What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses?

What motivates ecopreneurs tostart businesses?

Jodyanne Kirkwood and Sara WaltonCentre for Entrepreneurship, School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin,

New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose – Ecopreneurs are those entrepreneurs who start for-profit businesses with strongunderlying green values and who sell green products or services. This is an emerging field whereresearch is still in its infancy. Research has been called for to understand the factors that motivatethese ecopreneurs to start businesses – and that is the focus of this study. The aim of this paper is tocompare the findings with results of extant literature on entrepreneurial motivations.

Design/methodology/approach – This study comprises 14 in-depth case studies of ecopreneurialcompanies in New Zealand in 2008. Participants were interviewed in a face-to-face, semi-structuredformat. In total, 88 secondary sources such as media reports, industry statistics, and information fromcompany web sites were also collected.

Findings – Ecopreneurs were motivated by five factors: their green values; earning a living; passion;being their own boss; and seeing a gap in the market. Ecopreneurs appear to have quite similarmotivations to entrepreneurs in general, aside from their green motivations. They had lower levelfinancial motivations than have been found in prior research on entrepreneurs. The ecopreneurs wereprimarily pulled into entrepreneurship, which bodes well for their ongoing success. The paper presentsa number of contributions to both the ecopreneurship and entrepreneurship literatures.

Research limitations/implications – The small sample is a potential limitation and the countrycontext may also influence the findings.

Originality/value – This is one of the largest samples of ecopreneurs to date. Given the emergingnature of the field of ecopreneurship, this study’s conclusions require further research and testing. Atotal of 11 such suggestions for future research are made.

Keywords Business formation, Entrepreneurs, Motivation (psychology), New Zealand

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionEcopreneurs are emerging as a new breed of entrepreneur who are worthy of muchgreater consideration than has been given to date. The field of ecopreneurship began toreceive research attention in the late 1990s (Anderson, 1998; Keogh and Polonsky, 1998;Pastakia, 1998), but is still in its infancy (Cohen and Winn, 2007). Clemens (2006)similarly notes that little research exists on the environment and small firms in general(see, for example de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). While there has been increasing researchinterest in discussing ecopreneurs from a conceptual perspective, there remains littleempirical research to date (Gibbs, 2007). Only one study could be located which focuseddirectly on the ecological orientation of founder’s start-up processes (Freimann et al.,2005). Where there has been useful related research, small sample sizes prevail.Authors to date have focused on single case studies (Dixon and Clifford, 2007), or smallsamples of between one and 10 cases (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005; Freimann et al., 2005;Pastakia, 1998; Schaltegger, 2002). Others have studied co-operative ownershiparrangements in the energy sector (associative entrepreneurship) (Cato et al., 2008).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm

IJEBR16,3

204

Received September 2008Revised February 2009Accepted April 2009

International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour &ResearchVol. 16 No. 3, 2010pp. 204-228q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1355-2554DOI 10.1108/13552551011042799

Ecopreneurs are defined in this study as those entrepreneurs who enter theseeco-friendly markets not only to make profits, but also having strong, underlying greenvalues. Our definition is:

Entrepreneurs who found new businesses based on the principle of sustainability (based onideas from Issak, 2002; Walley and Taylor, 2002).

This definition has two main components which also need to be carefully defined. First,there are many different definitions of what constitutes an entrepreneur (see, forexample Carland et al., 1984; Gartner, 1990), and no consensus has been reached. Thedefinition used in this study focuses on the founding role but others would suggest thatinnovation is a requirement for being an entrepreneur (Schumpeter, 1934). Therefore,we define an entrepreneur as someone who is the founder of a new for-profit business.The study is particularly focused on people who start a business with pre-existinggreen values. These types of ecopreneurs have been referred to as “green-green” (Issak,2002). One of the classic examples is the company founded by Anita Roddick – TheBody Shop (Issak, 2002). Our interest is in these business founders as they have theability to “constitute and shape the “face” of their company” (Schaltegger, 2002 p. 47).These ecopreneurs who are “eco-dedicated” have been found to exhibit “firmconvictions” (Freimann et al., 2005, p. 117). We contrast this population with otherentrepreneurs and business owners who undertake (or contemplate) environmentalinitiatives after starting their business (McKeiver and Gadenne, 2005; Rao, 2008;Schaper, 2002b). For example, research has concluded that while entrepreneurs mayhave positive environmental attitudes this does not automatically translate into theadoption of environmental management systems (McKeiver and Gadenne, 2005).

The second component of our definition of an ecopreneur is that the business mustbe sustainable. Our focus is on green entrepreneurs, and while that might mean theyoperate with some social values, their inclusion in this research is primarily aconsequence of their green practices. Of particular interest for this study ofecopreneurs is the notion of ecological sustainability. Our definition of an ecopreneur isnot, however, as narrow as some researchers who include the requirement of havingsocial drivers as well as environmental and business goals (Dixon and Clifford, 2007).For some it is strongly linked to the greening of an existing business (Issak, 2002), andfor others ecopreneurship is related to sustainability, which adds social dimensionssuch as justice and equity into the construction of the business (Gladwin et al., 1995).

Theoretical perspectivesOur view at the outset of this study is that ecopreneurs are a subset of entrepreneurswho may differ in the way they start businesses, particularly in their motivations forbecoming entrepreneurs. Before commencing with a review of the relevant literature, itis important to describe our theoretical approach to ecopreneurship. In addressing theresearch aims there are various perspectives of analysis that are useful. Researchershave noted that psychologists, economists and sociologists have tried to understandthe business start-up process (Freimann et al., 2005). In early studies ofentrepreneurship, economists have had much input into the body of knowledgeabout the field (Knight, 1921; Penrose, 1968; Schumpeter, 1934). The focus ofeconomists has primarily been at the firm level (such as size of the firm, growthintentions, firm performance and survival rates), but this perspective has the potential

What motivatesecopreneurs?

205

danger of removing the person (the entrepreneur) from the study of entrepreneurship(Smith, 1967). In this paper, one of our research objectives was to explore themotivations for becoming an ecopreneur, and it seemed that Smith’s concerns werewell-founded. An alternative view of entrepreneurship is from a psychologicalperspective. This psychological viewpoint certainly moves closer to being interested inthe entrepreneur, rather than looking at entrepreneurship as a purely economicprocess. Researchers following this psychological perspective have focused onpersonality traits such as the need for achievement (Langan-Fox and Roth, 1995), andrisk-taking propensity (Belcourt et al., 1991; Watson and Robinson, 2002). However,like economic views of entrepreneurship, psychological perspectives have also beencriticized because “too often entrepreneurship is viewed merely as a psychologicalcapacity like musical or poetical talent” (Campbell, 1992, p. 21).

Due to the weaknesses of both of these perspectives of entrepreneurship, this studyprefers a sociological theoretical framework. This perspective argues that the socialenvironment affects entrepreneurs (Belcourt, 1987; Hurley, 1999). Such perspectivesassume that behaviour is “so constrained by ongoing social relations that to construethem as independent is a grievous misunderstanding” (Granovetter, 1985, p. 482). Weconcur with other ecopreneurship researchers who observed that “bothentrepreneurship and environmentalism are deeply embedded in the social matrix”(Anderson, 1998, p. 138). In order to understand how individuals become ecopreneurs,we must view their decisions as being embedded in a wider sociological perspective.Indeed, “entrepreneurs are human, part of the same ecological system as theirorganization, and consequently subject to the same concerns” (Anderson, 1998, p. 138).In practice, taking this sociological perspective meant that we asked questions aboutthe founder’s background, their personal views on the environment and discussionsoften revolved around their families and the importance of that in their motivations forecopreneurship. The open-ended questions (discussed further in method) allowed us toexplore issues that were relevant to our participants, and cast a wider net than takingonly a firm level (economics approach) or individual (psychological) approach asdiscussed earlier.

2. Literature reviewThe emerging ecopreneurship literatureAs mentioned above, we view ecopreneurship to be one form of entrepreneurship. Thegrowth in ecopreneurs may be partially due to increasing market opportunities forsustainable products and services. Customers are becoming increasingly environmentallyconscious (Laroche et al., 2001). Many are losing confidence in larger corporations andhave expectations of companies to exhibit more social and environmental responsibility(Webb et al., 2008). A trend towards value-driven environmentalism has flourished sinceconsumers started demanding and purchasing environmentally friendly products andservices (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Post and Altman, 1994). Recent discourse onenvironmental issues such as climate change and carbon miles has raised awareness ofthe environment and many people now choose to purchase with environmental sensitivityin mind (Anderson, 1998). In response to this, many companies are recognising the need togo green (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Schaper, 2002a).

Increasing numbers of entrepreneurs are also recognizing opportunities for newventures as consumer demand grows for more eco-friendly products and services

IJEBR16,3

206

(Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean and McMullen, 2007; Schaltegger, 2002; Schaper, 2002a).New ventures are a different scenario to companies which go green; because whensomeone founds a new business they have the ability to shape their company from theoutset (Schaltegger, 2002). Thus, with ecopreneurs, green values are built into thecompany from inception. Some background to the current thinking on environmentalchange is first required. Three key drivers for environmental change have beenidentified (Post and Altman, 1994). First, compliance-based environmentalism – basedon regulatory and legal systems – is enforced by governments. Second, market-drivenenvironmentalism has emerged, whereby companies are given incentives to beenvironmentally conscious. Finally, there has been a trend towards value-drivenenvironmentalism, where consumers started demanding and purchasingenvironmentally friendly products and services. This driver has moved the focus tobalancing economic activity with environmental protection, and has become known assustainable development (Post and Altman, 1994). Post and Altman (1994) alsorecognize that there are many barriers to environmental change. One way of creatingenvironmental change is for entrepreneurs to start businesses to do so. When someonefounds a new business they have the ability to shape their company from the outset(Schaltegger, 2002). To borrow from Freimann et al. (2005), it may be easier to “infect”founders with ideas of sustainability. This solves many of the problems that existingcompanies have in “going green” (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Schaper, 2002a); which manyapparently do only as a defensive mechanism rather than as a proactive desire to begreen (Freimann et al., 2005)

At first glance, entrepreneurship and environmentalism appear to have little incommon. Indeed, some suggest they could be seen as “intrinsically hostile” to eachother (Anderson, 1998, p. 135). However, on closer examination, this view may not bethe case – as Anderson (1998) notes: the two are not irreconcilable, entrepreneurs cangive environmentalism substance, and they may be a vehicle for social change.Therefore, we support the argument that both entrepreneurship and environmentalismare about values and attitudes (Anderson, 1998), and commitment (Keogh andPolonsky, 1998). There has been increasing interest in the notion that ecopreneurs mayact as important change agents (Anderson, 1998; Gibbs, 2007; Keogh and Polonsky,1998; Pastakia, 1998), in part due to market opportunities. Indeed, researchers haverecently begun to question whether a sustainable economy requires an increasedpresence of non-traditional forms of entrepreneurship, such as associativeentrepreneurship (co-operatives) (Cato et al., 2008).

Motivations for entrepreneurshipLittle research has been undertaken on ecopreneurs’ motivations for entrepreneurship,so we have to rely largely on a broad grounding in the general literature onentrepreneurial motivations. Motivations for entrepreneurship have been the focus ofmany studies over time (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Segal et al., 2005; Taormina andLao, 2007). A review of this literature leads us to conclude that an individual’smotivation to become an entrepreneur is often complex and multi-faceted (Marlow andStrange, 1994; Shane et al., 1991) as well as the start-up process taking a wide range ofdifferent timeframes depending on the entrepreneur (Freimann et al., 2005).Researchers have undertaken studies to explore whether motivations differ betweenmanagers and entrepreneurs (Berthold and Neumann, 2008); as well as more specific


207

research on whether motivations differ according to gender (DeMartino and Barbato,2003), country context (Taormina and Lao, 2007), and people of different ethnicities(Shinnar and Young, 2008; Sriram et al., 2007).

The primary theory development around entrepreneurial motivations has been toclassify motivations into categories of push and pull factors. These push and pull factorshave been used widely as a means of classifying entrepreneurial motivations (Hakim,1989; McClelland et al., 2005; Segal et al., 2005). Push factors are characterized by personalor external factors (including a marriage break-up, or being passed over for promotion),and often have negative connotations. Alternatively, pull factors are those that drawpeople to start businesses (such as seeing an opportunity) (Hakim, 1989). While push andpull factors continue to be used as a key means of classifying motivations, otherresearchers have used similarly opposing categorizations that are closely related, such asautonomy (pull) and economic necessity (push) (Bogenhold and Staber, 1991); oropportunity (pull) and necessity (push) as used by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM) studies (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). Pull factors have been found to be moreprevalent than push factors (Segal et al., 2005), which is important because thoseentrepreneurs who are primarily pulled into business ownership are more likely to haveongoing success with their businesses (Amit and Muller, 1995).

Motivations for entrepreneurship can be seen to revolve around four main drivers: adesire for independence; monetary motivations; factors related to family; and factorsrelated to work (Carter et al., 2003; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003). A desire forindependence and autonomy is often the most significant motivating factor for manypeople in becoming an entrepreneur (Borooah et al., 1997; Fox, 1998). A desire forindependence is primarily classed as a pull factor. Monetary motivations are alsousually classed as a pull factor. People are not always motivated to start a business bymoney (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Fischer et al., 1993) but this has been found to beimportant in a study of prospective entrepreneurs (Alstete, 2003). A review of theliterature shows that money is a relatively low scoring factor when considered inrelation to other motivating factors (Kirkwood, 2004).

The final two categories are work-related and family-related motivators.Motivations to become an entrepreneur that relate to work are usually considered tobe push factors. There appear to be two manifestations of work-related motivations:those regarding a job or employer, and broader career or employment level factors.First, at an individual job level, factors such as job satisfaction (Honig-Haftel andMarin, 1986), job dissatisfaction (Cromie, 1987), or instability in a job (Borooah et al.,1997) can motivate people to leave their employment and become entrepreneurs. On ahigher level are career and employment issues such as career flexibility, advancementand co-career issues (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003), dissatisfaction with one’s career(Cromie, 1987; Marlow, 1997), having difficulty finding employment (Fox, 1998; Hakim,1989) and redundancy (Borooah et al., 1997; Marlow, 1997) – all of which can feature asmotivators in becoming an entrepreneur. Considerations for family in entrepreneurialmotivations include factors such as combining waged and domestic labour (Still andSoutar, 2001), family-related reasons (Sundin and Holmquist, 1991), family policies andfamily obligations (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003) and a desire for work-family balance(Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008). These household and family issues have been termed“motherhood” (de Bruin et al., 2007). Family-related motivations for becoming anentrepreneur are often labelled push factors.

IJEBR16,3

208

Motivations for ecopreneurshipTo date, there has been limited research into sustainability at the time of starting abusiness. Where research has been undertaken, it has been suggested that founders ofnew businesses may have different levels of sustainable orientation which they takeinto their business start-up (Freimann et al., 2005). Like other types of entrepreneursdescribed in the previous section, motivations for ecopreneurship may also bemulti-faceted (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). One of the key distinguishing features ofecopreneurs is their strong ethical reasoning (Linnanen, 2002). Usually the ecopreneurhas a “raison d’etre” that exceeds their desire for profits and often this is associatedwith making the world a better place to live (Linnanen, 2002). Indeed ecopreneurs areoften positioned as “crucial change agents” (Walley and Taylor, 2002) or “a criticalforce in enabling the world to change its path” (Cohen and Winn, 2007, p. 46). Thus,their motivations for making a difference and the role they play in doing so throughdisplacing unsustainable means (Cohen and Winn, 2007) suggests that they have animportant transitional role in sustainability. For the ecopreneur though, the ethicalreasons are often not the only reasons for developing the business. Cohen and Winn(2007) found the motivations of ecopreneurs could be to fill a market need. Such marketneeds have arisen as a result of market imperfections – imperfections that produceenvironmental degradation (Cohen and Winn, 2007) – or as a response to the marketfailing to deal with negative externalities (Pastakia, 1998).

While this discussion implies that all ecopreneurs are similar, this is not necessarilythe case. People have many different goals, even within the sub-group of ecopreneurs(Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). These studies have produced a number of varyingtypologies or categories of ecopreneurs. At the most simple level, ecopreneurs have beendivided into two groups based on their objectives (social and commercial), although theseboundaries may be blurred (Pastakia, 1998). Others have proposed there are a greaternumber of typologies of ecopreneurs such as: desire to make money or change the world(Linnanen, 2002); hard or soft structural influences and economic or sustainabilityorientation (Walley and Taylor, 2002); and priority of business goal and market effect ofbusiness (Schaltegger, 2002). The typologies produce types of ecopreneurs such as the“ad hoc environpreneur”, the “ethical maverick”, the “visionary champion” and“innovation opportunist” (Walley and Taylor, 2002). Another proposes the followingtypes: the non-profit business, self-employer, successful idealist, and the opportunist(Linnanen, 2002). These different types of ecopreneurs may also have varyingmotivations for starting their business. Freimann et al’s focus on start-ups providesinsights relevant to our study (Freimann et al., 2005). Their study of German companiesresults in three categories of ecological orientation: eco-dedicated, eco-open andeco-reluctant start-ups. In other research from New Zealand, a framework (greenentrepreneurship framework) offers a matrix which includes market orientation andgreen entrepreneurship responses (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). A related study offersinteresting insights: a study of associative entrepreneurs in the renewable energy fieldfound people were motivated by independence (being independent from the NationalGrid) and sustainability, but less concerned with financial achievement (Cato et al., 2008,p. 325). On the whole, this study found “striking similarities” between these types ofentrepreneur and the traditional model of entrepreneurship.

While this discussion shows little empirical research has been conducted onecopreneurs, even less is known about differences between ecopreneurs and conventional


209

entrepreneurs (Freimann et al., 2005; Gibbs, 2007; Schaper, 2002a). Researchers havespecifically called for further investigation into understanding what drivesenvironmental entrepreneurs (Cato et al., 2008), and whether (and if so, how)ecopreneurs differ in their motivations to entrepreneurs in general (Gibbs, 2007). Thisstudy, as outlined in the following section, has as one of its aims to compare and contrastthese two groups in order to contribute to the understanding of ecopreneurship.

3. MethodGiven the limited understanding we have of ecopreneurship, a qualitative researchmethod was considered to be the most appropriate approach in this study. Qualitativeapproaches are particularly useful in areas that are not well advanced theoretically(Edmondson and McManus, 2007). This study is case studies of 14 ecopreneurialcompanies. Case research is useful in addressing research which has explanatoryquestions such “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 1984). Yin (1984) concludes thatdifferent types of research question demand different research strategies. Researchinvolving explanatory questions requires a need to make operational links over time,and case studies are appropriate. Case studies therefore differ from other researchapproaches which are intent on answering how, what and how-much questions, whichfocus on measuring frequencies or the incidence of an event (Yin, 1984). Theorydevelopment is the aim of this study, in addition to the usual description questionssuch as what, how, when and who (Bacharach, 1989; Whetten, 1989). We useEisenhardt’s (1989, p. 532) method and process for building theory from cases that is“highly iterative” and “tightly linked to data”.

The primary data collection chosen was fieldwork in the form of semi-structuredinterviews. Interviews were chosen as it is often a complex decision to become anentrepreneur and interviews allow for “full expression of the interrelationships betweenthe many variables that can impact on one person’s ultimate decision to start a business”(Stevenson, 1990, p. 442). The sample arose from businesses we heard were operating inDunedin. The sample emerged from searching web sites such as Ecobob(www.ecobob.co.nz) and companies’ own web sites. Word of mouth referrals alsoprovided potential names of people who may meet the definition of an ecopreneur used inthis study. Either one or both of the authors interviewed the 14 companies in aface-to-face format. There were 17 participants in total, because in three of the companiestwo ecopreneurs were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were held in three ofNew Zealand’s largest cities and one in a rural town. We purposefully selectedecopreneurs in a wide range of different industries, given the limited understanding ofecopreneurs to date. Ethical approval was gained for this study. The researchers gainedapproval from the companies to be identified, but for the purposes of confidentiality, wedo not identify individuals with the direct quotes in the discussion. Interviews rangedfrom 40 minutes to one hour and 50 minutes and all were tape recorded and transcribed.In total, 17 hours of interviews were conducted. Additionally, information fromsecondary sources such as media reports, industry statistics, company web sites andpromotional material were gathered to supplement the interviews. Overall, 88 suchdocuments and reports were analyzed for the study. The study concluded after 14 casesas it was apparent that similar themes were emerging in a number of cases. While wemake no claim that these 14 cases are exhaustive (or generalizable), it is more thanadequate for the purposes of moving forward the dialogue and theory on ecopreneurs.

IJEBR16,3

210

Computers have become more recognized lately as tools to assist with analysingqualitative data (Richards, 1999, 2000). The QSR NUD *IST Vivo (NVivo) softwarepackage was used to manage the data. NVivo allows coding to be undertaken in arelatively simple and useful way. It comprises both a code and retrieve component, aswell as an index system of nodes and trees (Richards and Richards, 1994). We codedtranscripts according to themes, and analyzed them using a constant comparisonapproach (Glaser, 1992). The data were coded by paragraph and sentence as proposedby Strauss and Corbin (1990). Code notes were initial thoughts about themes, andpossible relationships and issues that appeared to be important to the participants.

Reliable methods and valid conclusions are essential to any good piece of research.In this study, the issue of credibility and transferability was addressed in three mainways: using convergent interviews and native categories, selecting quotes andcontrary cases, and in the use of tabulations. Native categories are those that theparticipants use themselves, rather than those developed by the researcher wheninterpreting their answers. Data reduction in qualitative research is a necessary taskand portions of transcripts have been selected to illustrate the views of participants.Participants’ own categories were tabulated as suggested by Silverman (2000). Theissue of dependability was also addressed in three ways: inter-coder agreement(between the authors), field notes, and tape recording the interviews.

The case companiesBefore presenting the findings, some notes on the demographics of the sample areuseful (refer also to Table I).

As can be seen in Table I, the participants were mainly in the 40-49 age category (11people). Ten were male and seven were female. The businesses they operated wererelatively small, employing on average five full-time staff and 0.5 part-time workers.Half of the businesses had an annual sales turnover of less than $100,000 and onlythree businesses had sales over $1 million ($1 NZD ¼ 0.35 GBP). This is partially dueto the age of the businesses studied – the majority had been in business less than threeyears. Given that this study is of 14 companies, it is important to understand each ofthe cases and their mode of entry into business. Brief descriptions of the companies areshown in the following list (names have not been disguised as full permission wasgiven to use the companies’ identities in the study):

(1) CA Solar Ltd was started by former colleagues in 2000. The company sells andinstalls solar panels and related services. The two shareholders each havedifferent roles in the company at present, with one keeping his day job until thecompany is more financially viable, while the other works full time in thebusiness. They currently employ no other staff and run the business out of oneof the owner’s homes.

(2) Powerhouse Wind is a company that produces windmills for residential use. Itwas started in 2007 by two engineers, who both have a passion for windmills.Funded through personal savings and a research and development grant, thecompany’s first three prototype windmills has recently been developed in theirrented premises.

