electronic reprint order form

ELECTRONIC REPRINT ORDER FORM After publication of your journal article, electronic (PDF) reprints may be purchased by arrangement with Springer and Aries Systems Corporation. The PDF file you will receive will be protected with a copyright system called DocuRights®. Purchasing 50 reprints will enable you to redistribute the PDF file to up to 50 computers. You may distribute your allotted number of PDFs as you wish; for example, you may send it out via e-mail or post it to your website. You will be able to print five (5) copies of your article from each one of the PDF reprints.

Please type or print carefully. Fill out each item completely. 1. Your name:

__________________________________________________

Your e-mail address:

__________________________________________________

Your phone number:

__________________________________________________

Your fax number:

__________________________________________________

2. Journal title (vol, iss, pp):

__________________________________________________________________

3. Article title:

__________________________________________________________________

4. Article author(s):

__________________________________________________________________

5. How many PDF reprints do you want?

__________________________________

6. Please refer to the pricing chart below to calculate the cost of your order. Number of PDF reprints 50 100 150 200

Cost (in U.S. dollars) $200 $275 $325 $350

NOTE: Prices shown apply only to orders submitted by individual article authors or editors. Commercial orders must be directed to the Publisher. All orders must be prepaid. Payments must be made in one of the following forms: • a check drawn on a U.S. bank • an international money order • Visa, MasterCard, or American Express (no other credit cards can be accepted) PAYMENT (type or print carefully): Amount of check enclosed:

_________________ (payable to Aries Systems Corporation)

VISA

__________________________________

MasterCard

__________________________________

American Express

__________________________________

Expiration date:

_________________

Signature:

Print and send this form with payment information to: Aries Systems Corporation 200 Sutton Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Attn.: Electronic Reprints — OR — Fax this to Aries at: 978-975-3811

_________________________________

Your PDF reprint file will be sent to the above e-mail address. If you have any questions about your order, or if you need technical support, please contact: [email protected]

For subscriptions and to see all of our other products and services, visit the Springer website at: http://www.springeronline.com

Testsite

Page 1 of 1

AUTHOR'S PROOF Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst 1

Article Title

Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

2

Journal Name

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

3

Family Name

4

Particle

5

Given Name

6 7

Corresponding Author

Miles

Morgan P.

Suffix Organization

Georgia Southern University

8

Division

Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration

9

Address

Box 8154, Statesboro 30460, GA, USA

10

e-mail

[email protected]

11

Family Name

Munilla

12

Particle

13

Given Name

14 15

Linda S.

Suffix Author

Organization

Georgia Southern University

16

Division

Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration

17

Address

Box 8154, Statesboro 30460, GA, USA

18

e-mail

[email protected]

19

Family Name

Darroch

20

Particle

21

Given Name

22

Suffix

23

Jenny

Organization

Claremont Graduate University

24

Division

25

Address

Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management 1021 North Dartmouth Avenue, Claremont 91711, CA, USA

26

e-mail

27

Received

28

Author

Schedule

29

Revised Accepted

30

Abstract

31

Keywords separated by ' - ' Foot note information

32

[email protected]

Corporate entrepreneurship has, for a number of decades, been viewed as one approach for generating growth through new product, process, market, or strategy innovation. More recently, and largely in response to rising costs and stakeholder concerns, managers have begun to pay increasing attention to issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility. This paper demonstrates how sustainability can be embedded into a corporate entrepreneurship framework. In addition, managers who embrace sustainability principles are providing a stimulus for corporate entrepreneurship that may result in the discovery or creation, assessment, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, an enhanced reputation, and, ultimately, a competitive advantage. Corporate entrepreneurship - Sustainability - Corporate social responsibility

file://C:\DDrive\Programs\Metadata\temp\iem80074.htm

2/4/2008

AUTHOR'S PROOF

JrnlID 11365_ArtID 74_Proof# 1 - 04/02/2008

1 2

Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

4

Morgan P. Miles & Linda S. Munilla & Jenny Darroch

5

O O F

Int Entrep Manag J DOI 10.1007/s11365-008-0074-3

PR

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

R

EC

TE

D

Abstract Corporate entrepreneurship has, for a number of decades, been viewed as one approach for generating growth through new product, process, market, or strategy innovation. More recently, and largely in response to rising costs and stakeholder concerns, managers have begun to pay increasing attention to issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility. This paper demonstrates how sustainability can be embedded into a corporate entrepreneurship framework. In addition, managers who embrace sustainability principles are providing a stimulus for corporate entrepreneurship that may result in the discovery or creation, assessment, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, an enhanced reputation, and, ultimately, a competitive advantage.

C O

R

Keywords Corporate entrepreneurship . Sustainability . Corporate social responsibility

U N

The increasing importance of sustainability

“The biggest con running in the auto industry right now is the notion that hybrids represent some sort of quantum leap in green transportation....it’s the

M. P. Miles (*) : L. S. Munilla Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, Box 8154, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. S. Munilla e-mail: [email protected] J. Darroch Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University, 1021 North Dartmouth Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA e-mail: [email protected]

7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

23

25 26

AUTHOR'S PROOF

JrnlID 11365_ArtID 74_Proof# 1 - 04/02/2008 Int Entrep Manag J

27 28 29 30 31

“Environmental concerns have begun to reshape the landscape in which global organizations compete. The demands and influences of the environmental movement are evident in the dollar value size of the environmentally conscious marketplace. In addition, the growing regulatory concerns over the environmental impact of corporate practices have begun to influence corporate strategies” (Menon and Menon 1997: 51).

32 33 34 35 36 37

Menon and Menon’s (1997) words are much more valid today than when they were written in the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, Sabatini’s words are equally relevant and suggest a more hypocritical perspective of commerce’s recent interest in sustainability (2007). During the 1990s, progressive corporate managers considered how to leverage environmental marketing and sustainable business practices to enhance corporate reputations and create competitive advantages based upon (1) desirable social attributes of the product; (2) a lower cost structure that reflects enhanced production and marketing efficiencies; or (3) a layering of both environmental marketing based differentiation and cost advantages (see Miles and Covin 2000). Today, as the cost of energy and commodities skyrockets and public concern about the dangers of climate change increases, governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and many consumers are demanding more social, economic, and environmental accountability from corporations. As a result, executives are becoming increasingly interested in simultaneously reducing energy, environmental, social, regulatory and commodity costs while improving product quality, production capabilities, and the social, financial and ecological performance reputation of the firm (see, for example, Adler 2007). As Zadek (2004: 127) suggests, “the trick, then, is for companies to be able to predict and credibly respond to society’s changing awareness of particular issues” while enhancing the firm’s capacity to generate profits over time. The global auto industry provides an example of an industry in which the pressures of sustainability are becoming prevalent throughout its entire ecosystem. Automobiles are typically powered by a gasoline-fueled, internal combustion engine, which not only consumes large amounts of petroleum (a non-renewable resource) but also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change phenomena. The negative impact of the auto industry on the environment is likely to rapidly escalate as incomes rise in developing economies and the demand for personal transportation increases (see Public Broadcasting Service 2004). However, automobile manufacturers and oil companies are also faced with a highly attractive entrepreneurial opportunity that has tremendous implications for sustainability: how to create a vehicle that is economically viable, socially suitable, and environmentally acceptable. Of course, many firms successfully engage in corporate entrepreneurship (CE) initiatives without any concern for sustainability issues. However, for corporations seeking to create competitive advantage in the future, sustainability issues are likely

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

perfect way for a captain of industry to show the little people that he, too, will sacrifice nothing in his attempt to demonstrate to the world that he sort of cares about the environment. (And of course he does, as these days there are profits to be made by selling all manner of “green” products, whether they have any tangible environmental benefit or not)” (Sabatini 2007: W4).

AUTHOR'S PROOF


Int Entrep Manag J

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

to emerge as a dominate potential stimulus that drives firms to develop a competitive position that both differentiates the firm’s marketing mix from its competitors, reduces waste and costs, and better satisfies the CSR demands of economically attractive environmentally orientated target markets. Miles and Covin (2000) propose that as a firm focuses its efforts on adopting a more strategic approach to environmental and social responsibility issues, it stands to gain a superior reputation and a stronger competitive position that tends to result in enhancing the market value of the firm. Firms may use CSR principles such as environmental stewardship and social accountability as a conceptual lens on which to focus the entrepreneurial process of discovery/creation, assessment, and exploitation of economically attractive opportunities that enhance sustainability (for more on the entrepreneurship process see Shane and Venkataraman 2000). In a study of Australian manufacturing firms Menguc and Ozanne (2005) found that companies that combine entrepreneurship with an environmental orientation tend to be more profitable and have larger market shares than firms that are less entrepreneurial and environmentally focused, potentially due to these entrepreneurially and environmentally orientated firms enjoying a superior corporate reputation. In fact, in the current cultural and social environment, CSR outcomes and their impact on a corporation’s reputation may emerge as mission critical metrics for many high profile firms. For example, GE’s recent transformation into a firm that creates “innovate solutions to environmental challenges” suggests that GE perceives, assesses, and exploits opportunities by augmenting CE with sustainability issues to create innovations that offer both technical and social performance attributes (see Kranhold 2007: A1). Likewise, Honda is focusing its tremendous R&D capabilities on innovative solutions to environmental problems across its product mix, with the development of highly efficient hybrids and natural gas powered Civics (Anonymous 2007a). However, pursuing opportunities at the interface of sustainability and entrepreneurship also brings with it significant challenges. For example, executives from Toyota and Ford recently met to discuss “developing environmentally friendly technology, like hybrid-electric and hydrogen fuel systems” (Maynard 2006:1). Some speculate that Ford is unable to make and implement a product innovation strategy that is consistent with the environmental and economic issues facing consumers (Esty 2006) and, therefore, needs to enter into a relationship with Toyota in order to embrace a strategy of sustainability (Esty 2006). If Ford can create and implement a strategy that fosters sustainability and radical product innovation, then it may have an opportunity to transform itself into a manufacturer of fuel efficient, safe, and reliable vehicles that will enhance the economic, social, and environmental consequences for employees, customers, and other stakeholders. The time for viewing environmental responsibility and social accountability as simple social issues has now passed; efficient, profitable, environmentally, and socially responsible business strategies and processes have become the business imperatives for the early part of the 21st century. Firms such as Toyota, IKEA, WalMart, and GE already make and implement corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies to leverage sustainability and entrepreneurship in order to create superior value for their customers and these firms tend to enjoy a competitive advantage (see Esty 2006; Esty and Winston 2006).

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

AUTHOR'S PROOF


121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

The concept of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

137

D

PR

O O F

How can sustainability be incorporated into a corporate entrepreneurship framework? There are a number of excellent conceptual frameworks that delineate corporate entrepreneurship to include activities such as new business creation and strategic renewal including work by Guth and Ginsberg (1990), and Sharma and Chrisman (1999). The present study adopts the Covin and Miles (1999) taxonomy of CE forms extended by Morris et al. (2008) which focuses on entrepreneurial acts, within the context of a business, that leverage innovation to transform the firm’s product, process, strategy, domain, or business model. The Morris et al. (2008) taxonomy of corporate entrepreneurship is augmented by introducing into the firm’s strategic decision making a model based on balancing financial metrics/economic performance, environmental stewardship, and social accountability, to create a new framework—sustainable corporate entrepreneurship (SCE). SCE initiatives are CE activities designed to harness innovation within the firm’s strategies, products, processes, or business definition while fostering some aspect of sustainability. In addition, examples are provided to demonstrate how SCE can offer an alternative path for value creation and competitive advantage.

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

Sustainability, as an emerging cultural imperative, forces corporations to reconsider their strategies and tactics in light of the impact on long-term economic performance, sound environmental management, and social accountability norms. The construct of sustainability has many different connotations depending on the context in which it is used. For example, sustainability may be defined using the 3-P triple bottom line framework to emphasize equal management of the People, Profits, and the Planet (see Jeucken 2004; Savitz and Weber 2006). Sustainability, defined by this triple bottom line framework, suggests that ensuring entrepreneurial opportunities creates a more transparent, open, and informative system for consumers and other stakeholders. Examples include green energy production and marketing initiatives by companies such as Duke Energy and Georgia Power (Ransom 2007), USDA certified organic food, or the development and marketing of efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (Smith 2007). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development outlines five pillars of sustainability: “environmental, corporate governance, social responsibility, economic, (and) prudent use of materials” (Saha and Darnton 2005:127). Here, entrepreneurial opportunities that minimize the use of energy or material inputs in the value chain are pursued. Even Taguchi’s (1987) simple, but comprehensive, notion of quality—that is, quality as a product, strategy, or business process that causes no loss to society—can be categorized as a very simple but powerful conceptualization of sustainability. Using Taguchi’s framework, entrepreneurial opportunities that minimize economic externalities are considered the most attractive opportunities to exploit. Placet et al. (2005: 32) define sustainability as “environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic prosperity for both the organization and its stakeholders. In a successful sustainability focused business strategy, these three goals will be inter-related and supportive of each other.” Figure 1 illustrates the multi-

138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164

AUTHOR'S PROOF


Int Entrep Manag J

PR

O O F

Fig. 1 Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

dimensional nature of SCE by augmenting Placet et al. (2005) definition of sustainability with Morris et al. (2008) typology of corporate entrepreneurship. SCE is the process of leveraging innovation of an organization’s products, processes, strategies, domain, or business models to discover, assess and ultimately exploit attractive economic opportunities created by latent and manifest environmental problems and/or social responsibility issues. A firm is classified in the present study as having adopted SCE if there is evidence of all three sustainability components—responsible environmental management, social accountability, and long-term economic performance—as well as the presence of significant innovation with respect to the firm’s products, processes, strategies, domain, or business model. Environmental management is an organizational “commitment to the prevention/minimization of (a firm’s) environmental impact and a commitment to a system of continuous of environmental performance improvement” (Miles, Munilla, & McClurg 1999: 114). Social accountability is a firm’s commitment to labor and other stakeholder rights. Long-term economic performance, in terms of profitability and access to markets, is derived from the market and reputational advantages that a firm enjoys when it has invested in capabilities to engage in SCE. Each component is equally important and managers must constantly balance or trade-off the components against one another. For example, a firm that is highly focused on environmental stewardship at the expense of economic prosperity for its stakeholders is in an economically unsustainable position. Likewise, a firm that puts economic prosperity above social accountability is not socially or politically sustainable in the long run. Managers of firms that have embraced SCE must be able to balance the often conflicting goals of economic viability, environmental stewardship, and social accountability with encouraging the firm to use innovation to transform its products, processes, strategies, and domain. In addition, the presence of innovation is the foundation that underlies how the organization’s economic performance is enhanced by the creation of new products, attribute enhancing and/or cost-saving processes, or value creating business propositions that address attractive social responsibility and environmental stewardship opportunities.

165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

Q1

AUTHOR'S PROOF


196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

P1: Firms that adopt SCE will tend to be more likely to adopt one or more of the social or international business standards such as ISO14000, SA8000 or LEEDs than firms that do not adopt a SCE perspective.

226 227 228

Sustainability has also become a significant issue in business-to-business markets. For example, Interface Corporation’s Chair, Ray Anderson, transformed Interface’s corporate culture into one based upon sustainability, a change which fundamentally altered Interface’s concept of strategy and business models (Collins 2006). Interface does not sell carpet—it leases carpet to firms. When the carpet needs to be replaced, Interface takes it back, recycles it, and uses the recycled materials to manufacture new floor coverings. Anderson (2004: 34–36) considers the concept of corporate sustainability to mean the struggle to climb to the summit of a mythical Mount Sustainability (a metaphor for a fully sustainable organization) that mandates (1) zero waste generation; (2) no harmful emissions; (3) use of renewable energy; (4) closed loop production systems; (5) resource efficient logistics; (6) a culture of sensitivity; and (7) the ultimate “re-design of commerce” into a closed loop system. While the first six tenets have been acknowledged in the extant literature on

