The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
IJEBR
16,3
204
Received September 2008
Revised February 2009
Accepted April 2009
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2010
pp. 204-228
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-2554
DOI 10.1108/13552551011042799
What motivates ecopreneurs to
start businesses?
Jodyanne Kirkwood and Sara Walton
Centre for Entrepreneurship, School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin,
New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – Ecopreneurs are those entrepreneurs who start for-profit businesses with strong
underlying green values and who sell green products or services. This is an emerging field where
research is still in its infancy. Research has been called for to understand the factors that motivate
these ecopreneurs to start businesses – and that is the focus of this study. The aim of this paper is to
compare the findings with results of extant literature on entrepreneurial motivations.
Design/methodology/approach – This study comprises 14 in-depth case studies of ecopreneurial
companies in New Zealand in 2008. Participants were interviewed in a face-to-face, semi-structured
format. In total, 88 secondary sources such as media reports, industry statistics, and information from
company web sites were also collected.
Findings – Ecopreneurs were motivated by five factors: their green values; earning a living; passion;
being their own boss; and seeing a gap in the market. Ecopreneurs appear to have quite similar
motivations to entrepreneurs in general, aside from their green motivations. They had lower level
financial motivations than have been found in prior research on entrepreneurs. The ecopreneurs were
primarily pulled into entrepreneurship, which bodes well for their ongoing success. The paper presents
a number of contributions to both the ecopreneurship and entrepreneurship literatures.
Research limitations/implications – The small sample is a potential limitation and the country
context may also influence the findings.
Originality/value – This is one of the largest samples of ecopreneurs to date. Given the emerging
nature of the field of ecopreneurship, this study’s conclusions require further research and testing. A
total of 11 such suggestions for future research are made.
Keywords Business formation, Entrepreneurs, Motivation (psychology), New Zealand
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Ecopreneurs are emerging as a new breed of entrepreneur who are worthy of much
greater consideration than has been given to date. The field of ecopreneurship began to
receive research attention in the late 1990s (Anderson, 1998; Keogh and Polonsky, 1998;
Pastakia, 1998), but is still in its infancy (Cohen and Winn, 2007). Clemens (2006)
similarly notes that little research exists on the environment and small firms in general
(see, for example de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). While there has been increasing research
interest in discussing ecopreneurs from a conceptual perspective, there remains little
empirical research to date (Gibbs, 2007). Only one study could be located which focused
directly on the ecological orientation of founder’s start-up processes (Freimann et al.,
2005). Where there has been useful related research, small sample sizes prevail.
Authors to date have focused on single case studies (Dixon and Clifford, 2007), or small
samples of between one and 10 cases (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005; Freimann et al., 2005;
Pastakia, 1998; Schaltegger, 2002). Others have studied co-operative ownership
arrangements in the energy sector (associative entrepreneurship) (Cato et al., 2008).
 Ecopreneurs are defined in this study as those entrepreneurs who enter these What motivates
eco-friendly markets not only to make profits, but also having strong, underlying green ecopreneurs?
values. Our definition is:
Entrepreneurs who found new businesses based on the principle of sustainability (based on
ideas from Issak, 2002; Walley and Taylor, 2002).
This definition has two main components which also need to be carefully defined. First, 205
there are many different definitions of what constitutes an entrepreneur (see, for
example Carland et al., 1984; Gartner, 1990), and no consensus has been reached. The
definition used in this study focuses on the founding role but others would suggest that
innovation is a requirement for being an entrepreneur (Schumpeter, 1934). Therefore,
we define an entrepreneur as someone who is the founder of a new for-profit business.
The study is particularly focused on people who start a business with pre-existing
green values. These types of ecopreneurs have been referred to as “green-green” (Issak,
2002). One of the classic examples is the company founded by Anita Roddick – The
Body Shop (Issak, 2002). Our interest is in these business founders as they have the
ability to “constitute and shape the “face” of their company” (Schaltegger, 2002 p. 47).
These ecopreneurs who are “eco-dedicated” have been found to exhibit “firm
convictions” (Freimann et al., 2005, p. 117). We contrast this population with other
entrepreneurs and business owners who undertake (or contemplate) environmental
initiatives after starting their business (McKeiver and Gadenne, 2005; Rao, 2008;
Schaper, 2002b). For example, research has concluded that while entrepreneurs may
have positive environmental attitudes this does not automatically translate into the
adoption of environmental management systems (McKeiver and Gadenne, 2005).
The second component of our definition of an ecopreneur is that the business must
be sustainable. Our focus is on green entrepreneurs, and while that might mean they
operate with some social values, their inclusion in this research is primarily a
consequence of their green practices. Of particular interest for this study of
ecopreneurs is the notion of ecological sustainability. Our definition of an ecopreneur is
not, however, as narrow as some researchers who include the requirement of having
social drivers as well as environmental and business goals (Dixon and Clifford, 2007).
For some it is strongly linked to the greening of an existing business (Issak, 2002), and
for others ecopreneurship is related to sustainability, which adds social dimensions
such as justice and equity into the construction of the business (Gladwin et al., 1995).