(3) Just Organic is an organic food delivery service run by a couple with twopre-school children. It started in 2007 from home. The couple are passionate about


211

Com

pan

yP

rod

uct

/ser

vic

e

Em

plo

yee

s(i

ncl

ud

ing

fou

nd

ers)

Ag

eof

fou

nd

er(s

)(i

tali

csin

dic

ates

thes

ep

eop

lew

ere

not

inte

rvie

wed

)

Gen

der

(ita

lics

ind

icat

esth

ese

peo

ple

wer

en

otin

terv

iew

ed)

Dat

efo

un

ded

Loc

atio

n

Pow

erh

ouse

Win

dW

ind

mil

ls3

40-4

9,40

-49

M,

M20

07D

un

edin

Gre

enM

anB

rew

ery

Org

anic

bee

r3

40-4

9M

2006

Du

ned

inC

AS

olar

Ltd

Sol

arp

anel

s/in

stal

lati

on2

40-4

9,50

þM

,M

2000

Wel

lin

gto

nJu

stO

rgan

icO

rgan

icp

rod

uce

del

iver

y4

40-4

9,,

29M

,F

(cou

ple

)20

07C

hri

stch

urc

hN

ZE

ssen

ceS

kin

care

pro

du

cts

140

-49

F20

07C

hri

stch

urc

hF

ocu

s–

Su

stai

nab

leC

omm

erci

alC

lean

ing

Cle

anin

gco

mp

any

20,

29M

2005

Wel

lin

gto

n

Tot

elS

hop

pin

gb

ags

140

-49

F20

07W

elli

ng

ton

Gre

enC

abs

Tax

ise

rvic

e15

(þfr

anch

ised

dri

ver

s)

30-3

9M

2007

Wel

lin

gto

n

Fer

nb

ird

Eco

Sto

reO

nli

ne

stor

e(c

loth

ing

,ac

cess

orie

s,h

ouse

hol

dg

ood

s)

130

-39,

30-3

9F

,M

(cou

ple

)20

05W

elli

ng

ton

Pu

na

Fla

xP

aper

Fla

xp

aper

340

-49

F19

90D

un

edin

Hy

bri

dH

ouse

Gre

enA

rch

itec

t1

50þ

M20

00D

un

edin

Ser

raF

ood

sC

ycl

ops

Yog

hu

rt15

40-4

9M

1988

Ch

rist

chu

rch

Ear

thly

Del

igh

tsW

orm

farm

s1

40-4

9F

2005

Ch

rist

chu

rch

Wai

tak

iH

oney

Hon

ey4

40-4

9,40-4

9F

,M

(cou

ple

)19

90s

Wai

tak

i

Table I.Demographic informationfor the cases

IJEBR16,3

212

organics and have very firm beliefs that their business is playing a service role interms of spreading the word about the benefits of organics. They employ twopart-time staff who also share their values and are in the process of moving thebusiness out of home in order to maintain more work-family balance.

(4) Green Man Brewery crafts beers using organic ingredients, and offers a bottlereturn and reuse service. It operates a micro-brewery in a small Dunedin streetand now sells to Australia as well as all over New Zealand. The businessemploys a full time brewmaster and two part time employees as well as thefounder. They have won national recognition for a few of their beers which arestyled on traditional varieties such a as Radler, Stout, Pilsner and Lager.

(5) NZ Essence was started by two friends who were looking for a businessopportunity and saw a gap in the market for natural skincare and bodyproducts. Started in 2007, recently one partner bought the other out and iscontinuing operating out of the ecopreneurs home. The owner has strong beliefsabout what she will and won’t produce and sell, but is also mindful that if thecompany does not begin to make a profit shortly she may have to abandon it.She and her husband have two young children.

(6) Focus – Sustainable Commercial Cleaning is a cleaning company that has socialobjectives as well as environmental and financial. The company has 20employees and was started in 2005. Later the founder brought on an additionalpartner to help run the company. Both partners have other businesses theyoperate as well. The company turns over in excess of $1 million and isprofitable.

(7) Totel was founded in 2007. The owner saw a gap in the market fordesign-focused shopper bags that are sold in supermarkets to attempt to replaceplastics carrier bags. Since starting, the market has become very competitiveand this has meant Totel has had to look into diversifying into other relatedproducts. The business is run from home and does not employ anyone else atthis stage.

(8) Green Cabs has grown substantially since it was started in 2005. The ownerwas originally quite sceptical about climate change until he saw Al Gore’sdocumentary An Inconvenient Truth. After this, he started thinking about taxitravel and ways it could be made more environmentally friendly. The companynow employs 15 people, as well as a number of franchisees (drivers). Part of thecompany’s profits are invested in tree planting in developing nations –something the owner sees as a way to offset the company’s carbon emissions.

(9) Fernbird Eco store sells a range of products for the home that are eco-friendly.The business was started by a couple from their in 2005. The owner who hasprimary responsibility for the business was working full-time and has onlyrecently quit her job to focus full-time on the business. While the companyemploys only one person at the moment, there are plans to grow the companyby targeting corporate markets.

(10) Hybrid House is a consultancy business primary involved with architectureservices. It is a husband and wife team and currently employs people oncontract but in the past has employed up to five people. Established 20 years


213

ago, it was after completing a Masters in sustainable design that the practicemoved to be offering “sustainable design” and has since won architectureawards for sustainable building projects.

(11) Waitaki Honey is an organic honey producer based in the Waitaki Valley. Thecompany operates as a supplier for products that contain organic honey not aretailer and has significant contracts with overseas companies including DrHauschka and turnover over $1million. The husband and wife took over thefamily honey businesses and turned organic as it sat with their values and wasa lucrative market – especially from Europe. They employ three workers on thefarm who all have their own hives as part of the job.

(12) Earthly Delights operates in Christchurch selling worm farms and worms allover New Zealand. The owner is passionate about worms and worm farmingand has contracts to educate community groups, schools and interested citizensabout the benefits of worm farms. The business began in 2005 and while there isstill just the founder she struggles to keep up with the demand.

(13) Serra Foods produces high quality yoghurt and yoghurt products (over 2/3 ofthe range is organic) made in a traditional style. The yoghurt is found in mostsupermarkets in New Zealand under the brand name of “Cyclops” and in 2008the company began shipping frozen yoghurt to the USA. The founder nowemploys 14 people in the Christchurch factory which operates with manysustainable practices. Last year Serra Foods started collecting its own plasticcontainers (plastic nos. 5) from customers to encourage councils to increase theirrecycling operations.

(14) Puna Flax paper is a small manufacturer of flax paper from home in Dunedin.The business processes include looking after the flax bushes in various placesaround the city and harvesting that flax to be mulched into high quality paper.The paper is old throughout New Zealand often in tourist shops and also is usedby businesses as gifts or for company paper.

Country contextBefore presenting the findings, it is important to explain the setting for the study asthis potentially has an impact on the findings. This recognizes that the participants inour study are socially embedded in a particular country context, which has apotentially strong impact on both their motivations for ecopreneurship and theconclusions we draw. New Zealand is a country of small to medium enterprises (SMEs).SMEs are those with 19 or fewer employees (Ministry of Economic Development, 2007).New Zealand is also widely regarded as being highly entrepreneurial compared toother countries (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). With respect to entrepreneurialmotivations, GEM found New Zealand to have the highest percentage of opportunityentrepreneurs of all 35 participating countries, suggesting that entrepreneurs areprimarily pulled into entrepreneurship rather than pushed into it (necessityentrepreneurs) (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). This high level of entrepreneurship(particularly opportunity entrepreneurs) may impact on the findings because of thehigh number of people who are open to entrepreneurship.

New Zealand also has a reputation of being “clean and green” and this is importantto the study of ecopreneurship (for a more extensive explanation of New Zealand’s

IJEBR16,3

214

environmental climate with respect to entrepreneurship, see de Bruin and Lewis, 2005).One of the key branding images used by the New Zealand Tourism Board is of being100 per cent pure. Such by-lines are accompanied by images depicting the “pristine”natural environment of New Zealand. The branding and image of a clean green countryis argued to be “strongly embedded in the cultural imagination” (Coyle andFairweather, 2005, p. 148). As such it is not just the tourism board and export brandsthat rely on the clean green image but it is also a significant part of a national identity(Bell, 1996; Dew, 1999). Such an image requires careful preservation. A reportcommissioned by the Ministry for the Environment quantifies the clean green imagefor the New Zealand economy. It concludes that the green image is worth millions ofdollars for exports in terms of the value it adds to products and services (Ministry forthe Environment, 2001).

4. Presentation of findingsThe ecopreneurs in this study were motivated to start their own business by a numberof factors. These revolved around five common drivers. As indicated in Table II, threemotivators were apparent in seven cases (half the sample):

(1) their green values;

(2) identifying a gap in the market; and

(3) making a living.

Two related motivators were evident in six cases:

(1) being their own boss; and

(2) passion.

The following sections present verbatim quotes from the participants on the five keymotivators found in this study. Following this, a discussion around theinter-relationship between the motivators is presented. This is due to theobservation (see Table II) that in all but one case, participants described theirmotivations for starting the business as being the result of more than one factor.

Green valuesA key motivator for half of the ecopreneurs was their underlying green values. Thesegreen values often worked in combination with the ecopreneur seeing a gap in themarket. The ecopreneurs in this study would not engage in the exploitation of marketopportunities at the expense of their green values. They would certainly not exploit a gapin the market for a product or service that they did not believe was sustainable. Thefollowing quotes illustrate three ecopreneur’s motivations for starting their businesses:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total

Be own boss U U U U U U 6Gap in market U U U U U U U 7Passion U U U U U U 6Make a living U U U U U U U 7Green values U U U U U U U 7

Table II.Primary motivators for

each case company


215

I sat there watching all the taxis come and drop people off and thought about the emissionsand everything they were producing. [I thought] there’s got to be a better way than this(participant 8).

It’s a way of life really. It’s really a lifestyle; it’s a way of life decision to operate this way. It’s adeliberate one (participant 11).

These excerpts from two of the participants show their conscious decision to do thingsdifferently in their businesses compared to what was currently on offer in the market;and in the second example, differently to what they had been doing in the past.Similarly, another participant discussed the way the green side of the business “gavemeaning to the business” (participant 12). Interestingly, a number of the participantsdescribed their green motivations as being tied to their monetary motivations. Twoexamples illustrate this:

50 percent my set of values and 50 percent financial because it was worth us doing it, youknow? (participant 14).

Well a business is an organization designed for profit and a cause is motivated by changingthe world and I’ve just melded the two. I don’t see it as separate. I think, you know they’re onein the same (participant 13).

Both of these participants indicate the interrelationship between their motivations forbecoming ecopreneurs. Additionally the ecopreneurs were strongly motivated byspreading their green values to others. They were motivated to spread the word abouttheir business and environmentalism in a number of different forums. Much of thisoccurs through educational strategies that ecopreneurs operate as core to theirbusiness. They do this through web sites, visiting markets and expos, and word ofmouth. Word of mouth should not be underestimated, with some customers acting as“disciples” and selling the product or service to their friends. The ecopreneurs placedgreat importance on younger generations being more aware of environmentalconcerns. For example, five ecopreneurs saw that Generation Y was moreenvironmentally conscious and aware than older generations. In one case, childrendrove the decision to eat organic food and asked their parents to change theirpurchasing behaviour. Others sought to educate people directly, seeing this as animportant part of their role. For example, one offered “education programmes tosustain those key values because it’s about putting back as well as taking” (participant10). One ecopreneur had a contract from local government to provide environmentaleducation in schools. Others targeted these young people who they saw as particularlyopen to their products, attempting to “try to excite the emerging green consumer”(participant 13).

While a further seven ecopreneurs did not mention their green values as being amotivating factor for their business start-up, it is evident that their underlying greenvalues have a major influence on the type of business they started. That is, theseremaining participants started eco-businesses and many of their practices wereenvironmentally focused, but green values were not necessarily the key motivator forthem in starting the business. Perhaps more importantly than at the time of businessstart-up, these green values appear to be held as a top priority in the ongoingmanagement of the business (see future research questions in Section 6).

IJEBR16,3

216

Gap in the marketHalf of the participants stated they saw a gap in the market for a particular eco-friendlyproduct or service. The following two excerpts from participants illustrate theirperception of these gaps in the market:

The first thing I did was I started an [type of] business because I thought there was a sort ofneed in that market (participant 6).

With this business it was an opportunity I guess. . .natural products were growing worldwide(participant 5).

These examples are classic cases of entrepreneurs seeing market imperfections andviewing these gaps as an opportunity to start a new venture. For another ecopreneur,the gap in the market was more closely aligned with their expertize and interest:

To me it was just a glaring gap, it was something I was interested in and could do(participant 3).

For another ecopreneur, business was more user-driven:

As a family, we’re very environmentally friendly and it was really frustrating because therewas nothing available (participant 9).

In this example, the ecopreneur had identified a personal need that was currentlyunmet in the market and that spurred her to start the business. Interestingly, none ofthese participants had prior experience in the industries in which they started theirbusinesses. In fact, their work experience was totally unrelated. The gap in the marketwas identified through their awareness of environmental issues rather than purelycommercially-based opportunity recognition.

These findings mirror the few existing studies on ecopreneurs’ motivations whichshow ecopreneurs taking advantage of market imperfections and opportunities (Cohenand Winn, 2007; Freimann et al., 2005). They also highlight examples whereecopreneurs started a business as a response to the market failing to deal with negativeexternalities (Pastakia, 1998). Ecopreneurs exhibited typical entrepreneurialbehaviours in terms of opportunity recognition. Interestingly they did not tend tohave prior experience in the area in which they started the business, as prior studies ofentrepreneurs in general have found to be most common (Terjersen, 2005).

Making a livingFor other ecopreneurs (seven cases), monetary motivations were apparent. They spokevery little about being profit-driven but more about wanting to earn a living or covertheir costs. Two ecopreneurs explain their views further:

Neither Tim or I are particular profit driven so it’s not like we’d looking to extract everysingle profit from an organization so we would be looking at covering costs and making aliving and that would be it (participant 3).

The business is incidental in a way. It’s simply a word to describe the way we earn aliving. . .there’s this tendency to sort of categorize business as being, you know this uglymonster, you know the elephant in the rainbow, nobody wants to talk about it, it’s an uglything that if you’re in business, you must be a greedy little maximizer. But in fact it’s simplythe way we earn a living (participant 11).


217

The second of these two examples highlights the view the ecopreneur has of otherpeople’s perceptions of business. He is almost apologetic for the fact that the coupleown a business in order to make their living.

In another case, one ecopreneur’s motivations were more clearly focused on profit.This participant decided to start a business to avoid the financial pitfalls of workingfor another company:

Basically it was financial for us. They weren’t paying until nearly the next season’s crop.They were paying us in December for what we produced in January so I decided to, that Icould do better than that (participant 14).

In all of the cases where ecopreneurs talked about financial motivations, nonementioned a desire to make a large profit. It is important to note that many stated theywere definitely “not profit driven”. In fact, the business just had to make enough moneyto be sustainable and support their families and lifestyle.

Be their own bossSix ecopreneurs mentioned that they wanted to be their own boss and own a business.These ecopreneurs all had a pre-existing desire to own their own business. Fourexamples show this succinctly:

Owning my own business is something that I wanted to do (participant 3).

I’ve always been interested in, you know, developing a business (participant 9).

I’d always been interested in being self-employed (participant 5).

I decided I wanted to do something for myself (participant 6).

These quotes infer that being ones’ own boss and owning a business was important tothese ecopreneurs. The first three examples show this motivation was somethingwhich they had held over time. This finding shares some parallels with those found ina related study on associative entrepreneurs. That study found independence from theNational Grid to be a factor in the case of renewable energy entrepreneurs (Cato et al.,2008).

Another two examples show the decision to start a business was one they made as acouple:

We sort of just liked [idea of being] self-employed in a business (participant 12).

We were looking for a business to start . . . We’d been in businesses before . . . we just couldn’twork for other people (participant 4).

