See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228263802

Opportunists, Champions, Mavericks . . .? A Typology of Green Entrepreneurs

Article  in  Greener Management International · June 2002

DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2002.su.00005

CITATIONS READS

99 1,909

2 authors:

Liz E. E. Walley David W. Taylor

Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester Metropolitan University
7 PUBLICATIONS   162 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   469 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Values Sytems of Student Start-Ups View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David W. Taylor on 16 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 31

Opportunists,
Champions, Mavericks . . . ?
A Typology of Green Entrepreneurs

E.E. (Liz) Walley and D.W. (David) Taylor

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK

Given the importance of green entrepreneurs in the transition towards a sustainable

society, the authors propose a framework for investigating the influences on, and
motives of, green entrepreneurs. The literature on entrepreneurs generally, and
approaches to classifying entrepreneurs, are reviewed with the aim of gaining useful
insights for the green context. The scope for investigation encompasses all possible
forms of green business, including not only those founded on the principle of sustain-
ability but also those that are opportunistically or accidentally green. Assessing both
the research on typologies of entrepreneurs generally and recent perspectives on
green entrepreneurs in particular, the authors propose that green entrepreneurs are ● Entrepreneur
best characterised by a combination of internal motivations and external (hard and ● Environment
soft) structural influences. The resulting typology presented in this paper produces ● Green
four ‘ideal types’ of green entrepreneurs: innovative opportunists, visionary cham- ● Sustainability
pions, ethical mavericks and ad hoc enviropreneurs. Their characteristics are ● Start-ups
explored and examples provided. Recommendations are made on how the typology ● UK
can contribute to further research into ways to foster green entrepreneurship and the ● Enviropreneur
change agent role that green entrepreneurs play in the two-way iterative relationship ● Champions
between firms and society. ● Ecopreneur

Liz Walley joined the Department of Business Studies at Manchester

Metropolitan University (MMU) ten years ago and teaches environmental
u Sustainable Enterprise Research
Group, Manchester Metropolitan
management and business environment. Prior to MMU, her work experience University Business School, Aytoun
was in consultancy, banking and industry. Liz’s current research areas are Building, Aytoun Street, Manchester
environmental champions and green entrepreneurs.
M1 3GH, UK

! l.walley@mmu.ac.uk

< www.business.mmu.ac.uk/staff/
lwalley.htm

David Taylor is based within the Strategy and Entrepreneurship Group in

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School. He teaches and
u Centre for Enterprise, Manchester
Metropolitan University Business
researches in the areas of enterprise and small business and has published School, Aytoun Building, Aytoun
and presented papers on transition in Eastern Europe, small-firm networks Street, Manchester M1 3GH, UK
and entrepreneurship. David has over ten years’ work experience in small
businesses in the advertising industry. ! d.w.taylor@mmu.ac.uk

< www.business.mmu.ac.uk/staff/
dtaylor.htm

GMI 38 Summer 2002 © 2002 Greenleaf Publishing http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com 31

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 32

liz walley and david taylor

M
ost of the existing literature on organisational greening, including
that specifically addressed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), focuses on
greening existing businesses (Hillary 2000; Hutchinson and Hutchinson 1997;
Walley and Stubbs 2000). Academic perspectives on corporate environmental strategy
and performance typically theorise stage models of corporate environmental improve-
ment in which companies progress from a resistant or reactive stance to a sustainable,
transcendent state (Roome 1992; Welford 1996), but, clearly, an additional and
significant element of moving towards a sustainable future is the formation of new
green businesses, or green start-ups. Although there is now more attention being paid
to the greening of SMEs (Hillary 2000), there has until recently been surprisingly little
written on green entrepreneurs. In this paper we aim to establish a framework for
investigating the motives of, and influences on, entrepreneurs who set up green
businesses.
The approach taken in this paper is to review current perspectives on the concept of
entrepreneurship and existing approaches to classifying entrepreneurs in order to gain
insights for developing a typology of green entrepreneurs. We also explore different
conceptualisations of ‘green’, ‘greening’, ‘green-green’ and sustainability with a view to
operationalising the concepts for the purposes of the proposed typology. Although
research on green entrepreneurs is surprisingly thin, some recent perspectives on green
entrepreneurs are reviewed. All these perspectives are utilised to identify the most
pertinent defining criteria for the proposed typology from which various types of green
entrepreneurs emerge. Examples are provided of these different types. Finally, we
explore how this typology might contribute to further research on green entrepreneurs.
Implicit in this research is the assumption that green and/or sustainability objectives
are compatible with ‘business as usual’ in the medium term, notwithstanding the
longer-term vision of a (probably radically different) future sustainable society.

Entrepreneurs
Within the entrepreneurship literature there is a great diversity of definitions of what
constitutes an entrepreneur and there is no general agreement of what is and what is
not entrepreneurship (Carter and Jones-Evans 2000). This diversity of (sometimes
contradictory) theories of entrepreneurship is perhaps attributable to their having been
developed in different academic disciplines—namely, economics, sociology and psy-
chology (Blundel and Smith 2001). Very briefly, the origin of the concept is associated
with the economist Joseph Schumpeter (1950) and the process of creative destruction
and innovation leading to step changes in economic development. Then, in the 1960s
and 1970s, much research focused on the link between entrepreneurial behaviour and
psychological traits, such as ‘the need for achievement’ and an individual’s ‘locus of
control’ (McClelland 1961; Kets de Vries 1977). In other words, in this school of thought
entrepreneurship is viewed as a function of personality-determined characteristics.
Finally, in the sociocultural approach it is assumed that entrepreneurship can be traced
to special features of society or culture, such as ethnicity, gender, migration patterns,
occupational background and so on.
Current approaches to understanding the nature of entrepreneurship tend to reject
exclusive trait theory and instead take an integrated sociopsychological approach (Chell
et al. 1991). In other words, these are studies that focus on entrepreneurial behaviour
or activity, incorporating models of the way that people respond to experience. It has
been suggested that the interaction between personality and such factors as past
experience, existing competence and the immediate context have proved to be decisive
(Blundell and Smith 2001).

32 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 33

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

Following the work of social theorist Anthony Giddens (1984), it has been argued that
change (in this case, entrepreneurial and/or greening initiatives) cannot be understood
by focusing exclusively on the actions taken by individuals nor solely in terms of the
organisational structures that surround them (Walley and Stubbs 2000; see also Fig. 1).
Rather, it has been argued that environmental initiatives should be seen in terms of
order emerging from the mutually producing relationship between action and
organisational or social structure. In other words, structure shapes the action of the
entrepreneur, and entrepreneurial action in turn shapes structure. As individuals
interact, aspects of one person’s way of seeing and doing are interpreted and thereby
contribute to the notions of structure held by others.

Structure
▼

Action
▼
Figure 1: giddens’s perspective
Source: Giddens 1984

Structure here is thus more dynamic and much broader than images typically con-
jured up by an organisational structure chart, as entrepreneurs are considered to be
skilled actors who engage continually in reflexively monitoring their interactions with
the world around them. This theory allows for prevailing structures to be either
reinforced or changed through the day-to-day behaviour of individuals. In other words,
individuals may reproduce the status quo or else choose to act entrepreneurially.
Entrepreneurship in the academic literature is generally accepted as extending well
beyond the small business owner-manager sector, with which it is popularly linked. In
other words, there can be entrepreneurial behaviour in large organisations—termed
‘intrapreneurship’—and in many walks of life, not just in business. For example, there
is growing attention being paid to social, civic and artistic entrepreneurs (Leadbeater
1997; Thompson 1998). Entrepreneurship is also generally understood to imply a
growth orientation, and some commentators suggest that initiatives that are not really
different or distinctive—perhaps because they replicate something that exists in broadly
the same format elsewhere—should not be thought of as entrepreneurial (Thompson
1998).
However, the challenge for appreciating ‘greening’ is to follow Giddens’s structure–
action ideas beyond specific fleeting instants in which an individual action might either
reproduce prevailing structures or perform something new. To appreciate the greening
process, one must make the conceptual leap to see how a mutually producing model of
structure–action would extend across time and space to account for widespread social
phenomena: for example, the greening of organisations (Walley and Stubbs 2000) or,
in a wider context, the greening of society in general. So, if we relate this perspective to
the phenomena of green entrepreneurs, these individuals will be influenced by the
evolving economic and social structures around them and, in turn, are influencing those
structures.
It is assumed here that all types of new green businesses are relevant to the greening
of society and therefore the scope for investigation should encompass all those starting
up a green business. The fact that a potential organic food wholesaler or wind-farm

GMI 38 Summer 2002 33

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 34

liz walley and david taylor

operator may be replicating a business concept that exists elsewhere or may wish to stay
small does not mean that that business will not make a valuable contribution to a
sustainable society. So, for the purposes of this research, the word ‘entrepreneur’ refers
to an individual who earns his or her livelihood by exercising some control over a
business activity, intentionally producing more than can be personally consumed in
order to profit from such enterprise (adapted from Dana 1995; McClelland 1961).

Typologies of entrepreneurs
Expressions such as ‘typology’, ‘taxonomy’, ‘frameworks’ and so on are often used
interchangeably, although technically the actual meaning of the concepts differ (Doty
and Glick 1994). The dictionary definition of typology is ‘the classification of objects
according to type’ and taxonomy or taxology refers to the science of classification of living
things (Garmonsway 1984). Kolk and Mauser (2002), drawing on the work of Doty and
Glick (1994), examine the differences in more detail in connection with environmental
management models and draw a clear distinction between classification schemes (or
continuum models) and typologies. In their definition
classification schemes (continuum models) refer to systems that categorise phenomena
into mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets with a series of discrete decision rules . . .
Unlike classification systems, typologies do not provide decision rules, . . . instead they
identify multiple ideal types, each of which represents a unique combination of the
organisational attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcome. The more
closely an organisation resembles an ideal type, the more effectively it will be described
by the typology (Kolk and Mauser 2002: 22-23).
Examples of pure typology models are Steger’s (1993) environmental performance
model and Porter’s (1980) generic strategy model. Unlike the classification or contin-
uum models, in a typology more than one ideal strategy can lead to optimal performance.
Kolk and Mauser also make the point that typologies are generally much more flexible
than are continuum models, except that typologies do not (or should not) deal with
development over time. The nature of the defining criteria indicates whether they are
based on internal processes, the business environment or a combination of the two.
Most environmental performance models focus on a combination of internal and
external processes (Kolk and Mauser 2002).
The approach being taken in this paper is to review existing typologies of entre-
preneurs that are seen to be relevant and useful to developing a typology of green
entrepreneurs. In this review we do not include approaches based exclusively on trait
theory, but rather focus on the integrated sociocultural–psychological approaches. To
give as full a picture as possible, we list in Table 1 a range of approaches that appear in
the general entrepreneurship literature
Some aspects of the Dana (1995) typology warrant further explanation because the
fourth and final (Barthian agent, and Kirznerian identifier) categories have potential
application to green entrepreneurs.1 The Barthian agent category describes entrepre-
neurs who are active in the transformation of society; they act as essential brokers of
contacts between two cultures, one more economically advanced than the other. The
Kirznerian identifier category contains entrepreneurs who correctly identify where the
next market imperfection will be and are also described as ‘arbitragers’. Dana (1995)
sees this kind of entrepreneurship as therefore correcting socioeconomic waste or
inefficiency. There are analogies here to the ‘natural capitalism’ approach to sustain-
ability (Hawken et al. 1999). Interestingly, Dana sees the arbitrager as making a reactive

1 By way of context, Dana’s categories were devised to describe the motivation of entrepreneurs in a
remote subarctic region, classifying Inuit and non-native entrepreneurs.

34 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 35

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

Type of entrepreneur

Smith (1967) and Chell et al. (1991): Jones-Evans (1995), technical-entrepreneur

t Craftsperson categories:
t Opportunistic t Researcher
t Producer
Woo et al. (1988):
t User
t Inventor
t Opportunist
t Craftsperson
t Opportunistic Dana (1995):
t Traditional self-employed
Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982):
t Cultural entrepreneur
t Growth-oriented
t Personality-determined achiever
t Independence-oriented
t Barthian agent
t Crafts-oriented
t Hagenian displacee
Miller and Toulouse (1986): t Kirznerian identifier
t Need for achievement (correlated to
Thompson (1998) style-based dimensions:
market differentiation strategy)
t Hard, pragmatic, opportunistic
Chell et al. (1991): t Softer, people-focused
t Entrepreneur
paradigm-based dimensions:
t Quasi-entrepreneur
t Creator of sea change
t Administrator
t Innovator
t Caretaker
fifth dimension:
t Designer–inventor

Table 1 approaches to the classification of entrepreneurs

response—being a bounded entrepreneur who is less likely to exhibit the creative

innovation and enthusiasm of other types of entrepreneur. This perspective would not
necessarily be consistent with the natural capitalism vision.
However, it is Thompson’s (1998) four dimensions of entrepreneurship that can be
seen as being particularly relevant to analysing green entrepreneurs (see Fig. 2).
Thompson presents his entrepreneurs as emerging from a ‘well of talent’: ‘The well
contains people who have a talent and an aptitude to become an entrepreneur, or at least
behave in an enterprising way, but follow quite different paths when they do emerge
from the well’ (Thompson 1999: 217). These paths are shown in Figure 2, with examples
given of each type.
The defining criteria for this model appear to be personal and interpersonal style and
type of paradigm or world-view. Thompson describes the style dimension as follows:
hard entrepreneurship represents the paradigm of the independent, pragmatic, opportu-
nistic and competitive entrepreneur . . . whereas the softer styled entrepreneur operates
in a more informal manner, they are strong on communication and sell their vision to
engage and motivate others (1999: 217).
Moving to the paradigm dimension, Thompson describes the sea-change, visionary type
as being characterised by
adventurous entrepreneurs who set out to change the world. These are people with a real
ability to galvanise others; they work hard, play hard and operate at the leading edge
(1999: 217).
They are energetic and charismatic. The opposite side, ‘innovation’, he describes as
requiring imagination, creativity, passion and commitment to bring about change.

GMI 38 Summer 2002 35

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 36

liz walley and david taylor

Bill Gates

Ha
and rd, p ge
an m
op ragm c h
a- dig
po Se para
rtu atic
nis
tic
well of
entrepreneurial
James Dyson talent
So Richard Branson
on
v ati m fte
r, p
o g e
Inn radi foc ople
pa use -
d

Ricardo Semler

who
the needs
designer-inventor business-minded
person partner

Clive Sinclair
Figure 2: thompson’s four dimensions of entrepreneurship
Source: Thompson 1998

Thompson provides examples of each type of entrepreneur and of a fifth category—the

designer-inventor—who lacks the business acumen or interest to build the business on
his or her own. Thompson’s model is one of the building blocks that underpins the
typology of green entrepreneurs presented below, but, before we move on to that, it is
relevant to review the different interpretations of green businesses.

Green and ‘green-green’ businesses

It is important to understand what is meant by ‘green’ before going on to further
delineate ‘green-green’ firms (Isaak 1998). Before we define what we mean in this paper
by the expression ‘green entrepreneurs’, we would like to present various interpretations
that have been offered. In popular usage, the expression ‘green’ is used in both a relative
sense and an absolute sense. So a green business could refer to one that has been set
up on a green basis, or one that has become relatively green. Greenness can also refer
either to the product or to the process. The term ‘greening’ is used as a kind of shorthand
for ‘moving towards environmental or ecological sustainability’. The terms ‘sustainabil-
ity’ and ‘sustainable development’ themselves have a huge literature on meanings and
interpretation (Pearce and Barbier 2000). It is not appropriate to expand on this further
here other than to state how we interpreted it for the purposes of this research. The
concept that is relevant to this analysis is that of the three pillars of sustainability—that
is, the ecopreneur’s (Isaak 1998) simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environ-

36 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 37

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

mental quality, and social and ethical equity (Elkington 1997). In this paper we adopt
Isaak’s (1998) definition of green-green businesses as businesses that are founded on
the principle of sustainability, and his definition of ecopreneurs as individuals who
found or set up green-green businesses.
In the typology of green entrepreneurs presented below, it is assumed that founders
of any type of green business all have economic (i.e. financial) profit-maximising or
-optimising objectives. The not-for-profit sector (i.e. charities, voluntary and public-
sector organisations) is excluded from this research. However, it is recognised that green
and ethical entrepreneurs may well have mixed motivations; their motives may not be
solely green but be a combination of green, ethical and social motives, and it is often
difficult to separate these (as, indeed, the concept of sustainability reflects). For this
reason, the scope includes socially and ethically motivated entrepreneurs who also have
financial objectives. Conceptually, the scope could include existing (non-green)
businesses that radically transform themselves into green-green businesses (e.g. a fossil
fuel producer switching to a renewable energy product), as these businesses would
equally well contribute to a sustainable society.
Another approach to scoping what is meant by ‘green’ is to identify the ‘green
production sector’ or ‘environmental industry’ as it is variously described. Eastwood et
al. (2001) arrive at 11 categories of green production: pollution control and treatment;
waste disposal and collection; recycling and re-use; energy conservation; consultancy
and monitoring; heritage and eco-tourism; research and education; forestry and organic
farming; eco-capital equipment; alternative ‘green’ product production; and ‘in-firm’
green production. Clearly, this type of classification of green business focuses on the
product rather than on the process. In other words, it does not include businesses that
make or deliver everyday products and services but do so in a very green way. High-
profile examples of the latter would be The Body Shop (cosmetics and toiletries) and
Interface, a US manufacturer of carpet tiles that aims to be the first truly sustainable
company. In this study we are interested in both types of green business: those founded
on green products and/or those with green processes.
The intent is that the development of this framework for green entrepreneurs form
a ‘broad church’ that includes most people’s common-sense understanding of what
constitutes a significantly green business. The rationale for this is that all types of green
entrepreneur—whether ethically driven, opportunistically driven or whatever—contri-
bute to the move towards a sustainable society. So, it is not only Isaak’s green-green
businesses (those that are founded on the principle of sustainability) that are included
here under the heading ‘green entrepreneurs’ but also other new green start-ups, such
as financially oriented entrepreneurs who happen to identify a green niche.

Perspectives on green entrepreneurs

Although much more attention is being paid to the greening of SMEs of late (Hillary
2000), there has, until recently, been surprisingly little on green entrepreneurs in the
UK literature apart from numerous references to the high-profile success story of Anita
Roddick and The Body Shop (e.g. Elkington 1997; Isaak 1998). Perhaps this lack of
research is because, intuitively, environmentalism (which is collectivist and communi-
tarian-oriented) and entrepreneurship (individualist, consumption-oriented) can be
seen as intrinsically hostile (Anderson 1998), but Anderson (1988) argues that environ-
mentalism and entrepreneurship actually share commonalities in terms of social
process and attitudes; entrepreneurship is more likely to sustain environmentalism than
any other form of imposed change. He argues that entrepreneurship is unique in that

GMI 38 Summer 2002 37

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 38

liz walley and david taylor

it is the only business form that can directly incorporate and consolidate the values of
the individual, and that the moral dimension of environmentalism can empower
entrepreneurship. He provides examples of environmental entrepreneuring for which
the common factor is that they ‘sell’ immaterial goods or culture—they extract both
financial and moral value.
Ecopreneurs are increasingly being seen as crucial change agents, or champions,
driving the collective learning process in which society needs to engage (Anderson 1998;
Isaak 1998). Isaak (1998: 24) presents a learning curve relating to ‘green-green time
and risk reduction for sustainable development’ that envisages society moving from
decadence (preoccupation with instant, present gratification and high risk-taking),
through reformism (the greening of existing businesses), creation (epitomising green
values, green screens, green careers), to green-green ecopreneurship (i.e. ‘radically
reducing risk to the natural environment by supporting only green-green ecopreneur-
ship and sustainable economic growth’).
The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s (ice cream manufacturers) are presented by Isaak
(1998) as the epitome of successful green-green businesses. That is, they started up
green from scratch and are system-transforming, socially committed and technolog-
ically up-to-date breakthrough ventures. Isaak’s ‘green logic’ argues that society needs
the synthesis of entrepreneurship (for the sake of economic growth and jobs), trustee-
ship (for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the natural environment) and spiritually
driven and socially responsible humanism. He suggests that ecopreneurs pursue social
and ecological goals by means of profit-oriented businesses. Turning this definition
around, we suggest in this paper that one can then logically distinguish ecopreneurs
from other types of green entrepreneurs who pursue profit goals by means of ecological
or socially oriented businesses.
On a more practical level, Hendrickson and Tuttle (1997) present (with use of US case
studies and a US context) an environmental classification scheme that can be used to
categorise the mission or market strategy for different environmental enterprises. Their
framework contains internal and external variables as defining criteria. With regard to
the external context, they draw on the work of Post and Altman (1994), who identified,
from a macro-sociological perspective, three drivers for change: (note that these are not
drivers or motivators of the entrepreneurs):
t Compliance-based environmentalism, improving the environment through govern-
ment regulation and sanctions
t Market-driven environmentalism, inducing more ecologically beneficial behaviour
through various positive incentives
t Value-driven environmentalism, bringing about change through consumers’ will-
ingness to act on their environmental values
These drivers need not be mutually exclusive at the organisational level, and an
environmental entrepreneur may take advantage of all three drivers to promote interest
in his or her product. Hendrickson and Tuttle (1997) use these drivers as one of the
criteria for their classification scheme. In total they use four factors to classify the
environmental focus of the market strategy adopted by the four case-study
environmental enterprises they analyse:
t The type of environmental business or businesses addressed (i.e. do the products
or services relate to the inputs or resources, to the transformation process or to the
output of goods?)
t The extent of the environmental emphasis of the overall product–service mix (e.g.
the percentage of total business geared to environmental product)

38 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 39

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

t The type of customer (i.e. is the customer an individual consumer, commercial

and/or industrial, or institutional?)
t The type of incentive (e.g. free-market or governmental) offered to customers to buy
or use the product or service
The first two criteria are internal variables; the latter two are external. These form an
example of a green framework that recognises the interplay of external context or influ-
ences with organisational characteristics.

