Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Planetary demands: Redefining sustainable development and

sustainable entrepreneurship
Harry Hummels a, b, *, Aikaterini Argyrou c
a
School of Business and Economics, Finance Department, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
b
Utrecht School of Economics, Entrepreneurship Department, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80125, 3508, TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
c
Nyenrode Business University Center for Entrepreneurship, Governance & Stewardship, Nyenrode Business University, Straatweg 25, 3621 BG Breukelen,
PO Box 130, 3620, AC, Breukelen, the Netherlands

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

Article history: In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD) provided a seminal definition
Received 14 February 2020 of sustainable development, which has become the landmark for countless governments, businesses and
Received in revised form civil society organizations to contribute to a sustainable world. And yet, it is precisely the nuanced
20 June 2020
approach of the WECD e focusing simultaneously on the protection of nature, the creation of economic
Accepted 14 August 2020
Available online 22 August 2020
welfare, and social inclusion that threatens the boundaries of the Earth system. Governments and en-
terprises fail to respect the planetary boundaries. Hence, they compromise the ability of future gener-
ations to meet their needs. Their focus on economic value creation for present generations ignores to a
Keywords:
Sustainable development
large extent the potential consequences for generations to come and creates a ‘tragedy of the commons’.
Sustainable entrepreneurship As a result, many enterprises unjustifiably picture themselves as contributing to sustainable develop-
Planetary boundaries ment. This calls for a revised definition of sustainable development that allows for the pursuit of eco-
Externalities Brundtland Commission nomic growth but requires compliance with the planetary boundaries. A potential way out of the tragedy
Interface is offered by sustainable entrepreneurship that promotes economic growth while intends to overcome
sustainability related challenges through the creation and distribution of solutions. However, sustainable
entrepreneurs and enterprises should be more explicit about their contribution to the transgression of
the planetary boundaries along the lines of a more strictly defined concept of sustainable development.
An example of a leading company is provided that operationalizes sustainable development in a way to
not transgress these boundaries.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (Rockstro€m et al., 2009a, 2009b; Steffen et al., 2015) and its human
carrying capacity (Brown et al., 1987; Ehrlich, 1968). More in
1
The world today is not sustainable, not resilient and not fair for particular the challenges include, inter alia, excessive air and water
the majority of mankind. Human activity, and more in particular pollution, deforestation, natural resource scarcity, climate change,
economic activity, pushes the planet beyond its natural boundaries. overpopulation, migration, massive poverty, social inequality,
Some of the most significant challenges to what Reid et al. (2010) discrimination, and the consequences of war including terrorism.
have called the ‘Earth system’,2 relate to its planetary boundaries These challenges to the climate and the natural environment have
been the result of only a few centuries of industrial economic
development, with limited attention for environmental and social
* Corresponding author. externalities. Except for a scarce antecedent contribution (Malthus,
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Hummels), a. 1826), it was only since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent
[email protected] (A. Argyrou). Spring in 1962, Paul Ehrlich’s The population bomb in 1968, and the
1
The authors would like to thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their
excellent comments on a previous version of the article. The quality of our work has
Club of Rome’s The limits to growth in 1972, that governments,
benefitted from their feedback. corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and aca-
2
Reid et al. (2010, p. 917) define the ‘Earth system’ as “the physical, chemical, demics have gradually come to understand the limitations of the
biological, and social components, processes, and interactions that together once presumed limitless and never ending strive for (economic)
determine the state and dynamics of Earth, including its biota and human
progress. Science and technology demonstrate that the
occupants”.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123804
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

consequences of the existing economic, social and environmental investigated the environmental, social, and governance challenges
challenges become threatening to the (human) existence on this that global society faced in the 1980s (WCED, 1987). Human and
planet and to Earth as we know it (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974; ecological survival was tightly coupled to uneven development,
Rockstro€m et al., 2009a, 2009b). Acknowledging the Earth’s population growth and increasing poverty. “They all place un-
decline, respecting its planetary boundaries is more imperative precedented pressures on the planet’s lands, waters, forests, and
than ever before (Salmivaara and Kibler, 2020). At the heart of other natural resources, not least in the developing countries”
‘sustainable development’ in the way conceived by the World (WCED, 1987, p. 14). In its report, Our Common Future, the Brundt-
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), is the land Commission outlined new opportunities for economic growth,
belief that economic prosperity, human development and envi- based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental
ronmental protection are interrelated. In a world faced with envi- resource base (WCED, 1987). Growth is “absolutely essential to
ronmental degradation, inequality, injustice, poverty, and a lack of relieve the great poverty that is deepening in much of the devel-
development opportunities for people, economic growth is a sine oping world” (WCED, 1987, p. 18). To accommodate the needs of the
qua non. Although it may be true, as the WCED argues, that respect developing world, the Brundtland Commission introduced the
for the environment depends on economic growth and human concept of ‘sustainable development’ as a development that:
progress, the ways in which previous and current societies have “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
implemented the agenda for development is full of conflicting in- of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 24).
terests that potentially threaten life on Earth. Society is confronted Obviously, this formula is vague and the Brundtland Commis-
with “parallel discourses” (Redclift, 2005) on economic growth, sion is aware of the elusiveness of the concept, when it acknowl-
social development, and environmental protection (cf. Daly, 2007), edges that “sustainable development is not a fixed state of
resulting in a potential clash between the interests and needs of the harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation
present generations and the ability of future generations to meet of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of tech-
their needs (WCED, 1987; Mebratu, 1998). One way to overcome the nological development, and institutional change are made consis-
potential dichotomy between present and future generations and tent with future as well as present needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 25).
the tension between the discourses, is provided by ‘sustainable What makes sustainable development such a challenging concept,
entrepreneurship’. Dean and McMullen (2007, p. 58) define sus- is the interrelatedness between economic prosperity, human
tainable entrepreneurship as: “the process of discovering, evalu- development and environmental protection. Poverty, for instance,
ating, and exploiting economic opportunities that are present in negatively impacts sustainable development, according to the
market failures which detract from sustainability, including those Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987). A world in which poverty is
that are environmentally relevant”. There is a positive undertone in endemic will continue to provide ecological challenges on a global
this type of entrepreneurship that can potentially help to address scale that push the boundaries of life on this planet. It is for this
the environmental decline of the planet while respecting the reason that the Brundtland Commission calls upon government for
planetary boundaries. Increasingly, enterprises ranging from small “a return to multilateralism” and “cooperation” (WCED, 1987, p. 12)
startups to multinationals claim to contribute to a more sustainable to overcome poverty, while acknowledging that “at a minimum,
future. A case in point is provided by the American Business sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems
Roundtable (2019). In its restatement of the purpose of the cor- that support life on Earth” (WCED, 1987, p. 44). It is precisely the
poration, the Roundtable commits to respecting the people in our vagueness of the Brundtland Commission’s operationalization of
communities and protecting the environment “by embracing sus- sustainable development, providing no guidance regarding the
tainable practices across our businesses” (American Business endangering of the natural systems, that has contributed to trans-
Roundtable, 2019). When markets increasingly offer opportunities gression of the planetary boundaries.
for producing and selling environmentally friendly products and
services, which are widely adopted by previously unrestrained
advocates of shareholder capitalism, society may be looking at the 3. How ‘sustainable’ is sustainable development?
emperor’s new clothes. Even though sustainable entrepreneurship
can make a significant contribution in improving environmental The focus on economic growth leads to the question whether
sustainability while running a profitable business (cf. Davies and sustainable development becomes an oxymoron ever since past
Chambers, 2018; Dean and McMullen, 2007; Gast et al., 2017; generations have put economic growth center stage without giving
Horne et al., 2020; Pinkse and Groot, 2015; Teran-Yepez et al., too much notice to the negative externalities (cf. Daly, 2007;
2020), numerous enterprises fail to balance the needs of present Lankoski, 2016; Mebratu, 1998). Over time, the moral claim of eq-
and future generations by insufficiently respecting the planetary uity and sustainability in Our common future (WCED, 1987) has
boundaries. This partly has to do with the lack of clarity in the turned into a utilitarian outlook towards the future we have in
definition of the WCED, which does not set strict limits to envi- common e or more accurately: the tragedy we have in common
ronmental degradation. In order to overcome this lack of clarity, we (Hardin, 1968). To better understand the fundamental flaw in the
will critically assess the concept of sustainable development and conceptualization of ‘sustainable development’ in Our Common
describe how it is being used in the sustainable entrepreneurship Future we have to go back in history. When John Locke (1689)
literature. This will be followed by an analysis of sustainable en- argued for adding one’s labour to the commons and produce and
trepreneurship’s potential to address “market failures which appropriate the outcomes of this labour, he imposed two re-
detract from sustainability” (Dean and McMullen, 2007, p. 58) strictions. The first deals with the limitation of production to that
while respecting the planetary boundaries. As a result, we propose amount that people consume. He was the first to call for a ‘no waste
a stricter definition of ‘sustainable development’ than that of the
WCED.

2. The concept of sustainable development

From 1983 to 1987, the WCEDe also known and referred to in

this article interchangeably as the ‘Brundtland Commission’ e
 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804 3

policy’. The second limitation or proviso was that production and et al., 2009a, 2009b), scientist have become increasingly critical
appropriation are allowed as long as there is still enough and as good about the notion of sustainable development and argue for the
left for others. In the words of Locke (1689, p. 118): “Nobody could need to set absolute limits. The first step to redefine sustainable
think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he development was taken by Griggs et al. (2013, p. 306). The authors
took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left described it as: “the development that meets the needs of the
him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where present while safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which
there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.” In the 17th century, the welfare of current and future generations depends” (Griggs
production and appropriation may have respected this Lockean et al., 2014, p. 49). This definition, however, is still in need of
proviso,3 but in the 21st century, it is mainly the developed world clear demarcation lines to prevent transgression of essential envi-
that continues to add livestock to the commons thereby leaving ronmental thresholds. As Foley (2017) argues, since we cannot
“not enough and as good” for the developing world behind e now break the laws of physics, society has to respect the boundaries of
and in the future. As Salmivaara and Kibler (2020) demonstrate, the “safe operating space” (Rockstro €m et al., 2009a, 2009b; Steffen
present generations endorse entrepreneurial activities presumed to et al., 2015) and limit emissions that structurally and over a long
contribute to sustainable development, while ignoring the possi- period of time transgress these boundaries in nine critical areas:
bility that entrepreneurship “potentially produce[s] negative out- climate change, novel entities, stratospheric ozone depletion, at-
comes” (Salmivaara and Kibler, 2020, p. 24). mospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, biochemical flows
Finding solutions to the grand environmental challenges of (nitrogen and phosphorus), freshwater use, land-system change,
present times, while creating economic growth, has raised ques- biosphere integrity, genetic diversity.4 The urgency of taking
tions about the elusiveness of ‘sustainable development’ (Brown measures is determined by the extent and the duration with which
et al., 1987; Lankoski, 2016; Pater and Cristea, 2016; Shearman, the boundaries are exceeded. At present, this means that action is
1990; White, 2013). What are the needs of the present and future most required in areas dealing with nitrogen, phosphorus, genetic
generations? What is the relation between the limits to the envi- diversity (Steffen et al., 2015), and fresh water (Jaramillo and
ronment and economic growth? Do we really need economic Destouni, 2015). Emissions may have gone beyond “the zone of
growth as Brundtland Commission claims, or do we need a redis- uncertainty” in other areas as well. That means that they pose a
tribution of access to and outcomes of economic prosperity while direct threat to specific parts or regions of the Earth system and
limiting the use of natural resources? The World Bank already require remedy. The size and nature of this remediation are, how-
noticed in 1985 that sustainable economic development depends ever, a matter of “analytic deliberations” (Dietz et al., 2003; Sachs,
on sound environmental management (Holdren et al., 1995). Ac- 2004) e the process of bringing together stakeholders in a
cording to the authors, such sustainable development requires a science-based process of consensus building.
process or condition “that can be maintained indefinitely without Past, current and future generations are not the ‘Lockean
progressive diminution of valued qualities inside or outside the owners’ of our planet. Society cannot freely decide about the pro-
system in which the process operates or the condition prevails” duction and appropriation of the outputs and outcomes of our la-
(Holdren et al., 1995, p. 3; cf. IUCN, 1991). This “dictionary defini- bour without at least protecting the ability of future generations to
tion” is not particularly helpful to guide practical decision-making meet their needs. As the business world e ranging from agriculture
(Holdren et al., 1995; Constanza and Patten, 1995). Sustainable to fossil fuel exploitation and from transportation to utilities and
development requires tough choices. Some of these choices come (financial) service industries e significantly contributes to the
from the fact that “our planet has fundamental limits imposed by transgression of the limits, the private sector has an important role
physics and biology, and we humans cannot sustain activities that to play in overcoming the tragedy. Increasingly, enterprises and
go far beyond those fundamental limits. Naturally, these limits are corporations say that they take sustainable development seriously
not always immediate and absolute: we can often cross a limit for a as part of their business models (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hockerts
while, but we can’t stay there sustainably without risking great and Wüstenhagen, 2010; York and Venkataraman, 2010). However,
harm to the environment and society.” (Foley, 2017, p. 251) As a the question arises if and to what extent the latest insights
result, Sachs (2004) points out, sustainable development requires regarding the planetary boundaries have been sufficiently reflected
making political choices. No technical solution can solve economic, in the study of sustainable businesses, including sustainable
social and environmental system problems (Hardin, 1968). Society entrepreneurship. As sustainable entrepreneurs are at the forefront
is faced with what Hardin called ‘the tragedy of the commons’, of creating economic growth that leads to positive externalities for
resulting in individual appropriation of common goods and not the planet (Liu et al., 2018; Reid et al., 2010; Walker, 2009), do they
leave behind “enough and as good” for others. Hardin pictured a respect the boundaries and contribute to a reduction of the emis-
common pasture in which it is rational for each herdsman to keep sions to water, soil and air? The remainder of this article explores to
as many cattle as possible and maximize his utility. This strategy what extent sustainable entrepreneurship, in its attempts to
works well, as long as there are no limits to the commons and every contribute to sustainable development, takes into account the idea
herdsman can add cattle without having a negative impact on other of planetary boundaries. In the next section, we will assess the
herdsmen e either qualitatively or quantitatively. Unfortunately for extent to which the sustainable entrepreneurship literature posi-
the present generations, “at this point, Hardin (1968, p. 1244) tions itself in explicitly assessing:
writes, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates
tragedy”. - Negative externalities created through sustainable entrepre-
Based on the definition of planetary boundaries (Rockstro €m neurial interventions;
- Compliance with the planetary boundaries; and

3
Locke himself, however, was already skeptical about this idea when he de-
scribes in section 35 the situation in England, “where there are many people living
4
under a government” that “no-one can enclose or appropriate any part of any We need to understand that these nine boundaries are mainly the result of our
common land without the consent of all his fellow-commoners”. In Locke’s world, past production and appropriation processes. This means that the planetary
at the end of the 17th century, there was “land enough in the world to suffice twice boundaries do not consist of a fixed set of environmental challenges and can change
as many people as there are” (Locke, 1689 section 36). over time as a result of our current and future economic taking of the commons.
4 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

- Strategies to balance the constituent elements of sustainable support systems” (Strivers, 1976, quoted in Hockerts and
development, being economic prosperity, environmental pro- Wüstenhagen, 2010, p. 484). Others, like Santos (2012), refer to
tection and human development. the removal of (negative) externalities as an important government
responsibility. By developing institutional mechanisms, i.e. “regu-
As an illustration, Interface Inc. will be introduced as a company lation”, “taxation” and/or “market”’ mechanisms governments in-
that actively reduces its emissions and waste and collaborates with fluence corporate decision-making and contribute to discouraging
partners to reduce the value chain’s environmental footprint. negative externalities or encouraging positive externalities (Santos,
2012, p. 341). The responsibility to remove or overcome negative
4. The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship externalities, though, is not restricted to governments only. Market
players or influencers like businesses e including sustainable en-
Entrepreneurs always play some role in society (Baumol, 1990, p. trepreneurs e, multilateral organizations, consumers, civil society
894), leading to numerous innovations including, but not limited to, organizations, and academics have a responsibility as well. A pro-
the introduction of a new good or service, the improvement of cess of change and societal transformation can be positively
present goods and services, the use of new production methods, impacted through private organizations, i.e. entrepreneurs “who
entering a new market, or carrying out the new organization of an establish or modify institutions to reduce transaction costs” (Dean
industry by creating, for example, a monopoly (Schumpeter, 1934). and McMullen, 2007, p. 62). In doing so, they are motivated by
According to Baumol (1990), the role of entrepreneurship in busi- market failures that lead to environmental degradation and “pro-
ness may be significant, but is not always productive. It sometimes vide entrepreneurial opportunities whose exploitation promises
includes activities of questionable value to society, such as emitting profit and improvements in social welfare” (Dean and McMullen,
greenhouse gasses and contributing to global warming. Entrepre- 2007, p. 58). Entrepreneurship is therefore believed to simulta-
neurship, as the pursuit of opportunities (Stevenson et al., 1989) neously provide for institutional change and societal trans-
beyond the resources controlled by the entrepreneur (Eisenmann, formation (Santos, 2012; Stål and Bonnedahl, 2016; Salmivaara and
2013), should therefore be scrutinized for the creation of positive Kibler, 2020).
and negative (environmental) outputs and outcomes. Noticing the importance of balancing the demands of the
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship research particularly economy and the ecological support systems, the question arises
regard the understanding of the discovery, exploitation and crea- what should be sustained through entrepreneurship and what can
tion of entrepreneurial opportunities (Carter, 2006; Dean and be developed. Shepherd and Patzelt (2011, p. 149) examine partic-
McMullen, 2007; Venkataraman, 1997). Entrepreneurs depend on ularly “the mechanism of inducing change” based on “what is
business opportunities to seek value-creation. Such opportunities sustained and what is developed?” in sustainable entrepreneur-
might exist due to “the partitioning of knowledge among in- ship. The authors examine what is to be sustained, i.e.
dividuals” which do not possess the same information concerning environment-friendly institutions, community-based institutions,
the market economy and/or market failures (Venkataraman, 1997, and institutional trade-offs. They also examine what is to be
p. 122). Influencing factors are, among others, “information asym- developed, i.e.: economic benefits, and non-economic gains for
metry and prior knowledge”, “social networks”, “the entrepreneur’ others (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011, p. 151). The question is, how-
personality traits” and/or “type of opportunity” (Ardichvili et al., ever, whether and to what extent the core elements that we pre-
2003, p. 106). Under an effectuation logic and in complex situa- sented in the previous section (i.e., ex-ante assessment of negative
tions the entrepreneurial process might regard the “creation of the externalities, complying with the planetary boundaries and
opportunity” apart from opportunity discovery and identification balancing economic growth, environmental protection and human
(Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 249). However, several obstacles prohibit op- development) are reflected in the wide range of definitions of
portunity exploitation, identification and discovery (Dean and sustainable entrepreneurship. An overview of scholarly approaches
McMullen, 2007). These obstacles can be inherent in market fail- towards sustainable entrepreneurship can be found in Table 1. This
ures (Dean and McMullen, 2007, p. 61), inhibiting the efficient table is based on research by Mun ~ oz and Cohen (2018, p. 306) and
functioning of the market. Often, there are externalities, i.e. costs or complemented with additional definitions published in the years of
benefits of transactions on third parties other than those involved 2014e2019.
in the transaction itself without their knowledge or permission
(Dean and McMullen, 2007; Santos, 2012). Depending on their 5. Sustainable entrepreneurship and the planetary
beneficial or damaging effect to third parties, externalities are boundaries
divided into positive and/or negative (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean
and McMullen, 2007; Santos, 2012). A negative externality is, for The definitions of sustainable entrepreneurship in the previous
instance, the cost of environmental pollution due to industrial ac- section have in common that they focus on economic value creation
tivity; whereas an example of a positive externality is the value of and economic development, while simultaneously creating positive
individual education improved skills and knowledge used for the social and environmental outcomes. Sustainable entrepreneurship
welfare of society. Negative externalities allow the individual is perceived as a contribution to solving environmental problems
benefit (e.g. earned by industrial activity) to exceed the collective and achieving environmental protection (Cohen and Winn, 2007;
benefit (e.g. enjoying a clean environment) of society. Positive ex- Dean and McMullen, 2007), while sizing business opportunities in
ternalities allow the collective benefit (e.g. welfare) of society to parallel (Thompson et al., 2011). With the rise of awareness among
exceed the individual benefit (e.g. education). sustainable entrepreneurs and within sustainable enterprises and
The market neglects negative externalities and fails to ensure their spotting of opportunities for innovation, it is expected that
the sustainability of natural assets, as Dean and McMullen (2007, market failures will diminish (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Hockerts and
pp. 55e56) argue. It diminishes the Earth’s ability to provide for Wüstenhagen, 2010). Entrepreneurship is seen as “the engine of
future generations. Traditionally and as a result of market imper- sustainable development”, expecting that its innovative power
fections, Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010) point out, environ- “will bring about the next industrial revolution and a more sus-
mental scientists and economists have called for a limit to growth tainable future” (Pacheco et al., 2010, p. 464). This development
(Meadows et al., 1972) and a steady state economy (Daly, 1973). takes place in societies that call for a “sustainability transformation
Economic progress should be “in equilibrium with basic ecological of industry”, leading enterprises to internalize costs that were
 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804 5

Table 1
Scholarly definitions of the sustainable entrepreneurship concept.

Authors Definition

Crals and Vereeck (2004) Sustainable entrepreneurship is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while
improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families, local communities, the society and the world at large as well as future
generations
Cohen and Winn (2007) Sustainable entrepreneurship as the examination of how opportunities to bring into existence future goods and services are discovered,
created and exploited, by whom and with what economic, psychological, social and environmental consequences.
Dean and McMullen (2007) Sustainable entrepreneurship is the process of discovering, evaluating and exploiting economic opportunities that are present in market
failures, which detract from sustainability, including those that are environmentally relevant.
Katsikis and Sustainable entrepreneurship is the teleological process aiming at the achievement of sustainable development, by discovering, evaluating
Kyrgidou (2007) and exploiting opportunities and creating value that produces economic prosperity, social cohesion and environmental protection.
Parrish and Foxon (2006) Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship describes those entrepreneurial activities in which the central guiding purpose is to make a
substantial contribution to sustainable development. More specifically, sustainability entrepreneurs design ventures with the primary
intention of contributing to improved environmental quality and social well-being in ways that are mutually supportive.
Tilley and Young (2006) A sustainability entrepreneur is an individual who holistically integrates the goals of economic, social and environmental entrepreneurship
into an organization that is sustainable in its goal and sustainable in its form of wealth generation.
O’Neill et al. (2006) Sustainability entrepreneurship is a process of venture creation that links the activities of entrepreneurs to the emergence of value-creating
enterprises that contribute to the sustainable development of the socialeecological system.
Hockerts and Sustainable entrepreneurship is the discovery and exploitation of economic opportunities through the generation of market disequilibria
Wüstenhagen (2010) that initiate the transformation of a sector towards an environmentally and socially more sustainable state.
Pacheco et al. (2010) Sustainable entrepreneurship is the discovery, creation, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to create future goods and services that
is consistent with sustainable development goals.
Kuckertz and Sustainable development-oriented entrepreneurs are those individuals with entrepreneurial intentions who aim to manage a triple bottom
Wagner (2010) line.
Patzelt and Shepherd (2011) Sustainable entrepreneurship is the discovery, creation and exploitation of opportunities to create future goods and services that sustain the
natural and/or communal environment and provide development gain for others.
Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on the preservation of nature, life support and community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities
to bring into existence future products, processes and services for gain, where gain is broadly construed to include economic and non-
economic gains to individuals, the economy and society.
Schaltegger and Sustainable entrepreneurship can be described as an innovative, market-oriented and personality-driven form of creating economic and
Wagner (2011) societal value by means of breakthrough environmentally or socially beneficial market or institutional innovations.
Lans et al. (2014) Sustainable entrepreneurship is seen as a way of generating competitive advantage by identifying sustainability as new business
opportunities, resulting in new and sustainable products, methods of production or ways of organizing business processes in a sustainable
way.
Belz and Binder (2017) Sustainable entrepreneurship is the recognition, development and exploitation of opportunities by individuals to bring into existence future
goods and services with economic, social and ecological gains.

previously carried by society (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010, p. 5.1. The contribution of sustainable entrepreneurship
484).5 Sustainable development, in this respect, is mainly reflected
as the simultaneous improvement of economic prosperity and We do acknowledge the positive contribution of sustainable and
welfare, environmental quality and protection, social cohesion and environmental entrepreneurship to create a world in which the
well-being, while leaving unclear whether sustainable entrepre- simultaneous preservation and development of the Earth system is
neurship leads to a socially just and ecologically sustainable society enacted (Austin et al., 2006; Emerson, 2003; Zahra et al., 2008). This
(Hall et al., 2010). The vague references to ecological sustainability, is not only achieved through the products and services designed,
such as “sustainable development of the social-ecological system” developed, produced, marketed and recycled by sustainable en-
(O’Neill et al., 2006 p. 34), sustaining “the natural and/or communal trepreneurs, but also through political action (Dean and McMullen,
environment” (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2010, p. 2), preserving “na- 2007; Cohen and Winn, 2007; Pacheco et al., 2010; Pinkse and
ture, life support and community” (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011, p. Groot, 2015). Through collective action sustainable entrepreneurs
137), “bring into existence future goods and services with eco- can influence policy makers in adopting policies that create or
nomic, social and ecological gains” (Belz and Binder, 2017, p. 2) are, support sustainable development (Pacheco et al., 2010; Pinkse and
therefore, a cause of concern. Nowhere, do the definitions address Groot, 2015; Yoffie, 1988). However, these scholars point out that
the tension between potentially irreplaceable ecological support sustainable entrepreneurs often have to deal with market in-
systems and the transgression of the limits to these systems. They cumbents that slow down the process or even prevent progress by
do not call for an ex-ante assessment of the potential environ- stalling to protect their short-term interests e even within industry
mental downside of economic value creation, nor do they address associations that cautiously promote change (Pinkse and Groot,
the need to protect the planetary boundaries. The potential failure 2015, p. 647). The omission to sufficiently address the limits to
of the manifestations of sustainable entrepreneurship in protecting economic growth becomes problematic when even leaders in the
and promoting sustainable development that respects the plane- sustainability indices continue to contribute to the transgression of
tary boundaries therefore requires alertness (Thompson et al., the planetary boundaries (Borland et al., 2016). Obviously, most
2011) toward the consequences of the activities and behaviors of conceptualizations of sustainable development e and some of
businesses, including sustainable entrepreneurs, and their impact sustainable entrepreneurship e pre-dated Rockstro €m et al.’s
on these boundaries. (2009a, 2009b) publications on the planetary boundaries. The
time has come to better understand the real impact that entre-
preneurial economic activity has on our social, environmental and
economic system in general and on the planetary boundaries in
particular. To what extent do entrepreneurs respect or violate the
5
Internalizing costs is just one way for innovation to contribute to sustainable boundaries of the Earth system and help to solve the environmental
development. New products and services can also be designed in ways that pre-
challenges related to these boundaries? That is, to what extent are
vious cost no longer exist.
6 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

sustainable enterprises themselves “living within the constraints order not to systemically undermine the capacity of nature and
and limits of the biophysical world” (Borland et al., 2016, p. 295)? people now and in the future”, such as the planetary boundaries
This calls for clarification and of integrating environmental and (Broman and Robe rt, 2017, p. 22). Shepherd and Patzelt’s (2011)
ecological aspects in entrepreneurship in general and in sustainable definition of sustainable entrepreneurship attempts to explain
entrepreneurship more specifically, in sync with the current liter- “what is to be sustained in sustainable entrepreneurship?” They
ature (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Borland et al., 2016; Broman and define, at a rather general and abstract level: (i) “nature” as “phe-
Robe rt, 2017; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Heikkurinen et al., 2016; nomena of the physical world” which includes the “earth, biodi-
Stål and Bonnedahl, 2016). versity and ecosystems”; (ii) “sources of life” as “a source of
At the micro-level, there is apparent progress and an increased resources and services for the utilitarian life support of humankind”
environmental awareness among individuals and companies which including “the environment, natural resources, and ecosystem
is assisted by industrialized and technological advancements, services”; and finally (iii) “communities” as “a complex web of re-
including social media (Biloslavo et al., 2018). In addition, progress lationships between a set of individuals who share values, norms,
has been made by companies in being more environmentally meanings, history, and identity” including particularly “culture,
responsible, by consumers in gradually changing their patterns of groups, and places” (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011, p. 139). In addition,
consumption and to some extent by governments in imposing the authors elaborate on “What is to be developed in sustainable
regulatory obligations (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Stål and Bonnedahl, entrepreneurship?” including, i.e. “economic gains for the actor
2016). Despite the positive directions that entrepreneurs explore, and/or the society”, “non-economic gains to individuals” (such as
the question remains to what extent their efforts contribute to the child survival, life expectancy, education, equity, and equal oppor-
consumption of natural resources in a way that e directly or indi- tunity) and “non-economic gains to society” (meaning societal
rectly e contributes to the transgression of the planetary bound- gains which are available to all). Despite its usefulness in dis-
aries. Are they aware of the externalities that their enterprises tinguishing between sustainable protection and value creation, the
create? Do they conduct a full assessment of the potential envi- framework of Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) e like the definition of
ronmental outcomes prior to developing new business the Brundtland Commission e leaves open the opportunity for
opportunities? trade-offs between the economic, environmental, and social in-
At the macro-level, the situation seems more problematic. Col- terests without sufficiently guaranteeing the basic requirements for
lective firm actions have resulted in severe pollution and environ- life on Earth. As a result, the framework fails to protect the envi-
mental degradation (Cohen and Winn, 2007), reaffirming that ronment in a dynamic economic and political system in ways that
society still demonstrates the characteristics of a tragedy of the ‘enough and as good’ is left for future generations. Moreover, their
commons. The European National Emissions Ceilings Directive contribution lacks guidance on what policies, activities and (inno-
report (2019) and supportive scholarship (Biloslavo et al., 2018; vative) products and processes lead to micro- and macro-economic
Dyllick and Muff, 2016), for instance, show a decline of the natural progress, while complying fully with the demands of the planetary
environment as a result of the collective outcomes of individual boundaries based on the best available knowledge. This entails that
actions. The European Environment Agency (2019) indicates in the enterprises should not contribute to the transgression of the cur-
report that emission levels are being transgressed by six EU rent boundaries by the industry they are part of and minimizing the
member states, while sixteen EU member states indicate that they risk that they will contribute to future transgressions that poten-
are not on track regarding there national emission levels in 2020. tially impact the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
The Earth’s decline is linked to the extensive use of resources for
years and to the lack of adequate business frameworks and pro- 5.2. Sustainable entrepreneurship and respect for the planetary
cesses of responsible resourcing (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Broman and boundaries
Robe rt, 2017; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Stål and Bonnedahl, 2016).
Nonetheless, it is also linked to the ongoing debate concerning Recently, scholars have pointed to the need of developing a
more ecological sustainability vis-a -vis economic competitive framework that acknowledges and respects the planetary bound-
advantage through technological advancements and innovation aries. Stål and Bonnedahl (2016, p. 75), demonstrate that “economic
without taking into consideration the Earth’s finite capacity value cannot be created without some input of capital originating in
(Biloslavo et al., 2018; Borland et al., 2016; Broman and Robe rt, nature” and recommend that a new framing is needed in sustain-
2017; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Heikkurinen et al., 2016; Stål and able entrepreneurship. However, the idea of continuous economic
Bonnedahl, 2016). Academic approaches that try to effectively growth is at odds with the Earth’s capacity if value creation is un-
connect both are limited. Existing conceptualizations, such as, e.g. derstood as the production and distribution of marketable goods
eco-efficiency, the business case for sustainability, and shared value and services comprising materials, energy and waste which deplete
creation miss a direct reference and positioning of the organization the Earth’s “critical natural capital” beyond market demand which
into the core of the biosphere (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Borland et al., cannot be replaced (Stål and Bonnedahl, 2016, p. 76). Accordingly,
2016; Broman and Robe rt, 2017; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Stål and Bonnedahl (2016, p. 79) argue, entrepreneurial opportu-
Heikkurinen et al., 2016; Stål and Bonnedahl, 2016). Ecological nities can only be conceived as sustaining the Earth’s critical natural
questions are still at the periphery of organizational theory capital if they are based on “circular or closed loop models”. Un-
(Heikkurinen et al., 2016). So far, most organizational scholars fortunately, despite the positive contribution of circularity to pro-
reproduce anthropocentric perspectives without addressing the tect the Earth’s critical resources, it does not necessarily and
ecological embeddedness of organizational activity and the de- sufficiently lead to the preservation of these resources. As Mun ~ oz-
pendency of the economy on ecosystems in general and the plan- Torres et al. (2018) point out, there are no guarantees that “the
etary boundaries in particular (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Borland et al., circular economy paradigm maintains the Earth system without
2016; Broman and Robe rt, 2017; Heikkurinen et al., 2016). contributing to crossing the finite boundaries of the planet”. As an
Economic frameworks of competitiveness, both at the business example, the authors refer to the growing demand of energy to
and market level, should not operate without reference to the recycle materials as a result of the larger impact recycling has on
economy’s embeddedness in and its dependency on the biophysical energy demand in comparison to the use of virgin resources
ecosystem (Borland et al., 2016). They should contain the “essential (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). A framework should, therefore, exceed
aspects of ecological and social systems that need to be sustained in the demands for circular production, distribution and consumption
 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804 7

per se, and e preferably ex-ante to developing and introducing new partisan information.
products, services, interventions, et cetera e assess the planetary In a recent contribution based on the concept of the planetary
impact of the entrepreneurial innovation, now and for future boundaries, Foley (2017) looks at natural ecological systems to
generations. Thereby the framework should focus on business ac- detect how they succeed in an ever-changing environment. By
tivities and their environmental impact in the entire value chain mimicking nature, organizations can learn how they can best adapt
and not limit itself to the performance of individual organizations. to dynamic environmental challenges. Foley starts by recognizing
This leads to the conclusion that the concept of ‘sustainable that the data about the state of the planet do not tell us what to do.
entrepreneurship’ e and the WCED definition of ‘sustainable Some people will sound the alarm bell when confronted with
development’ on which it rests e in the way it currently manifests transgressions of the planetary boundaries, but others detect new
itself, negatively impacts the ability to future generations to meet opportunities for mankind. They take an interest in the “extraor-
their needs. We simply do not leave “enough and as good” behind dinary levels of human ingenuity” (Foley, 2017, p. 252). Research
for generations to come. Our global society violates both John suggests that sustainable entrepreneurship finds itself on the side
Locke’s provisos and continues to do so as long as we do not respect of those that see the opportunities (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean
the latest scientific knowledge on the severity of our transgression and McMullen, 2007; York and Venkataraman, 2010). Entrepre-
of the planetary boundaries, and the ways in which that trans- neurship shows itself as innovation e instead of conservation e
gression takes place. through which environmental degradation can be addressed and
reduced (York and Venkataraman, 2010). Foley (2017) might concur
6. The way forward with this view as he believes that innovation and diversification are
essential elements of an adaptive natural ecological system,
In overcoming market imperfections, entrepreneurship can play thereby making the system more robust in the face of changing
an important positive role in creating an environmentally sus- conditions. This is the first guidance that natural ecological systems
tainable world (Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean and McMullen, provide (Foley, 2017, p. 252). That nature uses the sun as its primary
2007). Entrepreneurial opportunities can be seized in addressing source of energy is not surprising and the second guidance for a
imperfectly distributed information, flawed pricing mechanisms, society that is dependent on fossil fuels. The move towards more
externalities, or inefficiencies and add economic and environ- sustainable energy is desirable, but insufficient to provide society
mental value for the enterprise and for society (Cohen and Winn, with the energy required to reproduce its current social and eco-
2007). The larger the imperfections and the degradation of the nomic habitat. A complete turn towards renewables is worth
economically viable environment, the greater the magnitude of striving for and provides opportunities for sustainable entrepre-
entrepreneurial opportunities. As Dean and McMullen (2007, p. 52) neurship but is not feasible at present. The guidance to respect and
argue: “[b]oth increasing evidence of substantive environmental to promote diversity and to be powered by the sun is meaningful,
degradation and recent market developments in renewable energy, but it does not address the potential transgression of the planetary
fuel cells, green building, natural foods, carbon emissions, and boundaries. Foley (2017) provides additional guidance, based on
other sectors suggest an increasing importance of opportunities for previous work by the economist Herman Daly (2007, p. 14) and,
environmental entrepreneurship”. Numerous companies interestingly enough, on the proviso provided by Locke. Systems
contribute measurably to economic, social and/or sustainable which respect the planetary boundaries:
progress without negatively influencing the environmental limits
of the planet. Take the example of a rating agency that provides - Do not consume resources faster than they are regenerated by
comprehensive and superior sustainability information. This ser- the environment e thereby leaving enough and as good for
vice does not impact the planetary boundaries. The same counts for future generations; and
Closing the Loop, a global service provider that collects the vast - Do not produce wastes, especially those that disrupt the envi-
amount of outdated mobile phones in Africa in order to locally ronment and the climate system, faster than they are assimi-
retrieve valuable metals. It is turning waste into something that is lated or removed by the environment.
of value to local employees in several African countries, the en-
terprise itself, its customers, and society at large. But what about Mimicking nature, entrepreneurial activity needs to be studied
the production of electric vehicles? Manufacturing these cars is, in individual enterprises and at a system level to avoid externalities
inter alia, dependent on the mining of scarce minerals like cobalt up or down the value chain, and to create resilience and trans-
and lithium, recharging the batteries is based on energy mainly formation in a complex world (Porter and Derry, 2012). Looking at
coming from fossil fuels, and the recycling of e-waste is still mar- value chains, it is the cumulative effect on the boundaries that is
ginal. The Brundtland Commission would not likely qualify electric created by enterprises and the other relevant nodes (Bolwig et al.,
car making as an infringement of its definition of sustainable 2010) in the value chain that matters. Regarding the
development. The car makers contribute to our needs, and by doing manufacturing and use of electric automobiles, it is important to
so they seemingly do not have a direct negative impact on the assess the contribution of all the nodes in the value chain to the
ability of future generations to meet their needs. At present, and potential violation of the planetary boundaries. The cars them-
compared to traditional cars, electric car making is even seen as an selves may be free of emitting CO2, recharging the batteries often
important contribution to sustainable development, while Tesla is uses fossil fuels. Also, the mining of lithium by mining giant BHP
celebrated as one of the 100 most sustainable listed companies in requires approximately 1000 times as much fresh water on a daily
the world (Corporate Knights, January 22, 2019). However, the basis as the amount that is available for humans and their livestock
entire chain of electric automobile manufacturing, charging bat- on the Chilean salt plateaus (Bloomberg, 2019), thereby threatening
teries and recycling of the cars might potentially impact the plan- the biodiversity in the area.
etary boundaries, particularly if society demands a significant
increase in electric car use as part of the implementation of the 6.1. Redefining sustainable development and sustainable
Paris Agreement. Therefore, it becomes relevant to re-evaluate the entrepreneurship
concepts of sustainable development and sustainable entrepre-
neurship in light of the dilemmas that society, consumers and en- If we define sustainable development, in line with Griggs et al.
trepreneurs face when only possessing partial and sometimes (2013, p. 306), as a development that “meets the needs of the
8 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

