From Paradoxical Thinking to Practicing Sustainable Business: The Role of a Business Collective Organization in Supporting Entrepreneurs

Abstract

Individual entrepreneurs committed to sustainability experience paradoxes: interdependencies and conflict between social, environmental, and economic goals. Whereas prior research focuses on direct responses to paradoxes, we examine multi-level dynamics between organizations and individuals in responding to sustainability paradoxes. Using a 20-month qualitative field study of sustainable food entrepreneurs in Detroit, we investigated how a business collective organization, FoodLab, enabled entrepreneurs to move from paradoxical thinking to practicing sustainable business. Our findings suggest that while individuals may struggle to address multiple goals of sustainability alone, business collective organizations provide a coordinating mechanism that amplifies their efforts. Through guardrails that facilitate the co-creation of shared resources for members, organizations can minimize cognitive and practical barriers of sustainable entrepreneurship.

Corporate Sustainability Paradox Management: A Systematic Review and Future Agenda

“…In general, organizational paradox research has recognized the importance of environmental factors in providing the material conditions that lead to perplexing choices (Scherer et al, 2013). In the context of accelerated globalization (Slawinski et al, 2020), marketization and professionalization (Bruneel et al, 2020), environmental degradation (Daddi et al, 2019), and public health concerns (Iivonen, 2018), plurality, change, and scarcity emerging from complex environments enable sustainability paradoxes to occur, owing to competing economic, social, and environment goals (Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020). Specifically, plurality has been manifested in the pursuit of the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997), multiple institutional logics (Dahlmann and Grosvold, 2017), and multiple stakeholder demands (Smith et al, 2013).…”

“…Specifically, plurality has been manifested in the pursuit of the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997), multiple institutional logics (Dahlmann and Grosvold, 2017), and multiple stakeholder demands (Smith et al, 2013). Any excessive concern about any goal may be detrimental to sustainability outcomes (Jay et al, 2017;Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020); thus, tensions appear. These kinds of tensions would directly reflect on firms' mission statements that combine economic pursuits and social or environmental visions.…”

“…Third, some researchers regard paradoxical thinking itself as a valid approach to handle tensions, but the guardrails-leadership expertise, formal structures, stakeholder relationships-are still needed to keep the practice on track (Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020).…”

“…For example, sustainability efforts (Calic and Mosakowski, 2016) and paradoxical thinking (Scherer et al, 2013) could enhance and maintain the legitimacy gained from collective awareness and value (Dart, 2004). Moreover, organizations could obtain other instant benefits, such as corporate credibility (Schneider and Clauß, 2020), greater market engagement (Kannothra et al, 2018;Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020), and competitiveness (Fosfuri et al, 2016) by positively reacting to sustainability paradoxes, which would contribute to long-term value creation.…”

“…Among the issued articles, Hahn et al (2018) are the first to develop a three-aspect framework, namely, descriptive, instrumental, and normative, and locate the six articles in the symposium within different aspects. Thereafter, the paradox perspective gained increasing recognition and sparked intensive research work among corporate sustainability scholars (e.g., Smith and Besharov, 2019;Hengst et al, 2020;Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020). However, as a disciplinary approach, this perspective is still in its infancy in the corporate sustainability area.…”