Sustainable entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa: The collaborative multi-system
model.
Norma Achieng Juma1*, Channelle D. Jamesb and Eileen Kwesiga
a
School of Business, Washburn University, Topeka, USA; bBryan School of Business and
Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, USA; cCollege of
Business, Bryant University, Smithfield, USA
Acknowledgements:
The authors graciously acknowledge the financial support of the Beatrice Research Grant,
Washburn University, and the BASPRO Research Grant from the Bryan School at the University
of North Carolina Greensboro. We are also deeply grateful to Dr. Merlyn Griffiths and Dr. Sevil
Sonmez for their review and helpful feedback in completing this manuscript.
1
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]; Phone: 785-670-3259; Fax:785670-1063; Mailing address: 1700 SW College Ave. Topeka, KS 66621
1
Sustainable entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa: The collaborative multi-system
model.
In this article, we explore the dimensions involved in creating a sustainability-focused
entrepreneurial venture within a community. In these ventures the entrepreneur may be the
central hub of venture activities, but the interdependence between the entrepreneur and partners
in the community is critical. Our observations suggest that the path toward sustainability starts
with external collaboration with entities in the entrepreneur’s surrounding system. Our aim is to
extend entrepreneurship research through an examination of sustainability, which calls for a
recalibration in the role of profit and social/economic good. This research offers a comparative
analysis of two case studies, and proposes a fluid and integrative multi-systems model of
collaboration with various entities, including governments, the private sector, nongovernment
organizations (NGOs), and the larger community.
Key Words: Sub-Saharan Africa; social entrepreneurship; environmental entrepreneurship;
sustainable entrepreneurship; multi-system model/ integrative model.
Introduction
Sustainable entrepreneurship emphasizes enterprise development with a focus on
transformative ideas such as the reduction in environmental degradation, social equity, and
economic stability (Lumpkin and Katz 2011; Shepherd and Patzelt 2011). As a base theory,
sustainable entrepreneurship has the potential to further establish a distinction for research in
social entrepreneurship and environmental entrepreneurship by giving texture and context to
entrepreneurship outside the traditional canon. Sustainable entrepreneurship can be the answer to
traditional market failures that continue to have a devastating impact on our environment and
communities (Cohen and Winn 2007). In fact, market failures related to the environment, social
systems, and economic stability often point entrepreneurs to an opportunity to act (Stål and
Bonnedahl 2016). However, sustainable entrepreneurship is not only a response to market
opportunities visible because of market failure, but is a vehicle for supporting sustainable
practices in a community (Muñoz and Dimov 2015).
Some notable examples of sustainable entrepreneurship come from Sub-Saharan Africa,
2
from entrepreneurs who desire to enhance opportunities for responsible development that
respects the cultural, social, and personal experiences valued in local communities. These
examples are based on the use of efficiencies inherent in the traditional way of conducting
business, but address social issues while still focused on producing profit, protecting the
environment, and simultaneously preserving the cultural integrity of communities (Shepherd and
Patzelt 2011). In addition, sustainable entrepreneurship not only integrates the efficiencies that
make new innovations possible, but also considers notions of sufficiency that may be more
successful at reaching the true end goal of sustainability at the societal level (Augenstein and
Palzkill 2015).
The purpose of this paper is to explore the dimensions involved in creating a
sustainability-focused entrepreneurial venture, particularly in less industrialized regions. Our
focus is not just on the individual venture, but the entrepreneurial environment that supports and
benefits from sustainable entrepreneurship. The focus is on the social context (Spence, Gherib,
and Biwolé 2011) in which sustainable entrepreneurship flourishes, where the role the
entrepreneur is not separate from the role of entrepreneurship that sustains the community
(Muñoz and Dimov 2015). We take a case study approach (Piekkari et al. 2010) to explore
entrepreneurs who have a track record in developing enterprises committed to economic and
social good with great consideration of the environment. Our aim is to provide a framework for
understanding the creation and emergence of social value and sustainability within an
entrepreneurial context.
3
Theoretical Grounding
Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Some research on sustainable entrepreneurship focuses on the lone entrepreneur in small
and medium-size enterprise (SME) who innovates and creates value through sustainable
practices (Spence, Gherib, and Biwolé 2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship, however, is best
understood at a macro level where the actions of the single entrepreneur are most relevant in
context with the whole system that makes sustainable action possible (Peredo 2003). According
to this view, sustainable entrepreneurship is about understanding the systems that are created to
move the environment, its people, and its resources into the future so that future generations are
able to survive. The premise is that entrepreneurial ventures and their practices are important to
creating the balance needed to maintain our existence into the future. Sustainability practices are
integrated into every part of the venture (Horisch 2015), so that “economic success is strongly
linked to their environmental and/or social performance” (Stubbs 2016). In the sustainable
context, entrepreneurship balances the natural orientation toward growth with sufficiency in
order to sustain not only organizations, but more importantly, communities (Augenstein and
Palzkill 2015). These ventures value sustainable principles that transform communities into
viable and livable places.
There have been attempts in the extant research to broaden the meaning of
entrepreneurship to include more than simply creating profit (Spence, Gherib, and Biwolé 2011).
Sustainable entrepreneurship is a response to this broadening of the field. Shepherd and Patzelt
(2011) define sustainable entrepreneurship as “the preservation of nature, life support, and
community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into existence future products,
4
processes, and services for economic and non-economic gain” (142). In this view, sustainable
entrepreneurship intersects with other research streams including “ecopreneurship” and “social
entrepreneurship,” as they both address entrepreneurship in social and environmental contexts
(Shepherd and Patzelt 2011). Another form of entrepreneurship is community-based
entrepreneurship. Peredo and Chrisman (2006) identify community-based enterprises (CBEs) as
those that include members of a community acting corporately, both as an entrepreneur and as an
enterprise. CBEs are often formed when the existence of a community or their source of
livelihood is threatened. Therefore, we will use the term sustainable enterprise to refer to both
enterprises created by individual entrepreneur(s) as well as CBEs as long as they apply
entrepreneurial innovation to resolve environmental and social challenges as well as enhance the
economic well-being of individuals and society at large.
Of course, as sustainable development is the core of all forms of sustainable
entrepreneurship, this research is focused on exploring “notions that all natural systems have
limits and that human well-being requires living within those limits” (Hall, Daneke, and Lenox
2010, 440). Sustainable entrepreneurship offers innovations that address these limits. Along
these lines, researchers also suggest that sustainable entrepreneurship is about transforming a
particular industry and the global community (Hockerts and Wustenhagen 2009). Table 1
summarizes the commonly cited definitions and scope of sustainable entrepreneurship.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 here – Table of articles on sustainable entrepreneurship
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Systems Theory
A system can be best understood by examining its elements, interconnections, and
functions. Previous studies have used systems theory to explain entrepreneurial activity and
regional development (Colapinto and Porlezza 2012; Pfeilstetter 2013; Siu-Lun 1996). Systems
theory can help to explain the connection between entrepreneurs, their sustainable venture, and
the community.
According to complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory, several independent agents
interact in accordance with a predetermined set of rules, and in the process, create adaptive
systems where the agents co-adapt, co-learn, and co-evolve through the interaction (Tapsell and
Woods 2008; Katzenstein and Chrispin 2011). Systems may also be described as networks of
interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a co-operative dynamic by mutual goals
(Katzenstein and Chrispin 2011).
A possible application of systems theory to sustainable entrepreneurship is to identify
partnerships of independent and interdependent agents whose roles will be critical in facilitating
a self-sustaining system where not only are the innovation risks shared but the mutual goals are
realized and the patterns of interactions are sustained. As an agent in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem, the entrepreneur works to make the appropriate combinations to support the
sustainable nature of their venture. A part of the system inherent in sustainable entrepreneurship
is the network that the entrepreneur uses to support their entrepreneurial activities.
The entrepreneurial ecosystem is made of hierarchies that include subsystems and a
process of renewal that is inherent in sustainability (Voinov and Farly 2007). These ecosystems
6
constitute social systems (leadership, culture, customers, local community) (Isenberg, 2000) and
economic environments (capital markets, physical and business infrastructure, institutional
capacity), which impact entrepreneurship on the local/regional level (Kline et al. 2013). As the
entrepreneur interacts with these components of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the whole system
becomes the innovation that leads to success in this sustainable environment.
Sustainable entrepreneurs who are entrenched in their respective communities tend to
exhibit a desire to transform not only their economic circumstances but their social and
environmental conditions as well (Parrish 2010). These entrepreneurs often find that the societal
privileging of specialization leaves them ill-equipped to make the economic and labor changes
they envision, while limiting interaction and collaboration. Given the complexity involved in
making holistic changes in a community, entrepreneurs, by necessity, need to broaden their
capabilities beyond the confines of their specialties, interact more widely, and undertake
innovative approaches. We argue here that it is the system orchestrated in part by the
entrepreneur that is critical in understanding the design and impact of sustainable
entrepreneurship. Cohen (2006) calls this “sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem, an
interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable
development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures” (3). As depicted in
Figure 1, we anticipate that eventually, in a sustainable focused community, all entities involved
will be conscious of the preservation of the natural environment and will create innovative
products, processes, and services for economic and non-economic gains to society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 here: A collaborative, multi-system model
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
Our proposed models merge Cohen’s (2006) viewpoint of entrepreneurial ecosystem and
Luhmann’s (1995) argument of coupling structures in social systems. Luhmann refers to the
creation of a mutual environment through the recurrent interaction of independent systems as
interpenetration. According to Luhmann’s theory, interpenetration in our model happens when a
sustainable enterprise and its partners influence each other by introducing their complexity
reciprocally. Each partner brings not only its resources and resourcefulness but its specific goals
and agendas. In the attempt to accomplish the complex goals of a sustainable enterprise, both the
entrepreneur and partners must create mutual environments where those interactions are possible
and mutual goals are achieved.
Luhmann argued that penetration occurs when the system (in our case, the sustainable
enterprise) makes itself available for construction of another system (in our case, this could be
the creation of a new entity or a new collaboration). The behavior of the penetrating system (in
our case, the sustainable enterprise) is co-determined by the receiving system (the collaborative
partners). The partners in the system come together in a way that creates new entrepreneurial
opportunities for all parties involved (apiculture in the case of Honey Care Africa, tannery for
Oliberté). The receiving system eventually proceeds outside the sustainable enterprise’s
entrepreneurial ecosystem once the purpose for the collaboration has been achieved as depicted
in Figure 1, creating even more opportunities for sustainable entrepreneurship. Systems theory
expands our understanding of the relationship between the entrepreneur and the various
collaborative partners; those relationships provide the opportunity for additional
sustainability-focused activities.
8
A theory derived framework for a collaborative, multi-system model
We propose a collaborative, multi-system model to explain the relationships created as
entrepreneurs address challenges to sustainability. Researchers have offered network models that
explain the system and dynamics within which sustainable entrepreneurship operates (Cohen
2006). We offer a similar model; however, we capitalize on the sustainable enterprise as the
center of the model highlighting the relationships between the entities. The sustainable enterprise
is focused on applying entrepreneurial innovation to resolve environmental and social challenges
as well as enhance economic well-being (Cohen and Winn 2007). The sustainability-focused
entrepreneur employs the “right practical expertise” (Parrish 2010) so that the sustainable
venture will succeed. Sustainable entrepreneurs construct venture activities around their values,
primarily sustainability (Spence, Gherib, and Biwolé 2011; Tilley and Young 2009; Rodgers
2010).
Sustainable enterprise views market failures as opportunities for groundbreaking
innovation. Opportunity recognition is central to the entrepreneur’s ability to successfully create
profit while addressing environmental and social challenges (Cohen and Winn 2007). These
opportunities are often centrally linked to the goals and concerns of the larger community that in
some cases have global impacts. The ultimate outcomes may result in economic as well as noneconomic gains to individuals and society (Shepherd and Patzelt 2011). In developing nations,
these non-economic outcomes include enhancing education, physical health, self-reliance of
individuals and societies (Wheeler et al. 2005), and the wellbeing of nations (Diener, Diener, and
Diener 1995; Vemuri and Costanza 2006). The entrepreneur’s desire is to gain access to both
9
global and local markets with transformative products and services aimed at reduction in
environmental degradation, social equity, and economic stability, which is often riddled with a
heightened sense of risk due to the multiplicity of goals and the demand resources. In terms of
systems theory, the sustainable enterprise is likely to form alliances with other entities/partners in
order to minimize risks (Granovetter 1985); build capabilities and information (Gnyawali and
Fogel 1994); enhance its access to opportunities, possibly gain access to local, regional, and
international markets (Johannisson and Monsted 1997); or simply enhance its legitimacy
(Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Dubini and Aldrich 1991). Thus, the local firm/sustainable enterprise
will engage in the process of penetration, presenting itself for construction of another system
codetermined with its partners.
The Partners
Government
In most economies, the government plays an integral role in facilitating or hindering the
entrepreneurial development. Particularly in sustainable development, governments are often
seen as either constructing barriers to limit unchecked growth or providing incentives to
encourage growth (Dean and McMullen 2007; Cohen and Winn 2007; Shepard and Patzelt
2011). The actions of government and governmental agencies set the framework under which the
sustainable entrepreneur can work (Tilley and Young 2009). Thus, the key responsibility of the
government is to provide legal infrastructure and to invest in human capital development
(Mahmood and Rufin 2005). In addition, governments can finance or subsidize funding of highly
innovative and socially critical ventures. The role of government in entrepreneurial enterprises is
often cast as a choice between the free market and government interventionism. Regardless of
10
the categorization, one would be hard pressed to deny that governments significantly impact our
societies, especially in turbulent global economic climate. Our conception of government follows
the well-known Weberian definition: government as the agent endowed with a monopoly on the
use of force (Weber, Lassman, and Speirs 1994). For the sake of analytical simplicity, we follow
the example of Mahmood and Rufin (2005) and simply view the role of government as economic
and political. In its economic role, the government can provide conducive fiscal policy (such as
subsidies and tax holidays), training and technical support, vendor support/supply contracts, etc.
While in its political role, the government can generate support for sustainable enterprises at the
legislative and local levels.
Private Sector
The private sector represents for-profit businesses that are interested in sustainability. The
past decade has witnessed a huge growth in the number of firms reporting on sustainability
information (defined as environmental, social, and governance—ESG factors). By 2013 over
6,000 companies around the globe issued sustainability reports (Ioannou and Serafeim 2014).
Scholars and practitioners have considered sustainability as an emerging megatrend. According
to Eccles and Serafeim (2013), firms must strive to attain at least parity in ESG factors
comparable to industry benchmarks if they want to remain competitive. A number of countries
such as China, Denmark, Malaysia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, among a host of
others, have mandated the disclosure of environmental, social, and governance data. Given the
growing prevalence of reporting sustainability information voluntarily or otherwise, we posit that
sustainable entrepreneurs who need investment may find ready partners among angel investors,
venture capitalists, commercial banks, and firms in the supply chain. Similarly, renowned retail
11
outlets are keen to partner with environmentally conscious and socially responsible partners to
boost their brand image as well as to mitigate legislative risk of sourcing from precarious
suppliers.
Community
The concept of community is both complex and multi-dimensional. A community is
comprised of a group of individuals who share a common set of values, norms, meanings,
identity, and heritage (Etzioni 1998). The role of the general community is an important part of
the development of social values, because it is within the community that resources are
exchanged and where the mission of sustainability oriented ventures is realized. The community
provides the talent pool needed to grow the sustainable enterprise (Cohen 2006). Complexity of
community is further convoluted by the fact that in the case of CBEs, members of a community
may act corporately both as an entrepreneur and a consumer. Thus, the community may be both
the creator and consumer of the environmental, social, and economic value.
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Some have questioned if NGOs and similar organizations are still relevant in today’s
world (Fowler 2000). But with the evolution of sustainable entrepreneurship, NGOs have
become energized as they represent a connection between sustainable entrepreneurs and the
people they serve. These organizations help with capacity building, seed capital, and peer-to-peer
training, all of which are critical in implementing sustainable strategies. Sustainable
entrepreneurship has become the key to meeting the various social and economic goals for
NGOs, women’s groups, and self-help organizations. The sustainable entrepreneur may help the
NGOs in improving the quality of the interventions they can make in the community, an
12
important measure in a scenario where quality may be a more important measure than quantity
(Fowler 2000). While global economic trends fail to support the historical activities of NGOs in
providing aid, developing new relationships with other entities becomes a central imperative
(Malhotra 2000). These types of organizations have connections in the community that support
new innovations.
Development Agencies
The IMF and the World Bank have a critical connection to sustainable entrepreneurs.
Like NGOs these development agencies offer capacity building and seed capital for sustainable
entrepreneurs with the goals of sustainable development, economic growth, and poverty
alleviation. Research in indigenous entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship for poverty alleviation
suggests that these organizations are courting entrepreneurial innovations that address the social,
economic, and environmental issues that challenge global communities (Peredo 2003). In a time
when development organizations must justify their approaches to poverty reduction (Cammack
2004), sustainable entrepreneurs have become critical partners in global plans. Thus, in our
conceptual model we posit that development agencies will play pivotal partnership roles.
Methodology
This exploratory research is designed to examine the stories of multiple partners to gain a
deeper understanding of the emergent themes. We are using a model for sustainable
entrepreneurship and a theoretical framework for integrating partners in a system that enables the
creation of collaborative relationships towards sustainable entrepreneurship. Sustainable
entrepreneurship is still in its infancy; therefore, case method is appropriate as it facilitates the
exploration and analyses of the complex emergent social phenomena (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin
13
2013, 2015). We triangulate the data by using case studies and secondary data sources to ensure
construct validity (Eisenhardt 1989; Gibbert and Ruigrok 2010; Yin 2013). In previous research,
the case study method has been instrumental in providing useful theoretical and practical
insights, especially in research on collaborations between different entities (Arenas, Sanchez, and
Murphy 2013; Gray and Wood 1991).
The two cases presented here were selected on the basis of theoretical sampling, as they
were considered appropriate for providing new insights into an emergent theory (Eisenhardt
1989; Stake 1995). The cases met the following criteria: 1) primarily located in Sub-Saharan
Africa; and 2) identified as sustainable enterprise by renowned third party organizations such as
World Bank, World Fair Trade Organization, or United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
The inclusion of multiple partners helps to create qualitative reliability and validity (Golafshani
2003) as we seek to expand to multiple views of entrepreneurship as a part of sustainability.
We used two main approaches to gathering and analysing case study data—the nested
approach, which examines multiple sources within a single organization (Yin 2013), and the
cross-case analysis approach, which may involve four to 10 case studies of different
organizations (Eisenhardt 1989). Single case study methodology is particularly favored in
scenarios where the research question seeks to address the “why and how” in the context of
processes occurring in a real-life environment (Yin 2013; Voss et al. 2002). The use of a single
case study is a common practice in a number of disciplines but more so in the fields of Strategic
Management and Entrepreneurship (Gao et al. 2016; Gaya and Smith 2016; Grimstad and
Burgess 2014; Katz-Buonincontro and Ghosh, 2014; Lopes et al. 2017). Using a case study
design or approach facilitates an in-depth understanding of the complexity of firms that is not
14
obtainable from large-sample econometric work (Lockett and Thompson 2001). We adopted
both approaches; the nested approach to analyze data gathered from Honey Care Africa (HCA)
and Oliberté, and the cross-case analysis to analyse the commonalities between the two cases.
Using the nested approach to examine multiple sources within two organizations as opposed to a
single organization creates a greater opportunity to fully examine the nuances involved in the
organic evolution of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Profile of the Case Studies
Honey Care Africa (HCA) and Oliberté
The nested approach examines multiple sources within a single organization (Yin 2013).
The interview participants include the owners of Oliberté, a shoe manufacturer in Ethiopia, and
HCA, a sustainable beekeeping company in Kenya. Their narratives tell the story of the mission
of these entrepreneurial ventures, and the entrepreneurs’ interest in developing a sustainable
business model. Government officials are included in the interviews to illustrate how social
entrepreneurship and government can harness opportunities by leveraging public and private
resources to create sustainability-focused entrepreneurial ventures. Finally, members of the
community who support these firms are included in the study to gain a more complete view of
the impact created by these firms.
Oliberté is a shoe manufacturer operating in Ethiopia and headquartered in Canada. The
company was founded in 2009 by Mr. Tal Dehtiar, who was raised in an entrepreneurial family
and who immigrated to Canada. He has had previous success developing a charity called MBAs
without Borders. The company employed 70 employees as of fall 2016. Oliberté sells its
products across the globe through their online store and various retail outlets. Currently Oliberté
15
ships products to Canada, USA, several European Union countries, UK, Norway, Russia,
Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, and China. Oliberté, like most sustainable enterprises, has a clear
statement and policy on how their activities impact the environment and society, and sustain
economic gains. They use natural leather and rubber sourced from live trees; they make sure all
the leather tanneries use proper water treatment facilities.
HCA is a sustainable enterprise founded in 2000. HCA partners with farmers across East
Africa to strengthen the economic wellbeing of local communities through sustainable
beekeeping. Its business model has been recognized regionally within Kenya, and internationally
as an exemplar sustainable enterprise. HCA has won awards and funding from the World Bank
and United Nations Development Program (UNDP). In 2004, HCA replicated its business model
in Tanzania with the help of a loan from the International Finance Corporation (IFC). In 2014,
once again, HCA replicated its business model in South Sudan with the help of the Nestlé
Creating Shared Value (CSV) Prize. HCA has won in excess of a dozen awards of excellence
over the years, as illustrated in Table 2. We argue that studying these two sustainable enterprises
at two different stages in the life cycle greatly enhances the robustness of our proposed model.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the extensive network of HCA’s business model as well as its global
recognitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 2 and 3 here
Table 2. Honey Care Africa: A summary of the model, recognitions and certification
Table 3. A selected list of HCA partners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Data Collection
Two of the co-authors traveled to East Africa, met with the participants, and completed
the interviews. The authors conducted interviews over a two-week period in Kenya on HCA and
16
its partners while the founder of Oliberté was interviewed in the U.S. While in Kenya, we
interviewed Madison Ayer, Current CEO and Chair of HCA, entrepreneurs, key members of the
local community, a government official (at Export Processing Zone), and private sector partners
(Equity Bank officials who advance micro loans to farmers). Access to the interviewees was
made possible through the network of both entrepreneurs.
All face-to-face interviews were recorded and transcribed. Published interview data and
articles supplemented our understanding of these two organizations. Table 4 depicts interview
questions. Table 5 summarizes the primary and secondary data collection: 1) Data sources—a
brief description of interviewees or place or entity consulted; 2) Data format—identifies data as
primary or secondary and the medium: audio, print, or visual; and 3) Duration—for audio or
video recording the interview duration is indicated while for websites or written policy
documents the time took to extract relevant information is reported. Triangulation was achieved
through the use of different data collection strategies and data sources enhancing the descriptive
and interpretive validity of the study (Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Gibbert and Ruigrok 2010;
Gibbert, Winfried, and Wicki 2008, 2010; Jick 1979; Pettigrew 1990; Stake 1995; Yin 1981,
2013, 2015). We crossed-checked the primary and secondary data for consistency and accuracy;
where necessary, we contacted the entrepreneurs for verification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 4 and Table 5 here
Table 4: Interview Questions
Table 5: Interview and Participant Observation Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analysis
We analyzed the data in five phases based on procedures advocated for grounded
methods research (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003; Corbin and Strauss 2014). These procedures
17
provide a guideline on how to gather, organize, and analyze data. Phase 1: Our research question
was informed by literature on the dimensions involved in creating a sustainability-focused
enterprise, particularly in less industrialized regions. Theoretical sampling was used when
participants are chosen for theoretical, not statistical reasons (Eisenhardt 1989; Stake 1995).
Phase 2: An interview protocol was generated based on insight gained in Phase 1. The protocol
was structured to explore the dimensions involved in creating a sustainability-focused
entrepreneurial venture in less industrialized region (Table 4). The interview protocol called for
the examination of stories from multiple participants to gain a deeper understanding of the
emergent themes. Phase 3: Semi-structured face-to-face, in-depth interviews with two lead
entrepreneurs, key members of the local community, and strategic partners were conducted. The
local community participants were individuals who reside within the locality of the sustainable
enterprises. All interviewees were asked the same questions (structured interview technique); we
also used the unstructured interview technique to seek clarification or deeper insights whenever a
respondent’s point was not clear or when a respondent shared an intriguing point. Phase 4: Using
NVivo 10.0 we compared themes that emerged from the analysis. First, we coded each case
using a nested approach (multiple interviews from multiple participants within each firm).
Archival data were triangulated. In the event of any inconsistency, clarification was sought from
the entrepreneur. Two authors independently coded the data, resolving discrepancies through
discussion and a reexamination of the data. After using the nested approach, we embarked on a
cross-case analysis to identify the commonalities between the two cases. The primary focus was
on HCA, given its more refined model, but we were also interested in finding out if these
patterns were true of an emergent social venture. Phase 5: Feedback was sought from experts in
18
the field. First, we consulted colleagues and later we presented an earlier draft of the article at a
conference. This feedback helped refine our analysis (Bruton, Khavul, and Chavez 2011).
Discussion and Findings
The discussion of our findings is based on the HCA case study, drawing from the
Oliberté case as we build our arguments. In Figure 2, taking HCA as a focal point, the model that
emerged from the data through the lens of systems theory is depicted. A constant penetration
between the sustainable enterprise (HCA) and the various partners emerged. This penetration
occurred when the system (HCA) makes itself available for the construction of another system(s)
(HCA’s partners) (Luhmann 1995). The HCA created a new system when it formed
collaborations or interacted with various entities such as commercial banks (for example, Equity
Bank), NGOs such as Africa Now, governmental agencies/initiatives, and development banks
(for example, K-rep, now known as Sidian Bank) (see Tables 2 and 3).
HCA exploited the core competencies of each partner. For instance, the commercial
banks provided the seed capital for beehives and beekeeping harvesting kits and accessories.
During the earlier years, HCA partnered with Africa Now, an NGO that facilitated a partnership
between HCA and K-rep Bank (now known as Sidian Bank). This partnership was instrumental
in engineering rapid growth. The rapid growth created a new challenge in managing prompt cash
payments to the farmers. HCA then deployed the M-pesa technology, an electronic money
transfer product which makes financial transactions not only faster but more cost effective and
far more secure. Subsequently, HCA partnered with Safaricom Kenya, the providers of M-Pesa,
to launch a honeybee Business-in-a-Box concept. Safaricom Foundation, the charity arm of
Safaricom Kenya, and HCA aimed at maintaining floral biodiversity through bees pollinating
19
crops while providing an additional revenue stream for small scale farmers. As HCA expanded
its geographic coverage, volume of business, and product diversity, so did its network of partners
who facilitated farmers in the acquisition of seed capital. Eventually, HCA expanded its network
to include Equity Bank, a commercial bank whose vision statement is “to be the champion of the
socio-economic prosperity of the people of Africa.”2 Equity Bank primarily served low income
people who were historically excluded.
The HCA (the penetrating system) avails itself as a hub for participants to fulfill their
objectives. In effect, HCA as a system penetrates NGOs, governmental agencies, the private
sector, and the community as a whole, creating a system and context where diverse entities meet
their individual and collectives/mutual goals. The interaction of HCA as a system, with various
individual organizations (receiving systems) in the collaborative model/context, results in a
change in how HCA conducts its business.
In Figure 2 we depict HCA as a hub, where the primary focus is operating a viable
beekeeping business model. However, as a sustainable enterprise, HCA is also interested in
creating an empowering environmental, social, and economically sustainable model. HCA
harnessed the competencies of government agencies, NGOs, and education centers to provide
training and technical support on issues such as pest control, bee safety, and harvesting
techniques. This allowed HCA to keep a relatively lean staff in regards to field officers, which
reduced their costs and met the goals of their partners to influence the larger community. HCA
harnessed the local community’s entrepreneurial spirit through feedback mechanisms like
random surveys and focus group discussions; this facilitated peer-to-peer training and word of
2
http://www.equitybankgroup.com/about/our-corporate-philosophies. Accessed on Feb/04/2017
20
mouth marketing.
The HCA founder was intent on creating a private and free enterprise through adherence
to two key pillars: 1) ownership through purchase, not handout; and 2) individual ownership, not
communal ownership. This created opportunities for both development agencies and NGOs as
well as commercial banks and microfinance institutions, but not without a momentous resistance
from the former. The NGOs and most development agencies were structured to operate as
charities. Therefore, creating free and private enterprise was totally against the essence of their
models. In the HCA model, the beehive would be purchased by a development agency, a bank,
or an NGO; HCA would retain 20–25% of the farmer’s monthly income until the purchasing
organization could be paid back in full. Farouk Jiwa, founder of HCA, countered the resistance
to his two pillars by posing the question, “What are we going to do when the grant finally runs
out?” Though well intended, the charity approach embraced by most NGOs and development
agencies had failed when funds diminished or were depleted. Furthermore, the charity approach
tended to create generational dependence. To bridge the divide, HCA advocated for low interest
or interest free loans to the farmers. That approach allowed NGOs and development agencies to
multiply the initial grant and help more people. HCA had to be flexible and agile enough to be
responsive to different partners’ agendas and style of operation. Figure 2 is best summarized by
the description of HCA partnerships by Madison Ayer, Current CEO and Chair, HCA,
I’m not sure there are any businesses that can succeed completely in isolation,
particularly in rural Africa, it’s a much more challenging environment. The economics
are still too questionable. In rural communities, it’s primarily the government and NGO’s
and CBO’s that the communities are familiar with. So largely the first decade of HCA’s
experience it worked mainly with NGOs and government on rural economic development
projects. Mostly HCA partnered with different government agencies such as the Ministry
for Agriculture and National Beekeeping Station (Kenya) designed to facilitate small
holder farmers, economic development and conservation of natural environment and
21
wildlife. The same applied to the developmental agencies, NGOs and CBOs. You have to
be very realistic about each partner’s agenda. In many cases most goals can be
complementary, so you have to find those areas where the interests are complementary
and make necessary adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 here: Honey Care Africa’s (HCA’s) integrative model
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following themes emerged from the data on the new system orchestrated by HCA and their
integrative model.
The Community as Entrepreneur
Most research concerning entrepreneurship is focused on the individual entrepreneur as
the actor who identifies opportunity, gathers resources, innovates a plan of action, and sells to the
customer; the community is viewed as a passive component of a potentially well-designed
process. Venkataraman (1997), however, suggests that entrepreneurship should be defined as
“the understanding of how opportunities to bring into existence ‘future’ goods and services are
discovered, created, and exploited, by whom, and with what consequences” (119). In alignment
with this model HCA and Oliberté define the central focus of the system of sustainable
entrepreneurship. The working relationship between the founders and the community is the
impetus for creating social value. This relationship serves to overcome the barriers entrepreneurs
face in the social good context where information is not always correct, governments are
sometimes overly involved, and financial systems hinder systematic change (Pinkse and Groot
2015).
In the case of Oliberté, Hussein Feyssa, Marketing & Technical Manager at Hafde
Tannery, discusses their commitment to social values and environmental conservation and how
they seek the same values in their partners. In their business model the community and the
22
environment in which they operate are an integral part of the business.
Something that makes us unique is that our tannery doesn’t feel like one even though we
have 360 employees and our tannery is on 21,000 sq. meters. We employ a team of
engineers—chemical engineers, electricians, mechanical engineers to ensure proper
recycling of chemicals and responsible disposal of waste. We also employ four or
five landscapers to tend to the flower gardens. We don’t just employ, we empower our
employees. We subsidize meals for all employees and we have a clinic on site. Our
employees have their meals on outdoor patios. We treat our workers as masters of what
they do. We are happy to work with Oliberté, put simply, they understand our efforts for
unique quality and care for the environment.
The community as a partner and entrepreneur was depicted in the form of empowered employees
and empowered value chain in the case of a local tannery as well as in the case of Dagnachew
Abebe, a Designer and Entrepreneur who talked of the collaboration being based on trust. The
founders of HCA developed the relationships further viewing the farmers they worked with in
the communities as their partners along the value chain.
We partner with the farmers, it’s a full value chain model. The honey value chain
throughout Africa, really, is very fragmented. So HCA has developed expertise in that
value chain. And when I arrived we just sort of synthesized all of that back together into a
full value chain model where the economics would work.
The partnership created an exchange between the community and HCA, creating an opportunity
for the farmers to increase their income while HCA found benefit in the direct link to labor and
sustainable supply of honey.
Small holder households in rural areas, they’re our partners. And we’re directly helping
them to increase their incomes through our honey for money program. And then we have
direct employment. We employ a fairly large field staff. We employ supervisors in the
field. We have a sales force in the field. We have technicians that we recruit and hire
from the individual rural communities where they work.
HCA developed a core competency around the relationships they held with people in the
community. HCA sees their role as connecting people and entities along the value chain as they
address fragmentation from product production to the customer, who as a result of employment,
23
can now purchase local honey. As the community as the entrepreneur was identified, additional
themes emerged. The business models for both Oliberté and HCA outline the importance of
strategic resources and competencies present in the community as key to creating social good.
Both ventures agree that resources and innovation from inside the community resolved the social
problems. Tal at Oliberté views local strategic resources as more important to creating social
value than charity approaches. At HCA they also describe the local nature of their resources and
competencies as critical to their venture success.
Source the honey, controlling the quality of it from start to finish, which is very important
for honey, in particular, because it is a natural product, that’s where the real value of
honey is derived. And so watching the quality and managing the traceability across the
entire chain, and then developing the consumer brands. And the consumer brand, the
honey industry is about ten billion dollars, globally.
Location as Opportunity
For both HCA and Oliberté the idea that they can have an effective business model in
Sub-Saharan Africa was important to their work. Both entrepreneurs found that the opportunity
to solve social problems and the resources to address social problems were already present in the
communities in which they work. Fernhaber et al. (2008) suggest that the location itself is the
reason the entrepreneur is able to create and sustain a successful venture. Madison Ayer, CEO
HCA, discusses East Africa and Kenya as a location for entrepreneurship.
And it was East Africa and Kenya in particular have been intriguing to me as opportunity
both for social development and for economic development … that’s what drew me here.
And so it starts from the very beginning from production in rural areas. Similar to, it’s a
type of out-grower model, working with tens of thousands of rural households.
As for Oliberté, Tal also believed that the resources and people in Sub-Saharan Africa are ripe
for a profit-making venture. The focus for Oliberté was to create an opportunity related to the
24
people who live in Sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on bringing those at the bottom of the
economic pyramid to a middle class standard of living.
The big thing for me is that I was drawn to Africa, creating jobs in Africa, other than
creating just a shoe company making premium shoes, but this also helped in creating a
lot of jobs . . . and if you look at China as an example, if you look at where they started
manufacturing 20 to 25 years ago, that’s when they started to build up the middle class,
people in the work force, they know they do it well, and doing that in a way that might be
a little bit more cleaner and more sustainable, was kind of a pull so that, yes was a part
of the original goal to create a lot of sustainable jobs for people.
A Sustainable Balance between Business and Social Good: Core vs. Periphery
A part of the story of sustainable entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa is the focus on
balance between the desires for social and environmental justice and the economic needs of the
community. In some ways the language on sustainability privileges the environment over social
and economic issues that may be central to the dynamics inherent in developing nations. One of
the ways in which sustainable entrepreneurs achieve the balance needed to forge the way to
sustainability is determining the role that social good has in development. Social good defines
the issues that vulnerable communities must address even while they seek to protect
environments and provide economic security. As Wangari Maathi (2009) asserted, “we must
work in ways to reduce vulnerability in order to reach a level of sustainability.” In the case of
HCA, addressing the needs of the poor is “core” to their business model:
The core to HCA’s mission is to provide economic opportunities for poor rural families
in Kenya, more broadly in East Africa. Specifically, we now focus on improving the
income of these households. There’s a lot . . . HCA touches on a lot of different impact
areas, gender and youth and environment food security and health and all of those
things, but at the core what we're trying to do is increase the incomes of poor rural
families. And that's important because that's something that's a core of our model.
The focus on what is considered “core” constitutes an important departure. Determining the
appropriate goals for their entrepreneurial activities helps to shape the company’s strategy in
25
sustainability. In the case of Oliberté, the sustainable essence hinges on the social relationships
more so than the environment itself.
Tal Dehtiar, the founder of Oliberté, offered the following, “Oliberté ensured it partnered with
suppliers and factories that demonstrated respect and equity in the work place for men and
women.” Tal’s commitment to respect and equity reinforces the sustainability values and
strategies held by the organization. The venture itself is viewed by Tal as lacking sustainability
without consideration of the workers and their role in the business process.
Conclusions and Implications
The purpose of this paper was to explore the dimensions involved in creating a
sustainability-focused entrepreneurial venture, particularly in less industrialized regions. We
used evidence from two cases in the Sub-Saharan African region to demonstrate that although we
found the collaboration patterns predicted by extant literature (Figure 1), the relationships are far
more complex and dynamic in nature (Figure 2). Given the complexity of the environment in
which these firms operate we found that in order to realize success in terms of sustainability,
harnessing the resources and resourcefulness of other entities is pivotal. This ability to work not
only with, but also through, important community partners as depicted in Table 3 is shown to
make the difference in how the community creates sustainability goals.
First and foremost, sustainable enterprises seek to create innovative products/services to
sustain the natural and/or communal environment and provide economic and non-economic gain
for others. By definition, the newness of either the product offered or the approach of the offer
exposes sustainable enterprises to heightened risk common to all innovations. Both HCA and
Oliberté developed a new collaborative supply system and sought partnership with the local
26
communities as well as retail outlets, among a host of other partners, in order to mitigate these
risks. The inclusive relationships between the entrepreneurs and community partners seem more
likely to produce appropriate innovations.
HCA maintained the focal role of penetrating a number of independent systems such as
sourcing capital from government, development agencies, NGOs, and microfinance institutions;
sourcing training and technical support from government agencies, NGOs, and education
centers; and harnessing the local community’s entrepreneurial spirit. While the partners as
independent systems did not just present their resources and resourcefulness, they too
interpenetrated HCA system extracting their goals or exercising their agendas. HCA made
beekeeping accessible to poor farmers by procuring and selling beehives and all of the equipment
required to launch a beekeeping enterprise using funds from various partners. Through the ripple
effect each partner achieved its goals in the process. For instance, the Ministry of Forestry
launched a reforestation initiative in collaboration with HCA, the ‘bees for trees’ program (see
Table 2). Commercial banks with a focus on low income consumers such as Equity Bank and Krep Bank (now known as Sidian Bank) provided microloans incentivized by HCA’s model of
mandatory repayment process which greatly decreased the default risk of the loans. In return,
HCA partnered with the charity arm of those private sector partners to launch more innovative
products such as the honeybee Business-in-a-Box concept.
Secondly, often such approaches demand expertise beyond the current capacity of the
entrepreneur(s). The entrepreneurs are therefore compelled to seek expertise from others with
mutual goals. As depicted in Figure 1, each potential partner comes with distinct contributions,
but they also have specific goals they hope to obtain from the collaboration. The empirical model
27
demonstrates that these relationships are not permanent and partners move in and out of the
networks as their usefulness is exhausted and their goals are realized. For instance, HCA and one
of its most involved partners, Africa Now, an NGO, have long phased out their partnership. The
focal firm must therefore continuously redefine its alliances and seek new partnerships.
Lastly, the overall contributions of this work help recalibrate the role of entrepreneurship
in creating a sustainability focused venture and the role of entrepreneurship in sustainability in
general. In the end our work points to the complexity of the relationship inherent in sustainable
entrepreneurship. An important element of this research is its consideration of entrepreneurship
in a context broader than profit. We have been able to show how sustainable entrepreneurship
works to ensure the sustainable development of the overall community. The needs of the
community are far more than the profit made from one individual opportunity. This refocus of
the tenants of sustainable entrepreneurships reassigns growth to its appropriate position.
Limitations and Future Research Direction
Through case study analysis the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship on the larger
community was highlighted. This exploratory study touched on an aspect left out of much of the
research on this topic. This research is based on case study methodology, which is appropriate in
exploratory research and for theory building in new and emergent research areas, but creates
limitations. First, the results are not generalizable (Stake 1995). Second, if not systematically
analyzed, the case study methodology may introduce bias (Voss et al. 2002). Future research
using case study research in sustainable entrepreneurship could include a longitudinal approach
to examine how communities are able to actually meet goals of sustainability through
entrepreneurship. As the research moves more to examine the system of sustainable
28
entrepreneurship instead of just the role of the entrepreneur doing sustainable projects, the
research will be more likely to form a full view of sustainable entrepreneurship, possibly
overcoming bias in any individual experience. Further, there will not only need to be qualitative
studies to further examine the phenomena, but also quantitative studies that examine the
constructs that support the sustainable approach will be useful.
Finally, for future research, the model can be used with a large-sample econometric
work; econometric analyses will test the viability of the proposed model and facilitate its
generalizability. It may also be informative to test the model in industrialized regions to identify
how sustainable enterprises in those regions create a triple bottom line in a relatively less
resource-constrained environment. Are collaborations an integral part of their models? How do
those networks defer from those formed by similar enterprises in emerging economies?
Deploying a different theoretical lens may also yield additional insight.
29
References
Augenstein, Karoline, and Alexandra Palzkill. 2015. “The Dilemma of Incumbents in
Sustainability Transitions: A Narrative Approach.” Administrative Sciences 6 (1): 1.
Aldrich, Howard E., and Fiol C. Marlene. 1994. “Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of
Industry Creation.” The Academy of Management Review 19 (4): 645–670.
Auerbach, Carl F., and Louise B. Silverstein. 2003. Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding
and Analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development,
Applications. New York: Braziller.
Cammack, Paul. 2004. “What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction, and Why it
Matters.” New Political Economy 9 (2): 189–211.
Chilosi, Alberto. 2001. “Entrepreneurship and Transition.” MOST: Economic Policy in
Transitional Economies 11 (4): 327–357.
Cohen, Boyd. 2006. “Sustainable Valley Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Business Strategy and the
Environment 15 (1): 1–14.
Cohen, Boyd, and Monika I. Winn. 2007. “Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable
Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 22 (1): 29–49.
Colapinto, Cinzia, and Colin Porlezza. 2012. “Innovation in Creative Industries: From the
Quadruple Helix Model to the Systems Theory.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3
(4): 343–353.
Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dean, Thomas J., and Jeffery S. McMullen. 2007. “Toward a Theory of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship: Reducing Environmental Degradation through Entrepreneurial
Action.” Journal of Business Venturing 22 (1): 50–76.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2011. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
Sage.
Diener, Ed, Marissa Diener, and Carol Diener. 1995. “Factors predicting the subjective wellbeing of nations.” Journal of personality and social psychology 69, no. 5: 851.
30
Dubini, Paola, and Howard Aldrich. 1991. “Personal and extended networks are central to the
entrepreneurial process.” Journal of Business Venturing 6, no. 5: 305–313.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” The Academy of
Management Review 14, no. 4: 532.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1996. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic
Society. New York: BasicBooks.
Fowler, Allen. 2000. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or
civic innovation?” Third World Quarterly, 21, no.4: 637–654.
Fernhaber, Stephanie A., Brett Anitra Gilbert, and Patricia P. Mcdougall. 2008. “International
Entrepreneurship and Geographic Location: An Empirical Examination of New Venture
Internationalization.” Journal of International Business Studies J Int Bus Stud 39, no. 2:
267–290.
Gibbert, M., and W. Ruigrok. 2010. “The ‘What’ and ‘How’ of Case Study Rigor: Three
Strategies Based on Published Work.” Organizational Research Methods 13, no. 4: 710–
737.
Gibbert, Michael, Winfried Ruigrok, and Barbara Wicki. 2008. "What Passes as a Rigorous Case
Study?” Strat. Mgmt. J. Strategic Management Journal 29, no. 13: 1465–1474.
Gnyawali, Devi R., and Daniel S. Fogel. 1994. “Environments for Entrepreneurship
Development: Key Dimensions and Research Implications.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 18: 43–62.
Golafshani, Nahid. 2003. “Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.” The
Qualitative Report 8 (4): 597–606.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510.
Hall, Jeremy K., Gregory A. Daneke, and Michael J. Lenox. 2010. “Sustainable Development
and Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Directions.” Journal of Business
Venturing 25 (5): 439–448.
Hart, Stuart L. 1997. “Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World.” Harvard Business
Review 75 (1): 66.
Hockerts, Kai, and Rolf Wüstenhagen. 2010. “Greening Goliaths Versus Emerging Davids—
Theorizing about the Role of Incumbents and New Entrants in Sustainable
Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 25 (5): 481–492.
31
Horisch, Jacob. 2015. “The Role of Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Sustainability Transitions: A
Conceptual Synthesis against the Background of the Multi-Level Perspective.”
Administrative Sciences 5 (4): 286–300.
Ioannou, Ioannis, and George Serafeim. 2014. “The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate
Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Four Countries.” Harvard Business School
Research Working Paper 11-100.
Isenberg, Daniel J. 2010. “How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution.” Harvard Business
Review 88 (6): 40–50.
Jick, Todd D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 602–611.
Johannisson, Bengt, and Mette Mønsted. 1997. “Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Networking:
The Case of Scandinavia.” International Studies of Management & Organization 27 (3):
109–136.
Katzenstein, James, and Barbara R. Chrispin. 2011. “Social Entrepreneurship and a New Model
for International Development in the 21st Century.” Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship 16 (1): 87–102.
Kiss, Andreea N., Wade M. Danis, and S. Tamer Cavusgil. 2012. “International
Entrepreneurship Research in Emerging Economies: A Critical Review and Research
Agenda.” Journal of Business Venturing 27 (2): 266–290.
Kline, Carol, Nancy Gard McGehee, Shona Paterson, and Jerry Tsao. 2013. “Using Ecological
Systems Theory and Density of Acquaintance to Explore Resident Perception of
Entrepreneurial Climate.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (3): 294–309.
Korsgaard, Steffen, and Alistair R. Anderson. 2011. “Enacting Entrepreneurship as Social Value
Creation.” International Small Business Journal 29 (2): 135–151.
Lee, Allen S., and Richard L. Baskerville. 2003. “Generalizing Generalizability in Information
Systems Research.” Information Systems Research 14 (3): 221–243.
Locke, Karen. 2001. “The Grounded Theory Approach to Qualitative Research.” In Measuring
and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations, edited by F. Drasgow and N. Schmitt, 17–43.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
Lumpkin, G. Thomas, and Jerome A. Katz. 2011. Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Vol.
13. Emerald Group Publishing.
32
Maathi, Wangari. 2009. 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry from 24 to 27 August 2009.
Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.ebah.com.br/content/ABAAAAhIAAB/2nd-worldcongress-of-agroforestry-from-24-to-27-august-2009?part=5
Mahmood, Ishtiaq P., and Carlos Rufin. 2005. “Government’s Dilemma: The Role of
Government in Imitation and Innovation.” Academy of Management Review 30 (2): 338–
360.
Malhotra, Kamal. 2000. “NGOs without Aid: Beyond the Global Soup Kitchen.” Third World
Quarterly 21 (4): 655–668.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological
Roots of Human Understanding. New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.
Meadows, Donella H., and Diana Wright. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green
Publishing.
Muñoz, Pablo, and Dimo Dimov. 2015. “The Call of the Whole in Understanding the
Development of Sustainable Ventures.” Journal of Business Venturing 30 (4): 632–654.
Numagami, Tsuyoshi. 1998. “Perspective—The Infeasibility of Invariant Laws in Management
Studies: A Reflective Dialogue in Defense of Case Studies.” Organization Science 9 (1):
1–15.
Pacheco, Desirée F., Thomas J. Dean, and David S. Payne. 2010. “Escaping the Green Prison:
Entrepreneurship and the Creation of Opportunities for Sustainable Development.”
Journal of Business Venturing 25 (5): 464–480.
Parrish, Bradley D. 2010. “Sustainability-driven Entrepreneurship: Principles of Organization
Design.” Journal of Business Venturing 25 (5): 510–523.
Pinkse, Jonathan, and Koen Groot. 2015. “Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Corporate Political
Activity: Overcoming Market Barriers in the Clean Energy Sector.” Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice 39 (3): 633–654.
Peredo, Ana Maria. 2003. “Emerging Strategies against Poverty: The Road Less Traveled.”
Journal of Management Inquiry 12 (2): 155–166.
Peredo, Ana Maria, and James J. Chrisman. 2006. “Toward a Theory of Community-based
Enterprise.” Academy of Management Review 31 (2): 309–328.
Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1990. “Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice.”
Organization Science 1 (3): 267–292.
33
Pfeilstetter, Richard. 2013. “Entrepreneurship and Regional Development in Europe: A
Comparative, Socio-anthropological Case Study in Germany and Spain.”
Anthropological Notebooks 19 (1): 45–57.
Piekkari, Rebecca, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, and Catherine Welch. 2010. “‘Good’ Case
Research in Industrial Marketing: Insights from Research Practice.” Industrial Marketing
Management 39 (1): 109–117.
Praszkier, Ryszard, and Andrzej Nowak. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, Cheryl. 2010. “Sustainable Entrepreneurship in SMEs: A Case Study Analysis.”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17 (3): 125–132.
Shepherd, Dean A., and Holger Patzelt. 2011. “The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship:
Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking ‘What is to be Sustained’ with ‘What is to be
Developed.’” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (1): 137–163.
Siu-Lun, Wong. 1996. “Chinese Entrepreneurs and Business Trust.” Asian Business Networks
64: 13.
Spence, Martine, Jouhaina Ben Boubaker Gherib, and Viviane Ondoua Biwolé. 2011.
“Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Is Entrepreneurial Will Enough? A North-South
Comparison.” Journal of Business Ethics 99 (3): 335–367.
Stake, Robert E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stål, H. I., and K. Bonnedahl. 2016. “Conceptualizing Strong Sustainable Entrepreneurship.”
Small Enterprise Research, pp. 1–12.
Stubbs, Wendy. 2016. “Sustainable Entrepreneurship and B Corps.” Business Strategy and the
Environment.
Tapsell, Paul, and Christine Woods. 2010. “Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Selforganization in an Indigenous Context.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22
(6): 535–556.
Tilley, Fiona, and William Young. 2009. “Sustainability Entrepreneurs: Could They be the True
Wealth Generators of the Future?” Greener Management International 2009 (55): 79–93.
United Nations Development Program. 2012. “Honey Care Africa.” Accessed June 16, 2016.
http://honeycareafrica.com/pdfs/UNDP-Equator-Initiative-Case-Study.pdf
34
Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research.”
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 3 (1): 119–138.
Vemuri, Amanda W., and Robert Costanza. 2006. “The Role of Human, Social, Built, and
Natural Capital in Explaining Life Satisfaction at the Country Level: Toward a National
Well-Being Index (NWI).” Ecological Economics 58 (1): 119–133.
Voinov, Alexey, and Joshua Farley. 2007. “Reconciling Sustainability, Systems Theory and
Discounting.” Ecological Economics 63 (1): 104–113.
Weber, Max, Peter Lassman, and Ronald Speirs. 1994. Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge
University Press.
Wheeler, David, Kevin McKague, Jane Thomson, Rachel Davies, Jacqueline Medalye, and
Marina Prada. 2005. “Creating Sustainable Local Enterprise Networks.” MIT Sloan
Management Review 47 (1): 33.
Yin, Robert K. 1981. “The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers.” Administrative Sciences
Quarterly 26 (1): 58–65.
Yin, Robert K 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication.
Yin, Robert K. 2015Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.
35
List of Figures
Figure 1. A collaborative, multi-systems, network model.
Figure 2. Honey Care Africa (HCA) integrative model.
36
Table 1
Defining Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Case Study Research
Design and Methods,
4th ed., London:
Sage Inc. Study
Method of
Examination
Cohen and Winn
(2007)
Conceptual
Dean and McMullen
(2007)
Conceptual
Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen (2010)
Conceptual
Definition of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship
“the examination of how opportunities to
bring into existence future goods and
services are discovered, created, and
exploited, by whom, and with what
economic, psychological, social, and
environmental consequences” (Cohen and
Winn 2001, 35).
“Understanding sustainable
entrepreneurship through the examination
of environmental entrepreneurship.
Sustainable entrepreneurship determines
why problems happen in the environment
and offers solutions to these problems”
(Dean and McMullen 2007, 51)
“. . . the discovery and exploitation of
economic opportunities through the
generation of market disequilibria that
initiate the transformation of a sector
towards an environmentally and socially
more sustainable state” (Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen 2010, 482).
Key Findings
The imperfections in the marketplace leads
to profits and sustainability.
Sustainable entrepreneurship finds
opportunities to act in markets when the
market fails. The role of the entrepreneur is
to find solutions to overcome barriers which
moves markets forward.
The interaction between large and small
firms brings about the sustainable
transformation of an industry. Comparative
studies from multiple disciplines is needed
to understand sustainable entrepreneurship.
37
Table 1
Defining Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Cont.)
Case Study Research
Design and Methods,
4th ed., London:
Sage Inc. Study
Method of
Examination
Definition of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship
Shepard and Patzelt
(2011)
Metatheoretic
Framework
“Entrepreneurial action to sustain the
environment” (Shepard and Patzelt 2011,
139).
Pacheco, Dean, and
Payne (2010)
Conceptual
Sustainable entrepreneurship changes
institutions through entrepreneurial means.
Sustainable entrepreneurship takes
advantage of market opportunities in order
to protect natural resources while making a
profit (Pacheco, Dean, and Payne 2010,
467).
Key Findings
“Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on
the preservation of nature, life support, and
community in the pursuit of perceived
opportunities to bring into existence future
products, processes, and services for gain,
where gain is broadly construed to include
economic and non-economic gains to
individuals, the economy, and society”
(156), the field of sustainable
entrepreneurship is multiple disciplinary to
illustrate the kinds of questions that can be
answered through exploration.
Collective action allows entrepreneurs to
pull together resources and impact
institutional agreements.
38
Table 2
Honey Care Africa (HCA): A Summary of the Model, Recognitions, and Certifications
Summary of the Model and participants’ Contribution
Overt Social Mission:
 HCA’s social mission is to achieve rural development through beekeeping
Duality in Mission
 HCA is a for profit business with a social mission. It ascribes to the triple bottom line
philosophy that creates social, environmental and economic value. It deploys business and
economic drivers as catalyst for sustainable solution to social challenges. It has generated a
sustainable source of income alternative to poaching, timber-felling and charcoal burning.
Government:
 The Kenyan government provides agricultural extension services to beekeepers.
 The Kenyan Government has also financed and incentivized the farmers to protect their
natural environment through the ‘bees for trees’ program.
Farmers/Community
 HCA has created an increased and diversified income source of over 75,000 individuals or
15,000 households (UNDP, 2012).
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs)
 HCA has partnered with 17 donor organizations and NGOs. The co-financed the ‘bees for
trees’ program.
 250 CBOs
 Women Groups and self-help groups
Investors and Development Agencies
 World bank (provided expansion fund to replicate the model in Tanzania)
 International Finance Corp. (Technical assistance)
 UK government department for International Development (feasibility Studies on
Microfinance)
Recognitions and Certification
Awards
 Senior Ashoka Fellow / Rural Innovation Fellow from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Ashoka
 Most Outstanding Social Entrepreneur Award from the World Economic Forum and the
Schwab Foundation
 World Business Award from the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum
and UNDP
 Ismaili Youth Award for Entrepreneurship from His Highness Prince Amyn Aga Khan.
 UNDP Equator Initiative Prize
 Kenya ICT Board – Tandaa
 International Development Marketplace Innovation Award from the World Bank and
Soros Open Societies Institute
 Business Call to Action
39

Top Small to Medium Business in Africa and First Prize in the Renewable Energy and
Environment Category SMME Awards in South Africa
 Kenya Quality Award from the Kenya Bureau of Standards
 Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund South Sudan Window
Certification
 World Fair Trade Organization – for Fair Trade prices to smallholders
 HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) – for Food Safety
Source: http://honeycareafrica.com/about-us/recognition-certification/
40
Table 3
Selected List of HCA’s Partners
Government and Parastatals





Ministry of Livestock
(Kenya)
National Beekeeping
Station (Kenya)
Ministry of
Industrialization (Kenya)
Ministry of Forestry and
Wildlife (Kenya)
Ministry of Forestry and
Beekeeping (Tanzania)
NGOs and CBOs










Aga Khan Foundation
World Vision
Africa Now
Farm Africa
German Agro Action
Community Action for
Rural Development
(CARD)
Action Africa Help
International (AAHI)
Wildlife Society for
Protection of Animals
(WSPA)
Biodiversity Conservation
Programme (BCP)
Rotary Club of Stroud
(UK) and Rotary Club of
Hurlingham
Development Agencies










DANIDA/Government of
Kenya
Swiss Contact and Swiss
Development Corporation
Belgian Technical
Cooperation (BTC)/
Ministry of Environmental
and Natural Resources
UNDP (GEF)
US Ambassador’s Fund
British High Commission
German Embassy
Embassy of Finland
Swedish International
Development Agency
(SIDA)
EU, DFID, Soro
Foundation and World
Bank
Private Sector




Kakuzi Ltd
Bidco
Equity Bank
Business Alliance Against
Chronic Hunger (BAACH)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2012. Honey Care Africa, Kenya. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY
41
Table 4
Semi-structured Interview Questions
Questions to the Entrepreneurs
1. Tell us a little bit about yourself and why you started to start your company. (Founder of
Oliberté)
To the HCA current CEO, he is not the founder (Tell us a little bit about your journey to
HCA and why HCA?)
2. Why you did decide on starting a company in Africa? Why did not you go to China to
make the shoes at a lower cost and in a politically more stable environment? (Founder of
Oliberté)
To the HCA current CEO (Tell us what HCA does, if not addressed in question 1)
Follow-up Question: So you collaborate with the farmers, could you tell us how that
works? How many farmers do you work with and in what regions in Kenya?
3. What motivated you the most? Were you primarily motivated by the business opportunities
in Africa?
4. Can you describe any of the barriers/ challenges that you might have experienced in this
process? How did you handle them?
5. As an outsider, how did you gain the trust of the community and do the work that you are
doing in terms of alleviating poverty?
6. What was the most valuable lesson that you learned? Were there some unforeseen
challenges or even opportunities that you did not anticipate?
7. We would like to address issues surrounding sustainability especially in terms of the
environment. Could you tell us how you tan your leather and handle the waste from the
process? (Asked only to the founder of Oliberté).
8. You have talked about sustainability and social responsibility. What do those terms mean
to you and how does HCA address those issues in the daily operations?
9. What are some of things that HCA is doing to ensure sustainable beekeeping? Could you
give us some specifics examples of the initiatives you have undertaken in the past to
preserve and sustain the environment?
10. Tell us a little more about your mission of creating jobs in Africa and other developing
countries. In your opinion has that had an impact on customers’ willingness to buy your
product? (Asked only to the founder of Oliberté). Your mission is strengthening economic
incomes of the farmers through sustainable beekeeping. In your opinion has that had an
impact on customers’ willingness to buy your product? (Asked to the current HCA, CEO)
11. Have you collaborated with the government or any other organizations? What this the
nature of these partnerships?
12. Now that you have done this for a while are there other opportunities that you are thinking
of in terms of making economic, social and environmental impact in Africa and across the
global?
N/B: Both companies spoke of gender inclusion & gender equality…unsolicited.
42
Table 4
Semi-structured Interview Questions (Cont.)
Government and governmental agencies
1. Introduction and background questions (Tell me a little about yourself and the work you do
here).
2. Why did the government create the agency?
3. What is the agency’s role in facilitating entrepreneurship?
4. Discuss some key subsidies, grant or loans provided (if not addressed in question 3).
5. What are the repayment terms (if not addressed in question 3)?
6. What have you done to ensure there is no corruption?
7. Are there any policies regarding environmental protection?
8. Are there any policies to safeguard the rights of consumers/suppliers (or
farmers)/intermediaries?
Farmers & Field Officers
How has your life changed since you started working with HCA?
Bankers
Did you make any changes in your business model when dealing with HCA or HCA’s clients?
Tell us how your collaboration with HCA works.
43
Table 5
Interview and Participant Observation Data
Data Source
Data Format
Duration
Secondary data: Company Profiles—
mission statement & business philosophy,
media feature, blogs, business model,
recognitions & certifications, sustainable
impact, resource center,a academic
publications, press release, TV interviews &
press coverageb
8 hours
Farouk Jiwa, Founder of
HCA
Secondary data: TV interviews;c,d HCA
resource center;e academic publications
6.17 mins; 6.36
Madison Ayer, Current CEO
& Chair, HCA
Primary data: Face to face interviews
Secondary data: TV interviewsf,g,h
90 mins
1.25 mins; 10.42 mins;
12.43 mins
Partnerships and Community,
HCA
Dr. James Mwangi, CEO, Equity
Bank
Secondary data: TV interviewsi,j,k
10.51 mins; 3.03 mins;
11.26 mins
Margaret Minmoh-Ateka,
Managing Director, HCA
Amaan Khalfan, Former
CEO, HCA
Secondary data: TV interviewsl,m
3.45 mins; 5 mins
Tal Dehtiar
Primary data: Face-to-face interviews
75 mins
Oliberté Model
Secondary data: TV interviewsn,o,p,q,r,s
5 :33 mins, 2 :10 mins;
4.23 mins; 4:08 mins;
20:46 mins, 24:47
mins; 6.26 mins
Company Websites: Honey
Care Africa (HCA);
Oliberté
Margaret Wagah, Reginal
Nutrition Advisor, Millennium
Development Goals (MDG)
Centre
Janet Amollo, Farmer/
Entrepreneur, Andrew Obewa,
Farmer/ Entrepreneur, David
Mutunga, Field Project Officer,
HCA
44
Table 5
Interview and Participant Observation Data (Cont.)
Data Source
Partners
Dagnachew Abebe, Designer &
Entrepreneur, Yezichalem Meaza
Footwear & Leather Product
Manufacturer & Exporter.
Data Format
Duration
Secondary Data: Interview scripts
20 mins
Primary data: Face-to-face interviews
30:29 mins
Hussein Feyssa, Marketing &
Technical Manager, Hafde Tannery
Government and Parastatals
Francis Rotich, Statistic officer,
Export processing zone (K)
Secondary data:
Published Strategic Plan for the various 180 Mins
ministries: Ministry of Livestock
(Kenya); National Beekeeping Station
(Kenya); Ministry of Industrialization
(Kenya); Ministry of Forestry and
Wildlife (Kenya); Ministry of Forestry
and Beekeeping (Tanzania)
a
http://honeycareafrica.com/resource-center/
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121214-honey-changes-everything
c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw7wrup_wU8
d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxjOGG6nhJg
e
http://honeycareafrica.com/resource-center/
f
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwREIl2cjNI
g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZTQfeldKg
h
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YH-0sbE6As
i
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzIVgeOw4
j
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybnBccMwRWk
k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IaBRLFpy48
l
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb93fmPTIGo
m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jXaDry9mp8&feature=youtu.be
n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekYeH_MOYXM
o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbsJaXiBN1s
p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haj2gHrmcs0
q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuP2eDPDy8w
r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uuz2J8oKaY
s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSdTE_hZFL4
b
45