These two quotes from participants offer another interesting insight into themotivations of ecopreneurs. In our study, three businesses could be classed as beingcopreneurial (couples working in the business together). For these participants, theirmotivation for starting their business was a joint one with their spouse, and shows theconnectivity of the ecopreneur with their families. While six ecopreneurs weremotivated by being their own boss, a further eight were not. It is important to illustratetheir views as comparison cases. Two ecopreneurs however showed a contrary viewand were not pulled into entrepreneurship by a desire to be their own boss. Oneexplained “No, I was scared of working for myself. I just didn’t know how people could

IJEBR16,3

218

do it. So much risk” (participant 8). In this example, the ecopreneur saw a gap in themarket and as illustrated by this excerpt, it obviously took higher priority thanwanting to own a business. In another case, the participant wanted a career shift:

I was looking perhaps to change jobs but wasn’t necessarily to have my own business(participant 7).

These two cases indicate that independence-related motivators did not appear to be asimportant as other motivators such as seeing a gap in the market and identifying aneed for their product or service. This took priority over a desire to start a business. Infact, it is questionable whether these ecopreneurs would have started a business if theyhad already located existing competitors in that market.

PassionRelated to their green values, six participants spoke of the passion they had for thebusiness and the products or services they offered for sale. Statements such as “I’vereally got a real passion for it” (participant 9) and “I was so passionate about[business]” (participant 8) were common. Another participant expands on the role ofpassion in her motivations for starting the business:

I was passionate about making this journey something I wanted to enjoy. . . To look after the[raw material] (participant 10).

This example shows the participants’ passion was with the natural, raw material whichwent into the product. This example shows that passion may be closely linked to theecopreneurs’ strong underlying green values. This parallels prior work from New Zealand(on three cases) which shows passion for the “green cause” to be a primary goal ofecopreneurs (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). The ecopreneurs in this study were passionateabout the environment and wanted to play a part in reducing environmental degradation.They also had a similar passion for their product or service and this illustrates the closelinkage between this passion and the ecopreneurs’ green values. In fact it may be difficultto separate the two motivators (passion and green values) in the case of ecopreneurs.

Relative importance/relationship between motivatorsIn summary, we found five main motivators for starting a business; although Table IIindicates a wide range of combinations of factors for each participant. The findingsdetailed above led us to support authors who have found that various ecopreneurs havedifferent motivations (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). The participants described beingmotivated to start their business by between one and four motivators. Specifically, eightecopreneurs were motivated by two motivators; three were motivated by three factors;two were motivated by two factors; and finally, one ecopreneur had a single motivationfor entering business. Motivations for business ownership in general have often beendescribed as complex and intertwined (Mallon and Cohen, 2001) and the findings fromthis study of ecopreneurs are no exception. While the motivations for ecopreneurship areintertwined, our findings do not allow us to rank-order the motivations in terms of theirimportance. Other researchers have noted the difficulty in assessing the magnitude ofeach motivation (Shane et al., 2003). Further research of a quantitative nature may beable to clarify this (see RQ2 in section 6). With a larger sample, it would be interesting toexplore patterns of motivation (as shown in Table II) to further understand therelationship between motivators.


219

Like Pastakia (1998), we conclude that the boundaries between ecopreneurs’ socialand commercial motivations are blurred. While the ecopreneurs are in business for thepurposes of profit-making they appear to have strong social motivations, in the form oftheir green values, which underpin many of their other motivations. Similarly, ourfindings parallel Cohen and Winn’s (2007) study, which found that ethical reasons areoften not the only motivations for starting a business – there were a wider range ofmotivators. Sustainability and independence were found to be key motivators forrenewable energy entrepreneurs, while monetary motivators were less important (Catoet al., 2008). Not only are social and commercial boundaries blurred, but we posit thatthese ecopreneurs exhibit similarly blurred boundaries between themselves and theenvironment. This may be similar to Cato et al.’s (2008) study on associativeentrepreneurs, who work in co-operative type businesses. These blurred boundarieshighlight the importance of our theoretical framework in focusing on a sociologicalperspective for the study – whereby ecopreneurs are embedded in a wider perspective.Thus, we conclude that studying ecopreneurs requires such a sociological perspective,rather than much of the traditional entrepreneurship literature that has focused oneconomic and psychological viewpoints. This leads to the question of whetherecopreneurs are similar or different to the general population of entrepreneurs in termsof their motivations.

5. Are ecopreneurs’ motivations similar to entrepreneurs?This section summarizes the findings and compares and contrasts them with theextant literature on entrepreneurial motivations and on ecopreneurship (if researchexists). Table III illustrates these similarities and differences.

In terms of comparisons between these ecopreneurs and entrepreneurs in general,independence is usually the highest ranking motivating factor. Independence-relatedmotivators are generally pull factors for entrepreneurship, and are often considered tobe a universal factor in people choosing entrepreneurial careers (Pinfold, 2001). Notethat none of the ecopreneurs in this study used the term “independent”, as they tendednot to have similar types of job dissatisfaction that other entrepreneurs had (shown inTable III). Prior studies of entrepreneurs have found that job dissatisfaction is a keymotivating factor for leaving paid employment (Honig-Haftel and Marin, 1986) and thistranslates into their desire to be independent from a boss or a job.

In wider research on entrepreneurs, many studies have found making money to be ahigh-level motivator. While many of the participants in the current study were stillmotivated by money (earning a living), we argue that there is an important differencebetween these ecopreneurs and traditional entrepreneurs. As noted in the literaturereview and indicated in Table III, money is often a factor in wanting to start a business.We argue that entrepreneurs may be more inclined to want to earn a profit or togenerate wealth than the ecopreneurs we observed (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003).This lower prioritization of money was also the case in associative entrepreneurs,where financial achievement was less important than factors such as independence(Cato et al., 2008).

First, green values emerged as a key reason why these ecopreneurs started abusiness. The difference between these ecopreneurs and entrepreneurs may be thatwhen entrepreneurs view opportunities in growing markets for eco-friendly goods,they start a business without necessarily holding strong green values. As Table III

IJEBR16,3

220

shows, no similar findings have found this to be a factor in motivations forentrepreneurship in general. This difference was not unexpected, and may be the casefor two reasons. First, ecopreneurs appear to have very strong green values that drivetheir decision to become entrepreneurs. That is, ecopreneurs may be quite different toother entrepreneurs – although this would only be uncovered by undertakingcomparative research. The second reason why green values have not emerged inresearch on entrepreneurial motivations is due to the primary method used inmotivations research. The majority of such research has used quantitative surveys toenquire about motivations for starting a business. In such cases, green values would beunlikely to be included on survey forms as an “option” for survey participants.Likewise, in studies of entrepreneurs in general, passion has not been widely studied –which could be due to similar methodological factors.

While this discussion shows a different motivator (green values) for ecopreneursthat has not previously been uncovered, and variations on other common motivators,the list of case companies displayed previously shows the ecopreneurs did not discussbeing motivated by family or work-related factors. The participants did not mention

Motivator Ecopreneurs in this study Prior studies of entrepreneurs

Green values There must be a better waySustainabilityEducating others

Gap in market Observe a gap in market Opportunity recognition (Hakim, 1989)See the need for a product orservice (user-based)See a growing market

Money Make a living Profit/wealth generation (DeMartino and Barbato,2003)Provide for family

Independence Be own bossDo something for self, or asa couple

Desire independence and autonomy (often from a job)(Carter et al., 2003; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003)

Passion Passion for the environment Passion for business (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005, in astudy on green entrepreneurs)Passion for their product or

service

Family-relatedmotivators

Lifestyle Work-family balance (Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008)Flexibility with childcare (Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008)Copreneurs making joint

decisionsProvide for family

Work-relatedmotivators

Job/career dissatisfaction (DeMartino and Barbato,2003)Dissatisfaction with a boss (Kirkwood, 2004)Difficulty finding employment (Hakim, 1988; Hakim,1989)Redundancy (Borooah et al., 1997)

Note: The idea for this table was gained from Cato et al.’s (2008) comparison of associativeentrepreneurs and concepts around entrepreneurship

Table III.Comparison of findings

with the extantentrepreneurship

literature


221

being motivated by their families a great deal. However, for the three copreneurialbusinesses whose motivations for starting their business were made together, the linkto their family is strong. This highlights the sociological perspective discussed at thebeginning of the paper, whereby participants’ embeddedness in their surroundings isan important factor in entrepreneurship. In other prior studies of entrepreneurs, peoplehave been found to be motivated by a desire to balance their work and families(Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008). While it may initially seem perplexing not to find this inthe current study, we suggest it may be that these ecopreneurs already had a goodwork-family balance prior to entering entrepreneurship, so they did not see it as aprimary reason to start their own business. In addition, it was difficult to distinguishsolid boundaries between the business and the person. This was evident particularly inthe ecopreneurs who operated their businesses from home (8 cases).

Additionally, another significant difference between entrepreneurs in general andthese ecopreneurs is that they did not appear to suffer from job and careerdissatisfaction to any extent. This is generally a positive finding, as factors relating towork are often classed as factors which push people into entrepreneurship. Theabsence of such job dissatisfaction means that other motivators (primarily pull factors)drew the ecopreneurs into business, and these pull motivators are known to have amore successful outcome for entrepreneurs (Amit and Muller, 1995). In summary, wetentatively conclude from our exploratory study that ecopreneurs may have relativelysimilar motivations to the wider population of entrepreneurs, as has been the case inother studies of associative entrepreneurs (Cato et al., 2008). However, there are stillmany unanswered questions, and some specific research questions are suggested next.

6. Future research questionsWhile this research has uncovered some answers about the motivations of ecopreneurs,further research would allow the findings to be better understood and to be moregeneralizable. We pose the following questions:

RQ1. What motivates people to become ecopreneurs?

RQ2. Which motivators are most important to ecopreneurs?

RQ3. What is the impact of founders’ green values on starting (and running) abusiness?

RQ4. Do these motivations differ from the general population of entrepreneurs?How?

A logical extension of our work on motivations for starting an ecopreneurialbusiness would be to propose that ecopreneurs who are motivated by their greenvalues, continue to run their business using these values. Thus, their initialmotivations for starting the business guide their subsequent decisions within thebusiness. Others have suggested motivations “influence the transition of individualsfrom one stage of the entrepreneurial process to another” (Shane et al., 2003, p. 275).This appeared to be particularly apparent around decisions such as employingothers, and growth and diversification into other markets. It also affected the waythey perceived internationalization issues such as importing and exporting.Exploring these ongoing business decisions is beyond the scope of this research

IJEBR16,3

222

study, as the majority of businesses had only been in operation for one or twoyears. Two broad questions emerge as relevant. How do ecopreneurs balance theirgreen values and profit objectives? And how do their motivations affect theirgrowth aspirations?

RQ5. How do ecopreneurs manage their business while retaining their greenvalues? There appears to be a potential tension between the two which couldimpact on decision making and practices within the company.

RQ6. What strategies do ecopreneurs employ for balancing these tensions?

RQ7. What makes it possible for green values to be retained and valued?

RQ8. Do green values change over the life cycle of the business and the life of theecopreneur? If so, how?

RQ9. What views do ecopreneurs have on growing their business?

RQ10. Do any of the tensions outlined above limit their growth intentions?

RQ11. What do ecopreneurs define as success in terms of their business? Webelieve this might be quite different to many other entrepreneurs and thiswould be useful to understand.

While it is beyond the scope of this exploratory research, our findings open up theemerging dialogue that ecopreneurship may represent a new business paradigm. Ourview at the outset of this study was that ecopreneurship is a subset ofentrepreneurship. This was shown in Table III, which indicates a large overlap withour findings and those of wider entrepreneurship studies. However, the ecopreneurs inthis study appear to have significantly wider motivations than merely exploiting aniche market. This was evident in the strong focus the ecopreneurs in this study hadon their green values and the related education awareness-raising roles theyundertook – not only regarding their product or service but significantly wider issuesof environmental concern. Thus, our view is that they may represent a shiftingparadigm in terms of the way businesses operate. Further work around the researchquestions above (particularly numbers 5-11) will shed more light on this proposition.

7. ConclusionThe outcomes of this study are twofold. First, we add empirical data to the worldwideliterature on ecopreneurs. The 14 case companies is one of the largest samples ofecopreneurs that have been studied to date and the resulting empirical findings offernew insights into this under-researched type of entrepreneur. Theoretical contributionsto the ecopreneurship and entrepreneurship literature were also made which add to ourunderstanding of ecopreneurs’ motivations for starting new businesses. In addition,the extensive list of future research opportunities helps to advance the field ofecopreneurship, which we argue is going to grow in significance as environmentalawareness increases.

Within the entrepreneurial motivation literature reviewed at the start of this paper,it was noted that push-pull theory is the primary way of categorizing entrepreneurs’motivations. When applying this categorization to the participants of our study, thefollowing became apparent: these ecopreneurs could all be classed as being pulled into


223

business ownership rather than being pushed into it. This is important becauseentrepreneurship works best if it is an individual initiative (Sriram et al., 2007). Thismay be highly significant, as studies have concluded that those entrepreneurs whostart businesses with pull factors are more financially successful in ongoing business(Amit and Muller, 1995). This bodes well for the ecopreneurs in the longer term,especially when considered alongside their strong green values, passion for theirproduct or service, and their relatively low monetary motivations.

There are undoubtedly limitations to this study. The most apparent is the smallnumber of case studies, although this is due to the limited understanding of ecopreneursand the need for initial qualitative research to develop further research questions.Additionally, the setting of the study is a potential limitation. The results of this studymay be country specific. Prior research found New Zealanders were primarily pulled intoentrepreneurship rather than pushed into it (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). This highlevel of entrepreneurship (particularly opportunity entrepreneurs) may impact on thefindings because of the high number of people who are open to entrepreneurship.Similarly, the country context in terms of its reputation for being clean and green mayalso make ecopreneuership a more viable option than in other countries.

References

Alstete, J. (2003), “On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 222-34.

Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1995), “Push and pull entrepreneurship (two types based onmotivation)”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 64-80.

Anderson, A.R. (1998), “Cultivating the garden of eden: environmental entrepreneuring”, Journalof Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-44.

Bacharach, S.B. (1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.

Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-36.

Belcourt, M. (1987), “Sociological factors associated with female entrepreneurship”, Journal ofSmall Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 22-31.

Belcourt, M., Burke, R.J. and Lee-Gosselin, H. (1991), The Glass Box: Women Business Owners inCanada, Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ontario.

Bell, C. (1996), Inventing New Zealand: Everyday Myths of Pakeha Identity, Penguin, Auckland.

Berthold, N. and Neumann, M. (2008), “The motivation of entrepreneurs: are employed managersand self-employed owners different?”, Intereconomics, July/August, pp. 236-44.

Bogenhold, D. and Staber, U. (1991), “The decline and rise of self-employment”, Work,Employment and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 223-39.

Borooah, V.K., Collins, G., Hart, M. and MacNabb, A. (1997), “Women in business”, in Deakins, D.,Jennings, P. and Mason, C. (Eds), Women in Business, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.

Campbell, C.A. (1992), “A decision theory model for entrepreneurial acts”, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-7.

Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. and Carland, J.A.C. (1984), “Differentiating entrepreneursfrom small business owners: a conceptualization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 354-9.

IJEBR16,3

224

Carter, N., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of nascententrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 13-39.

Cato, M.S., Arthur, L., Keenoy, T. and Smith, R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial energy: associativeentrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector in Wales”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 313-29.

Clemens, B. (2006), “Economic incentives and small firms: does it pay to be green?”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 492-500.

Cohen, B. and Winn, M. (2007), “Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainableentrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-49.

Coyle, F. and Fairweather, J. (2005), “Challenging a place myth: New Zealand’s clean green imagemeets the biotechnology revolution”, Area, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 148-58.

Cromie, S. (1987), “Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs”, Journal ofOccupational Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 251-61.

de Bruin, A. and Lewis, K. (2005), “Green entrepreneurship in New Zealand: a micro-enterprisefocus”, in Schaper, M. (Ed.), Green Entrepreneurship in New Zealand: A Micro-EnterpriseFocus, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.

de Bruin, A., Welter, F. and Brush, C. (2007), “What we know about the ‘mothers of invention’:an overview and research agenda”, International Council for Small Business, Turku.

Dean, T.J. and McMullen, J. (2007), “Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: reducingenvironmental degradation through environmental action”, Journal of Business Venturing,Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 50-76.

DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of BusinessVenturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-32.

Dew, K. (1999), “National Identity and controversy: New Zealand’s clean green image andpentachlorophenol”, Health Place, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-57.

Dixon, S. and Clifford, A. (2007), “Ecopreneurship – a new approach to managing the triplebottom line”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 326-45.

Edmondson, A. and McManus, S. (2007), “Methodological fit in management field research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1155-79.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R. and Dyke, L.S. (1993), “A theoretical overview and extension ofresearch on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 2,pp. 151-68.

Fox, M.A. (1998), “Motivations and aspirations of self-employed Maori in New Zealand”, workingpaper, Lincoln University, Canterbury.

Frederick, H. and Chittock, G. (2006), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Aotearoa New Zealand:2005 Executive Report, Unitec, Auckland.

Freimann, J., Marxen, S. and Schick, H. (2005), “Sustainability in the start-up process”, inSchaper, M. (Ed.), Sustainability in the Start-Up Process, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.

Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.

Gibbs, D. (2007), “The role of ecopreneurs in developing a sustainable economy”, paper presentedat the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, University of Leeds, Leeds.


225

Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J. and Krause, T. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:implications for management theory and research”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 874-907.

Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press,Mill Valley, CA.

Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.

Hakim, C. (1988), “Self-employment trends in Britain: recent trends and current issues”, Work,Employment & Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 421-50.

Hakim, C. (1989), “New recruits to self-employment in the 1980’s”, Employment Gazette, June,pp. 286-97.

Honig-Haftel, S. and Marin, L.R. (1986), “Is the female entrepreneur at a disadvantage?”, Thrust:the journal for employment and training professionals, Vol. 1&2, pp. 49-64.

Hurley, A. (1999), “Incorporating feminist theories into sociological theories of entrepreneurship”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 54-62.

Issak, R. (2002), “The making of the ecopreneur”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38,Summer, pp. 81-91.

Keogh, P. and Polonsky, M. (1998), “Environmental commitment: a basis for environmentalentrepreneurship?”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,pp. 38-49.

Kirkwood, J. (2004), “One size doesn’t fit all: gender differences in motivations for becoming anentrepreneur”, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Management, University of Otago,Dunedin.

Kirkwood, J. and Tootell, B. (2008), “Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-familybalance?”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-302.

Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Langan-Fox, J. and Roth, S. (1995), “Achievement motivation in female entrepreneurs”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 209-18.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Folero, G. (2001), “Targeting consumers who are willing topay more for environmentally friendly products”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 503-20.

Linnanen, L. (2002), “An insider’s experiences with environmental entrepreneurship”, GreenerManagement International, Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 71-80.

McClelland, E., Swail, J., Bell, J. and Ibbotson, P. (2005), “Following the pathway of femaleentrepreneurs: a six-country investigation”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour and Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 84-107.

McKeiver, C. and Gadenne, D. (2005), “Environmental management systems in small andmedium businesses”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 513-37.

Mallon, M. and Cohen, L. (2001), “Time for a change? Women’s accounts of the move fromorganizational careers to self-employment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,pp. 217-30.

Marlow, S. (1997), “Self-employed women – new opportunities, old challenges?”,Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 9, pp. 199-210.

Marlow, S. and Strange, A. (1994), “Female entrepreneurs – success by whose standards?”,in Tanton, M. (Ed.), Female Entrepreneurs – Success by Whose Standards?, Routledge,London.

IJEBR16,3

226

Ministry for the Environment (2001), “Valuing New Zealand’s clean green image”, Ministry forthe Environment, Wellington.

Ministry of Economic Development (2007), “SME’s in New Zealand: structure and dynamics”,Ministry of Economic Development, Wellington.

Pastakia, A. (1998), “Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society”, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 157-73.

Penrose, E.T. (1968), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Pinfold, J.E. (2001), “The expectations of new business founders: the New Zealand case”, Journalof Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 279-85.

Post, J. and Altman, B. (1994), “Managing the environmental change process: barriers andopportunities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 64-81.

Rao, P. (2008), “Environmental initiatives undertaken by entrepreneurs in the Phillipines”,Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-81.

Richards, L. (1999), “Data alive! The thinking behind NVivo”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 412-28.

Richards, L. (2000), Using NVivo in Qualitative Research, QSR International, Victoria.

Richards, T.J. and Richards, L. (1994), “Using computers in qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K.and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA.

Schaltegger, S. (2002), “A framework for ecopreneurship: leading bioneers and environmentalmanagers to ecopreneurship”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38, Summer,pp. 45-58.

Schaper, M. (2002a), “The essence of ecopreneurship”, Greener Management International,Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 26-30.

Schaper, M. (2002b), “Small firms and environmental management: predictors of greenpurchasing in Western Australian pharmacies”, International Small Business Journal,Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-51.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.

Shane, S., Kolvereid, L. and Westhead, P. (1991), “An exploratory examination of the reasonsleading to new firm formation across country and gender”, Journal of Business Venturing,Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 431-46.

Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C. (2003), “Entrepreneurial motivation”, Human ResourceManagement Review, Vol. 13, pp. 257-79.

Shinnar, R. and Young, C. (2008), “Hispanic immigrant entrepreneurs in the Las Vegasmetropolitan area: motivations for entry into and outcomes of self-employment”, Journal ofSmall Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 242-62.

Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage, London.

Smith, N.R. (1967), “The entrepreneur and his firm: the relationship between type of man andtype of company”, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Sriram, V., Mersha, T. and Herron, L. (2007), “Drivers of urban entrepreneurship: an integrativemodel”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 235-51.


227

Stevenson, L.A. (1990), “Some methodological problems associated with researching womenentrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 439-46.

Still, L.V. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Generational and gender differences in the start-up goals andlater satisfaction of small business proprietors”, Australia and New Zealand Academy ofManagement (ANZAM), Auckland, New Zealand.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures andTechniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1991), “The Growth of women entrepreneurship – push or pullfactors?”, in Davies, L.G. and Gibb, A.A. (Eds), The Growth of Women Entrepreneurship –Push or Pull Factors?, Avebury, Aldershot.

Taormina, R.J. and Lao, S.K.-M. (2007), “Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivations:personality and environmental influences”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 200-21.

Terjersen, S. (2005), “Senior women managers’ transition to entrepreneurship”, CareerDevelopment International, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 246-62.

Walley, E. and Taylor, D. (2002), “Opportunists, champions, mavericks..? A typology of greenentrepreneurs”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 31-43.

Watson, J. and Robinson, S. (2002), Risk Adjusted Performance Measures: Comparing Male andFemale Controlled SME’s, International Council for Small Business, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A. and Harris, K.E. (2008), “A re-examination of socially responsibleconsumption and its measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 91-8.

Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-5.

Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

About the authorsJodyanne Kirkwood is a Lecturer in the Department of Management, School of Business,University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Jodyanne teaches innovation management,entrepreneurship and operations management and her research interests are focused aroundwomen entrepreneurs – particularly the role of family in entrepreneurship and work-familybalance. Other research interests include succession planning, Ecopreneurship and Tall PoppySyndrome. Jodyanne Kirkwood is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Sara Walton lectures in the Department of Management at the University of Otago, Dunedin,New Zealand in organisational sustainability, business ethics and research methods. Sara’sresearch expertise encompasses the broad area of business and sustainability. Her currentresearch is in the area of examining environmental conflicts, exploring the notion of anecopreneur and critically examining the concept of “carbon neutral”.

IJEBR16,3

228

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses?

Documents

Transcript of What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses?