sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition The preliminary entrepreneurial activities that lead to sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunities
Management Studies Group
Wageningen University
September 2013
Bachelor thesis
MST- 80912
J.F. Roelofzen
Student Bachelor Business and Consumer studies- Business
Reg. nr: 900220700080
Project: bachelor thesis
Breadth of the research: 12 ECTS
Date: 09-09-13
Version: Final
Supervisor: V. Blok (MST)
Second Supervisor: T. Lans (ECS)
2
Abstract
Sustainable entrepreneurship has gained importance over recent years. In this thesis a
literature study and a quantitative survey were used to identify differences in the preliminary
entrepreneurial activities that entrepreneurs undertake when recognizing a sustainable and a
non-sustainable opportunity in the early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition. Literature study showed that a sustainable problem is different in nature from a
non-sustainable problem (related to uncertainty, complexity, focus on developing gains for
others, required knowledge of the communal and natural environment). Furthermore a
sustainable entrepreneur engages in more networking activities than the non-sustainable
entrepreneur to reduce risk, uncertainty and gain knowledge of the natural and communal
environment. Nevertheless the quantitative survey did not confirm these suggestions from
literature yet, probably because methodological constraints including a small sample size
(N=9). More future research is needed to confirm the suggestion from literature that
differences in entrepreneurial activities for sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs are
characterized by differences in networking activities.
3
Management summary
Innovative and sustainable ideas provided and exploited by entrepreneurs can help to sustain
our planet. Sustainable entrepreneurs likely attend to different aspects of the environment than
regular entrepreneurs. Subsequently explanations of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
based on entrepreneurial knowledge and motivation provide an incomplete picture when
applied to sustainable entrepreneurship. Furthermore there exists little understanding of how
sustainable entrepreneurs discover and develop sustainable ideas.
This thesis addresses the process differences between entrepreneurial activities and
sustainable entrepreneurial activities in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition, where entrepreneurial opportunity recognitions is viewed as an emergent
cognitive and social process. The study itself consisted of a literature study and a quantitative
survey for the empirical part and tried to answer the following main research question:
What are the differences in entrepreneurial activities that sustainable and non-sustainable
entrepreneurs engage in, in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition?
In the literature study the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition activities of a general (or
non-sustainable) entrepreneur and a sustainable entrepreneur were studied. The first part of
the literature study tried to answer the following research question: According to literature,
which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages of the entrepreneurial,
non-sustainable, opportunity recognition process? Here, it was found that, based on the
amount of uncertainty involved in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition,
‘’taking classes or a workshop on starting a business’’, ‘’gathering information form
customers’’ or ‘’organizing a team’’ are hypothesized as non-sustainable entrepreneurial
activities in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.
The second part of the literature study tried to answer the following research question:
According to literature, which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages
of the sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process? Here, it was found that a
sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity often addresses the unmet demand of a larger group of
stakeholders and focuses on delivering gains for others and for the sustainable entrepreneur
himself. For these reasons it is likely that a sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity involves
more uncertainty than a non-sustainable or general entrepreneurial opportunity.
Furthermore it was found that in the preliminary stages of the sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition process the external validation becomes an important factor.
For this linkages are needed with external actors or stakeholders.
To reduce the higher amount of uncertainty, networking is suggested as a crucial and relevant
entrepreneurial activity in the sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process.
From the literature study it followed that it is likely that the differences in entrepreneurial
activities for a sustainable and a non-sustainable idea are characterized by differences in
networking activities. In the empirical phase the suggested differences from the literature
study were further studied with a quantitative survey among WUR students that had to pitch
their own entrepreneurial business idea. The following research questions were answered in
the empirical phase: ‘‘what are the differences in gestation activities between sustainable and
non-sustainable entrepreneurs?’’ And, ‘’what are the differences in networking activities
between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs?’’
The quantitative survey among WUR students, measured the undertaken entrepreneurial
activities of the students, over the time from first thought of the business idea until uploading
4
the entrepreneurial pitch. Respondents of the survey were recruited from the participants of
the WUR course ‘’entrepreneurial skills’. After the survey was conducted, the pitched
entrepreneurial business ideas were rated on sustainability to allow for comparison between
the sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurial activities. The pitched business ideas were
regarded sustainable or non-sustainable depending on the kinds of gain these delivered to the
stakeholders involved.
Results showed that the students that pitched a sustainable business idea engaged in more and
more diverse entrepreneurial activities. It is discussed that this could be due to the more
complex character of the sustainable business idea, the enthusiasm of these students towards
their final business idea or due to their longer time span from first thought of the business idea
until uploading the pitch.
Nevertheless the quantitative survey did not confirm the suggestions from literature, since the
students that presented a sustainable business idea approached less and less diverse contacts
than the students that did not present a sustainable business idea. It is discussed that this could
be due to the small sample size (N=9) or due to the retrospective bias.
Further research is needed to confirm the suggestions from literature that differences in
entrepreneurial activities for sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs are characterized
by differences in networking activities. Further research should explore the sustainable
entrepreneurial activities and the role of social capital in sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition.
In the conclusion it is stated that a sustainable problem is complex and uncertain in nature,
and the sustainable entrepreneur often addresses the unmet demand of a larger group of
stakeholders. To reduce the amount of uncertainty in the early stages of sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, the sustainable entrepreneur seeks linkages with
these stakeholders. This is done by using the flow of information from a diverse web of
relationships. For these reasons it is suggested that the sustainable entrepreneur engages in
networking activities in the early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
compared to the non-sustainable entrepreneur.
5
Table of contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Management summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
Table of contents ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Research design ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Research objective ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Research framework ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Topics for Empirical analysis ............................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 End results ............................................................................................................................ 10
3. Literature review ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition ..................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 McMullen and Shepherd (2006) ........................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Focus .................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition ................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition ............................................................ 17
4.2.2 Social capital and sustainable entrepreneurial activities ...................................................... 18
5. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Setting (context) and participants ................................................................................................ 21
5.1.1 Sample .................................................................................................................................. 21
5.1.2 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Instruments .................................................................................................................................. 23
5.2.1 The survey design ................................................................................................................. 23
5.2.2 Five-point Likert scale .......................................................................................................... 24
5.2.3 Validity and reliability .......................................................................................................... 24
5.3 Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 25
5.3.1 Measurement of entrepreneurial activities ........................................................................... 25
5.3.2 Sustainability measure .......................................................................................................... 25
6. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 The pitched business idea ............................................................................................................ 27
6.2.1 Sustainability driver.............................................................................................................. 27
6.2.2 Sustainability control measure ............................................................................................. 27
6.2 General characteristics ................................................................................................................ 28
6.2.1 Internal drive ........................................................................................................................ 28
6
6.2.2 Time span ............................................................................................................................. 28
6.2.3 Enthusiasm ........................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.4 Results .................................................................................................................................. 29
6.3 Entrepreneurial activities ............................................................................................................. 29
6.4 Networking activities .................................................................................................................. 31
6.4.1 Networking activities............................................................................................................ 32
6.4.2 Familiarity, Importance and Frequency ............................................................................... 33
6.4.3 Results .................................................................................................................................. 34
7. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 35
7.1 Limitations................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2 Suggestions for further research .................................................................................................. 36
8. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 37
8.1 Conclusions of the research ......................................................................................................... 37
8.1.2 Empirical results ................................................................................................................... 38
8.2 Final conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 38
9. References ......................................................................................................................................... 39
10. Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 42
10.1 Survey protocol ......................................................................................................................... 42
10.1.2 Initial email invitation (29-05-13) ...................................................................................... 42
10.1.3 Reminder (10-06-13) .......................................................................................................... 43
10.2 Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 43
10.3 Survey results ............................................................................................................................ 52
7
1. Introduction
Innovative and sustainable ideas provided and exploited by entrepreneurs can help to sustain
our planet (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011). Universal accepted principles like the sevent goal of
the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations – Ensure environmental
sustainability – stimulates businesses to incorporate sustainability in their business activities
(UNGC 2013).
With sustainability as an universal goal, it is no wonder that sustainable entrepreneurship has
gained importance over recent years (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011) and has become an
emergent field of study (Levinsohn, 2013).
Entrepreneurs have long been recognized as a vehicle for exploiting emerging opportunities
associated with societal needs. Yet there exist little understanding of how entrepreneurs
discover and develop those opportunities that promote sustainability (Hall et. all, 2010).
Research on what kind of entrepreneurs act upon a sustainable opportunity and what activities
they engage in when they recognize an opportunity can provide very useful information for
different stakeholders (e.g. governments) and eventually for society to understand and
stimulate sustainable entrepreneurship. Various stakeholders (policy-makers, educators,
investors, and business founders) are interested in facilitating the venture creation process.
More information on the venture creation process can help these stakeholders to avoid the
typical traps and detours of the new venture creation process (Samuelsson and Davidsson
2008).
Research has identified several differences between entrepreneurs who recognize
opportunities that promote sustainability and entrepreneurs that deliver solely (or mostly)
economic gain. For instance, sustainable entrepreneurs likely attend to different aspects of the
environment than regular entrepreneurs (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011). Furthermore the values
and motives of sustainability driven entrepreneurs also differ from regular entrepreneurs
(Parrish 2010). It is suggested by Lans, Blok et al. (2013) that regular entrepreneurs have a
more strong focus on individual accomplishments, while sustainable entrepreneurs are more
driven by collective/societal aspiration (Lans, Blok et al. 2013).
The process of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is also perhaps more
complex than the process of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. To start with, the
activities that entrepreneurs engage in when recognizing a sustainable opportunity seem to be
more uncertain and complex since they involve meeting the demand of a larger group of
stakeholders (Schaltegger and Wagner 2010). Moreover explanations of entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition based on entrepreneurial knowledge and motivation provide an
incomplete picture when applied to sustainable entrepreneurship (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011).
So literature suggests that the sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity is more complex than an
entrepreneurial opportunity that does not directly focus on sustainability. In the rest of this
report referred to as a ‘’non-sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity’’.
This thesis addresses the process differences between entrepreneurial activities and
sustainable entrepreneurial activities in terms of the initiation and completion of a range of
venture gestation activities. By venture gestation activities we mean all the activities related to
the opportunity enactment perspective (Steyaert, Hjort et al. 2003) , which include activities
8
related to the imagination (e.g. thinking activities), actions (e.g. small experiments, attending
meetings) as well as interactions with others (e.g. discussions). In other words opportunity is
viewed as an emergent cognitive and social process.
So this thesis tries to explain which differences in entrepreneurial activities can be identified
in the preliminary or early stages of the process of sustainable and non-sustainable
opportunity recognition. For this purpose, the following main research-question will be used:
‘‘what are the differences in entrepreneurial activities that sustainable and non-sustainable
entrepreneurs engage in, in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition?’’
The sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition activities seem to be more oriented
towards meeting the demand of a larger group of stakeholders. This suggests a more
important role of networking activities and social capital in sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition. The positive relationship between social capital (in the form of
networking activities) and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition can be derived from
literature. It is stated that someone with a high level of social capital is more likely to be an
entrepreneur than someone with a low level of social capital (Doh and Zolnik 2011). An
explanation can be found with the network ties of networks that provide individuals or
organizations access to knowledge and other useful resources (Doh and Zolnik 2011).
To study the differences in sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition in literature, the following research questions will be used: ‘’According to
literature, which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages of the
entrepreneurial, non-sustainable, opportunity recognition process?’’ And, ‘’according to
literature, which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages of the
sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process?’’
The role of networks is stressed related to sustainability innovation (Schaltegger and Wagner
2010). However, the relation between networking activities (social capital) and
entrepreneurial activities that are pursued by sustainable and non-sustainable driven
entrepreneurs and the recognition of a sustainable or a non-sustainable business opportunity is
unclear. This thesis also tries to explore (part of) this gap by defining and testing these
relations empirically.
The study itself consists of a literature study and a survey.
The literature study will provide insights in the activities that are undertaken to recognize an
entrepreneurial opportunity and a sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity.
Furthermore for this research a quantitative survey will be used to further study the findings
of the literature study. A quantitative survey among students of the WUR course
‘’entrepreneurial skills’’ will be conducted. By conducting this survey, data will be collected
related to the entrepreneurial activities that these students engaged in. For this purpose the
following research questions will be used: ‘‘what are the differences in gestation activities
between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs?’’ And, ‘’what are the differences in
networking activities between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs?’’
9
+
2. Research design
2.1 Research objective
Objective of this research is to find differences in the preliminary activities, of the early stages
of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition that entrepreneurs undertake when recognizing a
sustainable and a non-sustainable opportunity. This is done by reviewing literature and by
conducting a quantitative survey on the entrepreneurial behaviour of WUR students.
The research is theory oriented and the research subject is theory design (Verschuuren and
Doorewaard 2007), since it will provide new insight in the preliminary entrepreneurial
activities that precede and relate to the early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition.
Because of the more complex character of a sustainable problem, sustainable opportunity
recognition seems more oriented towards more and more diverse networking activities.
2.2 Research framework
Several topics will be addressed to gain relevant insights in the research objective.
A visual representation of these topics is addressed in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research Framework
2.2.1 Theory
The theoretical framework is based on the literature on entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition and sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. A literature review on the
two pillars of the theoretical framework will be conducted. These correspond with the two sub
research questions.
Focus of the literature review of the first pillar will be on definitions of entrepreneurship and
preliminary entrepreneurial activities from the enactment perspective. The conceptual model
10
for entrepreneurial action of McMullen and Shepherd (2006) will be introduced.
The literature review of the second pillar will focus on the definitions of sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunities, the identified sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition activities and the role of social capital and networking activities in the sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process in literature.
The scientific literature that will be used is collected from the web and from the digital library
of Wageningen University and Research Centre.
The theoretical framework will present entrepreneurial activities of the early stages of
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition for sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurship.
Moreover in the empirical part, the role of social capital in particular in sustainable
entrepreneurship will be investigated.
2.2.2 Topics for Empirical analysis
In the empirical analysis, the WUR course entrepreneurial skills will be used to gather data
for the empirical part of this thesis. The researcher will conduct a survey which targets
students of this course that had to pitch their own entrepreneurial business opportunity.
A survey will be conducted in order to empirically study the identified differences between
sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition activities from the
literature study. The survey is also used to test the relationship between social capital
(networking activities) and sustainable opportunity recognition.
2.2.3 End results
Results from the theoretical framework will be compared to the results of the quantitative
survey conducted in the empirical part to determine the activities that play a key role in the
early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.
11
3. Literature review
The literature review starts with a review on the early stages of the opportunity identification
process in general. After that the second part of the section zooms specifically in at the
opportunity recognition process from a sustainable point of view.
3.1 Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
In this section an answer to the following sub research question is provided: ‘’According to
literature, which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages of
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition’’?
3.1.1 Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process
The principal activities that take place before a business is formed are crucial for successful
organization emergence. For instance, the amount of organizing1, the way the process of
organizing occurs and the time period of the nascent activities are decisive for success
(Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007). Furthermore identifying and selecting the right
opportunities for new businesses are among the most important abilities of a successful
entrepreneur (Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003). So for the entrepreneur the ability to recognize
a potential opportunity is critical (Timmons and Stephen Spinelli 2009).
In broad terms an opportunity may be the chance to meet a market need (or interest or want)
through a creative combination of resources to deliver superior value. Opportunities describe
a range of phenomena that begin unformed and become more developed through time
(Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003). Because the opportunity is constantly shaped and involves a
range of phenomena, opportunity recognition is also sometimes called opportunity
development (Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003). The process of opportunity development or
recognition correspond to the principal activities that take place before a business is formed
(Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003).
According to the entrepreneurship literature (Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003) the opportunity
recognition process consist of three subsequent processes: (1) perception: sensing or
perceiving market need and/or underemployed resources, (2) discovering: recognizing or
discovering a ‘’fit’’ between particular market needs and specified resources, and (3) creation:
creating a new ‘’fit’’ between former separate needs and resources in the form of a business
concept.
In recent years numerous models for entrepreneurial opportunity recognition have been
presented in literature. Primarily these perspectives and models all focus on various
antecedents of the opportunity recognition process (Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003). For
instance on knowledge and experience, cognitive processes and the social study network
context.
In this research the opportunity recognition process is viewed as an emergent cognitive and
social process. This view is in line with the opportunity enactment perspective where an
entrepreneur creates something out of nothing. In this perspective on opportunity recognition,
1 Organizing corresponds with venture start-up activities (Lichtenstein, B. B., et al. (2007). "Complexity
dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship." Journal of Business venturing 22(2): 236-371.
12
the individual’s imagination, that results from actions and interactions with others, generates
new opportunities (Steyaert, Hjort et al. 2003). The process of opportunity enactment is also
formulated as the generation of specific patterns of interlocked behaviours among individuals
or the on-going process of interactions among individuals (Carter, Gartner et al. 1996). In
both definitions the focus is primarily on the entrepreneur that creates and shapes the
entrepreneurial opportunity through interacting with others.
3.1.2 McMullen and Shepherd (2006)
Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition involves several identifiable stages or processes.
Above are already mentioned three processes: perception, discovering and creation.
McMullen and Shepherd (2006) identify two distinct stages based on the amount of
uncertainty.
Uncertainty constitutes a conceptual cornerstone for most theories of the entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurial action in entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is inherently uncertain
because it takes place over a time period, the future is unknowable and because of the novelty
intrinsic to entrepreneurial action (McMullen and Shepherd 2006).
McMullen and Shepherd (2006) identify two distinct stages for entrepreneurial action based
on the kind and amount of uncertainty (Fig. 3). In the first stage, the attention stage, there
exists radical uncertainty for the individual. This radical uncertainty is indicative of
ignorance. This means that there may be so much uncertainty that the individual is too
ignorant to ask ‘’ what’s happening out there?’’ Here the opportunity is seen as a third-person
opportunity, this is an opportunity for someone (not specific for the individual).
In the second stage, entrepreneurial action cannot be achieved without evaluating action-
specific uncertainty. Action-specific uncertainty forms the beliefs and corresponding doubt
that one knows what to do. Eventually at the end of this evaluation phase, the third-person
opportunity can finally become a first-person opportunity this is an opportunity for the
individual or actor (McMullen and Shepherd 2006).
Figure 2: A Conceptual Model Relating Perceived Uncertainty and Motivation to Entrepreneurial Action
(McMullen and Shepherd 2006)
13
First McMullen and Shepherd identify prior knowledge or domain-specific knowledge (for
instance knowledge about a technological change) as facilitating the possibility to recognize
an opportunity in the attention stage (McMullen and Shepherd 2006). It is stated that a
general form of domain-specific knowledge is necessary for the entrepreneur to acknowledge
a third-person opportunity arising, for instance, from a technological change (McMullen and
Shepherd 2006).
Furthermore individuals become entrepreneurs when their prior knowledge enables them to
go from ignorance to near certainty instantaneously. So whether one will act entrepreneurially
in both stages depends on the amount of prior or domain-specific knowledge, as this prior or
domain-specific knowledge relates to the amount of uncertainty perceived.
In the model motivation relates to the willingness to bear this uncertainty, and entrepreneurial
action is also the outcome of willingness to bear uncertainty (McMullen and Shepherd 2006).
Patzelt and Shepherd confirm the role of knowledge in the entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition process by identifying knowledge as an important antecedent of opportunity
identification. Existing studies primarily extend the focus of knowledge, these studies also
relate knowledge to markets, technology and on knowledge related to running a business
(Patzelt and Shepherd 2011).
3.1.3 Focus It is for several reasons that the focus of this thesis is on the preliminary entrepreneurial
activities undertaken in the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process, the attention
phase of McMullen and Shepherd (Figure 4). First of all it is suggested in literature that
entrepreneurship research should deal with early stage phenomena, such as how opportunities
are detected and acted upon (Davidsson and Honig 2003). However studies that include these
earliest pre-firm stages are rare (Davidsson and Honig 2003). Second every firm is eventually
created out of an opportunity so logically success should also partly depend on the first stages
of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. This is strengthened by the fact that identifying
and selecting the right opportunities for new businesses are among the most important
abilities of a successful entrepreneur (Ardichvili, Cardozo et al. 2003).
3.1.4 Entrepreneurial activities in the attention stage
In the enactment view entrepreneurial activity is mostly seen as a set of behaviours that can
ultimately result in a new organization. For many nascent entrepreneurs a broad range of start-
up activities are occurring during ‘’discovery’’ of the opportunity (Gartner, Carter et al.
2010). Start-up activities can for instance include activities related to developing financials,
defining the market opportunity or taking a class or workshop on starting a business
(Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007). It is stated that in the enactment perspective the
entrepreneurial activities that show to others that the business is ‘’real’’ are most successful
for organization emergence. For instance behaviour such as buying facilities or equipment
instead of planning would be successful (Carter, Gartner et al. 1996).
Different firm founders have different mental models of how to organize firms. Some will
start with activities to recombine resources, initiating marketing and promotion, undertake
product development or obtaining inputs (Delmar and Shane 2004). Others will start with
developing social ties with important external stakeholders, like talking to customers or
interacting with potential investors (Delmar and Shane 2004).
14
Entrepreneurial organizing occurs in a temporally and complex matter (Lichtenstein, Carter
et al. 2007). In general preliminary entrepreneurial activities or start-up activities that
entrepreneurs undertake are dynamic and are constantly changing, being realized and shaped
through social processes (Dutta and Crossan 2005). It is proposed in literature that for this
reason there exist lack of information on the kinds and sequences of start-up activities
(Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007).
When looking for start-up activities in the opportunity recognition phase and how to measure
them, in the literature a common used measure is the PSED (the Panel Studies of
Entrepreneurial Dynamics). The PSED is an identified measure of entrepreneurial behaviour
that includes information on the kinds of activities entrepreneurs undertake during the
business start-up process (Reynolds, Carter et al. 2002).
The PSED distinguishes itself from other studies on the entrepreneurial process by its detailed
focus on the gestation stage. The gestation phase focuses on how nascent entrepreneurs go
about the process of starting firms as well as the length of time involved in their start-up
efforts (Reynolds, Carter et al. 2002). The gestation phase focuses on the factors that affect
the efforts of nascent entrepreneurs to bring their business into existence (Reynolds, Carter et
al. 2002).
The gestation phase can be considered matching with the whole opportunity recognition
process, instead of only the early stages or the attention stage. Furthermore the PSED
questions are directed towards entrepreneurs who already started their businesses, but who
had not yet reached a positive cash flow.
Despite its overall less preliminary focus, the PSED is common recognized in entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition literature and, as one of the severe, provides some standardized
entrepreneurial activities to measure entrepreneurial behaviour. For this reason it can provide
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition activities from which few preliminary entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition activities can be selected. The list of PSED activities is generated
from prior theoretical and empirical studies on the relationship between start-up behaviour
and the creation of new ventures (Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007).
The organizing activities that can be identified from the PSED are the following
(Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007):
Financial: saved money to invest, asked for funding or established credit with
suppliers.
Defined market opportunity
Develop financials
Prepared business plan
Organized team
Developed prototype
Took a class or workshop on starting business
In a study that explored the activities undertaken by nascent entrepreneurs, similar to the
PSED, focusing on the initiation of establishment of a new business, the following activities
were used for measurement (Carter, Gartner et al. 1996):
15
Organized team
Prepared plan
Bought facilities/equipment
Rented facilities/equipment
Looked for facilities
Invested own money
Applied license/patent
Developed models
Got financial support
Formed legal entity
Saved money to invest
In this study the activities were focused on the initiation or completion within five years of
initiating, the first start-up behaviour(Carter, Gartner et al. 1996).
Results of research conducted with the PSED reveal some significant evidence on the
entrepreneurial activities nascent entrepreneurs engage in. For instance the outcomes of the
PSED study indicate that a substantial percentage of all entrepreneurs in the study reported
had saved and invested own money in the start-up, had looked for equipment or facilities and
had organized a start-up team.
Other specific types of organizing activities have historically been correlated with
organizational emergence. Examples are writing a business plan, acquiring resources and
selling products. These organizing activities help create the foundation of the new firm
(Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007).
Obtaining inputs, conducting product development, hiring employees, seeking funds and
gathering information from customers are activities that are undertaken to different degrees in
different orders, and at different points in time, by different founders (Delmar and Shane
2004). This implies that there is no standard or fixed entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
process.
For instance, entrepreneurs can start with developing social ties with important external
stakeholders, like talking to customers, interacting with potential suppliers (Delmar and Shane
2004), interacting with government officials (Manalova, Edelman et al. 2012), starting
marketing or promotional efforts (Liao and Welsch 2008) or just received outside assistance
(Tornikoski and Newbert 2007) . Common is also the entrepreneurial activity of seeking to
gain cognitive legitimacy for organizations by developing trust among those involved in the
start-up (Carter, Gartner et al. 1996).
Entrepreneurs that were further in the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process devoted
their time mainly toward activities internal to the start-up like business planning and less
toward activities that would make the business real to others (Carter, Gartner et al. 1996).
Moreover the presence of legitimizing organizing activities such as business planning and
incorporation lead to a higher likelihood of the firm coming into existence (Lichtenstein,
Carter et al. 2007).
Another study (Lichtenstein, Dooley et al. 2006) highlighted a case where the earliest start-up
activities also included saving own money. After several months the entrepreneur completed
two formal preliminary start-up activities; producing a prototype web site and held a series of
focus groups to identify the opportunity (Lichtenstein, Dooley et al. 2006).
16
McMullen and Shepherd (2006) have developed a model to help us to classify the various
entrepreneurial activities in the more preliminary attention phase or the less preliminary
evaluation phase. Some PSED activities seem to have a more preliminary focus, while some
other PSED entrepreneurial activities seem to have a less preliminary focus. Given this,
combined with the classification model of McMullen and Shepherd (2006) suggests that the
PSED activities ‘’taking classes or a workshop on starting a business’’, ‘’developing
models’’, ‘’defining the market opportunity’’, ‘’gathering information from customers’’ or
‘’organizing a team’’ could for instance be hypothesized as more preliminary in most cases.
This is because the kind of uncertainty related to these activities seems to be more radical,
since these activities relate to an individual that is more ignorant. This characterizes the
attention phase (McMullen and Shepherd 2006).
The sub-research question of this section was: ‘’According to literature, which
entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition’’?
Entrepreneurial organizing occurs in a temporally and complex matter. The entrepreneurial
activities entrepreneurs engage in are dynamic, constantly changing and shaped through social
processes.
The PSED is a common used tool that is used to measure information on the kind and
sequence of entrepreneurial activities nascent entrepreneurs engage in. Nevertheless the PSED
focuses on the gestation stage and is directed towards entrepreneurs that already started their
business but had not yet reached a positive cash flow.
Results of PSED measures indicate that entrepreneurs had saved and invested own money in
the start-up, looked for equipment or facilities and had organized a start-up team.
Entrepreneurial activities like business planning and incorporation were also outcomes of the
PSED measures.
In another PSED study more preliminary activities found were producing a prototype website
and organizing a series of focus groups to identify the opportunity.
Based on the enactment perspective, the model of McMullen and Shepherd (2006) and the
suggested amount of radical uncertainty, the author proposed that taking classes or a
workshop on starting a business, developing models, defining the market opportunity,
gathering information from customers and organizing a team can be identified as the
entrepreneurial activities of the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.
17
4.2 Sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition A sustainable and a non-sustainable opportunity differ; consequently the entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition of a sustainable and a non-sustainable idea could also differ.
In this section the following question will be answered: ‘’ According to literature, which
entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the process of sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition?’’. This section corresponds with the second theory pillar from the
theoretical framework.
4.2.1 Sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
Sustainable development opportunities distinguish themselves from purely economic
opportunities by the gains they deliver(Patzelt and Shepherd 2011). Sustainable development
opportunities focus on delivering gains to the entrepreneur himself and to those other than the
entrepreneur himself, compared to purely economic opportunities (Patzelt and Shepherd
2011).
Schaltegger and Wagner (2010) define sustainability wide as an innovative, market-oriented
and personality driven form of creating economic and societal value. This is done by means of
break-through environmentally, socially beneficial, market or institutional innovations
(Schaltegger and Wagner 2010). Furthermore Schaltegger and Wagner (2010) focus on
sustainable entrepreneurs that destroy existing conventional production methods (e.g. non-
organic production), product market structures and consumption patterns, and replace these
with superior environmental and societal progress.
A sustainable entrepreneur often addresses the unmet demand of a larger group of
stakeholders (Schaltegger and Wagner 2010). Here the definition of stakeholders instead of
shareholders is crucial for understanding sustainable entrepreneurship. Stakeholders are
groups or individuals that materially affect or are affected by a firm’s activities (Schaltegger
and Wagner 2010). Stakeholders demands go beyond narrow economic interests of
shareholders and are the ultimate sources of entrepreneurial opportunities for sustainability
innovation, discovery and exploitation of which is at the core of sustainable entrepreneurship
(Schaltegger and Wagner 2010).
So sustainable opportunities are focused on delivering gains for the entrepreneur and others,
destroy existing conventional production methods and focus on meeting the demand of a
larger group of stakeholders.
It is clear that sustainable entrepreneurship differs from regular entrepreneurship. For this
reason Patzelt and Shepherd (2011) adapted the model of Mc Mullen and Shepherd (2006) for
regular entrepreneurship to a model that is suitable for sustainable entrepreneurship.
Like McMullen and Shepherd (2006), Patzelt and Shepherd (2011) acknowledge the
constructs of motivation and knowledge that are central to an individual-level explanation of
why people recognize opportunities. In contrast to McMullen and Shepherd (2006), Patzelt
and Shepherd (2011) investigate knowledge other than knowledge of business environments,
and motivation other than motivation for personal gain. This is because a sustainable
entrepreneur attends to different aspects of the environment when recognizing an opportunity,
than an entrepreneur that screens for opportunities that deliver economic gain (Patzelt and
Shepherd 2011).
18
Specific, prior knowledge of problems in the communal and natural environment plays an
important role in the recognition of sustainable opportunities. Patzelt and Shepherd (2011)
state that the likelihood of recognizing entrepreneurial sustainable development opportunities
increases with: 1) the individual’s prior knowledge of the natural and communal
environment2; and 2) their motivation for personal gains and their motivation to develop
gains for others. Furthermore sustainable development entrepreneurs are motivated by more
than just personal economic gain, but pure personal economic gain can also motivate
individuals to direct their attention toward sustainable development opportunities. These
relationships are strengthened when the individual has prior entrepreneurial knowledge. This
is for example knowledge of markets, ways to serve markets, and customer problems (Patzelt
and Shepherd 2011).
Patzelt and Shepherd (2011) summarized these factors in their model for recognizing
sustainable opportunities, which is presented in figure 5.
Figure 3: A Model of Recognition of Sustainable Development Opportunities (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011)
In the model altruism is defined as the individual motivation to improve the welfare of
another person (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011). Altruism (Patzelt and Shepherd 2011) and the
motivation to develop gains for others (Schaltegger and Wagner 2010) motivates the
recognition of sustainable development opportunities.
4.2.2 Social capital and sustainable entrepreneurial activities
In the previous section we found that the prior knowledge and motivation from a sustainable
and a non-sustainable entrepreneur differ in the process of entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition. This section will address the entrepreneurial activities related to sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.
2 The communal environment denotes the communities in which people live and is an important
aspect of sustainable development Patzelt, H. and D. A. Shepherd (2011). "Recognizing
Opportunities for Sustainable Development." DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.x.
19
Innovations for sustainability often require action in the absence of concrete performance
data, particularly regarding the social and environmental consequences of the innovation in
development.
The idea phase of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is characterized by a
low amount of resources, a high amount of uncertainty, a low level of firm legitimacy, low
knowledge resources and low market/technology competences. As a consequence the
external validation becomes an important factor (Keskin, Diehl et al. 2013). For this, linkages
are needed with external actors (stakeholders). Here, sustainable entrepreneurs seek
legitimacy to prove the value of the new innovation and get access to the necessary
information and resources in order to exploit the opportunity (Keskin, Diehl et al. 2013). This
is in line with the findings of social psychological literature that people in a situation
characterized by uncertainty or obscurity are inclined to look for social proof from others
(Sechrist and Stangor 2007).
It is acknowledged that sustainability is by definition about various stakeholders with their
own interests, values and viewpoints (Lans, Blok et al. 2013). This is in line with the
presented literature of the previous sector, where it is stated that a sustainable entrepreneur
often addresses the unmet demand of a larger group of stakeholders (Schaltegger and Wagner
2010). Furthermore also the involvement of multiple stakeholders with various (conflicting)
frames, values and even ideologies with regard to sustainability, increases the complexity of
the sustainable problem (Peterson 2009). For this reason, sustainable entrepreneurs are in
need of interpersonal skills which enable them to interact and reconcile with, learn from and
adapt to stakeholders (Buysse and Verbeke 2003).
Especially networking is a relevant entrepreneurial activity in the sustainable innovation
process. Here sustainable entrepreneurs actively search for new contacts in order to expand
their network (Keskin, Diehl et al. 2013).
The role of networks (social capital) is emphasized in entrepreneurship (Doh and Zolnik
2011), and there exist ample evidence that entrepreneurship is, in fact, socially embedded in
network structures (Casson and Giusta 2007). So it is likely that the differences in
entrepreneurial activities for sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs are characterized
by differences in networking activities.
Networking activities furthermore provide social, financial and human capital that foster
entrepreneurship (Doh and Zolnik 2011). In previous sections it is found that a sustainable
idea is more complex in nature, involves more stakeholders and a higher amount of
uncertainty.
Reducing uncertainty could be achieved by using the flow of information that is received
from a web of diverse relationships. Using networks, individuals can have early access to a
diverse set of information (Carolois and Saparito 2006). This flow of information reduces the
risk of investment (Doh and Zolnik 2011) and therefore the amount of uncertainty.
Moreover for the entrepreneur it is found that informal ties (i.e. family and friends) appear to
play a more significant role in initial opportunity recognition than formal ties (i.e. banks,
accountant etc.), especially when it comes to making resources available (Davidsson and
Honig 2003). This suggests that more familiar networks in sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition could provide more possibilities to reduce uncertainty related to
sustainable problems.
20
The identified differences related to networking activities between sustainable and non-
sustainable entrepreneurs, lead to an answer to the sub-research question of this section: ‘’
According to literature, which entrepreneurial activities can be identified in the early stages
of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition?’’
A sustainable entrepreneur attends to different aspects of the environment and has to deal with
more uncertainty and complexity, when recognizing a sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity,
than an entrepreneur that recognizes a non-sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity.
Subsequently this suggests that a sustainable entrepreneur engages in different entrepreneurial
activities aimed at seeking confirmation for the value of their sustainable business idea at
external linkages.
In the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition phase, an entrepreneur explores the value of his
opportunity. Social capital allows the sustainable entrepreneur to asses more information for
this goal. The more complex and uncertain character of a sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity compared to a non-sustainable opportunity, suggests that the sustainable
entrepreneur needs more social capital and a more diverse network to reduce risk and
uncertainty.
21
5. Methods
This chapter describes the empirical research methodology of this theory design research
(Verschuuren and Doorewaard 2007). Research objective is to find differences in the
preliminary activities that entrepreneurs undertake in the early stages when recognizing a
sustainable and a non-sustainable opportunity by reviewing literature and by conducting a
quantitative survey on the entrepreneurial behaviour of WUR students.
The empirical part of this research consists of a quantitative survey that measures the
entrepreneurial behaviour of WUR students. With this quantitative survey the suggested
differences in entrepreneurial activities from the literature study can be further studied.
The objective of the survey is gaining insights in the entrepreneurial activities that students
engage in when recognizing a non-sustainable and a sustainable opportunity. Furthermore the
survey also investigates the role of networking activities and social capital in sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition by comparing the undertaken networking activities of
students that presented a sustainable business idea and students that did not present a
sustainable business idea.
5.1 Setting (context) and participants
5.1.1 Sample
For the survey students that enrolled in the WUR course ‘’entrepreneurial skills’’ were
approached. The students were recruited through the course and had different study
backgrounds.
Students were, during one of the course lectures, introduced to the research by the author and
were asked to participate. Students were told that participation in this research was voluntary
but was recommended by the course coordinator and the author. The students were told that
the results could provide them information on the activities related with opportunity
recognition and thus provide input for reflection on their entrepreneurial skills. In the survey
the students could indicate that they would like to receive the results of the research.
To complete the Entrepreneurial skills course students had to attend three lectures and finalize
by pitching and uploading an entrepreneurial pitch, a video presentation of their
entrepreneurial business idea that contributed to their final mark.
In the Entrepreneurial skills course students learn and practice (their personal) entrepreneurial
theory, skills and attitudes. Through provided literature, skills training, extracurricular
activities and reflection on personal development students become aware of their own
entrepreneurial behaviour, intentions, ideas and attitude.
The course consists of three sessions. The students acquired knowledge about entrepreneurial
skills and apply this knowledge by uploading and presenting their entrepreneurial pitch to a
group of fellow students.
- The pitch has to create or add significant value to customer or end user.
- The pitch does so by solving a significant problem, removing a serious pain point, or
meeting a significant want or need.
22
- The pitch has a good fit with you personally along with an attractive risk-reward
balance.
The entrepreneurial pitch counts for 50% of the final mark.
To reflect on their own entrepreneurial skills and to elaborate the course-related assignments
the students also had to hand in a reflection report.
In the second lecture the students were introduced to the research by their teachers and the
author, and were asked to participate. The author also asked permission to watch the footage
of the entrepreneurial pitches of the students. By signing a form after the lecture the students
granted this permission.
The survey was sent by email and data was collected between the 29th of May and the 15th of
June. The research population consists of 29 WUR students that participated in the WUR
course Entrepreneurial Skills (ECS- 66100). After sending a reminder by e-mail, nine
respondents filled in the survey. All the participants gave the author permission to watch their
entrepreneurial pitch. Among the respondents were six men and three women. Age of the
students is between 21 and 31 years old, with an average of 24 and a standard deviation of
2, 71.
5.1.2 Procedure
The students were introduced to the research and asked for permission to watch their footage
in the third lecture of the course. The students were subsequently asked to sign the form that
granted the author permission to watch the footage, which can be found in the survey
protocol. After the third lecture in the third week the students had time to finalize their
business idea and their entrepreneurial pitch.
In week six the students had to upload their pitch. The next week students were emailed by
the course coordinator to fill in the questionnaire. After two weeks a reminder was sent.
Out of the 29 e-mailed students, nine useful responses could be extracted.
Figure 4: Weekly planning for the entrepreneurial skills course
23
5.2 Instruments
5.2.1 The survey design
The survey was created in ‘’Qualtrics’’ and it addresses topics related to the entrepreneurial
behaviour of WUR students.
The following topics were implemented in the survey:
The time span of the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process
The internal drive to act entrepreneurially
Sustainability of the pitched business idea
Entrepreneurial activities based on the PSED3
Networking activities; categories of consulted contacts based on the PSED3
Familiarity of the consulted contacts
Importance of the consulted contacts
Frequency of the consulted contacts
Respondents were asked for their name, gender and age in the first questions of the survey.
The survey consists of several multiple choice and open questions depending on the
respondents’ answers.
The questions on the entrepreneurial activities were based on the PSED and the setting of the
entrepreneurial skills course. The questions on the networking activities, familiarity,
importance and frequency focus on the role of networking activities, and present several
categories of consulted contacts. The categories of these consulted contacts are constructed
based on the PSED, the literature study and were constructed based upon own logical
reasoning of the author and supervisor.
For example a survey question on entrepreneurial activities: Please mark the activities you
engaged in (networking activities, financial activities, resource-related activities, regulatory
related activities and analysing activities).
Some survey questions were linked via ‘’Qualtrics’’, this implies that when the respondents
answered that they undertook certain activities or consulted several contact categories they
were automatically presented more questions about the frequency and importance of the
consulted contacts.
For instance, when the respondents answered that they undertook networking activities, they
were asked: how important and how familiar were the consulted contacts for your final
business idea?
A survey question that measured the sustainability of the pitched business idea: Sustainability
was a driver for my business idea (totally agree, agree, neutral, disagree and totally
disagree).The complete survey can be found in the survey protocol, which can be found in the
appendix.
3 The Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics research program is designed to enhance scientific
understanding of how people start businesses (university of Michigan).
24
5.2.2 Five-point Likert scale For the questions about the internal drive to act entrepreneurially, the sustainability drive, the
importance of the different consulted contacts and the enthusiasm about the business idea a
five-point Likert scale is used. A Likert scale is appropriate when measuring attitudes. Each
statement on the Likert scale has equal attitudinal value, importance or weight (Kumar 2011).
The Likert scale is chosen because the drivers of behaviour and enthusiasm are concepts that
are related to attitudes. Furthermore a five-point instead of a seven-point Likert scale was
chosen because for these survey questions, not too specific measures were required.
5.2.3 Validity and reliability
The research in the empirical phase consisted of the survey. The set-up of the survey is
quantitative. A quantitative research is more defined and well-structured compared to
qualitative research, and subsequently the concepts of validity and reliability are also more
developed (Kumar 2011).
The objective of the survey was gaining insights in the gestation activities that students
engage in when recognizing a non-sustainable and a sustainable opportunity, and finding out
what role social capital in particular played in the early stages of sustainable opportunity
recognition.
For the survey, students of the WUR course ‘’entrepreneurial skills’’ were asked what
activities they engaged in from first thinking about the opportunity until uploading the
entrepreneurial pitch.
Furthermore the students were asked how frequent they engaged in these activities, and how
important certain activities were. In particular the students were asked what networking
activities they engaged in or which contacts they consulted and subsequently how frequent
and important these consulted contacts were. The questions were focused on time specific
data which makes the management of validity more difficult.
Another factor affecting validity is the fact that not all questions in the survey were linked
with each other, due to technical constraints in ‘’Qualtrics’’. This implies that for instance if
one student would mark that he or she consulted experts, he or she could choose to not fill in
if these were important, or the student could mark importance for contacts he or she did not
consulted.
The time specific information the students were asked in the question could also worsen the
reliability of the survey. It is not clear if the students can still retrieve the information from
their memory if the survey would be repeated.
25
5.3 Analysis
5.3.1 Measurement of entrepreneurial activities To identify a pattern of entrepreneurial activities three temporal ‘’parameters’’ can be used;
rate, concentration and timing (Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007). Collectively these three
temporal parameters- rate, concentration, and timing- form a dynamical signature for each
nascent venture’s event history (Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007).
Rate measures the number of activities undertaken in a certain period of time. The higher the
rate the more a certain activity is undertaken (Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007). Because of the
scope of the research and time constraints, only the rate of the pattern of entrepreneurial
activities was measured. The rate corresponds with the survey-question on frequency of
consulting the consulted contacts.
Furthermore the positive link between the internal drive to start a business and the energy the
nascent entrepreneur will put into starting a firm cannot be ignored. With a higher internal
drive comes a higher rate of organizing activities (Lichtenstein, Carter et al. 2007). For this
reason a question on the internal drive to act entrepreneurially will be included in the survey.
The survey also measures the time span from first thought of the opportunity until uploading
the pitch, as a longer time span could positively affect the amount of entrepreneurial activities
undertaken. Also the enthusiasm about the business idea is measured, as this variable could
also positively affect the amount of activities engaged in by the students.
5.3.2 Sustainability measure Only students that explicitly answer that their ideas were sustainability driven will be included
in the sustainable group. This holds that the students that agreed and totally agreed with the
statement ‘’sustainability was a driver for my business idea’’, were included in the sustainable
group. The author will control for the statements of the students regarding the sustainability of
their business idea by watching the entrepreneurial pitches, and rating the sustainability of the
business ideas. The sustainable and non-sustainable group will be used for comparison.
To identify sustainable from non-sustainable business ideas the following definition (19 times
cited in Scopus) by Schaltegger and Wagner (2010) is used:
Sustainable development opportunities are opportunities that sustain the natural and/or
communal environment as well as provide development gain for others (Schaltegger and
Wagner 2010). Sustainable development opportunities provide gain for others in terms of
economic gain (employment, consumption, and economic health), environmental gain
(diminished air pollution) and social gain for the society (increased child survival, life
expectancy, education) instead of (only) gain for the entrepreneur him or herself (Schaltegger
and Wagner 2010).
The sustainability of the entrepreneurial pitches is determined by ranking the pitches on the
economic, social and environmental gain they deliver. Aspects of the gain for others the
pitches delivered in terms of economic gain (employment, welfare), social gain (education,
increased life expectation) and environmental gain (diminished air pollution) were taken into
account. For every pitch, it is marked if the presented pitch provided economic, social or
26
environmental gain. If the business idea provided more than just economic gain for others, the
business idea was considered sustainable. This is because every business idea will generate
economic gain, but you need also need to deliver other kinds of gain to have a sustainable
business idea.
If the sustainability driver of the pitched business idea is still unclear, the reflection reports of
the students include an assignment where the key stakeholders regarding their business idea
were interviewed and were asked questions about the idea. The reflection report also included
an assignment where the students had to make a stakeholder map for the involved
stakeholders in their business idea. This assignment can provide more insight in the
sustainability driver of the students regarding their pitched business idea. The stakeholder
map could provide additional information about the kind of stakeholders involved and their
benefits and disadvantages related to the business idea. With this additional information the
kinds of gain the business would deliver for others could be determined more precisely.
So the author will watch the entrepreneurial pitches of the participating students and will
mark which gains are delivered to the involved stakeholders. If the delivered gain is still
unclear after watching the pitch, the stakeholder map is used. When more than one kind of
gain (environmental, economic or social) is marked, the business idea is considered
sustainable.
27
6. Results This chapter presents the results of the analyses of the survey among WUR students. The
following research questions will be answered: ‘’What are the differences in gestation
activities between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs’’? and ‘’What are the
differences in networking activities between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs’’?
First section focuses on some brief characteristics of the sample. Section two focuses the
sustainability driver and the sustainability control measure, section three focuses on the
internal drive, time span and the enthusiasm and sustainability. Section four focuses on the
entrepreneurial activities the WUR students engaged in. Section five focuses on the
networking activities and the importance, familiarity and frequency. The survey protocol, the
complete survey and the survey results can be found in the appendix.
6.1 The pitched business idea The attitudes of the students towards their pitched business ideas corresponds with the Likert
scale questions on sustainability (‘’sustainability was a driver for my business idea’’) and the
sustainability measure executed by the author.
6.2.1 Sustainability driver
Five students agreed upon the statement that sustainability was a driver for their business idea,
two students disagreed and two students were neutral. Only the students that agreed were
selected in a sustainable group (N=5) and the students that were neutral and disagreed were
selected in the non-sustainable group (N=4). The two groups were compared to answer the
research questions.
6.2.2 Sustainability control measure
When looking at the description of the business ideas in the pitches and in the reflection
report and the stakeholders involved, it was found that the indications the students gave in the
survey about the sustainability of their presented business idea in their entrepreneurial pitch,
corresponded with the sustainability measures of the author (see table 1).
This suggests that the sustainability driver for the business idea from the students
corresponded with the sustainability of the presented business idea (from the pitch and
reflection report). So this increases the reliability of the classification of the students based on
sustainable or non-sustainable drivers for their business ideas.
Table 1: Results of the scores on the sustainable control measure
Sustainable group (N=5) Non-sustainable group (N=4)
Social Environmental Economic Social Environmental Economic
4 1 5 0 1 1
28
6.2 General characteristics
General characteristics of the WUR students correspond with the internal drive, the time span
(‘’when did you first thought about the business idea you have pitched’’) and the enthusiasm
(‘’how enthusiastic are you right now about the business idea’’).
6.2.1 Internal drive
Six of the students responded that they agreed with the statement that they were internal
driven to act entrepreneurially. Two students answered this question with ‘’neutral’’ and one
student ‘’totally agreed’’. So overall the students were internally driven to act
entrepreneurially.
When comparing the sustainable driven student group and the non-sustainable driven group,
the sustainable group on average agreed upon the statement that they were internal driven to
act entrepreneurially. The non-sustainable group on average also agreed that they were
internal driven to act entrepreneurially. Thus, there were no differences identified concerning
the internal drive to act entrepreneurially for both groups (see Table 2).
Sustainable group (N=5)
Totally
disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Totally
agree
1 0 1 3 0
Table 2: ‘’ I am internal driven to act entrepreneurially’’ sustainable group
Non-sustainable group (N=4)
Totally
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Totally
agree
0 0 1 3 0
Table 3: ‘’ I am internal driven to act entrepreneurially’’ non-sustainable group
6.2.2 Time span
The time span between first thought of the business idea and the moment of pitching the
business idea varies between the students. Three students first thought of their pitched
business idea a month ago, one student 1-3 months ago, two students longer than three months
ago, one student longer than six months ago and two students longer than one year ago. The
average time span was longer than three months.
