Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainable Business Models

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Further elaboration of this concept is beyond the scope of this article.

References

  • Adriana, B. (2009). Environmental supply chain management in tourism: The case of large tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1385–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almers, E. (2013). Pathways to action competence for sustainability – Six themes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(2), 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie, S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5, 1176–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013). Models of adoption of open innovation within the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blok, V. (2014b). Identity, unity and difference in cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. Philosophy of Management, 13(2), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2008). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning, 40(2), 2990–3008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L., & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organisational practices. Communication Theory, 25, 70–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L., & Cornelissen, J. (2015). Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 132–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1997). On deliberative democracy: Citizens panels and Medicare reforms. Dissent, 44(3), 54–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T., & McMullen, J. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 50–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J., & Shane, S. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaglio, C., & Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., Daneke, G., & Lenox, M. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J., Bosse, D., & Phillips, R. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. (2007). Agency, information, and the structure of moral problems in business. Organization Studies, 28(2), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jackson, T. (2011). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korakandy, R. (2008). Fisheries development in India. The political economy of unsustainable development. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.-H. (2009). Why and how to adopt green management: Principles and examples. Management Decision, 47(7), 1101–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.5287&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  • Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopatta, K., Buchholz, F., & Kaspereit, T. (2015). Asymmetric information and corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 55(3), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowitt, E. (2013). The collaboration economy: How to meet business, social, and environmental needs and gain competitive advantage. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, E., & Mulvihill, P. (2003). Sustainability-focused organizational learning: Recent experiences and new challenges. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 46(2), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects. Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, P. (1990). Information asymmetries: A source of competitive advantage for diversified service firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, B. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organisation design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 510–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. (2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2017). Toward a validated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship. Organization & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617697039.

  • Poole, M., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, J. (2001). Corporate governance and the ethics of Narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 222–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi, C., & Stokols, D. (2011). Social enterprises and corporate enterprises: Fundamental differences and defining features. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh, J. (2001). Ecological economics: Themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics. Regional Environmental Change, 2(1), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huijstee, M., Francken, M., & Leroy, P. (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, G. (2002). A partnership model of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Vincent Blok

Authors
  1. Vincent Blok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Blok .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Antwerp Management School, Antwerp, Belgium

    Lars Moratis

  2. NHTV Breda University of Applied Science, Breda, The Netherlands

    Frans Melissen

  3. Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, United Kingdom

    Samuel O. Idowu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blok, V. (2018). Information Asymmetries and the Paradox of Sustainable Business Models: Towards an Integrated Theory of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. In: Moratis, L., Melissen, F., Idowu, S. (eds) Sustainable Business Models. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73503-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation