Jeffrey G. York

The Coevolution of Institutional Entrepreneurship: A Tale of Two Theories

This article provides a review and analysis of institutional entrepreneurship research with a focus on the emergence of this literature within two largely divergent streams: sociology-based institutional theory and economics-based institutional economics. The authors completed a review of 141 articles from these concurrent, but unlinked, research streams to understand how their integration might contribute to the further understanding of institutional entrepreneurship. Each stream is reviewed on its respective approaches to the following topics: the nature of the institutional entrepreneur, the types of institutions addressed, the determinants of institutional entrepreneurship, the mechanisms used in the process, and the empirical focus of each stream. The article recommends greater assimilation of the two streams and discusses specific opportunities for conceptual integration. Finally, the article offers an agenda for incorporating entrepreneurship research into the study of institutional entrepreneurshi...

An Effectual Approach to International Entrepreneurship: Overlaps, Challenges, and Provocative Possibilities:

In this paper, we outline several interesting observations about international entrepreneurship (IE) research through the theoretical lens of effectuation. In doing so, we show how an effectual approach can help resolve four central conflicts and knowledge gaps identified in two recent comprehensive reviews of IE. We then present an illustrative case study from India that provides an intriguing comparison with the most recent modification of the Uppsala model to integrate with effectuation theory. Finally, we offer four provocative possibilities for future research at the intersection of IE and effectuation research.

Distinctions not Dichotomies: Exploring Social, Sustainable, and Environmental Entrepreneurship

In this chapter, we review and examine the differences and similarities between social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. We explore the concepts, key questions, empirical methodologies, and disciplinary roots that differentiate and relate these emergent interest areas. The result of this comparative analysis inevitably raises the question of whether these new literature streams are inclusive or separate from the traditional domain of entrepreneurship research. We find that these three areas share many similarities, yet are distinguishable from one another and from more traditional, commercial forms of entrepreneurship. However, we determine that although these three areas of entrepreneurial scholarship raise unique questions and highlight different types of phenomena, they are not their own fields of study, but rather promising contexts for studying key questions of the entrepreneurship field.

The Coevolution of Industries, Social Movements, and Institutions: Wind Power in the United States

This study of the U.S. wind energy industry extends theory on the process of industry emergence by developing and testing a coevolutionary model of the relationship between social movement organizations SMOs, institutions, and industries. Building on research that suggests that SMOs can influence institutions and the path of emerging industries, we show that the growth of an industry can also influence the diversity of social movements by motivating the participation of specialist SMOs. These new SMOs in turn deploy distinct knowledge, capabilities, goals, and strategies to produce institutional changes that are necessary for the continued growth of the industry. Our study offers a more complete conceptualization of the influence of social movements on industry emergence and growth, and it extends understanding of how SMO diversity is produced.

The Thread of Inchoate Demand in Social Entrepreneurship

There is an emerging belief amongst non-profit, environmental and business leaders that social entrepreneurship may present an alternative solution to many of the issues we face. Whether the problem is homelessness (Hibbert et al., 2002), funding for non-profit art organizations (Hughes and Luksetich, 2004), or environmental degradation (Cohen and Winn, 2007), one can find active new ventures led by those labelling themselves as ‘social entrepreneurs’. As with the broader field of entrepreneurship, there has been a struggle to define social entrepreneurship and its contribution as a field of study (Venkataraman, 1997). Some scholars have focused on outlining key differences with and similarities to ‘traditional’ entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2006; Dees, 1998) and others have focused on the prioritization of a social mission in these organizations (Dees, 1998; Mair and Marti, 2006). Attempts to create a taxonomy delineating non-profit, for profit, and complementary profit models have been advanced (Fowler, 2000). While some have chosen to squarely place social entrepreneurship within the realm of non-profit organizations utilizing traditional business techniques (Zietlow, 2001), others describe social entrepreneurship as crossing nonprofit, business and government boundaries (Austin et al., 2006). On the whole, it appears as though the focus of attention is on the ‘social’ in social entrepreneurship rather than the ‘entrepreneurship’ that goes into addressing social issues of interest.

The entrepreneur-environment nexus: uncertainty, innovation and allocation

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

Green Chemistry and EVA: A Framework for Incorporating Environmental Action into Financial Analysis

The past few decades have seen increased interest and concern around businesses’ relationship with their natural environments and, in particular, ways in which businesses can either help or hinder the transformation to a sustainable society (Hart 2005; Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 2000; Hoffman 2000; Reinhardt 2000). Many frameworks and decision-making tools, most of which originated in engineering or product design communities, have been developed to address these issues. While these tools have recently come to the attention of corporate strategists and financial managers, widespread adoption does not seem imminent and is pending exposition of a compelling “business case.”

The Recognition and Development of Social Enterprise Opportunities: An Identity Based Approach

Social enterprise has gained widespread acclaim as a tool for addressing social and environmental problems. Yet, because these organizations integrate the social welfare and commercial logics in their core, they face the challenge of pursuing goals that frequently conflict with each other. Studies have begun to address how established social enterprises can manage these tensions, but we know little about how, why, and with what consequences social entrepreneurs mix competing logics as they work to create new organizations. To address this gap, we develop a theoretical model based in identity theory that helps to explain: (1) how the commercial and social welfare logics become relevant to entrepreneurship; (2) how different types of entrepreneurs perceive the tension between these logics, and; (3) the implications this has for how entrepreneurs go about recognizing and developing plans to address opportunities that integrate social welfare and commercial goals. Our approach thus responds to calls from organizational and entrepreneurship scholars to extend existing frameworks of opportunity recognition and development to better account for social enterprise creation.