University-linked programmes for sustainableentrepreneurship and regional development: howand with what impact?

Marcus Wagner & Stefan Schaltegger & Erik G. Hansen & Klaus Fichter

Accepted: 17 June 2019# The Author(s) 2019

Abstract State universities are increasingly being trans-formed from institutions with traditional teaching andresearch responsibilities to have a third, societal role insustainable regional and economic development. In doingso, universities support knowledge spillovers to improvesustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems that benefit eco-nomic revitalization or further development of regions.At the same time they promote stakeholder involvementin crucial governance processes at the regional level.Based on a comparative case study design building onthree cases in Germany, our research analyses these in-terdependencies focussing on university-linked supportprogrammes for sustainable entrepreneurship and theeffects on sustainable regional development. Our findingsprovide a nuanced view clarifying the different rolesuniversities have, how knowledge spillovers are created,

and what outputs, outcomes, and effects are realized atthe regional level and beyond. Specifically, we demon-strate that depending on the regional context, differentconfigurations, pathways, and intervention points of uni-versities may equally improve sustainable entrepreneurialecosystems.

Keywords University . Support . Programmes .

Sustainable . Entrepreneurship . Regional .

Development . Innovation . Facilitation . Sustainability .

Ecopreneurs . Start-ups

JEL classification L26 . O12 . Q01

1 Introduction

As part of a longer-term global trend, state universities inGermany are being transformed from institutions focus-sing on teaching and research to increasingly assume athird role in sustainable regional and economic develop-ment (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Abreu et al.2016). In doing so, they are conceived to much morestrongly support knowledge spillovers and as part of thisalso to promote stakeholder involvement in governanceprocesses at the regional level. They potentially will play afar more important role in economic revitalization or fur-ther development of regions. Because large-scale and com-prehensive societal transitions towards sustainability areconsidered to be fundamentally knowledge-driven, thisalso implies a significantly heightened role for universitiesin sustainable regional development (Sedlacek 2013).

Small Bus Econhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00280-4

M. Wagner (*)University of Augsburg & Bureau d’Economie Théorique etAppliquée, Universitätsstr. 16, 86159 Augsburg, Germanye-mail: marcus.wagner@wiwi.uni-augsburg.de

S. SchalteggerLeuphana University Lüneburg, Centre for SustainabilityManagement (CSM), Lüneburg, Germany

E. G. Hansen (*)Johannes Kepler University Linz (JKU), Institute for IntegratedQuality Design (IQD), Altenberger Strasse 69, A-4040 Linz,Austriae-mail: erik.hansen@jku.at

K. FichterCarl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg & Borderstep Institutefor Innovation and Sustainability, Oldenburg, Germany

Concerning multi-stakeholder governance andknowledge transfers in the entrepreneurship context,the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship(Agarwal et al. 2007, 2010) and notions of entrepreneur-ial ecosystems and innovation systems (Markard andTruffer 2008; Audretsch and Berlitski 2013; Stam2015; Theodoraki et al. 2018) play a key role. Both ofthese stress that knowledge investments by firms anduniversities need to be linked to entrepreneurial activi-ties so that knowledge spillovers result in a win-winsituation in a wider ecosystem (Agarwal et al. 2007).

In our study, we focus the analysis on howuniversity-related support programmes for entrepre-neurship contribute to sustainable development of re-gions in terms of supporting a balance of economic andsocio-ecological benefits in the region (e.g. Cohen andWinn 2007; Wagner and Schaltegger 2010). We relatethis to the role of universities in supporting knowledgespillovers in the entrepreneurial ecosystems and inno-vation systems of the region they are in (Stam andSpigel 2016). Given that those universities are usuallypublic sector organizations, they have a comparativelygreater propensity to be at least to some extent embed-ded in a region owing to their third role mentionedabove.

Our research follows a comparative case study design(Yin 2003). Two units of analysis are applied: theuniversity-linked support programme and effects onsustainable regional development. These are related tothe knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship(Agarwal et al. 2007, 2010), different functions in en-trepreneurial ecosystems and innovation systems (Stamand Spigel 2016; Markard and Truffer 2008) and adifferentiation of effects based on the theory of change(Carman 2010; Funnel and Rogers 2011; McLaughlinand Jordan 1999).

For reasons of comparability and comprehensive-ness, three cases in Germany were selected, namely anincubator, an entrepreneurship education module, and asustainability education program. These were analysedcomparatively in order to clarify the university links ofeach initiative and how it generated knowledge spill-overs and involved public actors, as well as what kind ofpublic good was delivered. Our study thus contributes toproviding a more differentiated view of how to imple-ment entrepreneurial and innovation-oriented strategiesfor social sustainability and protecting the natural envi-ronment through different configurations of university-related knowledge spillover mechanisms. In the

remainder of the paper, we next review the relevantliterature and condense it into a conceptual model thatcan guide our analysis (Section 2). We then detail ourchosen method including the procedure applied to gen-erate our sample, the data collection processes and theanalysis strategy (Section 3). Subsequently, we presentour empirical material in detail on a case-by-case basis(Section 4). Following this, we present the results of ouranalysis based on a case comparison (Section 5). Thepaper finishes with a discussion and some overall con-clusions (Section 6).

2 Literature review and conceptual considerations

2.1 Universities as actors in the knowledge economy:the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

While traditionally governments have played a domi-nant role in fostering knowledge diffusion, universitieshave become increasingly important contributors to thattask. The university has been transformed from a pureteaching institution via the Humboldtian notion of com-bining teaching and research to one that increasinglytakes on a third, societal role in regional and economicdevelopment by supporting and creating knowledgespillovers (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Agarwalet al. 2010) into the regions where they are situated(Etzkowitz and Klofsten 2005). The triple helix modellinking teaching, research and development has gainedimportance as an analytical device for studying thisdevelopment (e.g. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000).Similarly, the knowledge spillover theory of entrepre-neurship helps to understand how this shapes entrepre-neurial ecosystems and innovation systems (Agarwalet al. 2007; Audretsch and Berlitski 2013). For example,regional governments and universities cooperate to es-tablish and operate incubators in which social or envi-ronmental entrepreneurs are supported (Cohen 2006). Inthis paper, we focus on the role of universities in entre-preneurial ecosystems from a knowledge-based viewbuilding on the knowledge spillover theory of entrepre-neurship (Agarwal et al. 2007) and the notion that theentrepreneur is the primary conduit of transmittingknowledge spillovers (Audretsch and Berlitski 2013).We consider the process of new knowledge commer-cialization through knowledge spillover as a key deter-minant of innovation and growth in industries and re-gions (Audretsch and Berlitski 2013) as well as a

M. Wagner et al.

potential factor for sustainable development within aregion (Simatupang et al. 2015).

2.2 Functions and effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems:the role of universities in facilitating sustainableentrepreneurship

‘Entrepreneurial universities’, which emphasize theirrole in regional economic development next to the moretraditional role in teaching and research, are an impor-tant element of (regional) innovation systems(Rothaermel et al. 2007) and entrepreneurial ecosystems(Theodoraki et al. 2018). The concept of innovationsystems and the entrepreneurial ecosystems approachare helpful in investigating and explaining the role ofuniversity-related support programmes for entrepre-neurship and their effects on the sustainable develop-ment of a region. Both concepts focus on the externalbusiness environment and emphasize that there areforces beyond the boundaries of an organization, butwithin those of a region, that can contribute to a firm’soverall competitiveness and impacts (Stam and Spigel2016). Besides similarities, there are also differencesbetween the concepts, for example, with regard to therole of knowledge: While the concept of innovationsystems emphasizes the importance of knowledge spill-overs from universities and other large research-intensive organizations, the approach of entrepreneurialecosystems stresses the crucial role of entrepreneurialknowledge in the innovation process (Stam and Spigel2016). Our investigation can benefit from both con-cepts, and accordingly, we build on both.

An entrepreneurial ecosystem can be defined as ‘adynamic community of interdependent actors (entrepre-neurs, suppliers, buyer, government, etc.) and system-level institutional, informational and socioeconomiccontexts’ (Audretsch and Belitski 2017: 1034). Withregard to the units of analysis of our investigation (theuniversity-related support programme and outputs andoutcomes for sustainable regional development), twoaspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems are especially rel-evant: (1) What functions can they provide for sustain-able entrepreneurship? and (2) What effects are relevantfrom the viewpoint of sustainable regional develop-ment? Entrepreneurial ecosystems and in a similar fash-ion innovation systems provide different ‘functions’ tothe actors embedded in them (Markard and Truffer2008; Audretsch and Berlitski 2013; Stam 2015;Theodoraki et al. 2018). These include knowledge

development and diffusion, provision of education andtraining, entrepreneurial experimentation, incubationactivities, financing of innovation processes, provisionof consultancy and networking and interactive learning,as detailed in Table 1.

With regard to the potential effects entrepreneurialecosystems and especially universities can trigger, weapply a regional perspective on sustainable developmentand re late i t to the concept of susta inableentrepreneurship.

Of course, sustainable development cannot be ad-dressed from a regional perspective alone, as manysustainability issues such as climate change are globalphenomena. Another issue is that regional sustainabledevelopment could have a negative impact on or divertopportunities from other regions. For example, the for-mer is the case when ‘dirty’ value chain activities arerelocated from developed to developing countries. Thelatter is about the loss of business and developmentopportunities in one region due to regional sourcingand production practices in another region, such as inthe case of locally sourced, low-carbon goods versusinternationally sourced fair-trade goods (Holt andWatson 2008). Nevertheless, the advantages regardingthe stronger identification of actors include increasedpolitical accountability and improved means of imple-mentation which justify a regional focus (Thierstein andWalser 1997). Furthermore, global phenomena relatingto unsustainability must also be addressed by activitiesand partial solutions in local contexts. Looking at sus-tainable development from a regional perspective, nextto conventional economic effects such as job creation

Table 1 Functions of entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovationsystems (based on Markard and Truffer 2008: 602)

Functions of entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation systems

• Provision of education and training• Knowledge development and diffusion• Provision of R&D• Influence on the direction of search• Entrepreneurial experimentation• Incubation activities• Resources mobilization• Financing of innovation processes• Market formation• Creation of legitimacy• Networking and interactive learning• Provision of consultancy• Creation/change of institutions

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

and deceleration of the ‘rural exodus’, we need to con-sider potentially wider effects such as reduced carbonfootprints, healthier jobs and better opportunities fordisadvantaged groups, in addition to improved regionalstakeholder integration and governance.

Sustainable entrepreneurship is a new research fieldthat is still developing. Since 2009, the number of articlespublished on sustainable entrepreneurship has increasedsignificantly (Binder and Belz 2015; Gast et al. 2017).While many of these articles emphasize opportunity-seeking as being key to sustainable entrepreneurship,another important thread of literature highlights a creativeand effectuation-based approach (Hockerts andWüstenhagen 2010; Parrish 2010; Schaltegger andWagner 2011) that adopts a creation perspective. Suchresearch emphasizes the active role of ecopreneurs andsustainable entrepreneurs in creating sustainability-oriented change (Schaltegger et al. 2016; Boons et al.2013). This perspective is particularly important for acreative view of universities supportive of sustainableentrepreneurship. In this paper we view sustainable en-trepreneurship, in accordance with Pacheco et al. (2010),as the discovery, creation, evaluation and exploitation ofopportunities to create innovative goods and services thatare consistent with regional, national and sustainabledevelopment goals (United Nations General Assembly2015; Schaltegger et al. 2018). Creating, recognizing andtaking advantage of sustainable opportunities are com-plex challenges for sustainable entrepreneurs and demandspecific support systems. An effective support systemincorporates all actors, institutional settings and resourcesthat help entrepreneurs in innovating successfully(Fichter et al. 2016). In this paper, we concentrate onthe university as an important supporting actor. We as-sume that, on the one hand, some personal attributes ofentrepreneurs such as the individual’s prior knowledgeand motivation (Shepherd and Patzelt 2011),

sustainability orientation (Kuckertz and Wagner 2010;Wagner 2012) and perpetual reasoning (Parrish 2010)can be influenced by the knowledge spillovers they re-ceive within the university context. On the other hand,universities are also able to support external economicactors like SMEs or start-ups in developing and estab-lishing sustainable and often technology-driven productsthrough their research and development (R&D) resources(Abdelkafi and Hansen 2018).

2.3 Theory of change

Our research investigates how (entrepreneurial) uni-versities and the different forms of knowledge spill-overs they create can foster sustainable entrepre-neurship that impacts sustainable regional develop-ment. Given the key role of universities, which areoften non-profit organizations, and the emphasis onultimate impacts, our analysis draws on logicmodels and the closely-linked concept of a theoryof change which serves a prominent programmeevaluation role in the non-profit sector (Funnel andRogers 2011; Carman 2010). The theory of changedraws on defining linear cause-and-effect chainsfrom programme implementation to societal impact(McLaughlin and Jordan 1999). Similar models areused in the context of corporate philanthropy (e.g.London Benchmarking Group 2004), corporate-NGO partnerships (Hansen et al. 2010; Hansen andSpitzeck 2011) and in performance measurement inthe area of corporate sustainability (Epstein and Roy2001; Hansen and Schaltegger 2016) and start-upventuring (Ney et al. 2014). Notably, a logic modelor, taking a narrative perspective, a theory of changeassumes a linear causality between inputs, activities,(immediate) outputs, outcomes and impacts as isdetailed in Fig. 1.

Inputs

•Resources dedicated to a par�cular program or ini�a�ve

•E.g. personnel, �me, equipment, funding

Ac�vi�es

•The thing the program does with the inputs/resources

•Interven�on used to bring the intended changes

Outputs

•Direct products of the ac�vi�es

•Associated with the volume or level of the work that has been accomplished

•O�en expressed in terms of units of service or the number of people served

Outcomes

•Intended direct benefits/results of planned ac�on

•Direct change in knowledge, a�tude, values or behaviours

•Likely/achieved short-/medium-term effects of an interven�on’s output

Impacts

•Posi�ve and nega�ve, primary and secondary long-term effects

•Effects can be produced directly or indirectly

•Effects can be intended or unintended

Fig. 1 Theory-of-change framework formulating a logic model (based on Carman 2010; OECD 2002)

M. Wagner et al.

We maintain that the theory of change can befruitfully applied to analyse effects of entrepre-neurial ecosystems. By this logic, the entrepreneur-ial ecosystem model provided by Stam and Spigel(2016) includes the consideration of outputs (en-trepreneurial activity) and outcomes (aggregatedvalue creation) of conditions such as knowledgeand support services in entrepreneurial ecosystems.While the linear logic has been used widely andcontributes to a straightforward analytical under-standing, it also represents an approximation ofcause and effect chains existing in reality. It isalso based on the assumption that developing uni-versities, creating educational programmes, teach-ing students, developing entrepreneurs, and facili-tating new ventures ultimately matter and generateimpact in the larger system. But identifying oreven measuring effects from one to the next log-ical step becomes harder (and more resource-intensive) the more we move from left to the right.Finally, while this linear logic model can onlycover the most important causalities, other iterativeor non-linear relationships could be neglected.However, by covering these most important

causalities, the linear logic we apply appears agood first approximation for our research question.

2.4 Conceptual framework and guiding researchquestions

The review of three interrelated literatures leads usto propose the following (preliminary) conceptualframework (Fig. 2). The framework has four over-arching components (which are italicized in Fig.2): first, the basis of the framework is the knowl-edge spillover theory of entrepreneurship describ-ing the process from investments by establishedorganizations into knowledge creation, the take-upof entrepreneurial action leading to new ventures,and how their performance ultimately leads togrowth of industries and regions. Second, the the-ory of change helps us to generalize the latterknowledge spillover process into a logic modelfrom inputs to impacts. Third, the entrepreneurialecosystems’ view stresses that the success of en-trepreneurs is influenced by how conducive theembedding system is, consisting of various actors,fulfilling diverse functions, generating various

Fig. 2 Framework for investigating the role of university-linked support programmes for sustainable regional development (based onAgarwal et al. 2007: 267; Carman 2010)

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

effects. Fourth, the unit of analysis highlights that,by covering the entire process from inputs to im-pacts, we actually cover two units of analysis:inputs to outputs occur in the realm of theuniversity-linked support programmes, while out-comes and impacts relate to the larger system inthe sense of sustainable regional development.

Based on the above framework, our main researchquestions are:

(1) How do university-linked programmes supportsustainable entrepreneurship?

(2) How do university-linked programmes contributeto:

(a) an improvement of the entrepreneurial ecosys-tem for sustainable entrepreneurship?

(b) entrepreneurial activities by sustainableentrepreneurs?

(c) the overall sustainable development in theregion?

3 Method

3.1 Research design and sample

Our research uses a multiple embedded case study de-sign (Eisenhardt 1989) following literal replication (Yin2003). Two units of analysis are applied: the supportprogrammes and the resulting ventures (outcomes) withtheir impacts for the region. Overall, we selected threecases (Table 2) according to the following criteria:

& All are located in the same country to control for thenational institutional context. We chose Germany,because sustainability is often valued highly andbecause it has established extensive support struc-tures for entrepreneurs and many successful sustain-able entrepreneurship-related programmes over thelast two decades (Fichter et al. 2016; Bank et al.2017). To increase comparability even further, thispaper studies three cases from the two largest Ger-man states—Bavaria and Lower Saxony—whichare the most similar in the federal context of Ger-many. Universities in these two states were screenedfor involvement in well-known entrepreneurial sus-tainability initiatives while case selection continued

until theoretical saturation was achieved to finddistinct cases for further analysis.

& Programmes have been established for at least10 years and all are pioneers on the European orglobal levels (e.g. MBA Sustainability Managementas the world’s first MBA programme with a sustain-ability focus; UTG Augsburg was the firstsustainability-specific incubator in Europe, Eco-Venturing was the first course worldwide with stu-dents developing sustainability-orientated businessconcepts in cooperation with business partnersaiming to promote tangible green business start-ups). This sufficiently long case history allows usto assess the impacts on sustainable regionaldevelopment.

& All cases have been publicly acknowledged to besuccessful (e.g. through receiving awards or highlevels of funding or visibility).

& In all cases, the university (possibly in combinationwith other research-oriented institutions) played ama j o r r o l e i n f a c i l i t a t i n g s u s t a i n a b l eentrepreneurship.

& The researchers had very good data access (Yin2003).

Overall, our cases can be classified as ‘unique’ (Yin2003) as they cover university-based or related facilita-tion of sustainable entrepreneurship in long established(successful) pioneer programmes. The cases are also‘revelatory’, because the unusually good access by theresearchers facilitated the study of previously unad-dressed aspects (Yin 2003). The unusual level of accessstems from the fact that in all cases, researchers havebeen involved either in the programme’s foundation andoperation, or in research on and consultation with thecase entity.

Despite the similarities described above, we alsodeliberately encouraged diversity among the cases tobetter reflect the nature of the present exploratory workthat aims to deliver a better understanding of a newphenomenon. As shown in Table 2 (in chronologicalorder), we included different types of programmes thatalso cover different phases in the entrepreneurial process(Shane and Eckhardt 2003). Covering such heterogene-ity has intrinsic value as it represents the diversity ofapproaches taken by institutions to facilitate sustainableentrepreneurship. Moreover, despite their differences intype, the nature of the outcomes highlighted in our

M. Wagner et al.

analysis (i.e. the creation of sustainable ventures) iscomparable (please note that we are not primarily inter-ested in comparing the quantity of outcomes/ventures,which certainly differ between more conventional incu-bators and teaching-based programmes).

3.2 Data collection and analysis strategy

We collected data from multiple sources covering bothsecondary and primary data. The secondary data on theselected support programmes (e.g. Hesselbarth et al.2015;Wagner and Lutz 2012; Fichter et al. 2016) helpedus to obtain both a broad understanding of theprogrammes and details of the programme design, par-ticipation and outcomes. Primary data covered partici-pant observation, workshops, interviews, and desk re-search. We also collected data at multiple points in time(longitudinal case). Overall, this permitted the extensivetriangulation of information that was supplemented withinformal data, wherever possible. Following Miles andHuberman (1994), we stopped collecting further datawhen new aspects on the issues captured by our researchquestions could no longer be identified. Table 3 pro-vides an overview of this process and the resulting datasources.

As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), the data analysiswas carried out as an iterative process between literatureand data. We started with broad concepts from literaturethat we found informative for the case study focus (e.g.theory of change).We then collected single case descrip-tions for all our cases. Frequent group discussions with-in the research team helped to develop a common

understanding of both deductive and emergingcategories. Following this, we carried out acomparative analysis across cases, which according toGlaser and Strauss (1967) is appropriate when theoret-ical saturation is reached. In the remainder of the paper,we reflect this process by initially introducing in thefollowing section the individual cases.

4 Case studies

This section introduces the three cases of supportprogrammes and related venture creations that formthe basis for the detailed analysis. Each case descriptionincludes information on the context of the programmeand its relevant inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.To provide further insights into and evidence of impactsgenerated through the three cases, we then scrutinizeone start-up for each case to clarify how the programmesled to or supported the founding activities of specificentrepreneurial individuals.

4.1 Case 1: UTG Augsburg

4.1.1 University-linked support programme

In 2006, the state of Bavaria collaborated withlocal universities to support certain future technol-ogy domains. The aim was to employ a clusterprogramme involving networking and cross-linkingof technology-oriented and technology-specificbusiness incubators and technology centres. Oneof the domains focussed upon was environmentaltechnology. The concept thus built on the clusterlogic and agglomeration economies (Marshall1920; Porter et al. 2010). The UTG Augsburgwas a core element in the cluster programme andthe only business incubator specializing in envi-ronmental technology supported by the Bavarianstate. It was set up in 1998 and in fact was theonly incubator in the EU with such a specializa-tion at that time (Hehl 2010). The major mobili-zation of resources was through leveraging fundsmade available through the Bavarian cluster pro-gramme, which provided a window of opportunityand a rare chance to develop a dedicated incuba-tor. Furthermore, prior knowledge and experienceresided in the local universities and a local

Table 2 Case characteristics

Case Institutions/university

Programmestart

Type ofprogramme

UTGAugsburg

State ofBavaria,Chambers,University ofAugsburg

1998 Incubation

MBASustainabilityMana gement

LeuphanaUniversityLüneburg

2003 Education(full-degreeprogramme)

Eco-Venturing Carl vonOssietzkyUniversityOldenburg

2009 Entrepreneurshipeducation (singlemodule), start-upfacilitation

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

research institute, the Bavarian Institute for WasteResearch.

The UTG mainly covers the innovation system func-tions of experimentation, incubation, resource mobiliza-tion and networking. The latter is extended through theinteraction of partners that also provide extended sup-port functions. Specifically, the ‘Umweltcluster Bayern’(of which the UTG is a main member) is itself a memberof a Europe-wide network of environmental technologyclusters named ‘EcoCluP’, which incorporates over3500 firms and 430 research institutions from ten EUcountries (Anon. 2011). Furthermore, the UTG is amajor partner in the ‘Kompetenzzentrum Umwelt e.V.’ (abbreviated to KUMAS, a network of Bavarianenvironmental technology firms headquartered at theUTG). The UTG hosts an average of 40 start-up firmsfor an average of 4.7 years, during which time theybenefit from below-average rental rates and flexiblecontract conditions among other cost advantages.Assessing the regional sustainability impact of the inno-vations realized by the start-ups that have been in theincubator involves evaluating environmental contribu-tions. The process includes life-cycle assessments that

individual entrepreneurs in the incubator already use asa communication tool. Economically and socially theregional impact is mainly generated through around 200jobs created and over 30 patents granted in the 140 firmsincubated since 1998 (Hehl 2011; Anon 2018).

4.1.2 Exemplary new venture

The start-up Corrmoran was founded as a Universityof Augsburg spinoff and joined the UTG in 2008.The four founders (three of whom came from theuniversity) initially also received support by theuniversity in the form of an EXIST (Germanfederal initiative for academic start-ups) grant fordeveloping their venture’s business plan. Corrmorandeveloped a new sensor device, which made it pos-sible to measure the corrosion in large-scale firingplants online during operation. The initial develop-ment of the device resulted from a research projectat the university supported by the European Region-al Development Fund. Corrosion of heat exchangersis one of the main factors limiting energy efficiencyand creates huge maintenance costs in large-scale

Table 3 Data collection

Case 1: UTG Augsburg Case 2: MBA Sustaina bilityManagement

Case 3: Eco-Venturing

Secondary data - Presentation on the Bavarian clusterstrategy and the centre (Hehl 2010;Wagner and Lutz 2012)

- Presentation on environmentaltechnology incubation at the centre(Hehl 2011)

- Evaluation report on environmentaltechnology and energy in Bavaria(Anon. 2011)

- Alumni survey on skills andcareer path (Hesselbarth andSchaltegger 2014)

- Programme foundation andinstitutional change (Lee andSchaltegger 2014)

- Programme’s teachingpedagogies and skilldevelopment (Hesselbarthet al. 2015)

- Case study analysis of universitysupport structures and programmes(Geier and Fichter 2015)

- Interview with responsible teachingpersonnel (Fichter et al. 2016)

Primary data:

- Desk research andinternal data

- Programme websites- Venture websites and media

contributions

- Programme websites- Venture websites and media

contributions- Student database, teaching

evaluations, alumni surveys

- Programme websites- Venture websites and media

contributions- Student, alumni and start-up

database, venture survival analysisand impact evaluation

- Participantobservation,workshops, andinterviews

- Interview with past centre manager- Interviews with nine start-ups from

the centre- Interview with current centre manager

- 520 days of programmedevelopment

-> 600 days of own teaching- 100 days of further programme

participation- Two workshops with

sustainable ventures

- 80 days of programme development- 120 days of teaching- 240 days of student coaching- Five interviews with participating

students and start-up-entrepreneurs

M. Wagner et al.

firing plants. Early detection of corrosion issuesusing Corrmoran’s sensor can improve energy effi-ciency and deliver cost savings, which are likely tomake a significant impact on regional and globalsustainability. Corrmoran has also won several busi-ness plan competitions such as the regional“BPWSchwaben” in 2008 and the second stage of theMunich Business Plan Competition (MBPW) in 2009,and has placed second in the Marathon category of thethird stage of theMBPW. The environmental credentialsof Corrmoran’s product have been recognized by theproject becoming one of the three official model projectswhich represent the best environmental competencies inBavaria. The technology developed by Corrmoran hashigh potential as certified by the fact that the “High-TechGründerfonds” (a public-private partnership betweenthe German Government and several leading Germanmultinationals from different industries) and also Bay-ern Kapital (an organization managing the seed funds ofthe State of Bavaria) provided substantial venture capitalto the start-up. In 2010, the start-up already had 14employees and 14 customers across Europe, and by2014 Bayern Kapital decided that Corrmoran did notrequire further financing. Whilst the initial impulse forthe venture came directly out of the university (i.e.already at this stage a beneficial and unique role of theuniversity can be identified in that the founders met atthe university through a research project carried out atthe university), the UTG made crucial contributions inthe later venture phases. Specifically, Corrmoranbenefited from the UTG by having access to a commonlaboratory of the highest standard to refine and test thetechnology. Furthermore, the UTG provided an environ-ment supporting intensive exchanges with firms work-ing in very similar market contexts. Corrmoran couldcapitalize on this, which was significant in helping theventure develop its own entrepreneurial processes. Be-cause of this, the venture could build on the expertise ofother firms, as well as accessing their business networks,in a unique way that would not have been possiblewithout the UTG.

4.2 Case 2: MBA sustainability management

4.2.1 University-linked support programme

The motivation to set up the world’s first MBA pro-gramme in corporate sustainability management at theCentre for Sustainability Management (CSM) was to

educate “change agents for corporate sustainability”.The need for this new programme was based on theperceived lack of impact of sustainable managementeducation, as students took a long time to get intopositions of influence or lacked sufficient sustainabilityknowledge.

Three inputs were considered essential for the pro-gramme: financial inputs for establishing and maintain-ing it, the development of teaching materials and theinvolvement of lecturers. The programme content wasoriginally financed with EU support funding, and therewas no funding from the university. The programmewas founded in a rather isolated manner and encoun-tered little resistance owing to a gap between the respon-sibilities and competence areas of the relevant faculties.That situation provided the necessary organizationalspace to innovate (Lee and Schaltegger 2014). Thefounders of the programme worked on the developmentof teaching materials for 2 years until they had materialfor around 1800 lecture hours to support a 1-year fulltime (or 2-year part-time) programme with on-campuslectures and e-learning–based distance courses.

External lecturers were acquired with the help of agroup of four PhD students at the Centre. The curricu-lum was discussed with representatives from the corpo-rate world and the programme was accredited 7 weeksbefore it commenced. The programme’s success islargely the result of the very high levels of personalengagement of the founders and the research team atCSM involved in the MBA teaching and student ser-vice. To reduce bureaucratic obstacles in the generaluniversity administration, most administrative processesare managed directly at CSM. The curriculum has beencontinuously improved and enlarged since inception(Hesselbarth et al. 2015). The programme was devel-oped as a continuous education blended learning pro-gramme (and thus did not affect the existing on-campusprogrammes). The MBA curriculum covers classes insustainability management, specialized functions (e.g.sustainable production and sustainable strategy) as wellas dedicated courses on sustainable entrepreneurshipand sustainability innovation.

A unique feature of the programme is the project-based learning in which the entire cohort solvessustainability-related problems during a 5-day on-siteplacement with a business partner. The programmestarted in 2003 with 27 students and now about 40students are admitted annually. Approximately 450 stu-dents have graduated from the MBA programme, and a

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

large alumni network with approximately 600 people(graduates, lecturers and students) has been establishedwith a broad own network programme of regional meet-ings and other activities (Hesselbarth and Schaltegger2014). Due to the distance learning and part-time natureof the programme, the part-time students can directlyapply new skills to their jobs and transfer their devel-oped competencies into their professional working en-vironment. The possibility for immediate and continu-ous application and trial of new knowledge increasesboth the motivation of the students and their real-worldimpact during their studies. Some students have foundedtheir own sustainable businesses for example in the solarindustry, consulting, IT and manufacturing of energy-saving devices with the related potential impact on thetransformation of industries.

4.2.2 Exemplary new venture

The start-up IntelliSolar was founded in 2006 by aformer student of the MBA Sustainability Management.The company now has more than 30 employees andplans, develops and invests in semi-large photovoltaic(PV) systems on industrial sites (larger than 200 m2 butsmaller than large photovoltaic parks). As a generalcontractor, the start-up delivers projects for both smalland large companies and for private investors who eitherhave roof space or want to invest in PV. The one-stop-shop principle is the main offer of IntelliSolar as ageneral contractor: the start-up takes responsibility forthe project and connects all actors dealing with thedifferent steps of planning, installing and maintainingPV systems. IntelliSolar takes care of all the planningsteps from the vision to installation and grid connection,including the planning of energy storage systems andmaintenance. The founder of IntelliSolar graduated withthe MBA Sustainability Management in Lüneburg,which supported him in various ways: First, the projectmanagement core of the company requires dealing withdifferent kinds of expertise. Managing inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches, with experts from different dis-ciplines and in interdisciplinary teams is a key topic ofthe MBA programme. Second, the alumni network ofthe MBA programme provided a platform of exchangewith fellow students, some of whom became employeesof the company. The founder formed a group of detailedknowledge of study collaborators in terms of their inter-ests in and commitment to sustainability and also theirstrengths and particular area of expertise. Third, fellow

MBA students work as architects in construction andother types of firms, which provides contacts, informa-tion and potential business opportunities. Utilizing theavailable support means the company has established anational network and works with regional partners nearthe customers who do the actual installation and localmaintenance. With this innovation, the company con-tributes to the diffusion of PV systems in the mid-rangesize of projects. While large projects are often deliveredby large investment companies with professional exper-tise and small projects on single-family houses can beundertaken by local heating and solar installation crafts-men, mid-size projects on smaller industrial buildingshave a large potential with regard to the number ofbuildings and roofs, but require expertise and localsupport. This is exactly the market gap IntelliSolarserves and for whose customers the company has devel-oped specific solutions. In addition to its services as ageneral contractor, the company provides services andtechnologies to substantially reduce installation timeand costs for PV systems. Based on a car shell technol-ogy from the automotive industry, the company offersthe fast installation system iFIX. Recently, the companyhas expanded both geographically to Spain and Swit-zerland and in terms of its range of services, now in-cluding rainwater catchment systems and small sewagewater treatment systems.

4.3 Case 3: Eco-Venturing at Carl von OssietzkyUniversity Oldenburg, Germany

4.3.1 University-linked support programme

The University of Oldenburg, located in the north-westof Germany, has a long tradition in sustainability-relatedteaching and research. Its three-term non-consecutivemaster’s programme in Renewable Energy started asearly as 1987. Based on its tradition and specific com-petencies in sustainability-related teaching and research,the Department of Business Administration, Economicsand Law decided to expand the sustainability mastercluster and introduce a new master’s programme inSustainability Economics andManagement (SEM) from2005.

A 2-month research visit to the Bren School of En-vironmental Science and Management at the Universityof California, Santa Barbara in 2008, offered a professorof innovation management and sustainability the oppor-tunity to learn about the university’s pioneering study

M. Wagner et al.

programme in Eco-Entrepreneurship, which had beenintroduced only a year prior to his arrival. The professorsubsequently persuaded his department to introduce aneco-entrepreneurship major study course as a speciali-zation in the SEM master’s programme. Central to thespecialization in eco-entrepreneurship is the award-winning master’s project module in Eco-Venturingwhich has been offered every winter semester since2009 (Fichter et al. 2016). The aims of the Eco-Venturing module are threefold: (1) To get studentsinterested in entrepreneurial solutions to societal chal-lenges, (2) to develop their entrepreneurial skills forsustainable entrepreneurship and (3) to developsustainability-oriented business models in close cooper-ation with entrepreneurs and regional companies. Underthe guidance of two professors and two coaches, four orfive teams of between three and five students work withselected business partners to promote sustainable start-up ideas which are intended to be both economicallysuccessful and contribute to sustainable developmentgoals.

In order to support sustainability-orientated businessmodel development, the concept of a Sustainable Busi-ness Canvas was developed and is now being used bythe students (Tiemann and Fichter 2016). About 30% ofall students in the master’s programme SEM participatein the Eco-Venturing module to develop competenciesin eco-venturing and in starting green businesses. Since2009, a total of 170 students have worked on 44 differ-ent sustainable start-up ideas. Almost half of these sus-tainable business ideas (20) led to actual new firmcreation or new business units in existing companies.The Eco-Venturing module is part of the entrepreneurialsupport system of the University of Oldenburg and thesustainability-specific support activities facilitate andaccelerate academic entrepreneurship in the fields ofclean technologies, renewable energies and sustainabil-ity. Every year, the programme supports students andresearchers in the creation of between 10 and 20 greenstart-up projects and spin-offs (Fichter et al. 2016). Todate, 20 new eco-ventures providing approximately 100new jobs have been created since 2009 out of the Eco-Venturing module.

4.3.2 Exemplary new venture

The start-up team from Coolar participated in the Eco-Venturing module in the winter term of 2015/2016. Bythen, they had already developed a prototype for an

innovative solar-powered refrigerator technology thatwas almost carbon neutral. They also had a businessplan for applying the technology for a specific use case.The refrigerator was intended to enable doctors andhealth professionals to preserve lifesaving medicineand vaccines in a reliable and eco-friendly way in de-veloping countries. The Coolar team was also consider-ing the application of the technology for a self-poweredtruck temperature control solution. The student teaminvolved aimed to analyse and assess the market fortruck refrigeration. A key outcome of the Eco-Venturing module was a report by the student team witha detailed competitor analysis, results from interviewswith potential customers from the logistics sector andrecommendations of promising market segments. Thisprovided the Coolar team with a solid basis of informa-tion to facilitate business development. The work donein the Eco-Venturing module prompted Coolar to in-clude a specific segment of the truck refrigeration mar-ket in its business model that was presented to investors.Coolar was formally founded as a new venture only afew months after the Eco-Venturing project and wasable to attract venture capital. The contribution of theEco-Venturing project was critical to the foundation ofthe company, because Coolar could prove to investorsthat it had thoroughly investigated promising marketsegments and identified potential customers and reve-nue options. After 2 years of technology developmentand testing, the seven team members of Coolar arepresently preparing the market introduction of theirrevolutionary refrigeration technology. Two years afterthe Eco-Venturing project, the start-up team of Coolarconsiders the detailed competitor and market analysisprovided by the Eco-venturing module students to be avaluable basis for company development and strategicdecision making. Given the fact that the CO2 emissionsare ten times lower than conventional cooling solutions,the scaling-up of their cooling solution in different mar-kets and sectors is very likely to have a significantimpact on regional and global sustainability.

5 Comparative case analysis

To assess regional sustainability impacts, we analysecases comparatively in order to clarify the degree towhich the university was the originator of the initia-tive, how it linked to public actors and generated

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

knowledge spillovers and how regional impact wasachieved (see below and Table 4).

Based on our literature review, we structure the com-parative case analysis along the different categoriesdeveloped by the theory of change. In these categories,we build on the entrepreneurial ecosystem and innova-tion system literatures to clarify and structure the inputsprovided in each case in a systematic manner.

We then use the knowledge spillover theory of entre-preneurship as our framework to categorize differenttypes of outputs that represent benefits from theprogrammes and to guide our interpretation whenanalysing specific start-up examples to illustrate in moredetail how the programmes led to or supported thefounding activities of specific individuals. Nevertheless,we find more convergence in terms of the outputs,outcomes and longer-term impacts across the threeprogrammes, which we address in Section 6 of thepaper.

A number of functions can be identified as inputs toentrepreneurial and innovation processes in each of thecases (see Table 4), but the combination of functions isdifferent for each of them. This is related to the differingactivity profiles, which create individual forms of thesupport provided. Overall, what can be learned from thecomparative case analysis is that the three cases presentdifferent configurations of university-related supportprogrammes for sustainable regional development. Thisreveals different paths and processes in order tostrengthen sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems,beyond the classic incubator, which for exampleTheodoraki et al. (2018) analysed empirically.

To illustrate, while the UTG is more of a classicincubator providing a mixture of indirect (e.g. fi-nance and office space) and direct (e.g. universityspin-offs moving into the UTG) university support,the idea generation and facilitation of the Eco-Venturing case as a module is more early-stage witha stronger focus on influencing and supporting theidea and business model development. In compari-son, the MBA is not a module like for example Eco-Venturing, but a comprehensive sustainability edu-cation programme that provides support across amuch broader range of themes and skills. The het-erogeneity found in our comparative case analysis isan important insight that is developed upon inSection 6.

Comparing the three examples of firms that receivedsupport from our case programmes, we find clear

evidence of knowledge spillovers from universities tostart-ups as proposed by the knowledge spillover theoryof entrepreneurship. More specifically, we find a diverseset of mechanisms governing how knowledge spilledover in these instances from the university either in theform of technology, market information, network accessor entrepreneurial processes such as funding access,business model development or team formation. It alsobecomes clear that different types of knowledge mattersimultaneously, but that their relative importance differs.For example, technology and entrepreneurial processeswere particularly important to Corrmoran, whereas forIntelliSolar, it was network knowledge. Coolar’s maingains were market information and input on entrepre-neurial processes.

While these examples show that the programmescertainly contributed significantly to the developmentof the entrepreneurs in question, other support structureswere important too. The case descriptions providedmention several specific features that can be identifiedindividually as being a form of strategic resource pro-vided to the ventures, in that the benefit could not beaccessed through other support structures. However, italso becomes clear that such programme features arehighly idiosyncratic and thus depend strongly on thespecific combination of exemplary entrepreneurs and(overall) support structures, as has also been confirmedby Kolb and Wagner (2018) in the case of academicentrepreneurship generally. We can however state withconfidence that such unique features of the programmesexist in most cases but differ across specific start-upsand probably also in terms of when they provide thegreatest benefit. This aspect is elaborated upon in thenext section, including from a more holistic perspectivein terms of a configurational notion.

Furthermore, clearly, the impacts generatedthrough the three examples cannot be fully assessedbecause all the firms have only recently entered themarket. However, all three examples reveal that aninitially mainly regional impact may extend consid-erably beyond the region in the longer term. This isthe case for Corrmoran that was ultimately acquiredin a trade sale by a larger incumbent that was activebeyond the region. Similarly, IntelliSolar recentlyentered new markets in other countries. Finally, thebusiness activities of Coolar were also aimed at theinternational market from the outset. This is animportant insight, which we will expand upon inSection 6.

M. Wagner et al.

6 Discussion and conclusions

Based on the increasingly relevant third mission inregional and economic development that universitiesglobally are urged to take on, this study builds on threecase studies in Germany and analyses how university-linked support programmes contribute to sustainableentrepreneurial ecosystems and which impacts this de-livers for sustainable regional development. Our com-parative case study analysis reveals a differentiated viewof entrepreneurship-related interventions.

First of all, we find evidence addressing our researchquestions that sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems arepositively affected by university-linked supportprogrammes through certain knowledge spillover modes.

For example, in the case of UTG Augsburg, theuniversity’s role as one instigator of the initiative was clear(along with the state of Bavaria, the local chamber ofindustry and commerce, and other actors). That role thentriggered support by other actors. At the same time, theuniversity also provided direct inputs, such as spin-offs thatentered the incubator. Other spillover modes are the supplyof entrepreneurial knowledge, incubation activities andsupport services for green start-ups through the Eco-Venturing module. Also, the university provides knowl-edge spillovers to the entrepreneurial ecosystem via thesystem functions (Table 1) of influencing the direction ofsearch, learning, resource mobilization and networking.

Onemajor insight flowing from the current study is thatuniversity-linked support programmes can improve the

Table 4 Comparative case analysis based on the logic model of the theory of change

Programme Input:functions provided

Activities:support provided

Output:benefit fromprogramme

Outcome:entrepreneurial activities

Impact:potential regionalbenefit

UTGAugsburg

- Entrepreneurshipexperimentation

- Incubation- Resource

mobilization- Networking

140 supported firms since1998, of which approx. 40are internationally active

- Support infoundationprocess of firmsand of regionalnetworks forsustainability

E.g. start-up Corrmoran(crucial inputs fortechnology and entre-preneurial processes)

- Institutionalizationof a learning andnetworking spacefor sustainabledevelopment;

- Contribution toregional clusteractivities

- New firmfoundation

MBASustainabil-ityManage-ment

- Influence on thedirection ofsearch(sustainability)

- Combinededucation insustainabilitymanagement,innovation, andentrepreneurship

- Interactivelearning

48 courses (each 30 h);transfer module; finalpractice workshop; thesis;5 courses dedicated toentrepreneurship; 8courses withentrepreneurship contentas part of the course; 40graduations per year since2005

- Support in neweco-venturefoundingprocesses

- Support ofknowledgetransfer anddiffusionprocesses

E.g. start-up IntelliSolar(crucial inputs forventure-specific hu-man capital of thefounder, networks forbusinessdevelopment andrecruitment)

- Acceleration ofdecentralizedsolar energyproduction

- Acceleration ofenergytransformationon the regionallevel;

- New firmfoundation

Eco-Venturing - Influence on thedirection ofsearch

- Entrepreneurshipeducation andexperimentation

- Incubation- Resource

mobilization- Networking

44 supported green start-upprojects, incl. elaboratedsustainable businessmodels, and 170 studentswith sustainableentrepreneurship expertisesince 2009

- Support of newfirm foundationthroughentrepreneurialeducation

- Incubation andacceleration ofsustainablebusiness ideas

E.g. start-up Coolar (cru-cial inputs to the ven-ture’s business case,market and competitorknowledge, andbusinessdevelopment)

- Reduction ofgreenhouse gasemissions

- Contribution to theprofile of theregion as havinga sustainable andresilienteconomy

- New firmfoundation

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

entrepreneurial ecosystem for sustainable entrepreneurshipthrough different pathways and at different interventionpoints. For example, interventions can be undertaken earlyas in the Eco-Venturing and MBA cases (which focusmore on idea generation/identification and opportunityevaluation) or later as in the UTG case (which has astronger focus on opportunity exploitation and incubation).

One main reason emerging from the cases for thepossibility of different pathways and roles of universitiesis that universities operate under specific regional condi-tions and therefore choose and enable specific roles orpathways, and also determine intervention points that bestfit such conditions. As a result, different types or configu-rations that develop as stable outcomes of such a fittingprocess are identifiable. Ultimately, context thus plays animportant role for any university-linked support pro-gramme. In our cases, for example, the cluster programmein Bavaria and the strong civil society inherent in the“peace city” Augsburg, which has a strong emphasis onlocal Agenda 21 processes and networking, shaped theUTG activities.

In contrast, Lower Saxony lacks comparable top-downinitiatives, meaning local bottom-up initiatives gain morefreedom to operate and at the same time a stronger need toprovide substitutes for critical elements of the supportprogrammes that are provided through the cluster manage-ment in Bavaria. These differences between the two statessuggest that different configurations of university-linkedsupport programmes can emerge depending on how con-text and the conditions at the university interplay andreplace or complement each other to facilitate the systemfunctions necessary to drive improvements of the regionalecosystem supporting sustainable entrepreneurship. Thisnuanced view is important for a better understanding of thepotential and role that universities have in supportingsustainable entrepreneurship ecosystems.

Our comparative analysis based on the theory ofchange and the entrepreneurial ecosystem model byStam and Spigel (2016) was applied to determine pos-itive effects on sustainable development in the region.The analysis revealed both direct and short-term outputsin terms of entrepreneurial activity and less direct,broader long-term outcomes. The tangible direct outputsinclude both specific examples of successful venturesand more general contributions to sustainable develop-ment in the region (see Table 4).

We further contribute by expanding the analysis ofbarriers and success factors affecting how universitiescan support sustainable entrepreneurship and of how

support programmes could be actioned (e.g. Fichterand Tiemann 2018). The study also shows how suchprogrammes trigger sustainable regional developmentoutputs, outcomes and impacts, which addresses a gapin the literature. Depending on the context, what may beconsidered a barrier can become an opportunity as in thecase of the MBA programme where the lack of a spe-cific support system has created space and incentives tobecome entrepreneurial and use a window of opportu-nity to establish the MBA. In turn, the MBA itselfcreated a support programme and offered the incentivesand knowledge necessary to found a company(IntelliSolar). Specific positive impacts that can be iden-tified in our cases are a reduction of greenhouse gasemissions (by increasing the proportion of energy gen-erated through renewable means in the region), theprovision of additional employment with lower healthrisks and the intensification knowledge spillovers inregional networks, as well as the internalization of ex-ternalities flowing from improvements to knowledgeand social feedback loops. The latter can also be seenas the emergence of new capabilities in the region thatmake it more resilient and sustainable.

The cases presented here also illustrate the potential forlong-term effects. Clearly, what starts as a purely regionalimpact can subsequently exert an effect extending consid-erably beyond the original region, especially when sustain-able regional development is successful. This expansion ofeffect maymean that the creating region does not retain thelargest share of the benefits but equally that a smaller shareof a bigger benefit ultimately still makes a strong regionalimpact. This suggests that even start-ups that do not targetsignificant regional impacts but making a strong positiveimpact on sustainable development at the national or glob-al level can ultimately substantially benefit a region — adual regional paradox that merits further exploration.

Related to this insight, while the linear logic modelapplied in first approximation covers the most importantcausalities to answer our research question, we urgefuture research to explore non-linear extensions to theframework to address this potential limitation. For ex-ample, within our chosen context, future research mightcomprehensively assess impacts, which would also sup-port an improved assessment of long-term effects.

Building on above insights, in terms of the broaderquestion of how and with what impact university-linkedprogrammes can support sustainable entrepreneurialecosystems, both directly and indirectly, we exposedstrong evidence that universities taking on a third

M. Wagner et al.

mission prompts crucial activities that overcome knowl-edge filter issues (Braunerhjelm et al. 2010). In doingso, they ultimately enable and improve important eco-system functions supporting sustainable entrepreneur-ship. This occurs for example in terms of not onlyproviding education and learning as a basis for knowl-edge spillovers, but also through more complex andpotentially less direct knowledge spillovers, such asthe generation of spin-offs.

Our findings have implications for policy-makersand academics. Clearly, a sustainability focus inuniversity-linked support programmes can play an im-portant role in fostering sustainable entrepreneurial eco-systems and sustainable regional development. Thecases analysed in our sample all represent programmeswith an explicit sustainability focus that is an element ofinstitutional entrepreneurship; a finding that responds tocalls in the literature for more research in this area (Hallet al. 2010). Conventional entrepreneurship support,however, though increasingly available with the in-volvement of universities, typically lacks such a sustain-ability focus (Theodoraki et al. 2018; Tiemann et al.2018).

Relating our findings back to our conceptual founda-tions in terms of the knowledge spillover theory of entre-preneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems and the theory ofchange, we find strong evidence of a process involvingdifferent actors providing inputs as the basis for activitiesthat ultimately generate functions in order to achieve ef-fects at different levels (outputs, outcomes and impacts).We also identified different feasible configurations basedon region-specific fit and substitution options. Identifyingthe possibility of universities using different pathways andintervention points is an important insight that policy-makers should take into account and that deserves furtherattention in academic research.

At the same time, an important implication for uni-versities wishing to become involved in supportprogrammes for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystemsis that they should analyse their specific regional contextto ensure that their chosen configuration and design (e.g.in terms of intervention points, roles or pathways) fit thespecific regional situation in the best possible way. Thisapplies equally to support programmes with a moreenvironmental focus or those with a more social focus.In turn, successful implementation of regional strategiescan ultimately have strong positive impacts beyond theregion. Both universities and (regional) policy-makersshould take this wider impact into account at the outset.

Doing so would enable them to set realistic expectationsfor the regional development results they target. Toconclude, our article addresses calls to research moreon the process and effect dimensions of (sustainable)entrepreneurial ecosystems (Agarwal et al. 2007, 2010;Stam and Spigel 2016). In particular, our case-basedanalysis contributes by highlighting different configura-tions of university-linked programmes supporting sus-tainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. In doing so, wecomplement and extend work focussing on specificconfigurations and front-ends of sustainable entrepre-neurial ecosystems (e.g. Theodoraki et al. 2018; Fichterand Tiemann 2018). Overall, our paper should thereforeextend understanding of the pathways available for uni-versities to support sustainable entrepreneurial ecosys-tems by enabling knowledge spillovers and the impactdoing so can have on sustainable regional development.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to our colleague MarkusBeckmann for valuable inputs and discussions during the earlierstages of this project and the corresponding paper, as well as forbeneficial comments from the participants at the G-Forum 2017 inWuppertal and from two anonymous reviewers. Erik Hansenfurthermore thanks Quality Austria - Trainings, Zertifizierungsund Begutachtungs GmbH, Vienna and the State of Upper Austriafor their funding of the Institute for Integrated Quality Design.

Funding Information Open access funding provided byJohannes Kepler University Linz.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestrict-ed use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, providedyou give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate ifchanges were made.

References

Abdelkafi, N., & Hansen, E. G. (2018). Ecopreneurs’ creation of userbusiness models for green tech: an exploratory study in E-mobility. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,10(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.10007848.

Abreu, M., Demirel, P., Grinevich, V., & Karatas-Özkan, M.(2016). Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive andteaching-led universities. Small Business Economics, 47,695–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9754-5.

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process ofcreative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship,and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1,263–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.36.

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledgespillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.96.

Anon. (2018). https://www.plattform-ressourceneffizienz.de/angebot/dr-viola-rueckert/. Accessed 11 July 2018.

Anon. (2011). Umwelt-Technologie und Energie in Bayern.Munich: media mind GmbH.

Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystemsin cities: establishing the framework conditions. Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1096101694738.

Audretsch, D., & Berlitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: thecreativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship.Small Business Economics, 41, 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9508-6.

Bank, N., Fichter, K., & Klofsten, M. (2017). Sustainability-profiled incubators and securing the inflow of tenants – thecase of Green Garage Berlin. Journal of Cleaner Production,157, 76–83.

