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.
AshforthB. E.ReingenP. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 474-516.
2.
BansalP. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16, 122-131.
3.
BansalP. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.
4.
BarleyS. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31, 777-805.
5.
BartunekJ. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In QuinnR.CameronK. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 137-162). New York, NY: Ballinger.
6.
BengtssonM.Raza-UllahT. (2017). Paradox at an inter-firm level: A coopetition lens. In LewisM. W.SmithW. K.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions (pp. 296-314). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
7.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364-381.
8.
BinelliM. (2013). Detroit city is the place to be: The afterlife of an American metropolis. New York, NY: Macmillan.
CohenB.WinnM. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 29-49.
13.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
14.
Detroit Food & Fitness Collaborative. (2015). Economic analysis of Detroit’s food system. Detroit, MI: Author.
15.
EcclesR. G.PerkinsK. M.SerafeimG. (2012). How to become a sustainable company. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 43-50.
16.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32.
17.
ElkingtonJ. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51.
18.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2017). Harvesting opportunity: The power of Regional Food System investments to transform communities. St. Louis, MO: Author.
20.
FiolC. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13, 653-666.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15-31.
24.
HahnT.FiggeF.PinkseJ.PreussL. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 235-248.
25.
HahnT.PinkseJ. (2014). Private environmental governance through cross-sector partnerships: Tensions between competition and effectiveness. Organization & Environment, 27, 140-160.
26.
HahnT.PinkseJ.PreussL.FiggeF. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297-316.
27.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, 463-487.
28.
HallJ. K.DanekeG. A.LenoxM. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 439-448.
29.
HeinzeK. L.SoderstromS.HeinzeJ. E. (2016). Translating institutional change to local communities: The role of linking organizations. Organization Studies, 37, 1141-1169.
30.
HiattS. R.SineW. D.TolbertP. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 635-667.
31.
HuyQ. U. Y. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review, 26, 601-623.
32.
JablonskiB. B.SchmitT. M.KayD. (2016). Assessing the economic impact of food hubs on regional economies: A framework that includes opportunity cost. Agricultural Resource and Economics Review, 45, 143-172.
33.
JarzabkowskiP.LêJ. K.Van de VenA. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11,245-280.
34.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137-159.
35.
JayJ.SoderstromS.GrantG. (2017). Navigating the paradoxes of sustainability. In LewisM. W.SmithW. K.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions (pp. 353-372). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36.
KirkJ.MillerM. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
LeeB. H. (2009). The infrastructure of collective action and policy content diffusion in the organic food industry. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1247-1269.
38.
Leonard-BartonD. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Suppl. 1), 111-125.
39.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221-240.
40.
MarquisC.GlynnM. A.DavisG. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32, 925-945.
41.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
NewtonT. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor-network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27, 523-540.
43.
Ortiz-de-MandojanaN.BansalP. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1615-1631.
44.
PageS. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
PattonM. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York, NY: John Wiley.
46.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organizational theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.
47.
RiveraM. T.SoderstromS. B.UzziB. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91-115.
48.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 5-64.
49.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG.SeidlD. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 259-284.
50.
SharmaS. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
51.
SiggelkowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20-24.
52.
SineW. D.LeeB. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US Wind Energy Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 123-155.
53.
SlawinskiN.BansalP. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 531-549.
54.
SlawinskiN.BansalP. (2017). The paradoxes of time in organizations. In LewisM. W.SmithW. K.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions and contradictions (pp. 373-392). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
55.
SmithK. K.BergD. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2017). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 1-44.
57.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381-403.
58.
SmithW. K.TushmanM. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522-536.
59.
SoderstromS. B.WeberK. (2020). Organizational structure from interaction: Evidence from corporate sustainability efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65, 226-271. doi:10.1177/0001839219836670
60.
SpillmanL. (2012). Solidarity in strategy: Making business meaningful in American trade associations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61.
StadtlerL. (2018). Tightrope walking: Navigating competition in multi-company cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 329-345.
62.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63.
SugrueT. J. (2014). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
TraceyP.PhillipsN.JarvisO. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60-80.
65.
TracyS. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Van der BylC. A.SlawinskiN. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28, 54-79.
68.
VandermeerJ.AgaA.AllgeierJ. E.BadgleyC.BaucomR.BleshJ.. . . WilsonM. L. (2018, July23). Feeding Prometheus: An interdisciplinary approach for solving the global food crisis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00039/full
69.
WalkerE. T.ReaC. M. (2014). The political mobilization of firms and industries. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 281-304.
70.
YinR. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
71.
YorkJ. G.VenkataramanS. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 449-463.
72.
ZottC.HuyQ. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 70-105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