present, complies with the planetary boundaries and does not toxic waste, switch to renewable energy, redesign processes and
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs products so resources can be reused, use resource-efficient trans-
without transgressing these same planetary boundaries”, it puts portation of people and products, sensitize stakeholders, and focus
the burden on the public and the private sector to prevent any on the delivery of service and value instead of material, by 2020. To
material contribution to the transgression of the planetary achieve these objectives Interface started collaborating with The
boundaries. Since the electric carmakers have a negative impact on Natural Step (Naturalstep.org) and to Biomimicry 3.8 (Biomimicry.
some of the boundaries, they are no longer considered as ‘sus- net). With the support of both organizations it developed an
tainable’. Recognition as sustainable enterprises only follows their approach that, over time, resulted in replacing latex with recycled
impact on the planetary boundaries, including the use of water in PVB8 in precoats, or in using discarded fishing nets for its fibers
mining lithium, to the extent that they do no longer consume re- through its Net-Works® program. Also, production facilities have
sources to a larger extent than they are regenerated by nature. made significant progress in the use of renewable energy. In 2018,
Consequently, and inspired by Dean and McMullen (2007, p. 58), the company announced that all products were carbon neutral
we define sustainable entrepreneurship as the process of discov- across the entire product lifecycle.
ering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities, which are economi- Already in 2016, the company announced that its new mission
cally, environmentally, planetarily, and socially relevant and present after 2020 would become Climate Take Back, aiming to go from
themselves in market failures which detract from sustainability in restoration to regeneration. One of the objectives is to run its in-
general and the planetary boundaries in particular. This requires dustrial plants as ecosystems. Also, through ‘Love Carbon’ Interface
entrepreneurship in general and sustainable entrepreneurship in works with materials that absorb waste carbon or sequester carbon
particular to assess, adopt, and report on compliance with the two to make new products. Finally, through its ‘Lead the Industrial Re-
provisos provided by Foley (2017) regarding waste and the use of revolution’ the company works together with industry partners.
resources e aiming to reduce potential transgressions of the Part of this program and aligned with Foley’s (2017) idea to mimic
planetary boundaries. Therefore, companies in the extractives in- nature, is Interface’s biophilic design approach.9 Together with the
dustries, in petrochemicals, utilities and wholesale power, but also British architect Oliver Heath the company created a ‘positive
in the financial services industry are suddenly in violation of the space’ in a school for children with autism in Hackney (London),
principle of sustainable development. This applies to all enterprises based on a child’s innate attraction to nature (Heath, 2019). An
included in the many sustainability indices e most notably the Dow unused space in the school was turned into a safe and recuperative
Jones Sustainability Index. Leaders in industry sectors as diverse as area. Depending on their mood, the space allows children to reach
aerospace, agriculture, automobiles, chemicals, construction and out and play with others, but also to hide away from others in one
engineering, energy, metals and mining, transportation, et cetera, of the many alcoves and cubes it is filled with. These initiatives,
contribute to the transgression of the planetary boundaries e and taken together, express a concern for the Earth’s biosphere, and
therefore disqualify as being sustainable. This potentially affects promote innovation in the company and the value chain that re-
one quarter of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the spects the planetary boundaries.
World index (Corporate Knights, 2019). The most sustainable en- Taken everything together, Interface, in its business strategies,
terprises according to GlobeScan (2019) e like Interface, Natura its design and production processes, its marketing, sales and after-
Brasil, Patagonia and IKEA6 e demonstrate, however, that it is sales, its communication, and its reporting:
possible to respect the planetary boundaries while creating para-
digmatic companies. Hereafter, Interface is presented as an illus- - Assesses its potential environmental impact on current and
trative case of a company that operationalizes Foley’s guidance.7 future generations both ex-ante and ex-post;
- Respects the planetary boundaries; and
- Balances the constituent elements of sustainable development,
6.2. The case of interface being economic prosperity, environmental protection and hu-
man development.
Interface was founded in 1973 by Ray Anderson to produce and
sell modular carpet tiles, luxury vinyl tile and rubber flooring. In In addition, the company respects Locke and Foley’s additional
1993, the founder got inspired by Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology provisos to not consume resources faster than they are regenerated
of Commerce (1993) in which the author argues that the market and by the environment e thereby leaving enough and as good for
the state are capable of solving the challenges of the planet. future generations e and to not produce wastes faster than they are
Hawken (1993) proposes eight objectives of which two are assimilated or removed by the environment. For a company that is
important for meeting the needs of the planet. The first is to reduce listed on the NASDAQ, this is a remarkable achievement.
absolute consumption of energy and natural resources in the North
by 80 percent before 2040. The second is to exceed sustainability by
restoring degraded habitats and ecosystems to their fullest bio- 7. Discussion and conclusion
logical capacity. That means that efforts have to go beyond cleaning
up the mess that we make. Limiting ourselves to a clean-up is like Sustainable entrepreneurship plays an important role in over-
celebrating cancer treatment that cures a tumor that should not coming market imperfections, by seizing the opportunities for
have been there in the first place (Hawken, 1993). Both objectives simultaneously balancing “economic health, social equity and
inspired Anderson in 1994 to adopt Mission Zero. It challenged the environmental resilience” (Cohen and Winn, 2007, p. 34). Through
company to, inter alia, eliminate waste, emit zero molecular and the innovations that it designs, manufactures and brings to the

6 8
The GlobeScan index is based on the assessment of leading sustainability ex- Polyvinyl butyral (or PVB) is a resin with a strong cohesiveness, optical clarity,
perts. Interface, Natura Brasil, Patagonia and IKEA belong to the top five of the most adhering easily to many surfaces.
9
sustainable companies in the world. Two of them also received the UN Champions Literally, the term means ‘friend of life’ and was used by E.O. Wilson’s Biophilia
of the Earth award. https://www.unenvironment.org/championsofearth/. (1984) to refer to the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes. Else-
7
The case of Interface is part of a larger study conducted by one of the authors where, Wilson (1994) describes biophilia as an inborn affinity that human beings
that looks into the other-oriented behaviour of companies in The Netherlands. have for other forms of life.
 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804 9

market, sustainable entrepreneurship can contribute to the pres- industries. What is even more important is that they are actively
ervation of the Earth system and to the development of mankind. It seeking collaboration with others to influence the conditions under
creates progress through ideas and practices of innovative eco- which companies create economic growth (cf. Dean and McMullen,
centric business frameworks, models and processes which are 2007; Pacheco et al., 2010; Pinkse and Groot, 2015). Initiatives like
deeply embedded in the Earth’s biophysical existence. Sustainable Interface’s ‘Lead the Industrial Re-revolution’ is a case in point.
entrepreneurship aims to create value in ways that correct the
often-unsustainable production and distribution of marketable 7.1. Our contribution
goods and services which deplete the Earth’s finite resources. Many
sustainable entrepreneurs want to prevent further degradation of This article aims to contribute to a dialogue on the meaning of
the ecological system and correct the imperfections in the market sustainable development and its implementation in the business
economy, both individually and collectively by changing the rules community. We have argued that ‘sustainable development’ under
of the economic game (Dean and McMullen, 2007; Pacheco et al., the current economic conditions carries in it the risk of becoming
2010; Pinkse and Groot, 2015). Nevertheless, much of the eco- an oxymoron. The phrase becomes meaningless if it insufficiently
nomic growth that is created at present e even by sustainable addresses the environmental limits of the planet (Biloslavo et al.,
entrepreneurs e ignores the planetary boundaries and reflects the 2018; Borland et al., 2016; Broman and Robe rt, 2017; Dyllick and
decline of critical natural and social capital. Hence, compliance with Muff, 2016; Heikkurinen et al., 2016; Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011;
the planetary boundaries and being open about the positive and Salmivaara and Kibler, 2020; Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011; Stål and
negative entrepreneurial impact on the planetary boundaries be- Bonnedahl, 2016). We have argued that the authoritative defini-
comes a sine qua non to development and a prerequisite for the tion of sustainable development that was formulated in 1987 by the
Earth’s future existence for both sustainable and non-sustainable Brundtland Commission requires reformulation in light of
businesses. For this reason, society not only needs (sustainable) increasing transgressions of the planetary boundaries. It is only by
entrepreneurs who contribute to reversing the tragedy of the respecting these boundaries that business meets a necessary con-
commons, but who also redefine sustainable development in ways dition of sustainable development by leaving future generations in
that acknowledge the planetary boundaries as strict limits to eco- a position that they can meet their needs. In addition, we recognize
nomic progress, environmental quality and human development. the potential of sustainable entrepreneurship to make a significant
Just like John Locke (1689: section 35 and 36), claimed that “there is contribution to creating a more sustainable economy. Sustainable
land enough in the world to suffice twice as many people as there entrepreneurship helps to innovate business by e.g. reducing waste,
are”, the Brundtland Commission was too lenient. It did not set creating more circular business processes, using renewable energy,
strict and qualified limits to the economic growth e no matter how et cetera. It introduces new products and services that respect the
important that same growth is to preserve nature and develop planetary boundaries and helps to control and minimize and the
human society. effects businesses have on society and on the planet. Apart from
As a result, we suggest redefining both sustainable development other forms of collective action (Yoffie, 1988; Pacheco et al., 2010;
and sustainable entrepreneurship. Sustainable development can Pinkse and Groot, 2015), the call for sustainable development re-
best be seen as development that meets the needs of the present, quires, inter alia, ‘analytic deliberations’, defined as a “[w]ell-
complies with the planetary boundaries and does not compromise structured dialogue involving scientists, resource users, and inter-
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs without ested publics, and informed by analysis of key information about
transgressing these same planetary boundaries. The value of sus- environmental and human-environment systems” (Dietz et al.,
tainable entrepreneurship lies in the introduction of new solutions 2003). As the authors point out, these deliberations result in
that adds new ‘livestock’ to the commons in ways that do not harm improved information and trust in that information, which is
the interest of others. It might even improve the situation of those essential for information to be used effectively. In a society where
who are the worst off (cf. Rawls, 1999) e both now and in the future. companies increasingly claim that they contribute to sustainable
New products, services and interventions can positively contribute development, analytic deliberations can be an effective instrument
to sustainable development, while at the same time curbing the against greenwashing. The need for analytic deliberations is rein-
trend of negative externalities, as long as it complies with dynamic forced in light of the current framing of the debate on sustainable
planetary boundaries. This requires a redefinition of sustainable development and sustainable entrepreneurship in a political
entrepreneurship as the process of discovering, evaluating, and context (Pinkse and Groot, 2015; Salmivaara and Kibler, 2020).
exploiting opportunities, which are economically, environmentally, Business and governments often show a lack of attention for the
planetarily, and socially relevant and present themselves in market planetary boundaries and measures needed to protect these
failures which detract from sustainability in general and the planetary boundaries. It is precisely at this point that sustainable entrepre-
boundaries in particular. neurship can make a significant contribution to the deliberations by
In taking its responsibility sustainable entrepreneurship needs demonstrating how respecting the planetary boundaries and
the support of governments, investors, civil society organizations, creating new products and services can be in sync with each other.
and consumers as sustainable entrepreneurs cannot succeed in a
world that fails. Acknowledging, understanding and embracing the 7.2. Suggestions for further research
Earth’s finite capacity should be manifested in all aspects of social
and economic life. Taking the planetary limitations into account in a Beyond developing a definition for sustainable development
timely and adequate fashion, is therefore an indispensable condi- which is in line with the planetary boundaries, this article dem-
tion for true sustainable development and consequently for true onstrates that future research is needed on the way economic ideas
sustainable entrepreneurship. The shining examples of companies and concepts, like the conceptual understanding of growth and
like Interface, Patagonia, and Nature demonstrate that entrepre- value, evolve over time. Looking at the planet’s finite resources
neurial businesses can create economic, societal and ecological reconsidering these ideas and concepts is necessary. Sustainable
value while respecting the planetary boundaries and encourage entrepreneurship can pave the way in which business safeguards
others to do the same. These enterprises explore opportunities that the planet’s sustenance and hence mankind’s future existence and
result in transformations towards a more sustainable economy. development. Future research can identify which types of entre-
They are the first movers and set an example for their respective preneurial opportunities are relevant for sustainable
10 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804

entrepreneurship embedded into policy frameworks that respect Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., 2016. Building theory at the
intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. J. Bus. Ethics
the planetary boundaries. In addition, future research can elaborate
135 (2), 293e307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2471-6.
eco-centric innovative business models, business frameworks, and Broman, G.I., Robe rt, K.-H., 2017. A framework for strategic sustainable develop-
operational and governance processes that include the biosphere in ment. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 17e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121.
their core. Finally, developing new institutions or changing existing Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M., Merideth, R.W., 1987. Global sustain-
ability: toward definition. Environmental management: an international jour-
institutions for sustainable development through sustainable nal for decision makers. Scientists and Environmental Auditors 11 (6), 713e719.
entrepreneurship, is imminently required. In line with, inter alia, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867238.
Dean and McMullen (2007), Pacheco et al. (2010), and Pinkse and Carter, M., 2006. Entrepreneurship and marketing. In: Casson, M., Yeung, B.,
Basu, A., Wadeson, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford
Groot (2015), this article questions the validity of the existing, University Press, Oxford, pp. 115e116.
unsustainable institutional arrangements and endorses the crea- Cohen, B., Winn, M.I., 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable
tion of new norms and institutions via a process of institutional entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 22 (1), 29e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusvent.2004.12.001.
change. In particular, sustainable entrepreneurship may influence Constanza, R., Patten, B.C., 1995. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol. Econ.
institutional change by shaping and changing existing formal in- 15, 193e196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00048-8.
stitutions and by directly influencing societal and political actors Corporate Knights, 2019. The Global 100 most sustainable companies in the world.
https://www.corporateknights.com/reports/2019-global-100/2019-global-100-
and/or policy and regulatory/law making towards sustainable results-15481153/ (accessed 24 January 2020).
entrepreneurship and respect for the planetary boundaries. Crals, E., Vereeck, L., 2004. SME’s and sustainable entrepreneurship: theory and
practice. In: Philips, C. (Ed.), Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship.
Interdisciplinary Press, Oxford, pp. 37e46.
Credit author statement Daly, H.E., 1973. Toward a steady-state economy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Daly, H.E., 2007. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, Selected Es-
Harry Hummels: Conception and design of study, Analysis and/ says of Herman E. Daly. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
Davies, I.A., Chambers, L., 2018. Integrating hybridity and business model theory in
or interpretation, Drafting the manuscript, Revising the manuscript
sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production 177, 378e386.
critically, Approval of the manuscript to be published. Aikaterini https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.196.
Argyrou: Conception and design of study, Analysis and/or inter- Dean, T.J., McMullen, J.S., 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship:
pretation, Drafting the manuscript, Revising the manuscript criti- reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. J. Bus.
Ventur. 22 (1), 50e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003.
cally, Approval of the manuscript to be published. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science
302 (5652), 1907e1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015.
Ethical approval Dyllick, T., Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: intro-
ducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ.
Environ. 29 (2), 156e174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176.
This article does not contain any studies with human partici- Ehrlich, P., 1968. The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books, New York.
pants or animals performed by the authors. Eisenmann, R.T., 2013. Entrepreneurship: a working definition. Harvard business
review. https://hbr.org/2013/01/what-is-entrepreneurship (accessed 24 January
2020).
Declaration of competing interest Emerson, J., 2003. The blended value proposition: integrating social and financial
returns. Calif. Manag. Rev. 45 (4), 35e51. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187.
European Environment Agency, 2019. NEC Directive Reporting Status 2019
The authors declare that they have no known competing (accessed 24 January 2020). https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/national-
financial interests or personal relationships that could have emission-ceilings/nec-directive-reporting-status-2019.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Foley, J., 2017. Living by the lessons of the planet. Science 356 (6335), 251e252.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4863.
Gast, J., Gundolf, K., Cesinger, B., 2017. Doing business in a green way: A systematic
Acknowledgements review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future
research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production 147, 44e56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.065.
The authors declare that they have not included an Acknowl- Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy:
edgements as they have not received substantial contributions a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757e768. https://doi.org/
from non-authors. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
GlobeScan, 2019. The 2019 Sustainability Leaders. https://globescan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/GlobeScan-SustainAbility-Leaders-Survey-2019-
References Report.pdf (accessed 24 January 2020).
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Rockstro €
€m, J., Ohman, M.C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G.,
American Business Roundtable, 2019. Business roundtable redefines the purpose of Kanie, N., Noble, I., Steffen, W., Shyamsundar, P., 2014. An integrated framework
a corporation to promote ‘an economy that serves all Americans’. https://www. for sustainable development goals. Ecol. Soc. 19 (4, 49) https://doi.org/10.5751/
businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a- ES-07082-190449.
corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans (accessed 18 Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstro €
€m, J., Ohman, M.C.,
June 2020). Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., 2013. Policy: sus-
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., Ray, S., 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity tainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305e307.
identification and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 18 (1), 105e123. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a.
10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4. Hall, J.K., Daneke, G.A., Lenox, M.J., 2010. Sustainable development and entrepre-
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J., 2006. Social and commercial entrepre- neurship: past contributions and future directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 25 (5),
neurship: same, different, or both? Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 30, 1e22. https:// 439e448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.002.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859), 1243e1248.
Baumol, W.J., 1990. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.
J. Polit. Econ. 98 (5), 893e921. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937617. Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B., 2003. Creating sustainable value. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 17
Belz, F.M., Binder, J.K., 2017. Sustainable entrepreneurship: a convergent process (2), 56e67. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194.
model: sustainable entrepreneurship: a convergent process model. Bus. Strat. Hawken, P., 1993. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. Har-
Environ. 26 (1), 1e17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1887. perBusiness, New York.
Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C., Edgar, D., 2018. An eco-critical perspective on business Heath, O., 2019. The Garden school, Hackney. Interface. https://www.interface.com/
models: the value triangle as an approach to closing the sustainability gap. EU/en-GB/campaign/positive-spaces/hackney-garden-school-en_GB (accessed
J. Clean. Prod. 174, 746e762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.281. 24 January 2020).
Bloomberg, 2019. Saving the planet with electric cars means strangling this desert. Heikkurinen, P., Rinkinen, J., Jarvensivu, T., Wilen, K., Ruuska, T., 2016. Organising in
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-11/saving-the-planet- the Anthropocene: an ontological outline for ecocentric theorising. J. Clean.
with-electric-cars-means-strangling-this-desert (accessed 24 January 2020). Prod. 113, 705e714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.016.
Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., Du, T.A., Riisgaard, L., Halberg, N., 2010. Integrating poverty and Hockerts, K., Wüstenhagen, R., 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids -
environmental concerns into value-chain analysis: a conceptual framework. theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable
Dev. Pol. Rev. 28 (20), 173e194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 25 (5), 481e492. https://doi.org/10.1016/
7679.2010.00480.x. j.jbusvent.2009.07.005.
 H. Hummels, A. Argyrou / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123804 11

Holdren, J.P., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1995. The Meaning of Sustainability: Bio- (2,32). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (accessed June
geophysical Aspects. The World Bank. http://www.jayhanson.org/page113.htm 2020).
(accessed 24 January 2020). Rockstro €, m, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Horne, J., Recker, M., Kratzer, J., Michelfelder, I., Jay, J., Kratzer, J., 2020. Exploring Lenton, T.M., Scheffner, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Witt, C.A.,
entrepreneurship related to the sustainable development goals - mapping new Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., So €rlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
venture activities with semi-automated content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Production 242, 1e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118052. Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J., 2009b. A safe
International Union for Conservation of Nature, 1991. Caring for the earth: a operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472e475. https://doi.org/10.1038/
strategy for sustainable living. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/ 461472a.
documents/cfe-003.pdf (accessed 24 January 2020). Sachs, J., 2004. Sustainable development. Editorial. Science 304 (5671), 649. https://
Jaramillo, F., Destouni, G., 2015. Comment on “Planetary boundaries: guiding hu- doi.org/10.1126/science.304.5671.649.
man development on a changing planet”. Science 348 (6240), 1217. https:// Salmivaara, V., Kibler, E., 2020. “Rhetoric mix” of argumentations: how policy
doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9629. rhetoric conveys meaning of entrepreneurship for sustainable development.
Katsikis, I.N., Kyrgidou, L., 2007. The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship: a Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 44 (4), 700e732. https://doi.org/10.1177/
conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1, 1e6. 1042258719845345.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2007.26530537. Santos, F.M., 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Kuckertz, A., Wagner, M., 2010. The influence of sustainability orientation on Ethics 111, 335e351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4.
entrepreneurial intentions Investigating the role of business experience. J. Bus. Sarasvathy, S.D., 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from
Ventur. 25 (5), 524e539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001. economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (2),
Lankoski, L., 2016. Alternative conceptions of sustainability in a business context. 243e263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020.
J. Clean. Prod. 139, 847e857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.087. Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2011. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability
Lans, T., Blok, V., Wesselink, R., 2014. Learning apart and together: towards an in- innovation: categories and interactions. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20 (4), 222e237.
tegrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682.
education. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 37e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University
j.jclepro.2013.03.036. Press, MA: Cambridge.
Liu, J., Xu, Z., Chung, M.G., Sun, J., Li, S., Hull, V., Godfray, H.C.J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Shearman, R., 1990. The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environmental
Hoff, H., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Sun, J., 2018. Nexus approaches to global sus- management: an international journal for decision makers,. Scientists and
tainable development. Nature Sust. 1 (9), 466e476. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Environmental Auditors 14 (1), 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394014.
s41893-018-0135-8. Shepherd, D.A., Patzelt, H., 2011. The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship:
Locke, J., 1689. Two Treatises of Government. London, J. Locke, UK. studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to Be sustained” with “what is
Lovelock, J.E., Margulis, L., 1974. Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: to Be developed”. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 35 (1), 137e163. https://doi.org/
the gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26 (1e2), 2e10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153- 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x.
3490.1974.tb01946.x. Stal, H.I., Bonnedahl, K., 2016. Conceptualizing strong sustainable entrepreneurship.
Malthus, T.R., 1826. An Essay on the Principle of Population. John Murray, UK: Small Enterprise Research 23 (1), 73e84. https://doi.org/10.1080/
London. 13215906.2016.1188718.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L., 1972. Limits to Growth: the 30-year Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstro €m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Update. Earthscan. UK: London. Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D.,
Mebratu, D., 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., So € rlin, S., 2015.
conceptual review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 18 (6), 493e520. https:// Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.
doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5. Science 347 (6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Mun ~ oz, P., Cohen, B., 2018. Sustainable entrepreneurship research: taking stock and Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M., Grousbeck, H.I., 1989. New Business Ventures and the
looking ahead. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (3), 300e322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Entrepreneur. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston.
bse.2000. Strivers, R., 1976. The Sustainable Society: Ethics and Economic Growth. West-
Muneoz-Torres, M.J., Ferna ndez-Izquierdo, M., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., minster Press, Philadelphia.
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Gisbert-Navarro, J.V., Marullo, M.C., 2018. An assessment tool Teran-Yepez, E., Marin-Carrillo, G.M., Casado-Belmonte, M.P., Capobianco-
to integrate sustainability principles into the global supply chain. Sustainability Uriarte, M.M., 2020. Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution and
10 (2), 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020535. new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production 252, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
O’Neill, G.D., Hershauer, J.C., Golden, J.S., 2006. The cultural context of sustainability jclepro.2019.119742.
entrepreneurship. Greener Manag. Int. 55, 33e46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., York, J.G., 2011. Distinctions not dichotomies: exploring
greemanainte.55.33 (accessed June 2020). social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. In: Lumpkin, G.T.,
Pacheco, D.F., Dean, T.J., Payne, D.S., 2010. Escaping the green prison: entrepre- Katz, J.A. (Eds.), Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Bingley: Emerald
neurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. J. Bus. Books, pp. 201e229.
Ventur. 25 (5), 464e480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.006. Tilley, F., Young, W., 2006. Sustainability entrepreneurs: could they Be the true
Parrish, B.D., Foxon, T.J., 2006. Sustainability entrepreneurship and equitable tran- wealth generators of the future? Greener Manag. Int. 55, 79e92. https://www.
sitions to a low-carbon economy. Greener Manag. Int. 55, 47e62. https://www. jstor.org/stable/greemanainte.55.79 (accessed June 2020).
jstor.org/stable/greemanainte.55.47 (accessed June 2020). Venkataraman, S., 1997. The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: an
Pater, L.R., Cristea, S.L., 2016. Systemic definitions of sustainability, durability and Editor’s Perspective. In: Katz, J., Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepre-
longevity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221, 362e371. https:// neurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. JAI Press, Connecticut: Greenwich,
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.126. ̊ pp. 119e138.
Patzelt, H., Shepherd, D.A., 2011. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable devel- Walker, B., Galaz, V., Folke, C., Maler, K.-G., Barrett, S., Polasky, S., Engstrom, G., De
opment. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 35 (4), 631e652. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Zeeuw, A., Ackerman, F., Arrow, K., Carpenter, S., Chopra, K., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P.,
j.1540-6520.2010.00386.x. Hughes, T., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Shogren, J., Vincent, J., Xepapadeas, T., 2009.
Pinkse, J., Groot, K., 2015. Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325 (5946),
activity: overcoming market barriers in the clean energy sector. Enterpren. 1345e1346. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175325.
Theor. Pract. 39 (3), 633e654. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12055. White, M.A., 2013. Sustainability: I know it when I see it. Ecol. Econ. 86, 213e217.
Porter, T., Derry, R., 2012. Sustainability and business in a complex world. Bus. Soc. https://doi.org/10.2307/797245.
Rev. 117 (1), 33e53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2012.00398.x. Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, MA: Cambridge.
Rawls, J., 1999. A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, UK: Oxford. Wilson, E.O., 1994. Naturalist, Shearwater Book, DC: Washington.
Redclift, M., 2005. Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987. Our Common
age. Sustain. Dev. 13 (4), 212e227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.28. Future. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. A/42/427. Oxford
́University
́ ́
Reid, W.V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y.T., Mokhele, K., Ostrom, E., Press, Oxford.
Raivio, K., Rockstro € m, J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Whyte, A., 2010. Earth system sci- Yoffie, D.B., 1988. How an industry builds political advantage. Harv. Bus. Rev. 66 (3),
ence for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330 (6006), 916. 82e89. https://hbr.org/1988/05/how-an-industry-builds-political-advantage
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196263. (accessed June 2020).
Rockstro €, m, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E., York, J.G., Venkataraman, S., 2010. The entrepreneur-environment nexus: uncer-
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., tainty, innovation, and allocation. J. Bus. Ventur. 25 (5), 449e463. https://
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., So €rlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.007.
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Zahra, S.A., Rawhouser, H.N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D.O., Hayton, J.C., 2008. Glob-
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J., 2009a. Planetary alization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14 Journal 2 (2), 117e131. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.43.