Information Asymmetries and the Paradox of Sustainable Business Models: Towards an Integrated Theory of Sustainable Entrepreneurship

  • Vincent BlokEmail author
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


In this conceptual paper, the traditional conceptualization of sustainable entrepreneurship is challenged because of a fundamental tension between processes involved in sustainable development and processes involved in entrepreneurship: the concept of sustainable business models contains a paradox, because sustainability involves the reduction of information asymmetries, whereas entrepreneurship involves enhanced and secured levels of information asymmetries. We therefore propose a new and integrated theory of sustainable entrepreneurship that overcomes this paradox. The basic argument is that environmental problems have to be conceptualized as wicked problems or sustainability-related ecosystem failures. Because all actors involved in the entrepreneurial process are characterized by their epistemic insufficiency regarding the solving of these problems, the role of information in the sustainable entrepreneurial process changes. On the one hand, the reduction of information asymmetries primarily aims to enable actors to become critical of sustainable entrepreneurs’ actual business models. On the other hand, the epistemic insufficiency of sustainable entrepreneurs guarantees that information asymmetries remain as a source of new sustainable business opportunities. Three further characteristics of sustainable entrepreneurs are distinguished: sustainability and entrepreneurship-related risk-taking; sustainability and entrepreneurship-related self-efficacy; and the development of satisficing and open-ended solutions, together with multiple stakeholders.


  1. Adriana, B. (2009). Environmental supply chain management in tourism: The case of large tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almers, E. (2013). Pathways to action competence for sustainability – Six themes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, L., & Bateman, T. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in US business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570.Google Scholar
  5. Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement (Vol. 1, pp. 19–42). Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M., García-Castro, R., & Arino, M. (2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111, 1399–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M., & Ricart, J. (2006). Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baron, R. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs ‘connect the dots’ to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Batie, S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5, 1176–1191.Google Scholar
  12. Belucci, S., Bütschi, D., Gloede, F., Hennen, L., Joss, S., Klüver, L., & Nentwich, M. (2002). Analytical framework. In S. Joss & S. Belluci (Eds.), Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives (pp. 24–48). London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.Google Scholar
  13. Beneish, M., & Chatov, R. (1993). Corporate codes of conduct: Economic determinants and legal implications for independent auditors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 12(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013). Models of adoption of open innovation within the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blok, V. (2014a). Look who’s talking: Responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blok, V. (2014b). Identity, unity and difference in cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. Philosophy of Management, 13(2), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blok, V., Gremmen, B., & Wesselink, R. (2015a). Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainable development. The role of individual virtuous competence. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 34(3), 297–327.Google Scholar
  18. Blok, V., Hoffmans, L., & Wubben, E. (2015b). Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices. Journal of Chain and Network Science, 15(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business mode archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Middleton Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Management Review, 66(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
  23. Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12(2), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chilvers, J. (2008). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning, 40(2), 2990–3008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Christensen, L., & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organisational practices. Communication Theory, 25, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Christensen, L., & Cornelissen, J. (2015). Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ciliberti, F., de Haan, J., de Groot, G., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2011). CSR codes and the principal-agent problem in supply chains: Four case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Conner, K., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dahl, R. (1997). On deliberative democracy: Citizens panels and Medicare reforms. Dissent, 44(3), 54–58.Google Scholar
  32. De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  33. Dean, T., & McMullen, J. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 50–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dorfman, R. (1993). Some concepts from welfare economics. In R. Dorfman & N. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics of the environment. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Dutta, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eckhardt, J., & Shane, S. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Flipse, S. (2012). Enhancing socially responsible innovation in industry. Practical use for considerations of social and ethical aspects in industrial life sciences & technology. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University.Google Scholar
  40. Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gaglio, C., & Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gould, R. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, J., Daneke, G., & Lenox, M. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harrison, J., Bosse, D., & Phillips, R. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hart, S., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  48. Husted, B. (2007). Agency, information, and the structure of moral problems in business. Organization Studies, 28(2), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Islam, A. (2012). Methods of open innovation knowledge sharing risk reduction: A case study. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(4), 294–297.Google Scholar
  50. Jackson, T. (2011). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kirzner, I. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  55. Korakandy, R. (2008). Fisheries development in India. The political economy of unsustainable development. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Kreuter, M., De Rosa, C., Howze, E., & Baldwin, G. (2004). Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health, Education, and Behaviour, 31, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lee, K.-H. (2009). Why and how to adopt green management: Principles and examples. Management Decision, 47(7), 1101–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2010). Playing it forward: Path dependency, progressive incrementalism, and the “super wicked” problem of global climate change. Accessed from
  60. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lopatta, K., Buchholz, F., & Kaspereit, T. (2015). Asymmetric information and corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 55(3), 1–31.Google Scholar
  62. Lowitt, E. (2013). The collaboration economy: How to meet business, social, and environmental needs and gain competitive advantage. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. McMullen, J., & Shepherd, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Millar, C., Udalov, Y., & Millar, H. (2012). The ethical dilemma of information asymmetry in innovation: Reputation, investors and noise in the innovation channel. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the “new” discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P. (2006). Understanding one aspect of the knowledge leakage concept: People. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information (working paper).Google Scholar
  67. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Molnar, E., & Mulvihill, P. (2003). Sustainability-focused organizational learning: Recent experiences and new challenges. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 46(2), 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects. Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nayyar, P. (1990). Information asymmetries: A source of competitive advantage for diversified service firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Parrish, B. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organisation design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. (2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Peterson, C. (2009). Transformational supply chains and the ‘wicked problem’ of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership. Journal of Chain and Network Science, 9(2), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2017). Toward a validated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship. Organization & Environment.
  76. Poole, M., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Robert, J. (2001). Corporate governance and the ethics of Narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 222–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scherer, F., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  82. Schnack, K. (1996). Internationalisation, democracy and environmental education. In S. Breiting & K. Nielsen (Eds.), Environmental education research in the Nordic countries: Proceedings from the Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education (pp. 7–19). Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School for Educational Studies.Google Scholar
  83. Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  88. Sharma, A., & Kearins, K. (2011). Interorganizational collaboration for regional sustainability: What happens when organizational representatives come together? Journal of Applied Behaviour Science, 47(2), 168–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith, W. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thompson, N., Herrman, A., & Hekkert, M. (2015). How sustainable entrepreneurs engage in institutional change. Insights from biomass torrefaction in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 608–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Trivedi, C., & Stokols, D. (2011). Social enterprises and corporate enterprises: Fundamental differences and defining features. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Van den Bergh, J. (2001). Ecological economics: Themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics. Regional Environmental Change, 2(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van der Byl, C., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Griethuysen, P. (2010). Why are we growth-addicted? The hard way towards degrowth in the involutionary western development path. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 590–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van Huijstee, M., Francken, M., & Leroy, P. (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Van Oosterhout, J., Heugens, P., & Kaptein, M. (2006). The internal morality of contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics. Academy of Management Review, 31, 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Veldhuizen, M., Blok, V., & Dentoni, D. (2013). Organisational drivers of capabilities for multi-stakeholder dialogue and knowledge integration. Journal of Chain and Network Science, 13(2), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wood, G. (2002). A partnership model of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations