Entrepreneurship is often seen as a tool for empowering women in base-of-the-pyramid (BOP) contexts. However, many women at the BOP become entrepreneurs out of necessity, and thus do not necessarily possess entrepreneurial abilities. In these sense, many female at the BOP cannot truly benefit from entrepreneurial activities. There are indications from theory and practice that existing support programs may not distinguish between females at the BOP that are entrepreneurial and those who are not entrepreneurial at all but are engaged in business out of necessity. With this discussion session we would like to propose a research agenda focused on the support of female entrepreneurs at the BOP. The first step would be to distinguish the entrepreneurial from the non-entrepreneurial females at the BOP. Subsequently, we will propose suitable support programs for both entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial female at the BOP. Our ideas are based on observations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where research will be further continued.

As environmental, and now sustainability, discourse has mainstreamed into society there has been a corresponding increase in enterprises that have a social and/or environmental mission at the heart of their entrepreneurial activities. More recently the academic framing of such firms has focused on the notion of hybrid enterprises (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014; Haigh et al., 2015; Holt and Littlewood, 2015; Lee and Jay, 2015; Lyon and Al Faruq, 2018), in part to deal with the contested nature of definitional boundaries of the ‘social enterprise’ landscape (Glasbeek et al., 2024; Rivera-Santos et al., 2015).

Such definitional boundaries also suggest a binary choice of identity for instance as a Benefit Corporation (B Corp) or social enterprise, non-profit or for-profit, amongst others. Such enterprises are also evolving, as recognised by the significant acceleration in firms registering as B Corps (Daniels, 2024), with more than 8978 registered B Corps to date in 216 global locations. Some are now seemingly positioning themselves using multiple identities. For instance, eyewear company Warby Parker with their buy-one-give-one social mission, registered as a B Corp and recently publicly listed, described themselves in their investor information as “a mission-driven, lifestyle brand that operates at the intersection of design, technology, healthcare, and social enterprise. We stand for fun, creativity, and doing good in the world” (Warby Parker, 2024).

This raises a number of pertinent questions. When a firm adopts multiple social purpose ‘names’ such as identifying as a social enterprise, whilst simultaneously registering as a B Corp, how are these interfaces between these identities constructed and navigated? What implications are there when holding multiple identities for their mission, behaviour, strategy and impact outcomes? How have such firms transitioned these identities over time, as their external environment has shifted?

The importance of considering organisational identity (after Albert and Whetten, 1985) has been extensively reviewed (see Knorr and Pensel, 2024), alongside the conflicting organisational institutional logics facing hybrid firms (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Pache and Santos 2010, 2012), and how they navigate a single identity such as a designation as a social enterprise (Wry and York, 2017). Drawing on the rich body of work on identity in other disciplines is also important. In psychology there is a body of literature exploring individuals holding multiple roles or identity linked group membership (see Burke and Stets, 2022), there is social identity theory (where the sense of self based on group membership (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), identity theory based on the roles people have (Stryker, 1968), and place-identity theory (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, 1996) linked to locality. However, a critical gap exists in our understanding about how different hybrid enterprises manifest, construct and change their multiple identities, especially in response to their shifting institutional environments using an interdisciplinary perspective.

Thus, this research will bridge this gap by exploring the positioning and navigation of a sample of firms that all have a one common identity (as a B Corp) alongside at least one additional visible identity they publicly promote. It considers different disciplinary theoretical framings of identity that include those rooted in legal studies, psychology, entrepreneurship and organisational studies. It considers a range of identities defined by an organisation’s social purpose (fairtrade, social, organic, cooperative etc), to their economic status (e.g. formal/informal, non-profit etc.), and geographical location (national, regional, urban, rural, indigenous etc), as well as the role of founder identity (Ko and Kim 2020), and legacy identities (LeCounte, 2022). It also will consider notions of identity salience whereby “identities that are higher on the salience hierarchy are more likely to be enacted” (Morris, 2013:24) and this may be very pertinent if considering how multiple identities are navigated and prioritised by an enterprise or the audience they are addressing.

This discussion session aims to explore the role of cognitive reappraisal as an emotion regulation strategy in climate change communication. Participants will review recent empirical studies that evaluate how reappraisal influences emotional responses and behavioral intentions in relation to climate action. The session will also highlight the implications of emotion regulation strategies for encouraging sustainable practices and policy support. By fostering a dialogue on psychological techniques like reappraisal, this session seeks to provide insights into more effective communication approaches for addressing the climate crisis.

While new business models centered on circularity and sustainability are a step forward, they fall short, by merely aiming at net-zero impact. Since industrialization, business practices significantly harmed the planet and communities. To address this, it is crucial to move from preventing further damage to actively restoring and regenerating social-ecological systems. Scholars like Konietzko et al. (2023), Hahn and Tampe (2021) and Wakkee and Drupsteen (2024) emphasize the development and implementation of regenerative business models by businesses, cooperatives, and supply chains. These regenerative models aim to create, deliver, and capture multiple forms of value, with a strong focus on restoring and revitalizing socio-ecological systems (Konietzko et al., 2023). The relationships between businesses, society, and nature are reorganized within these models. The regenerative approach shifts business logic from ‘how much value can we extract through this business?’ to ‘how many benefits can we generate through this business?’

The research to and implementation of regenerative business models is still in its infancy. There is limited clarity on what these models look like in practice, the specific business practices required, and how they can lead to the creation of multiple types of value for the short and long term for many stakeholders. Pioneering entrepreneurs are vital in shaping and advancing these models (Hahn & Tampe, 2021; Hall et al., 2010). A few pioneering entrepreneurs are already steering their businesses through regenerative practices, reshaping the way value is proposed, created, and captured. These frontrunners, however, face considerable challenges in their businesses. They also struggle with questions on how to broaden or scale their positive impact on the planet and society.

Our exploratory qualitative study in 2024 with 12 entrepreneurs and 4 network organizations on regeneration, using 16 open interviews and 2 focus group discussions, revealed that entrepreneurs employing regenerative practices mostly experienced key challenges in developing profitable business models, in scaling their impact while preserving their identity, and in engaging their supply chains. Based on literature study and our previous studies we formulated the following main research question for this study: How can pioneers design and implement regenerative business models to increase their positive impact in social, economic, and ecological domains? Sub-questions focus on current practices and successful elements as well as on impact ambitions and scaling strategies.

The study is designed as an action-oriented multiple case study, focusing on the in-depth exploration of regenerative business practices across various sectors. The methodology consist of several key components: document analysis, co-work observations, interviews and focus groups. The project utilizes existing frameworks to deepen the understanding of current practices, challenges, and opportunities. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (Joyce & Paquin, 2016) allows us to understand and visualize the current business logic of regeneration. By means of the Theory of Change (Clark, 2019) we describe the envisioned impact and by reasoning backwards concrete goals and actions are formulated. This helps us to determine how the entrepreneurs envision regenerative impact and the path to get there. We employ the Framework for Regenerative Business Practices (RRB) (Cuypers et al., 2024) to describe and map the regenerative impact using qualitative measures. Lastly, we use the SCALERS model (Bloom & Chatterji, 2009) to help the entrepreneurs identify the strengths and weaknesses within their businesses and use these insights to further scale their positive impact. Between cases, learning from each other is facilitated through learning networks, which are monitored by the researchers. During the project, entrepreneurs, researchers, and supporting organizations co-develop new ideas for scaling and/or broadening impact, which are tested by the entrepreneurs in practice.

This research narrates regenerative business models in practice, enriching current literature with in-depth empirical insights. Moreover, this approach should allow for the development of scalable regenerative practices that can be applied across different industries, helping entrepreneurs increase their positive impact while addressing the urgent need for socio-ecological restoration.

In the design of the study, we drew from literature on regenerative practices and business, but also from existing knowledge in the areas of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, scaling, and business models. In the discussion session we would like to discuss different ways to embed this study in literature and critically examine the practical and theoretical contribution. This would enable us to improve our methodological approach and refine the research project.

Current society faces significant ecological and social challenges, necessitating systemic change—a complex process involving various actors, from governments to SMEs. Social enterprises play a crucial role in this transition due to their entrepreneurial drive and focus on social and environmental objectives, rather than solely financial ones (Sahan E, et al., 2023; Borzega C., et al., 2020). However, the growth of social enterprises has been limited. Reports from various organizations (PWC, 2018; Social Enterprise, 2019) indicate that, for social enterprises in the Netherlands to grow, they must operate within a well-structured economic ecosystem. Such an ecosystem should not only provide access to adequate financing but also feature coherent regulations and foster mutual trust among stakeholders.

This paper analyzes both the general characteristics of such ecosystems and provides an empirical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current ecosystem in Rotterdam. The literature review on ecosystems for social enterprises is complemented by in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs, the Municipality of Rotterdam, and organizations responsible for supporting this ecosystem, such as Voorgoed and Noorderwind.

Literature abstract:
Borzega, C., (et al). (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

PWC. (2018). Building an ecosystem for social entrepreneurship: lessons learned from The Netherlands. Consulted at https://www.pwc.nl/nl/actueel-publicaties/assets/pdfs/pwc-building-an-ecosystem-for-social-entrepreneurship.pdf. September 2024.

Sahan E. and Schneider, N. (2023) Regenerative business rising: How policy can create an economy led by a different kind of company, Doughnut Economic Action Lab.

Social Enterprise. (2019). De Social Enterprise Monitor 201. Het onderzoek naar de ontwikkelingen van sociale ondernemingen in Nederland. Consulted at https://www.social-enterprise.nl/application/files/8615/7165/8222/362_Publicatie_SE_monitor2019_web.pdf