Sustainable business model innovation debate is mostly focusing on the use of certain practices and tools to implement sustainable objectives in new firms. Our paper contributes to this debate examining the factors influencing the entrepreneur's election of the practices to develop sustainable business model innovation (SBMI). We conducted an empirical analysis on a population of Spanish entrepreneurs (N = 234) and applied a sound behavioral framework and the PLS-SEM algorithms to factor out those elements. On the basis of this analysis, we argue that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit, costs, speed, funding, and security and behavioral intention might affect the entrepreneurial acceptance of the practices leading to SBMI. We also argue that the knowledge of these factors benefit incubators, mentors, and agencies balance them into their support to sustainable business development. Our analyses open a novel research line by studying those factors influencing entrepreneurial use of sustainable innovation practices and facilitating future development of full-scale models explaining this usage.

No abstract

Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology for Innovations in the Public Sector (UTAUT-IPS) model, this study examined the influences on using a specific innovation practice on public managers. We based our analysis on an end-of-2019 sample of 227 Spanish public managers, aiming to answer the question “Are public innovation and project managers driven only by a governance paradigm, influencing their intention and usage of an innovation practice?” Using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) algorithm, we singled out the effects of the governance paradigm, performance expectancy, and motivation, among seven other behavioral composite variables. The PLS-Prediction-Oriented Segmentation routine was used to segment our sample into three distinct groups of innovation managers: i) those driven by nearly all influences; ii) those driven by results and the governance paradigm; and iii) those driven by governance and habits. The three groups highlight the different practical approaches to public innovation and co-creation initiatives, which clearly reflect the complex process of deciding which tool (or tools) should be used to implement these. Our UTAUT-IPS model helps visualize this complex decision-making process.

No abstract