Binder, J. K., & Belz, F. M. (2015). Sustainable entrepreneurship:what it is. In P. Kyrö (Ed.), Handbook of entrepreneurshipand sustainable development research (pp. 30–75).Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013).Sustainable innovation, business models and economic per-formance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45,1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013.

Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2010).The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurshipin endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9235-1.

Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: what’swrong with this theory of change? Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008330622.

Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems.Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428.

Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportu-nity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2001). Sustainability in action:identifying and measuring the key performance drivers.Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X.

Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region:toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development.R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of inno-vation: fromNational Systems and “mode 2” to a triple Helixof university–industry–government relations. ResearchPolicy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.

Fichter, K., & Tiemann, I. (2018). Factors influencing universitysupport for sustainable entrepreneurship - insights from ex-plorative case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175,512–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.031.

Fichter, K., Geier, J., & Tiemann, I. (2016). Good practice collec-tion – university support for sustainable entrepreneurship.Berlin, Helsinki, Linköping: SHIFT.

Funnel, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory:effective use of theories of change and logic models. London:Wiley.

Gast, J., Gundolf, K., & Cesinger, B. (2017). Doing business in agreen way: a systematic review of the ecological sustainabil-ity entrepreneurship literature and future research directions.Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 44–56.

Geier, J., & Fichter, K. (2015). Good practice examples: activitiesin sustainable entrepreneurship at universities in Finland,Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. Berlin, Helsinki, Linköping: SHIFT.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of groundedtheory: strategies in qualitative research. London:Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainabledevelopment and entrepreneurship: past contributions andfuture directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5),439–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.002.

Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability bal-anced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures.Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 193–221.

Hansen, E. G., & Spitzeck, H. (2011). Measuring the impacts ofNGO partnerships: the corporate and societal benefits ofcommunity involvement. Corporate Governance:International Journal of Business in Society, 11(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701111159253.

Hansen, E. G., Sextl, M., & Reichwald, R. (2010). Managingstrategic alliances through a community-enabled balancedscorecard: the case of Merck Ltd, Thailand. BusinessStrategy and the Environment, 19(6), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.689.

Hehl, W. (2010). Die bayerische Clusterstrategie und die Rolle desUmwelt-Technologischen Gründerzentrums Augsburgs(UTG), Presentation at Julius-Maximilians-UniversityWuerzburg, 17 November.

Hehl, W. (2011). Umwelttechnologie: Luxus in einer Nische oderglobale Notwendigkeit und ökonomische Chance?,Presentation at Julius-Maximilians-University Wuerzburg,15 November.

Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating changeagents for sustainability. Learnings from the first sustainabil-ity management master of business administration. Journalof Cleaner Production, 62, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042.

Hesselbarth, C., Buhr, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2015). Managementeducation for sustainability. Deriving learning formats fromcompetency requirements. In P. J. Davim (Ed.),Sustainability in higher education (pp. 21–49). Burlington:Elsevier.

Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening goliaths ver-sus emerging Davids — theorizing about the role of incum-bents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship.Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005.

Holt, D., & Watson, A. (2008). Exploring the dilemma of localsourcing versus international development – the case of theflower industry. Business Strategy and the Environment,17(5), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.623.

M. Wagner et al.

Kolb, C., & Wagner, M. (2018). Different breeds, different needs:How university spin-offs differ in composition and interac-tion – a qualitative approach. Journal of Technology Transfer,43(3), 734–759.

Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainabilityorientation on entrepreneurial intentions— investigating the roleof business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5),524–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001.

Lee, K. H., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Organizational transforma-tion and higher sustainability management education. Thecase of the MBA sustainability management. InternationalJournal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(4), 450–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2013-0067.

London Benchmarking Group (LBG) (2004). Measure for measure:celebrating the LBG's first ten years. London. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lbg-online.net/var/news/storage/original/application/ef7704e14e3c1ba07876310b1b1a1eed.pdf. Accessed 21May 2008.

Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation sys-tems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integratedframework. Research Policy, 37(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004.

Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London:Macmillan.

McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: a toolfor telling your programs performance story. Evaluation andProgram Planning, 22(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data anal-ysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks/London:Sage.

Ney, S., Beckmann, M., Graebnitz, D., & Mirkovic, R. (2014).Social entrepreneurs and social change: tracing impacts ofsocial entrepreneurship through ideas, structures and prac-tices. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,6(1), 51–68.

OECD. (2002). Glossary of key terms in evaluations and resultsbased management. Paris: OECD.

Pacheco, D. F., Dean, T. J., & Payne, D. S. (2010). Escaping thegreen prison: entrepreneurship and the creation of opportu-nities for sustainable development. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 25, 464–480.

Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: princi-ples of organization design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25,510–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.05.005.

Porter, M. E., Delgado, M., & Stern, S. (2010). Clusters andentrepreneurship. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). Universityentrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial andCorporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023.

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneur-ship and sustainability innovation: categories and interac-tions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682.

Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., &Hansen, E. (2016). Businessmodels for sustainability. A co-evolutionary analysis of sus-tainable entrepreneurship, innovation and transformation.Organization & Environment, 29(3), 264–289.

Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018).Sustainable entrepreneurship: creating environmental

solutions in light of planetary boundaries. InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(1), 1–16.

Sedlacek, S. (2013). The role of universities in fostering sustain-able development at the regional level. Journal of CleanerProduction, 48, 74–84.

Shane, S. A., & Eckhardt, J. T. (2003). The individual-opportunitynexus. In Z. J. Ács & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Internationalhandbook series on entrepreneurship: Vol. 1. Handbook ofentrepreneurship research. An interdisciplinary survey andintroduction (pp. 161–191). Boston: Kluwer.

Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainableentrepreneurship: studying entrepreneurial action linking‘what is to be sustained’ with ‘what is to be developed’.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137–163.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x.

Simatupang, T. M., Schwab, A., & Lantu, D. C. (2015).Introduction: building sustainable entrepreneurship ecosys-tems. Editorial. International Journal of Entrepreneurshipand Small Business, 26(4), 389–398.

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: asympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.

Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems (Vol.13). Utrecht: Utrecht School of Economics.

Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., & Rice, M. P. (2018). A socialcapital approach to the development of sustainable entrepre-neurial ecosystems: an explorative study. Small BusinessEconomics, 51, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9924-0.

Thierstein, A., & Walser, M. (1997). Sustainable regional devel-opment the squaring of the circle or a gimmick?Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629700000008.

Tiemann, I., & Fichter, K. (2016). Developing business modelswith the sustainable business canvas: manual for conductingworkshops. Oldenburg: University of Oldenburg Retrievedfrom www.borderstep.de. Accessed 27 August 2019.

Tiemann, I., Fichter, K., & Geier, J. (2018). University supportsystems for sustainable entrepreneurship: insights from ex-plorative case studies. International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Venturing, 10(1), 83–110.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agendafor sustainable development. Resolution No. A/RES/70/1.http://www.un.org/ga/search/viewdoc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.. Accessed 26 Aug 2019.

Wagner, M. (2012). Ventures for the public good and entrepre-neurial intentions: an empirical analysis of sustainabilityorientation as a determining factor. Journal of SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2012.10593587.

Wagner, M., & Lutz, E.-M. (2012). Sustainability-improving in-novation: empirical insights and relationships withsustainability-oriented entrepreneurship. In M. Wagner(Ed.), Entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainability (pp.279–296). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Wagner, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Classifying entrepreneurshipfor the public good: empirical analysis of a conceptual frame-work. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 23(3),431–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2010.10593494.

University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what...

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rded). Applied social research methods series (Vol. 5).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard tojurisdictional claims in published maps and institutionalaffiliations.

M. Wagner et al.