29
When comparing the sustainable driven and non-sustainable driven group, for the non-
sustainable group the average time span was exactly between 1 month ago and 1-3 months
ago. For the sustainable group (N=5) the average time span was longer than 6 months ago.
So, on average for the students with a sustainable idea the time span, from first thought of the
business idea until uploading the pitch, of students with a sustainable business idea was longer
than the time span of students with a non-sustainable idea.
6.2.3 Enthusiasm
Five students answered that they were enthusiastic about the business idea. Two students were
very enthusiastic about the business idea. One student was neither enthusiastic nor not
enthusiastic and one student was not enthusiastic about the business idea. But on average the
students were enthusiastic about the business idea.
When comparing the sustainable and non-sustainable driven students, only the non-
sustainable group was on average neither enthusiastic nor not enthusiastic.
6.2.4 Results
The students with a sustainable business idea were more enthusiastic about their idea than the
students with a non-sustainable idea. Furthermore their time span from first thought of the
business idea until uploading the pitch was longer compared to the non-sustainable students.
However, both groups, sustainable and non-sustainable, were equally internal driven to act
entrepreneurially.
6.3 Entrepreneurial activities This section relates to the third sub-research question: ‘’what are the differences in gestation
activities between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs?’’
The entrepreneurial activities the students engaged in correspond with the question on
entrepreneurial activities (‘’please mark the activities you engaged in’’)
Figure 5: entrepreneurial activities engaged in by the students
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Networkingactivities
Financialactivities
Resourcerelated
activities
Regulatoryrelated
activities
Analyzingactivities
Entrepreneurialactivities_General
Entrepreneurialactivities_sustainable
Entrepreneurialactivites_nonsustainable
30
As can be identified from the figure, in general the students overall engaged more in
networking activities and analysing activities. The financial, resource related and regulatory
activities were less engaged in by the students.
When comparing the sustainable and non-sustainable group, the sustainable group engaged in
more activities and in general undertook more diverse entrepreneurial activities, than the non-
sustainable group. The non-sustainable group only engaged in networking and analysing
activities and undertook substantially less entrepreneurial activities (the amount of
respondents in sustainable versus non-sustainable group N=5 vs. N=4 taken into account).
Furthermore the sustainable group undertook more analysing activities, than the non-
sustainable group. The non-sustainable group undertook slightly more networking activities,
than the sustainable group. Results per group are presented in the graphs below.
Figure 6: Quantity of entrepreneurial activities for Sustainable and non-sustainable group
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Quantity of entrepreneurial activities
Sustainable
Nonsustainable
31
Figure 7: Activities engaged in by the sustainable group
Figure 8: Activities engaged in by the non-sustainable group
So, results indicate that the students from the sustainable group undertake more and more
diverse entrepreneurial activities than the non-sustainable group.
6.4 Networking activities This section relates to the fourth sub-research question: What are the differences in
networking activities between sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs?
The questions on the networking activities correspond with the questions on the consulted
contacts (‘’If you engaged in networking activities, interacting with others, for your final
business idea, please mark below whether you have consulted the listed contacts’’), the
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Networkingactivities
Financialactivities
Resourcerelated
activities
Regulatoryrelated
activities
Analyzingactivities
Sustainable
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Networkingactivities
Financialactivities
Resourcerelated
activities
Regulatoryrelated
activities
Analyzingactivities
Nonsustainable
32
question on familiarity (‘’How familiar were these contacts to you’’), the questions on
importance (‘’Please mark for the consulted contacts how important these were for your final
business idea’’) and the questions on frequency (‘’Please mark how frequent you consulted
your contacts’’).
6.4.1 Networking activities
For the analysis of the networking activities only the respondents that engaged in networking
activities from the sustainable (N=3) and non-sustainable group (N=4) were selected.
The most approached were fellow students/colleagues, others (than the categories measured in
this research), potential customers, experts and communities. Government officials,
advertisers and competitors were not approached.
When comparing the sustainable and non-sustainable driven group, the sustainable group
(N=3) approached six contacts in total, the non-sustainable group (N=4) approached eleven
contacts in total.
Figure 9: Quantity of consulted contacts for Sustainable and Non-sustainable group
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sustainablegroup
Non-sustainablegroup
Sustainable group
Non-sustainable group
33
Figure 10: Consulted contacts sustainable and non-sustainable group
The sustainable group approached fewer contacts and less diverse contacts than the non-
sustainable group. The non-sustainable group mainly consulted more fellow students and also
more experts, than the sustainable group.
6.4.2 Familiarity, Importance and Frequency
The students were asked how familiar the consulted contacts were to them, how important the
consultant contacts were for their final business idea and how frequent the consultant contacts
were approached. For these questions the same group sizes as the previous question was used,
sustainable group (N=3) and non-sustainable group (N=4) since only these students engaged
in networking activities.
For the questions on familiarity and importance only few respondents answered
corresponding with the consulted contacts they filled in, in the previous question.
For instance, some students filled in that the certain contacts were familiar or important, but
they did not mark these contacts in the question on the consulted contacts.
For reliability issues these answers were not included in the analysis. The remaining useful
responses, that answered the questions according to their marked contacts were analysed.
First, no substantial differences in familiarity between sustainable and non-sustainable groups
could be identified.
The results on importance showed that for the sustainable group fellow students were more
important. For the non-sustainable group potential suppliers, advertisers, competitors, experts
and communities were more important compared to the sustainable group.
For the question on frequency given answers were probably not reliable, since there were
several exceptional outliers in the data. For instance, according to two respondents, contacts
were consulted 30 times.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Sustainable group
Non-sustainable group
34
When comparing the sustainable and non-sustainable group, the non-sustainable group
consulted their consulted contacts more frequent (72 times) compared to the sustainable group
(50 times). For the non-sustainable group, fellow students and experts were consulted more
frequent compared to the sustainable group. For the sustainable group potential customers and
others (than the categories in the survey) were consulted more frequent compared to the non-
sustainable group.
6.4.3 Results
Students that did not present a sustainable business idea in their entrepreneurial pitch
consulted more and more diverse contacts compared to the students that did present a
sustainable business idea. The students that did not present a sustainable business idea mainly
consulted more fellow students, communities, potential suppliers and experts compared to the
students that presented a sustainable business idea. For the students that presented a
sustainable business idea potential customer and others (than the categories of the survey)
were consulted more frequent. Fellow students were slightly more important for the
sustainable group.
35
7. Discussion This section presents the discussion of the research with limitations and suggestions for
further research.
The research showed that the students that presented a sustainable business idea engaged in
more and more diverse entrepreneurial activities. These results could be explained by the
more complex character of a sustainable business idea (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2010;
Petersson, 2009).
However, these results could also be explained by the confounding variables that distort the
reliability of the results. First engaging in more and more diverse activities by the sustainable
group than the non-sustainable group could be explained by the longer time span (from first
thought of the business idea until uploading the pitch) for the opportunity recognition process
of these students. Moreover the results of the survey indicated that sustainable students were
more enthusiastic about their business idea, than non-sustainable students. This could affect
the amount of activities the students engaged in. Furthermore age and gender, (study)
background are confounding factors that could also affect the amount and diversity of the
entrepreneurial activities engaged in.
Although the students that presented a sustainable business idea did engage in more and more
diverse entrepreneurial activities in general, the survey showed that these students consulted
fewer and less diverse contacts, than the students that did not present a sustainable business
idea in their pitch. This could be due to the retrospective bias, since the students were asked
time specific data. Since the sustainable students had a longer time span (from first thought
until uploading the entrepreneurial pitch) for their sustainable business idea, it is more likely
that the retrospective bias distorts the results on networking activities.
7.1 Limitations Lack of validity is one of the limitations in this study. First, the sample is relatively small
(N=9). With this small sample generalization and statistical analysis of the findings seems
rather inappropriate. Furthermore the questions were focused on some time specific data for
the student, which makes the management of validity more difficult. Also the measures on
sustainability by the author are in a sense subjective, this could affect validity negatively.
In ‘’Qualtrics’’ not all questions were linked with each other, causing some of the answers on
importance, familiarity and frequency not in line with the actual consulted contacts. For
instance some students filled in rates for the importance on consulted contacts they did not
marked as consulted contacts in earlier questions. This affected validity but is also a reason to
doubt reliability.
Moreover the time specific data about entrepreneurial behaviour which students engaged in
some time ago could be difficult to retrieve from memory for the students, which also is a
reason to doubt reliability of the survey results on several questions.
The phenomenon of decreased reliability on time specific data could be explained by the
retrospective bias. When respondents have to retrieve information from their memory the
retrospective bias can worsen the reliability and validity. In this case, the retrospective bias
could have distorted the results on networking activities, since several outliers and
inconsistent answers to the questions on networking activities have been found.
36
This suggests that the respondents could not have retrieved the right information on the
networking activities from their memory, this distorts the results.
In the analysis of the results not all answers to the questions were linked with each other, for
instance age and gender are factors that are also known to affect the entrepreneurial behaviour
of individuals. Questions on (study) background were due to time constraints not included in
the survey.
7.2 Suggestions for further research During the literature study, a gap in the literature related to entrepreneurial activities of the
early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition was identified. When adding
sustainability and social capital as search criteria, also a gap in literature was identified.
This thesis tried to identify the sustainable entrepreneurial activities that play a key role in the
early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition by identifying differences
in the preliminary activities that entrepreneurs undertake when recognizing a sustainable and
a non-sustainable business idea. Furthermore this research tried to explore role of social
capital in sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition.
Research on what kind of entrepreneurs act upon a sustainable opportunity, what activities
they engage in and what difficulties or uncertainty they face when they recognize an
opportunity can provide very useful information and benefits for different stakeholders (e.g.
governments) and eventually for society to understand and stimulate sustainable
entrepreneurship.
Further research should continue with developing insight in the entrepreneurial behaviour and
activities of sustainable entrepreneurs. Also (perhaps with more empirical data) the role of
social capital in sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition could be further explored.
To decrease the effects of the retrospective bias, and increase the reliability, a research where
the sustainable entrepreneur writes down the entrepreneurial activities he or she engages in on
a daily or weekly basis could be conducted.
To control for the sustainability driver the footage of the entrepreneurial pitches and the
reflection reports were used. To determine if a sustainable idea was actually sustainable,
information is retrieved from the info presented by the student in the entrepreneurial pitch.
Based on the gains the sustainable business idea delivers the pitches are scored sustainable or
non-sustainable. If the students would eventually choose to act upon their identified
opportunity and start a new venture, it is not sure if the sustainable driven business idea of the
student would actually result in a sustainable venture. So it is not clear if the identified
sustainable entrepreneurial activities from the survey can guarantee success in the form of a
sustainable venture, and thus can be identified as acknowledged sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition activities .Further research should also take this into account, and
could measure eventual success or failure of certain sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition activities by researching real entrepreneurs instead of students.
37
8. Conclusion This section presents the conclusions of the research. The research objective was to find
differences in the preliminary activities, of the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition that entrepreneurs undertake when recognizing a sustainable and a non-
sustainable opportunity.
8.1 Conclusions of the research This section will provide an answer to the main research question, which was formulated as
follows:
What are the differences in entrepreneurial activities that sustainable and non-sustainable
entrepreneurs engage in, in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition?
First the answers to the research questions of the theoretical framework will be given.
The findings of and answers to the research questions, the theoretical framework and the
survey contributed to answering the main research question. In the following sections
concluding remarks on the literature study and the empirical part is presented. In the last
section the links between the theory and the results of the research are given in with an answer
to the main research question.
8.1.1 Literature review
Specific types of organizing activities have historically been correlating with organizational
emergence. However based on the amount of uncertainty and according to the literature;
‘’taking classes or a workshop on starting a business’’, ‘’developing models’’, ‘’defining the
market opportunity’’, ‘’gathering information from customers’’ or ‘’organizing a team’’ could
be suggested as entrepreneurial activities from the early stages.
A sustainable entrepreneur often addresses the unmet demand of a larger group of
stakeholders. Also sustainability is by definition about various stakeholders with their own
interests, values and viewpoints. The involvement of multiple stakeholders with various
(conflicting) frames, values and even ideologies with regard to sustainability, increases the
complexity of the sustainability problem.
The likelihood of recognizing a sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity increases with the
individual’s prior knowledge of the natural and communal environment, their motivation to
develop gains for others and their altruism. From literature it followed that the sustainable
entrepreneur attends to the others and the environment when recognizing a sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity. This is confirmed by the fact that sustainable entrepreneurs seek
linkages with external actors or stakeholders in the early stages of sustainable entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition. Here, networking is a relevant entrepreneurial activity.
Moreover the role of social capital and networks in entrepreneurship is emphasized in
literature. As a sustainable idea is more complex in nature and involves more stakeholders, it
subsequently involves a higher amount of uncertainty. Reducing uncertainty could be
achieved by using the flow of information that is received from a web of diverse relationships.
So the more complex and uncertain character of a sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
compared to a non-sustainable opportunity, suggests that the sustainable entrepreneur needs
more social capital and a more diverse network to reduce risk and uncertainty. Findings of the
38
theoretical framework confirm that it is likely that the differences in entrepreneurial activities
for sustainable and non-sustainable entrepreneurs are characterized by differences in social
capital and networking activities.
8.1.2 Empirical results
Results of the survey indicate that students with a sustainable business idea were more
enthusiastic about their idea than the students with a non-sustainable idea. Furthermore the
time span from first thought of the business idea until uploading the pitch was longer
compared to non-sustainable students. Also, the students with a sustainable business idea
engaged in more and more diverse entrepreneurial activities.
In contrast with the findings of the literature study, there was a substantial difference in the
quantity of networking activities engaged in, when comparing the sustainable and non-
sustainable group. The students that did not presented a sustainable business idea in their
entrepreneurial pitch consulted more and more diverse contacts.
8.2 Final conclusion This section will provide an answer to the main research question.
Our main research question is formulated as follows:
What are the differences in entrepreneurial activities that sustainable and non-sustainable
entrepreneurs engage in, in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition?
The non-sustainable entrepreneur engages in several activities based on the amount of
uncertainty, in the early stages of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, like taking classes
or workshops on starting a business, developing models, defining the market opportunity,
gathering information from customers or organizing the start-up team.
However, the complex character of a sustainable problem and the focus on the environment,
the amount of uncertainty and stakeholders involved requires and suggests the sustainable
entrepreneur to focus on networking activities in the early stages of sustainable
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, compared to the non-sustainable entrepreneur.
Moreover the sustainable entrepreneur is altruistic and develops gain for others. The
sustainable entrepreneur useshis social capital and networking activities in the early stages of
sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition to reduce the higher amount of uncertainty
involved in the more complex sustainable business idea. Through social capital and networks
the necessary prior knowledge of the natural and communal environment can be gained.
39
9. References
Ardichvili, A., et al. (2003). "A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development." Journal of Business venturing 18(1).
Buysse, K. and A. Verbeke (2003). "Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective." Strategic Management Journal 24: 453-470.
Carolois, D. M. D. and P. Saparito (2006). "Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial opportunities: A Theoretical Framework." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Carter, N. M., et al. (1996). "Exploring start-up sequences." Journal of Business venturing 11.
Casson, M. and M. D. Giusta (2007). "Entrepreneurship and Social capital." International small business journal 25.
Davidsson, P. and B. Honig (2003). "The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs." Journal of Business venturing 18.
Delmar, F. and S. Shane (2004). "Legitimizing first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures." Journal of Business venturing 19.
Doh, S. and E. J. Zolnik (2011). "Social capital and entrepreneurship: An explanatory analysis." African Journal of business management 5.
Dutta, D. K. and M. M. Crossan (2005). "The Nature of Entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning Framework." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Gartner, W. B., et al. (2010). Handbook of Entrepreneurship research Chapter 5: Entrepreneurial Behavior: Firm Organizing Processes, Springer Science+business Media.
Keskin, D., et al. (2013). "Innovation process of new ventures driven by sustainability." Journal of Cleaner Production 45: 50-60.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. London, SAGE publications Ltd.
Lans, T., et al. (2013). "Learning apart and together: towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education." Journal of Cleaner Production.
40
Liao, J. J. and H. Welsch (2008). "Patterns of venture gestation process: Exploring the differences between tech and non-tech nascent entrepreneurs." Journal of High Technology Management Research 19.
Lichtenstein, B. B., et al. (2007). "Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship." Journal of Business venturing 22(2): 236-371.
Lichtenstein, B. B., et al. (2006). "Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation." Journal of Business venturing 21: 153-175.
Manalova, T. S., et al. (2012). "Properties of emerging organizations: empirical evidence from Norway." Journal of Small business economics 39.
McMullen, J. S. and D. A. Shepherd (2006). "Entrepreneurial action and the Role of Uncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur." The academy of Management Review, vol. 31, No.1 (Jan 2006) pp. 132-152.
Parrish, B. D. (2010). "Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design." Journal of Business venturing 25(510-523).
Patzelt, H. and A. Shepherd (2011). "The new field of sustaianable Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking ''What is to be Sustained'' With '' What Is to Be Developed''." DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x.
Patzelt, H. and D. A. Shepherd (2011). "Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development." DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.x.
Peterson, C. (2009). "Transformational supply chains and the 'wicked problem' of sustainability : aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship and leadership." Journal of Chain and Network science 9: 71-82.
Reynolds, P. D., et al. (2002). "The Prevalence of Nascent Entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics." Small business economics 23.
Samuelsson, M. and P. Davidsson (2008). "Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures." Springer Science+Business media.
Schaltegger, S. and M. Wagner (2010). "Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Innovation: Categories and Interactions." Business strategy and the environment 20 (2011): 222-237.
Sechrist, G. B. and C. Stangor (2007). "When are intergroup attitudes based on perceived consensus information? The role of group familiarity. ." Social influence 2: 211-235.
41
Steyaert, C., et al. (2003). New movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Business and Economics.
Timmons, J. A. and J. Stephen Spinelli (2009). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. New York, Mc Graw-Hill.
Tornikoski, E. T. and S. L. Newbert (2007). "Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective." Journal of Business venturing 22.
UNGC (2013). "Overview of the UN Global Compact." from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html.
Verschuuren, P. and H. Doorewaard (2007). Het ontwerpen van onderzoek.
42
10. Appendix
10.1 Survey protocol The students were introduced to the research and were asked permission to watch their
footage in their last lecture (27th
of March). The survey is constructed ‘’Qualtrics’’ in English
and was sent from the course coordinator of the entrepreneurial skills course (29th
of May).
The reminder was sent 11 days later (10th
of June). The letter for permission (participation
form), the covering emails that were sent afterwards and the ‘’Qualtrics’’ survey and the
survey results are presented below.
10.1.1 Participation form
Participation form sustainable opportunity recognition research
Name ……………………………………
Age ……………………………………….
By signing this form I agree that my entrepreneurial pitch will be watched for the research.
Date ……………………………………..
Signature ………………………………………………………………….
Footage will be used confidentially.
10.1.2 Initial email invitation (29-05-13)
Dear student,
During the entrepreneurial skills course I asked you to participate in a survey for my BSC
thesis project about sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. For this I want to
examine your entrepreneurial behaviour.
Results of the survey will be compared with others and will be available for you, in this way
this exercise can contribute to reflection on your own entrepreneurial skills.
Your answers are confidential and they will not affect your grade for this course.
You can find the survey here:
https://wur.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_72qDqcgEllJRpZz
Jeroen Roelofzen
BSC Business and Consumer studies
Kind regards,
Hartelijke groet,
43
Stefan Nortier
Communication Skills trainer & Personal Development coach
Chairgroup Education and Competence Studies
Wageningen University and Research Centre
Leeuwenborch room 7028
10.1.3 Reminder (10-06-13)
Dear student,
A reminder of the mail that was sent by Stefan Nortier. Could you please fill in the survey?
Thanks
During the entrepreneurial skills course I asked you to participate in a survey for my BSC
thesis project about sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. For this I want to
examine your entrepreneurial behaviour.
Results of the survey will be compared with others and will be available for you, in this way
this exercise can contribute to reflection on your own entrepreneurial skills.
Your answers are confidential and they will not affect your grade for this course.
You can find the survey here:
https://wur.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_72qDqcgEllJRpZz
Jeroen Roelofzen
BSC Business and Consumer studies
Kind regards,
Hartelijke groet,
Stefan Nortier
Communication Skills trainer & Personal Development coach
Chairgroup Education and Competence Studies
Wageningen University and Research Centre
Leeuwenborch room 7028
10.2 Survey
Introduction
For my BSC thesis project about sustainable entrepreneurial opportunity
recognition, I want to examine your entrepreneurial behavior.
44
Afterwards your activities and your pitch will be analyzed and compared to the
activities of others.
There are no wrong or right answers, so please answer the questions to how they
fit you best. In this way, this exercise can contribute to reflection on your
own entrepreneurial skills. Your answers are confidential and they will not affect your grade
for this course.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
If you have any questions feel free to ask or contact me: [email protected]
Jeroen Roelofzen
Bachelor Business and Consumer studies
What is your name?
Would you like to receive the results of this thesis?
Yes
No
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your age?
When did you first thought about the business idea you have pitched?
1 month ago
1-3 months ago
45
Longer than 3 months ago
Longer than 6 months ago
Longer than 1 year ago
How enthousiastic are you right now about the business idea?
Very enthousiastic
Enthousiastic
Neither enthusiastic nor not enthusiastic
Not enthusiastic
Not enthusiastic at all
I am internal driven to act entrepreneurially
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Totally disagree
Sustainability was a driver for my business idea
Totally agree
Agree
Neutral
46
Disagree
Totally disagree
>>
47
To recognize the opportunity for your entrepreneurial pitch you engaged already in
different activities to come up with and fine tune your initial business idea.
The following questions are related to the activities you engaged in to come up
with your business idea for your entrepreneurial pitch. Please mark the answer
that fits your situation the best.
Please mark the activities you engaged in
Networking activities (interacting with others)
Financial activities (began developing financial projections)
Resource related activities (activities related to acquisition of needed resources)
Regulatory related activities (activities related to regulatory requirements of the business)
Analyzing activities (activities related to defining market for product or service and
collecting
information on competitors)
>>
If you engaged in networking activities (interacting with others) for your final business idea,
please mark below whether you have consulted the listed contacts:
I did not engage in networking activities
Government officials
Potential suppliers
Advertisers
Potential customers
Competitors
Experts
Fellow students/colleagues
Communities (f.e. attending meetings or Blooming Wageningen)
Others (no specific function related)
48
How familiar were these contacts to you? Please mark below for the contacts
you consulted (only mark for the contacts you consulted) How familiar these
were on the following familiarity scale:
- family (most familiar)
- friends
- acquaintaces
- colleagues
- unknown (least familiar)
How familiar were the following contacts to you?
Contacts
Family Friends
Acquaintac
es Colleagues Unkown
I did not
consult
these
contacts
Governme
nt officials Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Potential
suppliers Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Advertisers
Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Potential
49
Contacts
Family Friends
Acquaintac
es Colleagues Unkown
I did not
consult
these
contacts
customers Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these -
Competitor
s Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Experts
Contacts -
Family -
Contacts -
Friends -
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Contacts -
Unkown -
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts -
Family -
Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts -
Friends -
Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es - Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts -
Colleagues
- Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts -
Unkown -
Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Fellow
students/co
lleagues
Communiti
es
Contacts -
Family -
Communiti
es
Contacts -
Friends -
Communiti
es
Contacts -
Acquaintac
es -
Communiti
es
Contacts -
Colleagues
-
Communiti
es
Contacts -
Unkown -
Communiti
es
Contacts - I
did not
consult
these
contacts -
Communiti
es
Others Contacts - Contacts - Contacts - Contacts - Contacts - Contacts - I
50
Contacts
Family Friends
Acquaintac
es Colleagues Unkown
I did not
consult
these
contacts
Family - Friends - Acquaintac
e
Colleagues
-
Unkown - did not
hese
>>
Please mark for the consulted contacts (only mark for the consulted contacts) how important these
were for your final business idea.
Please state below how frequent you consulted your contacts
Concrete: how many times did you consult your contacts since the first time you thought
about the business idea?
How frequent did you consult government officials?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult potential suppliers?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult advertisers
Frequency
51
How frequent did you consult potential customers?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult competitors?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult experts?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult fellow students/colleagues?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult communities?
Frequency
How frequent did you consult others?
Frequency
This is the end
Thank you
Jeroen Roelofzen
52
10.3 Survey results Table 4: I am internal driven to act entrepreneurially
Statistics
I am internal driven to act
entrepreneurially
N
Valid 9
Missing 0
Mean 2,11
I am internal driven to act entrepreneurially
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Totally agree 1 11,1 11,1 11,1
Agree 6 66,7 66,7 77,8
Neutral 2 22,2 22,2 100,0
Total 9 100,0 100,0
Table 4.1: Sustainable group
Statistics
I am internal driven to act
entrepreneurially
N
Valid 5
Missing 0
Mean 2,00
Table 4.2: Non-sustainable group
Statistics
I am internal driven to act
entrepreneurially
N Valid 4
53
Missing 0
Mean 2,25
Table 5: Sustainability was a driver for my business idea
Statistics
Sustainability was a driver for my
business idea
N
Valid 9
Missing 0
Mean 2,67
Sustainability was a driver for my business idea
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Agree 5 55,6 55,6 55,6
Neutral 2 22,2 22,2 77,8
Disagree 2 22,2 22,2 100,0
Total 9 100,0 100,0
Table 6: When did you first thought about the business idea you have pitched?
Statistics
When did you first thought about the
business idea you have pitched?
N
Valid 9
Missing 0
Mean 2,78
When did you first thought about the business idea you have pitched?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
54
Valid
1 month ago 3 33,3 33,3 33,3
1-3 months ago 1 11,1 11,1 44,4
Longer than 3 months ago 2 22,2 22,2 66,7
Longer than 6 months ago 1 11,1 11,1 77,8
Longer than 1 year ago 2 22,2 22,2 100,0
Total 9 100,0 100,0
Table 6.1: Sustainable group
Statistics
When did you first thought about the
business idea you have pitched?
N
Valid 5
Missing 0
Mean 3,80
Table 6.2: Non-sustainable group
Statistics
When did you first thought about the
business idea you have pitched?
N
Valid 4
Missing 0
Mean 1,50
Table 7: How enthusiastic are you right now about the business idea?
Statistics
How enthousiastic are you right now
about the business idea?
N Valid 9
55
Missing 0
Mean 2,11
How enthousiastic are you right now about the business idea?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Very enthousiastic 2 22,2 22,2 22,2
Enthousiastic 5 55,6 55,6 77,8
Neither enthusiastic nor not
enthusiastic 1 11,1 11,1 88,9
Not enthusiastic 1 11,1 11,1 100,0
Total 9 100,0 100,0
Table 7.1: Sustainable group
Statistics
How enthousiastic are you right now
about the business idea?
N
Valid 5
Missing 0
Mean 1,60
Table 7.2 Non-sustainable group
Statistics
How enthousiastic are you right now
about the business idea?
N
Valid 4
Missing 0
56
Mean 2,75
57
Table 8: Please mark the activities you engaged in.
Statistics
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Networking
activities
(interacting with
others)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Financial activities
(began developing
financial
projections)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Resource related
activities (activities
related to
acquisition of
needed resources)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Regulatory related
activities (activities
related to
regulatory
requirements of the
business)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Analyzing
activities (activities
related to defining
market for product
or service and
collecting
information on
competitors)
N
Valid 7 1 2 1 4
Missing 2 8 7 8 5
Mean 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Table 8.1: Sustainable group
Statistics
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Networking
activities
(interacting with
others)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Financial activities
(began developing
financial
projections)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Resource related
activities (activities
related to
acquisition of
needed resources)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Regulatory related
activities (activities
related to
regulatory
requirements of the
business)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Analyzing
activities (activities
related to defining
market for product
or service and
collecting
information on
competitors)
N
Valid 3 1 2 1 3
Missing 2 4 3 4 2
Mean 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Table 8.2: Non-sustainable group
Statistics
58
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Networking
activities
(interacting with
others)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Financial activities
(began developing
financial
projections)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Resource related
activities
(activities related
to acquisition of
needed resources)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Regulatory related
activities
(activities related
to regulatory
requirements of
the business)
Please mark the
activities you
engaged in-
Analyzing
activities
(activities related
to defining market
for product or
service and
collecting
information on
competitors)
N
Valid 4 0 0 0 1
Missing 0 4 4 4 3
Mean 1,00 1,00
59
Table 9: If you engaged in networking activities (interacting with others) for your final business idea,
please mark below whether you have consulted the listed contacts.
60
Table 9.1: Sustainable group Table 9.2: Non-sustainable group
61
Table 10: How familiar were the following contacts to you
62
Table 10.1: Sustainable group Table 10.2: Non-sustainable group
63
Table 11: Mark for the consulted contacts how important these were for your final business idea.
64
Table 11.1: Sustainable group Table 11.2: Non-sustainable group
65
Table 12: How many times did you consult your contacts since the first time you thought about the
business idea?
66
67
Table 12.2: Sustainable group
68
Table 12.3: Non-sustainable group
69