This article explores the shift towards environmentally sustainable innovation from a dynamic capabilities perspective, identifying key capabilities influencing sustainable enterprise development. Employing a multiple case study design, the study explores four sustainable enterprises. The findings reveal sensing capabilities driven by knowledge acquisition, an environmentally conscious mindset and market assessment. Seizing capabilities involve co-innovation, knowledge combination and network establishment. Reconfiguring capabilities encompass workforce and supply-chain restructuring. The research emphasizes the importance of dynamic capabilities in sustainable enterprise strategy, offering insights for practitioners and researchers. It underscores the significance of a holistic approach to value creation and continuous adaptation in sustainability. The study, focusing on micro-foundations in an emerging economy, provides unique insights into the dynamics of sustainable firms, contributing to a deeper understanding of their strategic foundations.
BakerT., & NelsonR. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
2.
BaldoM. D. (2014). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Next stage of responsible business. In WeidingerChristina, FischlerFranz, & PeterRené Schmid (Eds.), CSR, sustainability, ethics and governance (pp. 135–153). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-38753-1_10
3.
BalsL., & TateW. L. (2018). What hybrid business models can teach sustainable supply chain management: The role of entrepreneurs’ social identity and social capabilities. In BrandenburgM., HahnG., & RebsT. (Eds.), Greening of industry networks studies (Vol. 5). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-59587-0_15
4.
BarneyJ. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–121.
5.
BelzF. M., & BinderJ. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1–17. 10.1002/bse.1887
6.
BockenN. M. P., & GeradtsT. H. J. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4). 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950
7.
DaviesI. A., & DohertyB. (2019). Balancing a hybrid business model: The search for equilibrium at Cafédirect. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4). 10.1007/s10551-018-3960-9
8.
DixonS., MeyerK., & DayM. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities of adaptation and innovation: A study of micro-foundations in a transition economy. Long Range Planning, 47(4). 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.011
9.
DuboisA., & GaddeL. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
10.
DuboisA., & GaddeL. E. (2014). ‘Systematic combining’-A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277–1284. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.036
11.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.
12.
EisenhardtK. M., FurrN. R., & BinghamC. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273. 10.1287/orsc.1100.0564
13.
EisenhardtK. M., & GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
14.
FelinT., & FossN. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167. 10.1016/j.scaman.2009.02.003
15.
FelinT., & PowellT. C. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 78–96. 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.78
16.
GioiaD. A., CorleyK. G., & HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. 10.1177/1094428112452151
17.
KnoppenD., & KnightL. (2022). Pursuing sustainability advantage: The dynamic capabilities of born sustainable firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1789–1813. 10.1002/bse.2984
18.
Lüdeke-FreundF. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: Integrative framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 665–681. 10.1002/bse.2396
19.
MarkardJ., RavenR., & TrufferB. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6). 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
20.
MousaviS., BossinkB., & van VlietM. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and organizational routines for managing innovation towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 224–239. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.215
21.
MuñozP., & CohenB. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300–322. 10.1002/bse.2000
22.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
23.
RosárioT. A., & FigueiredoJ. (2023). Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility: Systematic bibliometric literature review. www.preprints.org
24.
SchalteggerS., & WagnerM. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. 10.1002/bse.682
25.
TarbaS. Y., JansenJ. J. P., MomT. J. M., RaischS., & LawtonT. C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6). 10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102048
26.
TasavoriM., GhauriP. N., & ZaefarianR. (2016). Entering the base of the pyramid market in India: A corporate social entrepreneurship perspective. International Marketing Review, 33(4). 10.1108/IMR-03-2014-0085
27.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations, of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. 10.1002/smj.640
28.
TeeceD. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1). 10.1057/jibs.2013.54
Terán-YépezE., Marín-CarrilloG. M., Casado-BelmonteM., delP., & Capobianco-UriarteM.de lasM. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution and new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119742
31.
TimmermansS., & TavoryI. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. 10.1177/0735275112457914
32.
ValackienėA., & MicevičienėD. (2015). Promoting socially responsible business at enterprise level: Theoretical approach. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(3), 558–570. 10.3846/16111699.2012.745814
33.
VézinaM., SelmaM. B., & MaloM. C. (2019). Exploring the social innovation process in a large market-based social enterprise: A dynamic capabilities approach. Management Decision, 57(6), 1399–1414. 10.1108/MD-01-2017-0090
34.
WangY., CheneyG., & RoperJ. (2016). Virtue ethics and the practice–institution schema: An ethical case of excellent business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 67–77. 10.1007/s10551-015-2579-3
35.
YinR. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(3). 10.1177/109821409401500309
36.
YinR. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3). 10.1177/1356389013497081
