This paper explores how entrepreneurs are engaging with the principles of regenerative organising to address accelerating climate collapse and growing social challenges.

Humanity has already moved beyond critical limits of multiple planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al 2009). In 2023, a comprehensive global study revealed that six of the nice boundaries have been transgressed, emphasising that we are living in a time that is outside of the safe operating space for humanity (Richardson et al, 2023). Urgent action is required to transform the way we organise economic activity if we are to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

At the same time, socio-economic inequality has worsened over the past few years, with the modest gains over the past decades undone by the Covid-19 pandemic (Shergold et al, 2022). Inequality has increased in most countries over the last two decades, with income and wealth inequality increasing in nearly every county since the 1980s (Chancel, et al 2022; OECD 2021). The recent World Inequality Report (2022) highlights that income and wealth inequality are strongly linked to environmental inequalities and disparities in contributions to climate change. We thereby need to appreciate the entanglement of society and nature in addressing complex global challenges.

Beyond social and sustainable entrepreneurship

Significant attention has been paid to the role of entrepreneurship in addressing sustainability transitions and societal challenges (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Muñoz & Cohen, 2018; Nicholls, 2008; Santos, 2012; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Despite that dramatic rise in these fields of research and practice, these forms of entrepreneurship are becoming subject to critique that questions their efficacy in tackling complex challenges (Dey et al, 2016). Chalmers (2021) argues that these forms of entrepreneurship may “have a negative societal impact as it reduces the pressure for ambitious legislation and institutional reforms that have more scope to effect change” (p. 1363). A critical lens on social and sustainable entrepreneurship call into question whether narrow market-based entrepreneurial solutions are sufficient to tackle complex system and structural sustainability problems.

Towards a theory of regenerative entrepreneurship

This study aims to decentre the role of the entrepreneur, and purely market-based solutions to societal challenges, by exploring possibilities for entrepreneurial action which prioritises thriving social-ecological systems. In doing, the paper aims to explore entrepreneurial action that follows the principles of regenerative organizing (Hahn & Tampe, 2021; Munoz & Branzei, 2021): Sensing and embracing surrounding living ecosystems; Aligning organisational knowledge, decision-making and action to those systems; Acting in a way to allow ecosystems to regenerate, build resilience, and sustain life; Understanding the connection between people and place

Method

Prior research has revealed pockets of regenerative entrepreneurial action in the fields of agriculture, urban planning, and community-owned renewable energy, yet there has been no comprehensive study of regenerative entrepreneurship. To overcome this gap, this paper uses in-depth semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs engaging with the principles of regenerative organising across multiple sectors of the economy.

To develop a typology of regenerative entrepreneurship, 60 interviews are conducted with regenerative entrepreneurs across Australia. The interviews focus on the following interrelated questions: How do these entrepreneurs conceptualise regenerative action?, How do these entrepreneurs understand the connection between people and place?, How are these entrepreneurs engaging with, and reshaping, the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem around them as they engage in regenerative action?

Based on the interviews, and building on Hahn & Tampe’s (2021) restore-preserve-enhance framework, the full paper provides a typology of approaches to regenerative entrepreneurship.

Findings

The findings provide a typology of regenerative entrepreneurial action, highlighting exemplar enterprises for each type. The typology extends Hahn & Tampe’s (2021) restore-preserve-enhance by illustrating the role of equity, influence, and support as core elements of regenerative entrepreneurial action. Beyond these core elements the typology highlights the diverse range of regenerative enterprise models and domains of regenerative action.

The typology of regenerative entrepreneurship provides an alternative model for addressing sustainability transitions and complex societal challenges. In doing so, the paper contributes to a growing stream of critical management and entrepreneurship literature that questions simplistic solutions to complex challenges and highlights the role of systems thinking and structural shifts in tackling wicked problems.

References

Chalmers, D. (2021). Social entrepreneurship’s solutionism problem. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1363-1370

Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (Eds.). (2022). World Inequality Report 2022. Harvard University Press.

Dey, P., Schneider, H., & Maier, F. (2016). Intermediary organisations and the hegemonisation of social entrepreneurship: Fantasmatic articulations, constitutive quiescences, and moments of indeterminacy. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1451-1472.

Hahn, Tobias, and Maja Tampe. "Strategies for regenerative business." Strategic Organization 19, no. 3 (2021): 456-477.

Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (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.

Muñoz, P., & Branzei, O. (2021). Regenerative organizations: Introduction to the special issue. Organization & Environment, 34(4), 507-516

Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300-322.

Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. OUP Oxford.

OECD (2021), Does Inequality Matter?: How People Perceive Economic Disparities and Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3023ed40-en.

Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., ... & Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37).

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., ... & Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).

Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351.

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237.

Shergold, P., Broadbent, J., Marshall, I., & Varghese, P. (2022). Fault lines: an independent review into Australia’s response to COVID-19. Analytics and Policy Observatory

Small businesses are central to the global economy, contributing significantly to GDP and employment, providing employment for 70% of the global workforce (Acs, 1999; Keskin et al., 2010; Koirala, 2019; ILO, 2019), and collectively have significant environmental and social impacts (Fawcett & Hampton, 2020; Hillary, 2000; Revell et al., 2010). However, the role of SMEs in the process of sustainable development deserves further academic attention (López-Pérez et al., 2018; Vázquez-Carrasco & López-Pérez, 2012; Westman et al., 2021). As sustainability transitions gain urgency (Markard et al., 2020; Truffer et al., 2022), the role of small businesses - both those born with sustainability at their core and those transitioning to sustainable business models - cannot be overlooked (Burch et al., 2016). While some research has explored how small businesses interact with larger corporations and society (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010l Schaltegger et al., 2016), less attention has been paid to how sustainable start-ups and traditional SMEs can learn from one another. This gap is significant because fostering collaboration between these business types could catalyse the broader sustainability transformation that is urgently required (Köhler et al., 2019; Griggs et al., 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2016). As examples of transformative sustainability remain rare (Burch, 2018), discovering how businesses can innovate their business models to include social and environmental concerns remains an urgent research priority (Inigo et al., 2017).

To address this gap, we propose an analytical framework that contrasts two types of businesses:

1. Born Sustainable: These are start-ups that integrate sustainability into their core from inception. Their entrepreneurial passion and environmental or social objectives are at least as important as economic performance, making them agile players in sustainability innovation (Allal-Cherif et al., 2021). They may focus on innovative products or services and often focus on awareness raising and marketing in order to develop a market for their product or service (Dijkstra & Planko, 2023).

2. Becoming Sustainable: These are traditional SMEs that, due to market pressures, regulatory changes or personal motivations, embark on a journey towards sustainability. These businesses often face higher barriers in integrating sustainability into their existing operations but benefit from well-established market positions and more extensive networks (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). They may focus on incremental changes and sustainability may be supplemental to their economic goals.

These two types of businesses, while sharing similarities in size and organisational structure, have different motivations and challenges. The impact and influence of these two business types also differ significantly. The interplay between the two - where start-ups inspire innovation and incumbents scale it - creates a co-evolutionary process that could accelerate the sustainability transition (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Schaltegger et al., 2016).

Drawing on two data sets of semi-structured interviews conducted in the Netherlands and Australia, the paper proposes that "born" and "becoming" sustainable businesses have much to learn from each other and that leveraging the synergies can serve as a powerful force to support sustainability transitions. Entrepreneurs who focus on innovation and ecosystem building for sustainable products and services can be a lesson to SMEs on how to proactively develop markets and seek financing. SMEs can teach innovators how to achieve market stability and influence their value networks, such as suppliers, partners and customers. The discussion will explore how these lessons can be disseminated to achieve impact and empower small businesses within sustainability transitions. The authors also seek advice on potential frameworks and publication outlets to shape the paper.

Seafood production is an important socio-economic pillar in developing countries, contributing to more than 50% of the global seafood supply (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO], 2024). However, despite the critical role of seafood in food and nutrition security (Hicks et al., 2019), the disconnect between fish and food systems is palpable (Stetkiewicz et al., 2022). The repercussions are evident as foods suitable for human consumption constitute up to 35% of loss and waste in seafood value chains (FAO, 2011). In Asian countries- the hotspots for fish production- the lack of a systems approach is leading to food losses in the post-harvest sector, mainly at the distribution (15%) and processing and packaging (9%) stages (Gunasekera et al., 2017), while production capacities intensify, often at the cost of ecological systems. The adverse implications of such transformations are more severe for small-scale fisheries which contribute at least 40% to global fish production (FAO et al., 2023) yet data on food loss and waste remain elusive. In essence, siloed approaches perpetuating the counterproductive outcomes of status quo risk dampening food systems resilience. Rethinking the current paradigms by combining the economic logic with a systems perspective is important to reduce negative externalities from current production and consumption systems. Circular economy offers a framework to rethink production and consumption systems for improving systems resilience (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2013; Suárez-Eiroa et al., 2021). The concept, predominantly operationalised through business models, is illustrated in an archetype format, suggesting circular business models as a composite of static elements (Pieroni et al., 2019) with limited focus on their transformative potential. Our research explores the circular business model construct as a tool for systems change, taking seafood sector in a developing country as the case study.

We conducted a systematic literature review to establish the state-of-the-art for circular business models in the seafood sector. From our findings, we posit that rethinking the business model from a value network perspective is vital for supporting the new value proposition and creating value (Carraresi & Bröring, 2021). In circular business models, the interplay between enterprises and their supply chains plays a crucial role in achieving a circular economy vision, such as by acquiring waste from processing firms for manufacturing value added products (e.g Do et al. (2022), or employing community members fish production (e.g. Cornejo-Ponce et al. (2020). Even in cases where companies modify own internal operations to align with circular economy principles, such as by diversifying product portfolio (e.g. Cortés et al. (2021), changes are required at the supply chain level for fructifying the circular business model. In other words, a company materialises its circular business model in conjunction with its supply chain (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Business models in this context are thus best represented as “a system of interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and spans its boundaries” (Zott & Amit, 2010).

A value network lens for business model innovation is especially significant in developing countries, where various strands of industrialisation processes, often in a fragmented way, are occurring simultaneously. Despite Design for X circular strategies- such as in the traditional fish processing sector that aims to retain resource (often out of economic necessity rather than a strategic intent (Korsunova et al., 2022)- the benefits are limited and may result in increased food loss and waste in the absence of an enabling value network (Gyan et al., 2020). Using an activity system lens, we aim to identify focal firms with circular business models in developing countries and explore how a business model lens in this case can reconcile various material (such as reduction in food loss and waste) and socio-economic outcomes (e.g. improved income, sustainable livelihoods and working environments). Thus, conceptualising a business model in this context contributes to deeper value creation mechanisms, which thus far have been limitedly discussed in the circular business model literature. Our theoretical contribution (Still developing) aims to fill the literature gap identified in previous literature studies warranting a need to unravel the process perspective in circular business model transformations (Carraresi & Bröring, 2021; Centobelli et al., 2020).

References

Carraresi, L., & Bröring, S. (2021). How does business model redesign foster resilience in emerging circular value chains? [Article]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, Article 125823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125823

Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Chiaroni, D., Del Vecchio, P., & Urbinati, A. (2020). Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(4), 1734-1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2466

Cornejo-Ponce, L., Vilca-Salinas, P., Lienqueo-Aburto, H., Arenas, M. J., Pepe-Victoriano, R., Carpio, E., & Rodríguez, J. (2020). Integrated Aquaculture Recirculation System (IARS) Supported by Solar Energy as a Circular Economy Alternative for Resilient Communities in Arid/Semi-Arid Zones in Southern South America: A Case Study in the Camarones Town. Water, 12(12), Article 3469. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123469

Cortés, A., Esteve-Llorens, X., González-García, S., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2021). Multi-product strategy to enhance the environmental profile of the canning industry towards circular economy. Science of the Total Environment, 791, 148249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148249

Do, Q., Mishra, N., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Ramudhin, A. (2022). An extended institutional theory perspective on the adoption of circular economy practices: Insights from the seafood industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 247, 108400. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108400

Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF]. (2013). Towards the circular economy Vol. 1: an economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-economic-and-business-rationale-for-an

FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. https://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e.pdf

FAO, Duke University, & WorldFish. (2023). Illuminating Hidden Harvests – The contributions of small-scale

fisheries to sustainable development. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4576en

Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO]. (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Blue Transformation in action. .

Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., De Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 712-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159

Gunasekera, D., Parsons, H., & Smith, M. (2017). Post-harvest loss reduction in Asia-Pacific developing economies. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 7(3), 303-317. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-12-2015-0058

Gyan, W. R., Alhassan, E. H., Asase, A., Akongyuure, D. N., & Qi-Hui, Y. (2020). Assessment of postharvest fish losses: The case study of Albert Bosomtwi-Sam fishing harbour, Western Region, Ghana. Marine Policy, 120, 104120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104120

Hicks, C. C., Cohen, P. J., Graham, N. A. J., Nash, K. L., Allison, E. H., D’Lima, C., Mills, D. J., Roscher, M., Thilsted, S. H., Thorne-Lyman, A. L., & Macneil, M. A. (2019). Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature, 574(7776), 95-98. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1592-6

Korsunova, A., Halme, M., Kourula, A., Levänen, J., & Lima-Toivanen, M. (2022). Necessity-driven circular economy in low-income contexts: How informal sector practices retain value for circularity. Global Environmental Change, 76, 102573. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102573

Pieroni, M. P. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 198-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

Stetkiewicz, S., Norman, R. A., Allison, E. H., Andrew, N. L., Ara, G., Banner-Stevens, G., Belton, B., Beveridge, M., Bogard, J. R., Bush, S. R., Coffee, P., Crumlish, M., Edwards, P., Eltholth, M., Falconer, L., Ferreira, J. G., Garrett, A., Gatward, I., Islam, F. U., . . . Little, D. C. (2022). Seafood in Food Security: A Call for Bridging the Terrestrial-Aquatic Divide. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.703152

Suárez-Eiroa, B., Fernández, E., & Méndez, G. (2021). Integration of the circular economy paradigm under the just and safe operating space narrative: Twelve operational principles based on circularity, sustainability and resilience. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322, 129071. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129071

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216-226. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

Climate mitigation is a pressing challenge, particularly in industries where substantial carbon emission reductions are technically feasible but remain unpursued due to misaligned incentives among competitive actors. The maritime sector exemplifies this issue through the widespread practice of “Sail Fast Then Wait” (SFTW). This practice, driven by contractual incentives to arrive at port as quickly as possible, leads to port congestion. Consequently, the total transportation time is similar to that of a lower-speed voyage, but with significantly higher emissions (the extra emissions due to SFTW are estimated around 15% of the sector's overall emissions). Despite attempts to mitigate SFTW through individual incentives, these efforts have largely proven ineffective due to split incentives among charterers, ship operators, and port authorities. Those split incentives are within one voyage, but also between voyages.

This paper aims to explore how a collective approach involving competitive actors can help overcome split incentives and achieve substantial emission reductions. To do so, it uses a single case study approach and examines the Blue Visby initiative, an innovative and experimental collective climate mitigation project launched in 2021. The Blue Visby initiative couples a logistic optimization technology (the Blue Visby Solution) with a cost-benefit sharing mechanism, inspired by an ancient maritime law principle of solidarity, referred to as Blue GA (General Average), and an associated governance structure.

First Insights:

While most approaches to sustainability focus on value co-creation (i.e. benefits), this initiative addresses both the sources of losses (e.g., salaries aboard ships, delayed merchandise, and the cost of implementing the technology) and sources of benefits (e.g., fuel savings). The initiative specifically examines how these pain and gains are distributed across the main stakeholders involved.

Compared to former individual incentives solutions, the technology development/ cost-sharing coupling creates a paradoxical shift from information-sharing resistance to cooperation. In addition, the sharing mechanism is different from the rule it was inspired from (which is very costly and complicated to activate), and led to a simpler version that appears more efficient.

Potential Contributions:

From a business model perspective, this case represents an example of a "collective business model," emerging outside a single firm yet successfully mobilizing multiple companies towards a collective goal—reducing emissions while also mitigating the transition risks for the entire sector. It contributes to the literature on sustainable business models by showing how individual interests can be reorganized through business models (Schaltegger et al., 2019) and by extending the concept beyond the focal firm (Toxopeus & Merfeld, 2021).

From an organizational perspective, the governance scheme relies on a pre-existing neutral institution, NAPA, which acts as a meta-organization. NAPA's key role as a conflict resolution platform, provides insights into how meta-organizations can facilitate collaboration on global challenges (Berkowitz et al., 2022). While business model and governance are often studied independently, this case study suggests that collective business approaches might actually provide governing logics to engage already existing actors.

Identified limits of the study:

One main limit of the study is the experimental single case for which few data are available and limited evaluation perspectives as it is rather new. Also, the maritime sector with its long-standing ambiguity between solidary practices in a highly competitive environment make possible to rely on old solidarity rules known by all stakeholders to co-construct collective initiative, this might be more difficult in other domain, where such shared solidary principles might be scarcer.

This proposal examines methodologies for Sustainable Business Model Innovation (SBMI) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Drawing on the work of Teece (2010) and Lüdeke-Freund (2018), sustainable business models are defined as frameworks that integrate economic, social, and environmental dimensions into value creation. SBMI involves rethinking and transforming traditional business models to align with sustainability principles, with Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) identifying four types of SBMI: creating, transforming, diversifying, and acquiring sustainable models. SMEs, which account for 60-80% of businesses globally, play a crucial role in driving sustainability in Latin American economies. However, despite growing interest in SBMI methodologies, there is limited research focused on SMEs in the region. This proposal aims to address this gap by exploring SBMI practices among SMEs in these four Latin American countries.