No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the emerging entrepreneurship research that deals with resilience by examining how embeddedness in place and in trans-local grassroots networks influences proactive entrepreneurship for local resilience. Design/methodology/approach Three theoretical propositions are developed on the basis of the existing literature. These propositions are assisted with brief empirical illustrations of grassroots innovations from the context of agri-food systems. Findings Embeddedness in place and in trans-local grassroots networks enables proactive entrepreneurship for local resilience. Social-cultural embeddedness in place facilitates access to local resources and legitimacy, and creation of social value in the community. Ecological embeddedness in place facilitates spotting and leveraging of environmental feedbacks and creation of ecological value. Embeddedness in trans-local grassroots networks provides entrepreneurs with unique resources, including globally transferable knowledge about sustainability challenges and practical solutions to these challenges. As result, entrepreneurship for resilience is explained as an embedding process. Embedding means attuning of practices to local places, as well as making global resources, including knowledge obtained in grassroots networks, work in local settings. Research limitations/implications Researchers should continue developing the emerging domain of entrepreneurship for resilience. Practical implications The objective of resilience and due respect to local environment may entail a need to consider appropriate resourcing practices and organisational models. Social implications The critical roles of place-based practices for resilience deserve more recognition in today’s globalised world. Originality/value The specific importance of the ecological dimension of embeddedness in place is emphasised. Moreover, by combining entrepreneurship and grassroots innovation literatures, which have talked past each other to date, this paper shows how local and global resources are leveraged throughout the embedding process. Thereby, it opens unexplored research avenues within the emerging domain of entrepreneurship for resilience.

This conceptual article focuses on the environmental dimensions of sustainable development, which are essential for satisfying current and future human needs. It assesses ecological economics (EE) as an alternative base for a "strong" version of sustainable entrepreneurship (SE). EE recognizes the biophysical base of economic activity, critical natural capital (non-substitutability) and limits to market valuation and exchange. Contemporary entrepreneurial definitions, however, as well as recent SE framings, pre-suppose that functioning markets will achieve sustainable development. As discussed in this paper, because natural processes are non-linear and critical, and as thresholds are impossible to anticipate, markets are unreliable and principally at odds with the objectives of sustainable development. Our proposed alternative constitutes a way forward.

Contemporary agricultural practices account for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions. Inspired by the emergent literature on institutional entrepreneurship, we seek to explore mechanisms that affect an actor's propensity to act in ways that imply suggesting and promoting emissionreducing practice changes. As influences with origin external to the organizational field are assumed to constitute such mechanisms, the paper explores their role through a case study of a project run by a public agency. Unlike extant theory, results show that the agency's propensity to act is not necessarily enhanced by extra-field influences but that such influences also limit the scope for suggesting change that challenge existing industrial practices.

This book is written after three decades of global policy and discourse on sustainable development (SD). Regrettably, these decades did not meet the iconic Brundtland report's call to display 'environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond' (WCED, 1987: Chairman's foreword). Instead, humanity's combined efforts have made an already strained Earth even hotter and fuller.Not only has the atmospheric level of the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, risen sharply due to human activities, but even its growth rate has been increasing (NOAA, 2018). The level is now the highest in at least 800,000 years (Scripps, 2018;Tripati, Roberts, and Eagle, 2009), and it is approximately 50% above the pre-industrial average of the Holocene (Steffen et al., 2011). As a response to these anthropogenic emissions, the Paris agreement recognized 'that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet' (UNFCCC 2015, p. 1), using 'urgent' or 'urgency' five times in its first section.Even this relatively successful attempt to approach climate change is, however, very inadequate. It was built on voluntary commitments, so called nationally determined contributions. These not yet proven promises were admitted to stay far below the real reductions needed in order to keep estimated increases of global average temperature at a level where planetary changes and risks, by much less certain estimates, were expected to be manageable (less than 2 • C above pre-industrial levels). Leading climate researchers therefore point at 'political short-termism'; they declare that 'alarming inconsistencies remain between science-based targets and national commitments', and they propose rapid scaling up of CO2 removal by technical means, so called carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Rockström, Gaffney, Rogelj, Meinshausen, Nakicenovic, and Schellnhuber, 2017, p. 1269).Concerning the second term in the book sub-title's description of the state the Earth is in, we follow Daly's (2005) use of 'full' to signify the global expansion and dominance of humans and human activities, which on a steady rise clearly crowd out other species and make spaces unaffected by human activities rare (Gallagher and Carpenter, 1997). From an anthropocentric perspective, this is often addressed as a problem of biodiversity loss, which has undesired consequences on human societies, e.g. in terms of lost pollination, decreased possibilities to produce medicine, and loss of recreational values (Cardinale et al., 2012). Caused by humans via habitat loss and climate change, another description is one of the emerging sixth mass extinction of