230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

The present social reality is that firms increasingly operate in a global business environment characterized by dramatic increases in input costs, increased expectations for transparency, and a real-time 24/7 Internet media where a firm’s behavior can no longer remain anonymous. Thus, sustainability has become an issue of real and significant economic consequence for corporations and stakeholders (see Zadek 2004; Saha and Darnton 2005). Evidence of the popularity of sustainability as a strategy is provided by the emergence of an $11 billion organic foods market, which is now the fastest-growing sector of the food industry (Lee 2005). Common grocery products such as cereal, salad, and spaghetti sauces are being designed and approved with USDA organic labels and sold through mainstream retail channels such as WalMart (Anonymous 2006; Mangu-Ward 2006). The USDA’s organic food labeling program has become a mechanism for proactive food manufacturers that want to penetrate the rapidly growing health food market but with lower price points than those of traditional health foods (Mangu-Ward 2006). Certification programs such as ISO14000, an indicator of a firm’s commitment to ecological stewardship, SA8000, an international set of fair labor standards, or LEEDs, environmentally focused building standards, are now frequently used to immunize multinationals against reputational and potential legal issues that might arise within the supply chain (see for example, Rothery 1995). A firm that has adopted voluntary CSR certification schemes, such as SA8000 and ISO14000, or has engaged in fair trade marketing would likely be perceived by courts, NGOs, and other external stakeholders as acting in good faith with respect to CSR issues and would likely be treated much better when problems arise than a firm that has never attempted to comply with any voluntary CSR standards. An example of this comes from Starbucks, which embraced the CSR notion of fair trade by promoting social justice and economic equity in its international activities (see Witkowski 2005). In addition, Honda has even been awarded the first Gold Certification from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program for a manufacturing plant in Ohio that leverages product and process innovations to drive down energy costs (see Anonymous 2007b).

AUTHOR'S PROOF


Int Entrep Manag J

243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281

Forms of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

282

In 1999, Covin and Miles proposed a corporate entrepreneurship typology comprising four elements: sustained regeneration, organizational rejuvenation, strategic renewal, and domain redefinition. Morris et al. (2008) augmented this typology with a fifth form of innovation, business model reconstruction. Table 1

283 284 285 286

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

sustainability, the notion of re-designing a manufacturing business model into an economic and environmental “closed loop system” is a strategic innovation. For Interface, not only did Anderson redesign the production system to be more environmentally sustainable, but he also completely altered the business model through radical innovation to ensure that the customer becomes an integral part of Interface’s supply chain. Interface has transformed itself from a firm that once viewed CSR as compliance-based to one that fully embraces CSR and promotes sustainable business practices to other firms (Zadek 2004). Managers who embrace sustainability explicitly acknowledge that corporations are “social institutions that must justify their existence by their overall contribution to society,” rather than focusing solely on maximizing shareholder wealth at the expense of all other corporate stakeholders (Mintzberg, Simons, Basu, 2002: 69). However, although sustainability is emerging as a significant issue for managers, publicly held firms still face the investor-driven imperative to grow and prosper by improving margins and enhancing market share that an entrepreneurial strategy often provides. How then do managers balance the need to achieve growth targets while also pursuing the overarching goal of creating a sustainable enterprise? We suggest that managers can look to corporate entrepreneurship (CE), a growth strategy, for guidance (see Covin and Miles 1999; Covin et al. 2006; Morris et al. 2008). We suggest that by embracing sustainability principles, managers are providing a stimulus for corporate entrepreneurship that may result in the discovery, creation, assessment and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Thus, sustainability encourages innovation in products, processes, strategies, or domains in order to generate a competitive advantage (see Covin and Miles 1999). For example, a firm that emphasizes sustainability may focus its opportunity recognition, assessment, and exploitation efforts on products, process, and strategies that minimize the environmental and social consequences of the product (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Essentially, following a path of sustainability offers managers a different lens through which the attractiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities may be judged. Alternatively, sustainability may provide other modes for exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities. Keogh and Polonsky (1998:40) note that “environmental entrepreneurship” (which the authors label “enviropreneurship”) is about innovation, the identification of opportunities, and the exploration of a seemingly disparate globalist perspective and the inter-relationships.” Similarly, Lober (1998: 26) suggests that environmental corporate entrepreneurship may be defined as “the creation of new products, services, or organizations to meet environmental market opportunities.” Lober’s (1998) work focuses on pollution prevention as a manifestation of environmental corporate entrepreneurship. In addition, innovation of a firm’s product/market offerings to meet sustainability guidelines has tended to be a common form of environmental entrepreneurship.

t1.17

t1.16

t1.15

t1.13 t1.14

t1.7 t1.8 t1.9 t1.10 t1.11

t1.3 t1.5

t1.2

t1.1

1

4:

3:

2:

1:

U N

C O

Either differentiation or cost-based competitive advantage created by shifting the core of the business into a new product/market space by leveraging innovation to exploit opportunity to better environmental stewards or more socially responsible Both differentiation and cost-based competitive advantage created by reshaping the value proposition of the customer/firm exchange

D

Rent generated through the ability to profit from market creation

Rent generated through the ability to profit from market creation

Ability to charge a premium price due to difference in processes that some consumer segments value

Reduced variable cost, or ability to charge a premium price due to difference in processes that some consumer segments value

Ability to charge a price premium due to the creation of a valuable difference

Source of economic rent2,3

O O F Interface’s re-definition of the flooring industry’s business model

PR

Fair trade by Starbucks, Hybrids, or GM Hywire Organic spaghetti sauce by Ragu sold at Wal-Mart Monsanto’s redefinition from being a chemical and fertilizer firm to becoming a leader in Genetic Modification

TE

3M’s 3P; ISO 14000 or SA8000; Fair Trade Marketing4; Organics

Kodak and its Life cycle analysis of the disposable camera

Examples

EC

R

R

Differentiation—based on either 1. Environmental stewardship or 2. Social responsibility Lower costs due to enhanced levels of 1. environmental stewardship or 2. economic prosperity Differentiation—based on either 1. environmental stewardship or 2. social responsibility Differentiation—based on either 1. environmental stewardship or 2. social responsibility

Basis of Sustainability Based Competitive Advantage

Adapted from Covin and Miles (1999) and Morris et al. (2008) Miles et al. (2003) Darroch et al. (2005) Witkowski (2005)

Business Model Reconstruction

Changing the game by redefining strategy to reflect environmental sustainability Changing the core or shifting the domain of the business

