definiti ons on
the motivation s for EE (e.g., Kearins & Co llins, 2012), other s focus
on opportun ity (e.g., Dean & McMullen , 2007), environmental in no‐
vation (e.g., Pas takia, 1998), agency (e. g., Isaak, 20 02), and EE out‐
comes (e.g., Hend rickson & Tuttle, 1997). These definit ions present
conceptual nuan ces and offer on ly a partial pic ture of what EE is
since they captu re only one or several aspect s of the phenomenon,
and they are disco nnected because th ey do not generally build u pon
previous ones . Consequentl y, we still lack an integra ted vision of
what EE is and what it ent ails.
Although the e xistence of diff erent definiti ons has contribut ed
to enriching the f ield, and it is importan t to offer different persp ec‐
tives in an incipie nt field, the lack of a settled, a nd unified conce p‐
tualization of EE at t his stage is creat ing confusion, wi th negative
consequences f or its progres s as a field. Firs t, we cannot es tablish
either internal coherence or cohesion (identity) or external valid‐
ity (distinc tiveness) for the field in the abs ence of an agreement on
what the phenom enon is (MacKenzie, 2 003). Second , this lack of a
unified conceptualization hampers theory development. We cannot
establish a co herent theoretic al basis in the absence of a cle ar notion
of what EE is. The mean ing of EE is stretched i n slightly diff erent
conceptual dire ctions each ti me a theoretic al rationale is pr ovided,
which may lead to inc onclusive theories. This lac k of clarity implies
that research t hat seeks to uncover t he cause‐and‐ef fect rela‐
tionships bet ween EE and other co nstructs (e .g., antecedent s and
consequences) is built on shifting sands, which makes it difficult to
accumulate know ledge. Third, a poor concept ualization also hinders
empirical development because it challenges the operationalization
of the construc t. An incomplete or biased con cept of EE might lead
to measures that o nly partiall y represent the c onstruct an d/or are
contaminated by u nrelated fact ors (MacKenzie, 20 03). Finally, the
absence of an accepte d conceptual framewor k obstructs the for mu‐
lation of relevant i mplications for practi ce (e.g., for the creation and
management of new green ventures). Therefore, it ultimately risks
the fulfillme nt of the EE promise, which is to reduce env ironmental
impacts and solve, or even reverse, environmental challenges.
In this study, our goal i s to provide an integr ative and compre‐
hensive conceptu alization of EE that can help b uild bridges between
disconnected and fragmented views of the phenomenon, thereby
moving the fiel d forward. Fir st, we perf orm a systemati c literature
review to identif y existing definition s of EE because a good concep‐
tualization sh ould be consisten t and emanate from p revious litera‐
ture (MacKenzie, 20 03); second, we f ollow an induct ive approach
to analyze thos e definitions wit h the aim of identif ying defini ng
attributes a nd variances. D rawing on past de finitions, we con trib‐
ute to the literatu re by proposing that EE is a multi‐comp onent and
dynamic construct that consists of three intrinsic, interrelated core
components: duality of goals, environmental agency, and environ‐
mental value cr eation. This conceptuali zation of EE might help unite
the previous literature, build internal coherence, and be instrumen‐
tal in advanci ng key research avenues on EE . Therefore, our rese arch
objective dif fers from and s upplements r ecent review art icles that
aim to take stock of EE re search, for ins tance, its ante cedents and
outcomes (Gast e t al., 2017) as well as theo ries and curre nt trends
(e.g., Santini, 2017) . It is importa nt to distinguish b etween the‐
ory (statement s of relations bet ween concepts) an d concept (a set
of propertie s that form a unit) (Fr ynas & Yamahaki, 2016). As r ef‐
erenced in Kapl an’s opening quotat ion, EE has been an d—we are
sure—will be a usefu l concept to develop “good theory.” Our aim is
to connect and b uild upon curren t EE conceptualizat ions to “arrive
at a proper EE concept ” that can provide more s olid theoretical bas e
for future theoretical developments.
2 | METHOD
2.1 | Samp le and data collection
With the aim of ide ntifying existing def initions of EE, we followed a
systematic lit erature review proce ss (see, Tranfield, Denye r, & Smart,
2003). The fi rst objective was to ident ify research artic les on EE. To
To continue reading
Request your trial