The specificities of the TBL in entrepreneurship and for startups

The idea that entrepreneurs – and consequently startups – have a great innovation and economic potential can be traced back to – at least – Schumpeter (Reference Schumpeter1934). However, their ability to tackle environmental and social challenges has been less obvious. Entrepreneurs’ capacity to create value, economic development, and job opportunities are commonly acknowledged (Audretsch & Thurik, Reference Audretsch and Thurik2001). However, doubts emeged with respect to entrepreneurship's ability to have a meaningful impact on sustainable issues (Hall & Vredenburg, Reference Hall and Vredenburg2003). Still, evidence shows that not all entrepreneurs are profit-driven; some of them simultaneously pursue economic, environmental, and social goals (Acs, Reference Acs2006; Zollo, Cennamo, & Neumann, Reference Zollo, Cennamo and Neumann2013). Previous research indeed emphasizes that ‘entrepreneurship should be seen as an important channel for sustainable products and services’ (Ferreira, Fernandes, Veiga, & Caputoo, Reference Ferreira, Fernandes, Veiga and Caputo2022: 8), thus the emergence of the field.

Consequently, the question of the ability of entrepreneurship to contribute to sustainable development has been investigated in the literature, which identifies different types of entrepreneurship depending on their objectives. ‘Traditional entrepreneurship’ (Santos, Reference Santos2012), or ‘commercial entrepreneurship’ (Smith, Bell, & Watts, Reference Smith, Bell and Watts2014), follows a single bottom line, that is, pursues economic objectives only. ‘Environmental entrepreneurship’ (Bennett, Reference Bennett1991), or ‘ecopreneurship’ (Schaltegger, Reference Schaltegger2002), aims a double bottom line (DBL), that is, targets economic and environmental objectives. ‘Social entrepreneurship’ (Saebi, Foss, & Linder, Reference Saebi, Foss and Linder2019; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulmand, Reference Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum and Shulmand2009), also follows a DBL, but this time pursuing economic and social objectives. ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship’ (Dean & McMullen, Reference Dean and McMullen2007; Schaltegger & Wagner, Reference Schaltegger and Wagner2011) targets a TBL.

The literature has clearly established differences between these different forms of entrepreneurship (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, Reference Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern2006; Belz & Binder, Reference Belz and Binder2017; Zahra et al., Reference Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum and Shulmand2009). For example, a healthtech startup can be considered as traditional entrepreneurship if it only takes into account economic objectives. It can be social entrepreneurship if it explicitly aims to address patients’ needs (and may be in a position when it has to balance this social objective against economic goals). Finally, it can be sustainable if its objectives also integrate environmental goals. Some academics (Belz & Binder, Reference Belz and Binder2017; Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019; Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund, & Hansen, Reference Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund and Hansen2016) investigated how integrating the TBL affects the entrepreneurial process, highlighting the differences with the regular entrepreneurial process (George, Parida, Lahti, & Wincent, Reference George, Parida, Lahti and Wincent2016; Gregori, Wdowiak, Schwarz, & Holzmann, Reference Gregori, Wdowiak, Schwarz and Holzmann2019). Some considered that the sustainable entrepreneurship process starts with the DBL, to reach the TBL during the solution development (Belz & Binder, Reference Belz and Binder2017), while others observed that some entrepreneurs manage to address the TBL since idea generation (Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019).

Matzembacher et al. (Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019) were the first to integrate impact assessment into the sustainable entrepreneurial process, considering that this step is what distinguishes the sustainable entrepreneurial process from the regular entrepreneurial process. Nonetheless, further research is needed as authors admited mixed results due to their heterogeneous sample. They found out that non-for-profit and for-profit organizations have different dynamics, and incubated startups and non-incubated startups follow different patterns as well. The authors stated that ‘The process of the sustainable entrepreneurship ends when it produces the effective positive economic, environmental, and social impact on society’ (Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019: 22) but did not provide evidence on what is produced, at different steps of the process, to assess such impact.

SIA for startups

SIA can be defined as ‘any process aiming to achieve sustainability goals and to make sustainability issues tangible and understandable based on a decision-guiding approach that helps to identify, structure and evaluate the sustainability impact of past, current and/or planned actions’ (Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021: 3). This concept is the result of an increasing proximity between the literature on sustainability assessment and impact assessment (Waas, Hugé, Block, Wright, Benitez-Capistros, & Verbruggen, Reference Waas, Hugé, Block, Wright, Benitez-Capistros and Verbruggen2014). While some consider sustainability assessment as an umbrella notion that included impact assessment (Hacking & Guthrie, Reference Hacking and Guthrie2008), others argue that sustainability assessment is a new form of impact assessment, a process of interpreting sustainability challenges, integrating these issues into decision-making by assessing sustainability impact, and fostering sustainability objectives (Waas et al., Reference Waas, Hugé, Block, Wright, Benitez-Capistros and Verbruggen2014). Impact assessment is described as ‘the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action’ (International Association for Impact Assessment, 2020), and academics emphasize that it relies on the integration of the TBL (Visser, Matten, Phi, & Tolhurst, Reference Visser, Matten, Pohl and Tolhurst2009). While acknowledging the proximity of the two concepts, we will use the term SIA for the purpose of this research, consistently with previous papers focusing on startups (Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021).

SIA concerns the business model (Pizzi, Corbo, & Caputo, Reference Pizzi, Corbo and Caputo2021), and is also related to sustainability reporting or Corporate Social Responsibility-reporting (Fernandez-Feijoo, Romero, & Ruiz, Reference Fernandez-Feijoo, Romero and Ruiz2014). Bengo, Arena, Azzone and Calderini (Reference Bengo, Arena, Azzone and Calderini2015) reviewed different methodologies used by academics and practitioners to create nonfinancial reporting and highlighted the proliferation of different approaches. Some efforts have been made to guide firms on how to create their sustainability report. In 2006, the United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative jointly provided a framework of processes and indicators to assess companies’ sustainability. The ISO 26.000, launched in 2010, also provided guidelines for firms to define their social responsibility. SIA researchers take into account such tools and techniques that are used for sustainability reporting, but some consider that ‘they play a less significant role’ (Bond, Morrison-Saunders, & Pope, Reference Bond, Morrison-Saunders and Pope2012: 55) than their use in the decision-making process.

However, the literature informs us that most entrepreneurs do not implement such methodologies to assess their contribution to their targeted objectives (Hąbek, Reference Hąbek2014). Some even argue that startups are less likely to address many sustainability goals (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, Reference Hockerts and Wüstenhagen2010), considering the challenges they already face at an early stage (Picken, Reference Picken2017). Despite the fact that they generally do not provide proof of their contribution (Hąbek, Reference Hąbek2014), startups are often promoted for their new environmental and social innovations (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, Reference Hockerts and Wüstenhagen2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, Reference Schaltegger and Wagner2011) and supported by public policies (Adler, Reference Adler2011; Bergmann & Utikal, Reference Bergmann and Utikal2021). In that context, the dearth of knowledge on SIA for new ventures (Fichter et al., Reference Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, Schaltegger and Schillebeeckx2023) appears problematic. So far, the few papers on the topic emphasizes that SIA is particularly challenging in the first years of a startup considering the uncertainty it deals with (Hornes, Reference Hornes2019). Entrepreneurs’ intention is key in that context (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022), and they should measure their contribution according to their stakeholders (Stojanović et al., Reference Stojanović, Mihajlović and Safronova2021). Hence, each SIA should be unique and can be considered as a social construction relying on various stakeholders (Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019).

The fact that ‘no previous study has addressed the gap created by the dearth of SIA studies focusing on entrepreneurial ventures’ (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022: 2) is critical for two additional reasons. First, for stakeholders (Freeman, Reference Freeman1984; Voinea et al., Reference Voinea, Logger, Rauf and Roijakkers2019), it is useful to clarify how SIA can be measured to better assess the startups’ sustainability contribution (Hornes, Reference Hornes2019). Moreover, the triple objective of sustainable entrepreneurship corresponds to different stakeholders, and there are complexities in measuring it according to each stakeholder goal (Costa & Pesci, Reference Costa and Pesci2016). Second, for startups, which have to cope with the very many different methodologies (Bengo et al., Reference Bengo, Arena, Azzone and Calderini2015) used by stakeholders (Hassan & Marimuthu, Reference Hassan and Marimuthu2018). In particular, investors (Arjaliès, Laurel-Fois, & Mottis, Reference Arjaliès, Laurel and Mottis2022; Bocken, Reference Bocken2015) recently developed various different tools dedicated to startups. This lack of a common framework confuses entrepreneurs, and it takes them a lot of their – scarce – resources to find the most suitable framework (Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021).

To conclude, SIA is an emerging field that has only started to investigate the case of sustainable startups. Recent contributions have either developed more suited frameworks (Hornes, Reference Hornes2019) or emphasized startups' difficulties while providing SIA (Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021), but none have empirically investigated how, in practice, sustainable startups assess their contribution to sustainability, during their entrepreneurial process.

Design and sample

To investigate how sustainable startups integrate SIA in their sustainable entrepreneurial process, we conducted an exploratory qualitative research. This design is suited considering the phenomenon investigated and the question raised. First, such an approach is appropriate when the ‘focus of the study is contemporary (as opposed to an entirely historical) phenomenon’ (Yin, Reference Yin2018: 4) that unfolds over time (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, Reference Alvord, Brown and Letts2004). In addition, Yin (Reference Yin2018) argues that these types of studies favor comprehension of a complex and underexplored phenomenon (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022; Fichter et al., Reference Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, Schaltegger and Schillebeeckx2023). Previous authors have indeed emphasized that ‘sustainable entrepreneurship research is still in its infancy’ (Gast, Gundolf, & Cesinger, Reference Gast, Gundolf and Cesinger2017: 52), and academics are only starting to investigate their SIA practices (Fichter et al., Reference Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, Schaltegger and Schillebeeckx2023). Second, our research question focuses on actors and their discourse, and is thus suited for comprehensive research (Dumez, Reference Dumez2021). In this approach, researchers seek closeness to actors, which is why it is also considered as ‘engaging research’ (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013: 19): proximity with informants should generate new hypotheses (Yin, Reference Yin2018).

This research was carried out as a part of a long-term research project at a particular French incubator, a setting that has several advantages. First, it enabled access to sustainable startups to conduct a multiple case study (Yin, Reference Yin2018). This methodology favored the comprehension of similarities and discrepancies among practices (Gustafsson, Reference Gustafsson2017) and was thus suited for our research question. This provided the researcher with detailed and longitudinal information and documentation, with the opportunity to observe and interact with startups on a regular basis for a significant duration. The proximity with informants revealed itself critical for our topic, as we discovered that sustainable startups actually do a lot more than what is visible externally, or than what they are willing to share with most of their stakeholders. The researcher observed the sustainable entrepreneurial process ‘as it happened’, rather than through a posteriori reconstitution (Demil & Lecocq, Reference Demil and Lecocq2015). Last, previous research has concluded to mixed results due to sample heterogeneity (see Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019), and our setting provided comparable startups. The focus on incubated startups is consistent with the fact that in France, even if there are exceptions, it is more common for a startup to join an incubator, according to Bpifrance's website. We choose startups from the same incubator because if startups from different incubators had been considered, there would always have been a doubt that differences observed across startups in the entrepreneurial process or in the SIA were related at least to some extent to the differences between the incubators themselves (training, programs, selection, etc.). Therefore, we argue the ‘revelatory potential’ (Gioia et al., Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013: 15) of our research design.

First, we analyzed startups’ applications to the incubator to determine whether they could be labeled ‘sustainable startups’. We considered ‘startup’ companies that are (i) young – created less than 5 years, and (ii) innovative – with at least one person in the team in charge of research and development. Consistently with Blez and Binder’s (Reference Belz and Binder2017) perspective, we considered ‘sustainable’ startups mentioning at least a DBL, that is arguing economic, and social or environmental benefits. To assess that, we looked at startups’ applications to the incubator. We contacted startups’ founders meeting these criteria, and eight of them agreed to participate in our longitudinal research. This number appeared consistent with Yin’s (Reference Yin2018) recommendation to have between 2 and 10 cases for this kind of study. This sample size also enhances the validity and reliability of the study (Crouch & McKenzie, Reference Crouch and McKenzie2006). Table 1 provides summarized information on the cases.

Table 1. Brief description of cases used for the multiple case study

Data collection

Our immersive setting is consistent with an ethnographic approach (Atkinson & Hammersley, Reference Atkinson and Hammersley1994). One author has been included into the incubator’s staff since the beginning of the research in 2020. She was present on-site 4 days a week, thus having privileged access to startups. Following an insider–outsider approach (Gioia et al., Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013), the other author was external to confront the different views, thus strengthening the reliability of our results.

To analyze sustainable startups’ SIA and their sustainable entrepreneurial process, we gather multiple data sources.

First, different types of documents were collected for each of our cases: applications to the incubator (about 7 pages per startup), selection committee reports (about 2 pages), applications to public grants (about 30 pages), and pitch decks for investors (about 10 slides). We also monthly checked their social media, in particular their LinkedIn page (all of the startups in our sample have at least created a LinkedIn page), and their interactions on the incubator’s Slack, restricted to startups incubated (in 2021, 97% of incubated startups counted at least one founder as an ‘active member’ on Slack), alumni, and the incubator staff.

Second, regular informal and formal discussions with informants took place and the researcher took notes spontaneously and systematically each time this happened, and then shared them with the other author (Laszczuk & Garreau, Reference Laszczuk and Garreau2018). They retraced both direct informal interactions with informants (founders, employees, stakeholders, and incubator staff) and various participant observations (Spradley, Reference Spradley1980), in particular thematic events ‘founders only’ organized by the incubator (about 70 per year), weekly meetings with the incubator staff, and monthly startups selection committee.

Third, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with startups’ founders. We chose CEOs because they appeared as the most legitimate to provide information on their startups. Previous research also emphasized the importance of the founders’ vision while considering startups’ challenges (Bridge, Reference Bridge2021). During the interview, entrepreneurs were asked about the topics defined in the interview guide (see Appendix A) and encouraged to speak freely (Yin, Reference Yin2018). Our goal was to identify what they did in terms of SIA and different stages of their development. The interviews were recorded with the participant agreement and lasted from 1 hour and 6 minutes for the shortest to 2 hours and 5 minutes for the longest. These interviews were scheduled in 2021, and in 2022, we conducted additional semi-structured interviews with each founder, which lasted between 35 minutes and 1 hour 02 minutes. The objective was to have a longitudinal approach of the process to confirm some statements made during the first interviews and to observe potential evolution.

Triangulation was guaranteed by the collection of many sources of information. In particular, we presented our results to each Startups’ Manager individually to have their opinion on our findings and check the validity of our findings. Table 2 summarizes the data collected for our multiple case study and their use in the analysis.

Table 2. Data collected

CEO, chief executive officer; SEP, sustainable entrepreneurial process; SIA, sustainability impact assessment.

With respect to our ethical protocol, the incubator allowed us the access to startups, events, and weekly meetings. It was agreed with interviewees that the audios and interviews transcriptions would only be available to authors and destroyed after the research. Authors guaranteed the anonymity of the startup in a rigorous manner as no information provided in any articles should allow identification of the interviewees. We validated with entrepreneurs our anonymization process, and they agreed to the publication of any quote used.

Data analysis

We coded our material altogether and organized by information source. First, the ‘personal’ code was dedicated to any data collected during one-to-one interactions. It mostly concerned interviews and also any other discussion with them noted in the diary. We considered this source of information to be the most reliable with respect to our research question. Second, the ‘confidential’ code was used for any information the entrepreneur shared with close stakeholders and for any comments made by a stakeholder with respect to the case. It concerned in particular the data collected from documents (applications to the incubator and to public grants, pitch deck, and Slack messages) and observations (weekly meetings with the incubator team, founders events, and any information brought by a stakeholder of a case and noted in the diary). Third, the ‘external’ code concerned any public information, mostly published in the startup’s social media.

We encoded our material following Gioia et al.’s (Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013) recommendations. First, we conducted first-order analysis with codes very close to informants’ words (e.g., ‘disgusted by greenwashing’, ‘team’, ‘personal ambition’, ‘talent’, ‘normal choices’, etc.). Then, our objective was to identify similarities and differences, so we created more readable second-order themes consistent with our research question (e.g., ‘sustainability impact assessment tools’, ‘stakeholders implication’, ‘resource allocation’, ‘communication’, ‘legitimacy’, etc.). We then aggregated these themes into four maturity levels: idea generation, prototype, validation, and production and commercialization.

At that point, we used the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship process and decided to look at whether startups started by recognizing a DBL problem, followed a DBL opportunity, constructed a DBL solution, and then developed a TBL solution – consistently with Belz and Binder (Reference Belz and Binder2017), or if some of them managed to start the TBL since idea generation – as Matzembacher et al. (Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019) suggest. Our results align with the later suggestion, as we identified two clear groups, one who sought the TBL since idea generation and another one who integrated the TBL later in their development. Figure 1 presents – in a very simplified way – our data structure.

Figure 1. Summary of the data analysis.

Summary and discussion of main findings

Sustainability practices of companies have retained the attention of some scholars, but a gap remains with respect to SIA for sustainable startups (Fichter et al., Reference Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, Schaltegger and Schillebeeckx2023). Such knowledge is critical not only to guide practitioners, who wish to foster sustainability, but also to better understand the entrepreneurial process, and to draw a line between traditional startups and sustainable startups (Matzembacher et al., Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019). Recent contributions have started to investigate SIA for startups (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022; Hornes, Reference Hornes2019; Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021), but we still know little about how sustainable startups integrate SIA at different levels of maturity.

This paper addresses this gap by exploring a multiple case study of eight sustainable startups with 2 years spent on the field. As we opened the black box of their SIA practices (Álvarez Jaramillo et al., Reference Álvarez Jaramillo, Zartha Sossa and Orozco Mendoza2019), we discovered two distinct approaches. In the end, both can be considered ‘sustainable startups’, as they address the TBL, but thanks to our longitudinal approach, we were able to reveal different paths that can be adopted. On the one hand, some startups targeted the TBL since their beginning. From idea generation to prototype, they made structural choices to guarantee contribution to sustainability objectives, which allowed them to have a rather robust approach of SIA, continually improved in an iterative process. On the other hand, other startups have focused on DBL objectives – economic, and social or environmental – from idea generation to prototype, and their indicators were narrowed to these two objectives. They adopted a TBL later, from prototype to validation, which led them to have a bricolage approach of SIA.

We labeled the first group ‘born-sustainable startups’, inspired by the emerging concept of ‘born-sustainable’ firms. It designates firms ‘which were established with explicit strategic intent to operate in a sustainable manner from the outset. BSFs [born-sustainable firms] seek to contribute directly to regenerating the environment and driving positive societal changes’ (Knoppen & Knight, Reference Knoppen and Knight2022: 1790). It echoes with the wider literature on ‘born-global’ firms and has been, to that point, especially studied in relation to the fashion industry (Dicuonzo, Galeone, Ranaldo, & Turco, Reference Dicuonzo, Galeone, Ranaldo and Turco2022; Ostermann, da Silva Nascimento, Kalil Steinbruch, & Callegaro-de-Menezes, Reference Ostermann, da Silva Nascimento, Kalil Steinbruch and Callegaro-de-Menezes2021; Todeschini, Nogueira Cortimiglia, Callegaro-de-Menezes, & Ghezzi, Reference Todeschini, Nogueira Cortimiglia, Callegaro-de-Menezes and Ghezzi2017). The second group is named ‘transitioned sustainable startups’. This choice is consistent with the ‘transition’ stream of the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship (Terán-Yépez et al., Reference Terán-Yépez, Marín-Carrillo, Del Pilar Casado-belmonte and de Las Mercedes Capobianco-uriarte2020), investigating how firms integrate the TBL in their business development.

We emphasized that the integration of the TBL has an effect on SIA practices. Doing so, we provided an in-depth analysis of sustainable startups' practices and challenges. We questioned how sustainable startups integrate SIA in their entrepreneurial process, and showed that it is the results of different initial motivations and choices made, according to different prioritizations, which have consequences on the SIA produced and also on stakeholders’ management and communication. We showed that SIA is less a static object, but rather a process, in which entrepreneurs choose to put their companies, with different trajectories according to trade-offs made.

Contributions

Our research demonstrates the interdependence between SIA and the entrepreneurial process. The SIA is built during the entrepreneurial process but also results from it. Such results strengthen the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship by providing evidence of how it can pursue the TBL. Our results are therefore consistent with Matzembacher et al. (Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019), and contradict the ‘convergent’ sustainable entrepreneurial process suggested by Belz and Binder (Reference Belz and Binder2017): sustainable startups can start with the TBL since idea generation. Therefore, we argue that sustainable startups can indeed address a broad perspective of sustainability, even though it requires additional efforts, whereas previous research mostly emphasized their narrowed perspective (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, Reference Hockerts and Wüstenhagen2010).

Our paper also answered a call for more investigation of SIA for startups (Fichter et al., Reference Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, Schaltegger and Schillebeeckx2023). Not much is currently known in that field, but some academics have already offered a literature review (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022), investigated the challenge it represents for startups (Trautwein, Reference Trautwein2021), and offered a suited framework (Hornes, Reference Hornes2019). Consistently with these findings, we observed entrepreneurs’ difficulties, considering their lack of knowledge, their scarce resources, and the uncertainty they deal with. SIA starts for these startups with the investigation of their impact on their employees and with their governance. This result is consistent with many studies connecting Environmental, Social and Governance criteria with sustainable development (e.g., Theodoraki, Dana, & Caputo, Reference Theodoraki, Dana and Caputo2022). We emphasized the exploration conducted by sustainable startups to establish their contribution to sustainability, and insisted on the iterative process of SIA, which goes further than just tools and techniques (Bond et al., Reference Bond, Morrison-Saunders and Pope2012).

SIA is often considered useful to manage stakeholders’ different expectations with respect to the TBL, and to better communicate with them (Costa & Pesci, Reference Costa and Pesci2016). Our investigation on the field showed that sustainable entrepreneurs often do more in terms of SIA then what is visible to the outside, and even to their stakeholders. In the literature, SIA is often portrayed as the result of a collaboration among stakeholders (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022; Hornes, Reference Hornes2019). While it was the case for those who chose their stakeholders according to the TBL, we observed that SIA can be done, in some cases, without key stakeholders, as entrepreneurs fear they might not align with this new ambition. Entrepreneurs also meticulously prepared every communication related to sustainability, as they feared more than all being accused of green- or social-washing (Delmas & Burbano, Reference Delmas and Burbano2011; Rizzi et al., Reference Rizzi, Gusmerotti and Frey2020). In that context, SIA appears as an interesting ‘non-human actor’ (Akrich, Callon, & Latour, Reference Akrich, Callon and Latour2006), that takes various forms, and is shared cautiously with the sustainable startup network.

Limitations and further research

We acknowledge several limitations to our research that call for further investigations. Exploratory studies are difficult to extend to a broader population. Our material investigated incubated, innovative, and nascent startups aiming for the TBL. As Matzembacher et al. (Reference Matzembacher, Raudsaar, de Barcellos and Mets2019) found out different results for incubated startups, further research could compare our results with non-incubated startups. We only observed startups in the same ecosystem - the Parisian context in the 2020s. Previous research insisted on the importance of the context on entrepreneurial organizational behavior (Caputo & Ayoko, Reference Caputo and Ayoko2021), and in particular of the geographic context on social startups (Corner & Kearins, Reference Corner and Kearins2018). Therefore, a comparative analysis of different countries might reveal discrepancies. Further research could also investigate the discrepancies among the two groups as startups grow, for example, in terms of financial performance (Bartolacci, Caputo, & Soverchia, Reference Bartolacci, Caputo and Soverchia2020).

We also found additional results, not directly related to our research question, that emerged more inductively and echoes previous literature. Born-sustainable startups seem to have more talent attraction when compared to transitioned sustainable startups (Nangoy, Mursitama, Setiadi, & Pradipto, Reference Nangoy, Mursitama, Setiadi and Pradipto2020), but more difficulties raising funds (De Lange, Reference De Lange2017). Further research could provide more evidence of this first insight, and also dig into the stakeholders’ misalignment described by transitioned sustainable startups from our sample. Moreover, the two categories could also be further investigated in the light of the motivation literature (Voinea et al., Reference Voinea, Logger, Rauf and Roijakkers2019). Last, some nascent sustainable startups employed a dedicated person for SIA. This appears rather new for such small companies, and this new kind of ‘joiner’ (Roach & Sauermann, Reference Roach and Sauermann2015) could retain academic attention to better understand the collective journey of entrepreneurship (Mustar, Reference Mustar2021).

Practical implications and recommendations

Our study has practical implications for startups in particular, and for stakeholders aiming to help them with respect to SIA. From the field, we were able to see that the first question entrepreneurs ask themselves is: ‘Where to start’. When entrepreneurs’ ‘intention’ (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022) to address sustainability is expressed, a long path remains with respect to the appropriate steps. We observed that defining values is key, as the first choices made often concerns internal and governmental aspects. Entrepreneurs should then dedicate time to understand SIA's requirements, and they can learn from our study in that regard. Last, the uncertainty they deal with creates a frustration due to a fear of green- or social-washing. We rather argue that they should considerate SIA as an iterative process, continually improved as the uncertainty reduces and their experience increases. We also consider that green- and social-washing can easily be avoided, to the extent that first attempts of SIA do not need to be communicated.

Last, we answered a call for research for ‘a more profound analysis of the sustainable entrepreneurial dynamics at play during the pre-seed and seed stages of an entrepreneurial venture’s life cycle would provide a more accurate picture of the policies that should be employed to promote sustainable development projects’ (Di Vaio et al., Reference Di Vaio, Hassan, Chhabra and Arrigo2022: 15). Public policies could play a significant role in guiding startups with respect to SIA. Governments could support sustainable entrepreneurship with an external perspective and expertise that founders usually do not have (Johnson, Reference Johnson2015), thus reducing the heterogeneity of practices (Brammer et al., Reference Brammer, Hoejmose and Marchant2012). Finally, sustainable startups’ stakeholders and founders themselves can better understand what can be expected from a sustainable startup in terms of SIA, at different stages of maturity, and according to which path the entrepreneur wants to follow.