Structural influences
Developing the theme of how the external environment impacts on potential entrepre-
neurs, it is clear that there is a wide range of external influences. The integrated
sociopsychological approach to entrepreneurial behaviour outlined earlier in this paper
(Chell et al. 1991) focuses, among other things, on the way people respond to experience
and crucial dimensions of the business context. This approach resonates strongly with
the structure–action perspective on greening outlined above. In other words, it is
elements of the hard (e.g. economic) structure of society and/or softer structures (such
as personal networks) that influences potential entrepreneurs to start a green business.
It is because the external context is clearly an influential variable, but its influence can
also take many forms, that it is represented in the green typology below as a range of
structural influences from soft to hard. Included in hard structural influences are such
things as government regulation and economic incentives, together with other market-
driven and value-driven signals from green consumers (Post and Altman 1994). Soft
structural influences are deemed to be such things as family and friends, past
experiences, personal networks and education (Giddens 1984; Taylor and Pandza 2003).

A typology of green entrepreneurs

Drawing on the review of general entrepreneurship typologies and green entrepreneur-
ship literature, the defining criteria presented in the typology below (see Fig. 3) reflects
the view that the most relevant explanatory variables for characterising different types
of green entrepreneurs are the external context (structural influences) and the entre-
preneur’s personal orientation or motivation.
The ‘orientation’ axis arises from this paper’s earlier exploration of green and green-
green businesses and is influenced by Thompson’s paradigm perspective (Thompson
1998). A profit orientation and some sort of green orientation are the minimum attri-
butes assumed for the scope of this typology; the economic orientation end of the axis
represents these minimum attributes. The green orientation could either be a motiva-
tion or a perceived market opportunity or both. As non-profit organisations are outside
the scope of this framework, and, as green, ethical and social motives are seen as
interrelated (therefore, no separate ‘social and economic’ category is identified), the only
alternative set of orientations identified in the typology is one that combines all three
motives—economic, green and social–ethical—and is represented in the typology as a
sustainability orientation. The matrix formed by these two axes—motivation and influ-
ences—thus produces four ‘ideal types’ of green entrepreneurs.
To appreciate the ‘innovative opportunist’ type it is useful to make the connection
with Thompson’s paradigm or world-view dimension. It is suggested that Thompson’s

GMI 38 Summer 2002 39

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 40

liz walley and david taylor

Economic
orientation

ad hoc innovative
enviropreneur opportunist
(e.g. producer of organic
(e.g. fridge recycler)
pork)
Soft Hard
structural structural
influences influences
ethical visionary
maverick champion
(e.g. producer of natural
(e.g. craft exchange
skin and hair care
founder)
products)

Sustainability
orientation
Figure 3: typology of green entrepreneurs

description of the innovative paradigm is analogous to a financially oriented entrepre-

neur who spots a green niche or opportunity. Dana’s (1995) ‘arbitrager’ description also
seems apposite. This type of entrepreneur is one who has been influenced mainly by
hard structural drivers, such as regulation. A likely example of this type of entrepreneur
is Evan Connell, of the Connell Group, who is building the first plant in the United King-
dom to recycle fridges safely.2 New European Union environmental legislation specifies
that all chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) must be recovered. Connell has adopted some new
technology, developed with the Manchester Metropolitan University, that will strip
harmful CFC gases from the foam lining inside old fridges and leave them safe for scrap
(MMYou 2002).
The ‘visionary champion’ type is consistent with Thompson’s ‘sea-change’ paradigm,
in that this type of green entrepreneur is one who embraces a transformative, sustain-
ability orientation. This champion of sustainability sets out to change the world, operates
at the leading edge and has a vision of a sustainable future that envisages hard structural
change. This type would also fit Isaak’s ‘ecopreneur’ description, because the business
is founded on the principle of sustainability. There are analogies to Dana’s ‘Barthian
agent’ in that these entrepreneurs are active in the transformation of society and act as
the brokers of contacts between two cultures. In the case of visionary champions, the
two cultures are characterised by ‘business as usual’ and a sustainable society. The classic
example here is Anita Roddick of Body Shop fame, who clearly fits the visionary, ener-
getic and charismatic descriptions (Roddick 1992).
The ‘ethical maverick’ type of green entrepreneur is characterised by a sustainability
orientation and soft structural influences. In other words, the most significant influ-
ences on the business formation have been friends, networks and past experiences
rather than visions of changing the world. With a sustainability, value-driven motivation,
these people might tend to set up alternative-style businesses on the fringes of society

2 This and the following examples are derived from secondary published data.

40 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 41

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

rather than establishing mainstream organisations. Apparent examples of this type of

green entrepreneur are the founders of the ‘On the 8th Day’ vegetarian cafe and health-
food shop in Manchester. The partnership was set up in 1970, ‘in the height of the hippie
era’, with ethical and environmental values at the heart of the business (Hawthorne
2001). It later became a co-operative.
The final category—the ‘ad hoc enviropreneur’—is a kind of accidental green entre-
preneur. The motivation of such people is financial not value-driven and they are
influenced most by personal networks, family and friends. An example would be the
fictional character Tom Archer in the long-running UK BBC Radio 4 drama The Archers.
The child of an organic farmer, he sets up his own organic pork business. The fact that
his parents are committed and fairly successful organic farmers provides a supportive
sociocultural background. Tom wants some degree of independence and to prove
himself as a successful businessman in his own right. Organic pork production happens
to be a complementary activity to the rest of the family business. It is not a product for
which development has been specifically encouraged by government subsidies or driven
by environmental regulation or even particularly encouraged by the ‘market pull’ of
consumer demand.
As quoted earlier, typologies, unlike classification systems, do not provide decision
rules (Kolk and Mauser 2002). Instead, they identify multiple ideal types, each of which
represents a unique combination of the attributes that are believed to determine the
relevant outcome. If we assume that the same interpretations can be made of people-
oriented typologies—in this case, green entrepreneurs—as with organisational typol-
ogies, then the more closely an entrepreneur resembles the ideal type, the more
effectively he or she will be described by the typology. However, for this green entre-
preneur typology one might challenge the Kolk and Mauser interpretation that typolo-
gies do not, or should not, deal with development over time. Given that entrepreneurs
tend to ‘reinvent’ their businesses over time, the evolution of a particular entrepreneur
might see him or her moving from one ideal type to another. For example, an exami-
nation of Anita Roddick’s business history (Roddick 1992) might suggest that the term
ethical maverick and/or innovative opportunist could have been appropriate descrip-
tions for her at different times.

Conclusions
Having reviewed the concepts of entrepreneurship and greening, approaches to classify-
ing entrepreneurs and the literature on green entrepreneurs, a typology of green
entrepreneurs has been constructed. In this paper we have argued that the definition of
green entrepreneurs should be wide, encompassing not only ecopreneurs (individuals
who set up businesses founded on the principle of sustainability) but also opportunist
entrepreneurs who happen to have found a green niche. Although we support the view
that ecopreneurs are crucial change agents driving the sustainability transformation
process, we suggest that it is important to investigate the motives of all types of green
entrepreneurs because—from structuration logic (Giddens 1984)—all green businesses
contribute towards the move to a sustainable society. Secondary research has suggested
that entrepreneurs are best characterised by a combination of internal motivations and
external (hard and soft) structural influences. The resulting typology produced four
‘ideal types’ of green entrepreneurs: innovative opportunists, visionary champions,
ethical mavericks and ad hoc enviropreneurs.
This typology is intended to provide a useful framework for further research into the
influences on and motivations of green entrepreneurs. For example, to what extent do

GMI 38 Summer 2002 41

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 42

liz walley and david taylor

new green entrepreneurs fit these theoretical types and (if they do), what is the relative
proportion of opportunists, mavericks, champions and ad hoc enviropreneurs? Policy-
makers interested in encouraging a greener society would find it useful to know to what
extent potential green entrepreneurs are encouraged by economic incentives in com-
parison with intrinsic sustainability motivations. Similarly, the typology has potential
value in understanding why existing businesses decide to become greener. This paper
also points towards an interesting debate on the connections between entrepreneurship
and Isaak’s firm–society concept of green-green as a dominant production–consump-
tion mode for a future society that would be vastly different than today’s ‘business-as-
usual’ mode. Dominant modes of production and consumption create and are created
by the action of firms. The two-way nature of this relationship could either reinforce the
status quo or be the engine of change. The role that green entrepreneurs and green SMEs
play in this interactive relationship between firms and society warrants further investi-
gation.

References
Anderson, A.R. (1998) ‘Cultivating the Garden of Eden: Environmental Entrepreneuring’, Journal of
Organisational Change Management 11.2: 135-44.
Blundel, R., and D. Smith (2001) Business Networks: SMEs and Inter-firm Collaboration (RR003/01; report
to the Small Business Service, September 2001).
Carter, S., and D. Jones-Evans (eds.) (2000) Enterprise and Small Business (Harlow, UK: Financial Times/
Prentice Hall).
Chell, E., J. Haworth and S. Brearley (1991) The Entrepreneurial Personality (London: Routledge).
Dana, L.-P. (1995) Entrepreneurship in a Remote Sub-Arctic Community’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 20.1: 57-72.
Doty, D.H., and W.H. Glick (1994) ‘Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved
Understanding and Modelling’, Academy of Management Review 19.2: 230-51.
Dunkelberg, W.C., and A.C. Cooper (1982) ‘Entrepreneurial Typologies: An Empirical Study’, in K.H.
Vesper (ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research (Babson Park, MA: Babson College, Centre for
Entrepreneurial Studies): 1-15.
Eastwood, D., M. Eaton, C. Guyer and T. Stark (2001) ‘An Examination of Employment Change in
Northern Ireland’s Environmental Industry 1993–2003’, European Environment 11: 197-210.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (Oxford, UK:
Capstone Publishing).
Garmonsway, G.N. (1984) The Penguin English Dictionary (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 3rd
edn).
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press).
Hawken, P., A. Lovins and L.H. Lovins (1999) Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution (London:
Earthscan Publications).
Hawthorne, L. (2001) Business Environment Report (degree assignment; Manchester, UK: Manchester
Metropolitan University Business School).
Hendrickson, L.U., and D. Tuttle (1997) ‘Dynamic Management of the Environmental Enterprise: A
Qualitative Analysis’, Journal of Organisational Change Management 10.4: 363-82.
Hillary, R. (ed.) (2000) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment: Business Imperatives
(Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing).
Hutchinson, A., and F. Hutchinson (1997) Environmental Business Management (London: McGraw–Hill).
Isaak, R. (1998) Green Logic: Ecopreneurship, Theory and Ethics (Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing).
Jones-Evans, D. (1995) ‘A Typology of Technology-Based Entrepreneurs’, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 1.1: 26-47.
Kets de Vries, M. (1977) ‘The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroads’, Journal of
Management Studies 14.1: 34-57.
—— (1997) ‘Creative Rebels with a Cause’, in S. Birley and D. Muzyka (eds.), Mastering Enterprise
(Harlow, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall): 5-8.
Kolk, A., and A. Mauser (2002) ‘The Evolution of Environmental Management: From Stage Models to
Performance Evaluation’, Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 14-31.

42 GMI 38 Summer 2002

gmi38.walley 2/4/03 11:52 am Page 43

opportunists, champions, mavericks . . . ? a typology of green entrepreneurs

Leadbeater, C. (1997) The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur (London: Demos).

McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand).
Miller, D., and J.-M. Toulouse (1986) ‘Chief Executive Personality and Corporate Strategy and Structure
in Small Firms’, Management Science 32.11: 1,389-409.
MMYou (2002) ‘Chemists Show their Cool’, MMYou: The University Newsletter (Manchester, UK: Man-
chester Metropolitan University), April 2002.
Pearce, D., and E.B. Barbier (2000) Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy (London: Earthscan Publications).
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors (New York:
The Free Press).
Post, J., and B. Altman (1994) ‘Managing the Environmental Change Process: Barriers and Opportu-
nities’, Journal of Organisational Change Management 7.4: 64-81.
Roddick, A. (1992) Body and Soul (London: Vermilion).
Roome, N. (1992) ‘Developing Environmental Management Strategies’, Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment 1.1: 11-24.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper & Row).
Smith, N.R. (1967) The Entrepreneur and his Firm: The Relationship between Type of Man and Type of
Company (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press).
Steger, U. (1993) ‘The Greening of the Board Room: How German Companies are Dealing with Environ-
mental Issues’, in K. Fischer and J. Schot (eds.), Environmental Strategies for Industry (Washington,
DC: Island Press): 147-66.
Taylor, D.W., and K. Pandza (2003) ‘Network Capability: The Competitive Advantage of Small Firms’, in
O. Jones and F. Tilley (eds.), Competitive Advantage in SMEs: Organising for Innovation and Entrepre-
neurship (Chichester, UK: John Wiley): 156-73.
Thompson, J.L. (1998) ‘Will the Real Entrepreneur Please Stand Up!’, Professorial Inaugural Lecture,
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, October 1998.
—— (1999) ‘The World of the Entrepreneur: A New Perspective’, Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee
Counselling Today 11.6: 209-24.
Walley, L., and M. Stubbs (2000) ‘Termites and Champions: Case Comparisons by Metaphor’, Greener
Management International 29 (Spring 2000): 41-54.
Welford, R. (1996) Corporate Environmental Management (London: Earthscan Publications).
Woo, C.Y., W.C. Dunkelberg and A.C. Cooper (1988) ‘Entrepreneurial Typologies: Definition and Impli-
cations’, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson Park, MA: Babson College, Centre for
Entrepreneurial Studies): 165-76.

GMI 38 Summer 2002 43

View publication stats