Process rejuvenation

Sustainable product/market regeneration

Form of SCE

Table 1 Forms of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship

AUTHOR'S PROOF JrnlID 11365_ArtID 74_Proof# 1 - 04/02/2008 Int Entrep Manag J

AUTHOR'S PROOF


Int Entrep Manag J

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

adapts the Morris et al. (2008) typology to explicitly integrate sustainability into the corporate entrepreneurship framework. The first and often most obvious form of SCE is the development of sustainable-themed product innovations. Product SCE innovation involves designing a product by taking into account the total lifecycle cost of the product to society, including the cost of product disposal. Examples of SCE would include GM’s development of electric, hybrid, and hydrogen powered automobiles (see Public Broadcasting Service 2004), Shell and Akzo Nobel’s joint venture into the mass produced solar cell product/market (see Hart and Christensen 2002), or Monsanto’s development of genetically modified crops that produce their own pesticide substitute (Magretta 1997). Process SCE innovation includes the rejuvenation of process-based initiatives that in some way create a more sustainable industrial eco-system. For example, SA8000, ISO14000, and EMAS certification schemes may help create a competitive advantage for firms based on CSR reputation. In the wood products industry, the American Forest and Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the movement toward closed loop paper production systems which minimize water use, are significant process innovations and have moved the industry toward a more sustainable ecosystem. Another example comes from utility companies, which market “Green Power” options for customers seeking to support the development of renewable energy for electric generation (see Bird and Swezey 2005). Strategic SCE innovation means redefining a corporation’s concept of strategy such that the firm exploits some SCE strength. SCE strategic innovation would involve altering a firm’s value proposition to minimize the firm’s environmental impact and negative social consequences while maintaining or even enhancing economic performance. Wal-Mart’s decision to include a much larger selection of organic foods in its product mix is an example of strategic innovation and places the organic food supermarket Whole Foods in direct competition with Wal-Mart. SCE innovation may also change a firm’s domain which leads to a change in the relevant set of exploitable opportunities that provide a CSR-based competitive advantage. For example, BP has moved in philosophy and name from British Petroleum to BP (Beyond Petroleum) and now positions itself as a global energy company that is actively exploring alternative sources of sustainable energy. Monsanto’s transformation from a firm with deep corporate capabilities in chemistry and chemical engineering into a world leader in genetic and biological engineering and genetically modified product development truly represents a change in capabilities and strategic domain. Another compelling illustration of domain redefinition is that of GE’s recent shift to “ecomagination” about which Esty (2006: A8) says, “GE has positioned itself to respond to society’s environmental problems.” Ecomagination has allowed GE to embrace the current international energy and environmental crises as a source of opportunity from which to leverage its superior global capabilities in engineering, production, and marketing into a longterm competitive advantage. Applying business model reconstruction to economically attractive environmental and social responsibility entrepreneurial opportunities often requires a firm to reconsider its capabilities and how it might create new value for its customers. For example, Russo (2003) suggests that product and process innovation could be the development of wind powered electric generating capabilities by a utility. Business

287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333

AUTHOR'S PROOF


334 335 336 337 338

Suggestions for future research

339

This paper introduces the concept of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship. A proposition has been offered that is designed to encourage future research on how the emergence of sustainability may drive innovation and CE initiatives. The next step in this research agenda could be the development and validation of a scale that measures a firm’s orientation towards SCE. Like other similar entrepreneurial and environmental orientation scales, such as Covin and Slevin’s (1986, 1989) entrepreneurial orientation (EO) scale or Menguc and Ozanne’s (2005) natural environmental orientation (NEO) scale, a SCE orientation scale would allow scholars to better classify firms into categories of adopters and non-adopters of SCE. An excellent starting point for this task would be Menguc and Ozanne’s (2005) NEO, augmented by items that might more fully capture social accountability issues and problems. Once this task is accomplished, the tentative propositions offered in this exploratory study could be tested and extended to help researchers and decisionmakers better understand SCE and its benefits and costs.

340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

model reconstruction would extend product and process innovations to a new way of creating value; such that electric utilities would encourage homeowners to generate power through wind turbines by providing technical and financial assistance, and then purchases surplus power from the homeowner. This innovative business model reconfigures how a utility creates value for both its customers and shareholders.

R

Conclusions

U N

C O

R

Corporate entrepreneurship has, for a number of decades, been viewed as one way of generating growth through new product, process, market, or strategy innovation. More recently, sustainability and corporate social responsibility have made frequent appearances in management discourse. Increasingly, we find evidence of managers actively engaged in initiatives designed to harness innovation to generate economic performance while addressing the issues of responsible environmental management practice and social accountability; however, to date, these constructs have not been brought together in one simple framework. This paper has identified how sustainability can be embodied into a corporate entrepreneurship process model framework. We also demonstrated how sustainable corporate entrepreneurship can provide a basis for competitive advantage. Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship can be motivated by one of two factors. It may be necessitated through demand side conditions—e.g., consumers and/or governments demanding cars that are more fuel efficient or that use alternative fuels. Alternatively, sustainable corporate entrepreneurship can be a supply side phenomenon—i.e., managers making a deliberate effort to become more socially responsible and environmentally aware. Whatever the trigger for sustainable corporate entrepreneurship, the case examples included in this paper clearly demonstrate how a strategic position of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship can lead to innovative outcomes that define aspects of the business model and open up new

354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374

AUTHOR'S PROOF


Int Entrep Manag J

375 376 377 378 379 380 381

References

383

Adler, J. (2007). Moment of truth. Newsweek, 171(16), 45–48. Anderson, R. (2004). Climbing mount sustainability. Quality Progress, 37(2), 32–37. Anonymous (2006). Wal-Mart goes crunchy; natural foods.. The Economist, 379(8481), 74. Anonymous (2007a). Honda Issues Third-Annual North American Environmental Report, PR Newswire, October 4. Anonymous (2007b). Honda Becomes First Ohio Company to Achieve Top Environmental Certification, PR Newswire, July 13. Bird, L., & Swezey, B. (2005). Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report. Golden, Colorado: National Renewal Energy Laboratory. Collins, J. (2006). Being green. Business and Economic Review, 52(2), 3–7. Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sale growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81. Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organization-level entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson, 628–639. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. Darroch, J., Miles, M. P., & Paul, C. (2005). Corporate venturing and the rent cycle. Technovation, 25, 1437–1442. Esty, D. C. (2006). Greener pastures. The Wall Street Journal, A8 (December 29). Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2006). Green to gold. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15. Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51–56. Jeucken, M. (2004). Sustainability in finance. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers. Keogh, P. D., & Polonsky, M. J. (1998). Environmental commitment: a basis for environmental entrepreneurship? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 38–49. Kranhold, K. (2007). GE’s environmental push hits business realities. The Wall Street Journal (September 14), A1,A10. Lee, E. (2005). Organic vs. conventional: an evaluation. The Wall Street Journal (September 20), B1, B4. Lober, D. J. (1998). Pollution prevention as corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 26–37. Magretta, J. (1997). Growth through global sustainability: an interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro. Harvard Business Review, (January–February), 78–90. Mangu-Ward, K. (2006). Taste: food fight. The Wall Street Journal, (June 9), W13. Maynard, M. (2006). Ford seeks help from Toyota. International Herald Tribune (December 27), www. iht.com/bin/print/php?id=4027959, Accessed January 21, 2007. Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005). Challenges of the “Green Imperative”: a natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation-business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 430–438. Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 51–67. Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 299–311.

384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

opportunities for the firm. We suggest that by adopting a strategic posture of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship, managers will be forced to question those underlying assumptions held in relation to products, markets, and processes. The questioning of assumptions is often regarded as an important antecedent of innovation and entrepreneurship—i.e., by questioning assumptions, managers often uncover opportunities which can then be embraced. Therefore, sustainable corporate entrepreneurship is positioned as the critical strategic choice for managers to make.

AUTHOR'S PROOF


U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 21–40. Miles, M. P., Paul, C., & Wilhite, A. (2003). A short note on modeling corporate entrepreneurship as rentseeking competition. Technovation, 23, 393–400. Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002). Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (1), 67–74. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western. Placet, M., Anderson, R., & Fowler, K. M. (2005). Strategies for sustainability. Research Technology Management, 48(5), 32–41. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (2004). Alan Alda in Future Car. Scientific American Frontiers. Ransom, D. (2007). Consider the source. The Wall Street Journal, R4 (November 12). Rothery, B. (1995). Third force badly needed. ISO Easy. Russo, M. V. (2003). The emergence of sustainable industries: building on natural capital. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 317–331. Sabatini, J. (2007). Pale Green—Lexus’s $100,000 Hybrid. The Wall Street Journal, November 2), W 4. Saha, M., & Darnton, G. (2005). Green companies or green con-panies: are companies really green, or are they pretending to be? Business and Society Review, 110(2), 117–157. Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2006). The triple bottom line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–28. Smith, R. (2007). A consumer’s guide to going green. The Wall Street Journal, R1 (November 12). Taguchi, G. (1987). The Evaluation of Quality. 40th Annual Quality Congress Transactions, American Society for Quality Control. Witkowski, T. (2005). Fair trade marketing: an alternative system for globalization and development. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13(4), 22–33. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125–132.

429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457

Q2

AUTHOR QUERIES AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES.

U N

C O

R

R

EC

TE

D

PR

O O F

Q1. Miles, Munilla, & McClurg 1999 was cited but was not found in the reference list. Please check. Q2. Miles and Covin 2002 was uncited.