Entrepreneurship Innovation

Background and Importance

Entrepreneurship can be defined as “the pursuit of opportunity beyond the resources you currently control” (Stevenson 2000:1). According to González-Cruz and Devece (2018), the entrepreneurial mindset is the cornerstone of the process of value creation, regardless of whether this value creation occurs in the economic, social or environmental domains. Bearing this in mind, pandemics can impact on the economic and social domains, whilst climate change can influence the environmental domain of the entrepreneurial mindset.

Furthermore, it is worth taking into account the Bacigalupo et al.’s (2016) EntreComp theoretical framework, which identifies three main competency areas that constitute the entrepreneurial mindset.

Entrepreneurial action is increasingly seen in the context of sustainability, namely as a promising way to conserve ecosystems, counteract climate change, reduce environmental degradation and maintain biodiversity (Lans et al., 2018; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Therefore, the impact of the current global pandemic on entrepreneurial innovation must be explored further to establish how approaches relating to the main competency areas have shifted or have been disrupted.

There are three approaches to literature on innovation studies related to the production of technical advances. First, the National Innovation System or National Innovation Systems (NIS) approach was created by Freeman (1987) to describe innovation practices within a network of public and private sector organizations. The research undertaken by Freeman (1987) then provided the theoretical basis for innovation systems literature by other seminal authors such as Lundvall (1992), Nelson (1993) and Edquist (1997). Thereafter, the second NIS approach evolved from their current literature, and took into account the need for emerging countries and economies to absorb and adapt technology from more industrialized countries and economies (Lall & Pietrobelli, 2002).

Finally, the third approach aims to extend NIS viewpoints by taking into account development and underdevelopment problems. This approach aims to bridge the divide that could arise between the complexities of the innovation environment and economic growth by focusing on the determinants of innovative, learning and capacity building practices in the development process (Lundvall, Johnson, Andersen & Dalum, 2002). According to Godin (2009), the two drawbacks of the NIS methodology are that it has very little practical value as well as a lack of substance; and current qualitative and quantitative metrics were not sufficient methods for evaluating the definition. In comparison, Godin (2009) suggests that the NIS paradigm puts so much focus on national structures and economic development, but does not offer any insight into the dissemination of information itself. In order to address these limits, Castellacci and Natera (2015) have established six dimensions of the NIS, spanning the techno-economic and socio-institutional domains.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems related to the dimensions of NIS are still changing due in part to the global pandemic of COVID-19, and Autio et al. (2014) indicates that creative mechanisms initiated by active entrepreneurship are forcing improvements in local environments and societies to generate fiscal, social and environmental impacts. It has been found that the actions of entrepreneurs lead to the development of an environment that promotes much more entrepreneurship and even creates a positive feedback loop (Kenney & Florida, 2000). Furthermore, Elkington (1994) conceived the concept of “The Triple Bottom Line” balancing the company’s social, environmental and economic impact. This construct indicates that corporations need to have socially and environmental responsible behaviour that can be positively balanced with its economic goals. In light of this, the next few sections will present the impact of entrepreneurial innovation on these three domains.