Theoretical perspectives
Our view at the outset of this study is that ecopreneurs are a subset of entrepreneurs
who may differ in the way they start businesses, particularly in their motivations for
becoming entrepreneurs. Before commencing with a review of the relevant literature, it
is important to describe our theoretical approach to ecopreneurship. In addressing the
research aims there are various perspectives of analysis that are useful. Researchers
have noted that psychologists, economists and sociologists have tried to understand
the business start-up process (Freimann et al., 2005). In early studies of
entrepreneurship, economists have had much input into the body of knowledge
about the field (Knight, 1921; Penrose, 1968; Schumpeter, 1934). The focus of
economists has primarily been at the firm level (such as size of the firm, growth
intentions, firm performance and survival rates), but this perspective has the potential
IJEBR danger of removing the person (the entrepreneur) from the study of entrepreneurship
16,3 (Smith, 1967). In this paper, one of our research objectives was to explore the
motivations for becoming an ecopreneur, and it seemed that Smith’s concerns were
well-founded. An alternative view of entrepreneurship is from a psychological
perspective. This psychological viewpoint certainly moves closer to being interested in
the entrepreneur, rather than looking at entrepreneurship as a purely economic
206 process. Researchers following this psychological perspective have focused on
personality traits such as the need for achievement (Langan-Fox and Roth, 1995), and
risk-taking propensity (Belcourt et al., 1991; Watson and Robinson, 2002). However,
like economic views of entrepreneurship, psychological perspectives have also been
criticized because “too often entrepreneurship is viewed merely as a psychological
capacity like musical or poetical talent” (Campbell, 1992, p. 21).
Due to the weaknesses of both of these perspectives of entrepreneurship, this study
prefers a sociological theoretical framework. This perspective argues that the social
environment affects entrepreneurs (Belcourt, 1987; Hurley, 1999). Such perspectives
assume that behaviour is “so constrained by ongoing social relations that to construe
them as independent is a grievous misunderstanding” (Granovetter, 1985, p. 482). We
concur with other ecopreneurship researchers who observed that “both
entrepreneurship and environmentalism are deeply embedded in the social matrix”
(Anderson, 1998, p. 138). In order to understand how individuals become ecopreneurs,
we must view their decisions as being embedded in a wider sociological perspective.
Indeed, “entrepreneurs are human, part of the same ecological system as their
organization, and consequently subject to the same concerns” (Anderson, 1998, p. 138).
In practice, taking this sociological perspective meant that we asked questions about
the founder’s background, their personal views on the environment and discussions
often revolved around their families and the importance of that in their motivations for
ecopreneurship. The open-ended questions (discussed further in method) allowed us to
explore issues that were relevant to our participants, and cast a wider net than taking
only a firm level (economics approach) or individual (psychological) approach as
discussed earlier.

2. Literature review
The emerging ecopreneurship literature
As mentioned above, we view ecopreneurship to be one form of entrepreneurship. The
growth in ecopreneurs may be partially due to increasing market opportunities for
sustainable products and services. Customers are becoming increasingly environmentally
conscious (Laroche et al., 2001). Many are losing confidence in larger corporations and
have expectations of companies to exhibit more social and environmental responsibility
(Webb et al., 2008). A trend towards value-driven environmentalism has flourished since
consumers started demanding and purchasing environmentally friendly products and
services (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Post and Altman, 1994). Recent discourse on
environmental issues such as climate change and carbon miles has raised awareness of
the environment and many people now choose to purchase with environmental sensitivity
in mind (Anderson, 1998). In response to this, many companies are recognising the need to
go green (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Schaper, 2002a).
Increasing numbers of entrepreneurs are also recognizing opportunities for new
ventures as consumer demand grows for more eco-friendly products and services
(Cohen and Winn, 2007; Dean and McMullen, 2007; Schaltegger, 2002; Schaper, 2002a). What motivates
New ventures are a different scenario to companies which go green; because when ecopreneurs?
someone founds a new business they have the ability to shape their company from the
outset (Schaltegger, 2002). Thus, with ecopreneurs, green values are built into the
company from inception. Some background to the current thinking on environmental
change is first required. Three key drivers for environmental change have been
identified (Post and Altman, 1994). First, compliance-based environmentalism – based 207
on regulatory and legal systems – is enforced by governments. Second, market-driven
environmentalism has emerged, whereby companies are given incentives to be
environmentally conscious. Finally, there has been a trend towards value-driven
environmentalism, where consumers started demanding and purchasing
environmentally friendly products and services. This driver has moved the focus to
balancing economic activity with environmental protection, and has become known as
sustainable development (Post and Altman, 1994). Post and Altman (1994) also
recognize that there are many barriers to environmental change. One way of creating
environmental change is for entrepreneurs to start businesses to do so. When someone
founds a new business they have the ability to shape their company from the outset
(Schaltegger, 2002). To borrow from Freimann et al. (2005), it may be easier to “infect”
founders with ideas of sustainability. This solves many of the problems that existing
companies have in “going green” (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Schaper, 2002a); which many
apparently do only as a defensive mechanism rather than as a proactive desire to be
green (Freimann et al., 2005)
At first glance, entrepreneurship and environmentalism appear to have little in
common. Indeed, some suggest they could be seen as “intrinsically hostile” to each
other (Anderson, 1998, p. 135). However, on closer examination, this view may not be
the case – as Anderson (1998) notes: the two are not irreconcilable, entrepreneurs can
give environmentalism substance, and they may be a vehicle for social change.
Therefore, we support the argument that both entrepreneurship and environmentalism
are about values and attitudes (Anderson, 1998), and commitment (Keogh and
Polonsky, 1998). There has been increasing interest in the notion that ecopreneurs may
act as important change agents (Anderson, 1998; Gibbs, 2007; Keogh and Polonsky,
1998; Pastakia, 1998), in part due to market opportunities. Indeed, researchers have
recently begun to question whether a sustainable economy requires an increased
presence of non-traditional forms of entrepreneurship, such as associative
entrepreneurship (co-operatives) (Cato et al., 2008).

Motivations for entrepreneurship

Little research has been undertaken on ecopreneurs’ motivations for entrepreneurship,
so we have to rely largely on a broad grounding in the general literature on
entrepreneurial motivations. Motivations for entrepreneurship have been the focus of
many studies over time (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Segal et al., 2005; Taormina and
Lao, 2007). A review of this literature leads us to conclude that an individual’s
motivation to become an entrepreneur is often complex and multi-faceted (Marlow and
Strange, 1994; Shane et al., 1991) as well as the start-up process taking a wide range of
different timeframes depending on the entrepreneur (Freimann et al., 2005).
Researchers have undertaken studies to explore whether motivations differ between
managers and entrepreneurs (Berthold and Neumann, 2008); as well as more specific
IJEBR research on whether motivations differ according to gender (DeMartino and Barbato,
16,3 2003), country context (Taormina and Lao, 2007), and people of different ethnicities
(Shinnar and Young, 2008; Sriram et al., 2007).
The primary theory development around entrepreneurial motivations has been to
classify motivations into categories of push and pull factors. These push and pull factors
have been used widely as a means of classifying entrepreneurial motivations (Hakim,
208 1989; McClelland et al., 2005; Segal et al., 2005). Push factors are characterized by personal
or external factors (including a marriage break-up, or being passed over for promotion),
and often have negative connotations. Alternatively, pull factors are those that draw
people to start businesses (such as seeing an opportunity) (Hakim, 1989). While push and
pull factors continue to be used as a key means of classifying motivations, other
researchers have used similarly opposing categorizations that are closely related, such as
autonomy (pull) and economic necessity (push) (Bogenhold and Staber, 1991); or
opportunity (pull) and necessity (push) as used by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) studies (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). Pull factors have been found to be more
prevalent than push factors (Segal et al., 2005), which is important because those
entrepreneurs who are primarily pulled into business ownership are more likely to have
ongoing success with their businesses (Amit and Muller, 1995).
Motivations for entrepreneurship can be seen to revolve around four main drivers: a
desire for independence; monetary motivations; factors related to family; and factors
related to work (Carter et al., 2003; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003). A desire for
independence and autonomy is often the most significant motivating factor for many
people in becoming an entrepreneur (Borooah et al., 1997; Fox, 1998). A desire for
independence is primarily classed as a pull factor. Monetary motivations are also
usually classed as a pull factor. People are not always motivated to start a business by
money (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Fischer et al., 1993) but this has been found to be
important in a study of prospective entrepreneurs (Alstete, 2003). A review of the
literature shows that money is a relatively low scoring factor when considered in
relation to other motivating factors (Kirkwood, 2004).
The final two categories are work-related and family-related motivators.
Motivations to become an entrepreneur that relate to work are usually considered to
be push factors. There appear to be two manifestations of work-related motivations:
those regarding a job or employer, and broader career or employment level factors.
First, at an individual job level, factors such as job satisfaction (Honig-Haftel and
Marin, 1986), job dissatisfaction (Cromie, 1987), or instability in a job (Borooah et al.,
1997) can motivate people to leave their employment and become entrepreneurs. On a
higher level are career and employment issues such as career flexibility, advancement
and co-career issues (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003), dissatisfaction with one’s career
(Cromie, 1987; Marlow, 1997), having difficulty finding employment (Fox, 1998; Hakim,
1989) and redundancy (Borooah et al., 1997; Marlow, 1997) – all of which can feature as
motivators in becoming an entrepreneur. Considerations for family in entrepreneurial
motivations include factors such as combining waged and domestic labour (Still and
Soutar, 2001), family-related reasons (Sundin and Holmquist, 1991), family policies and
family obligations (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003) and a desire for work-family balance
(Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008). These household and family issues have been termed
“motherhood” (de Bruin et al., 2007). Family-related motivations for becoming an
entrepreneur are often labelled push factors.
Motivations for ecopreneurship What motivates
To date, there has been limited research into sustainability at the time of starting a ecopreneurs?
business. Where research has been undertaken, it has been suggested that founders of
new businesses may have different levels of sustainable orientation which they take
into their business start-up (Freimann et al., 2005). Like other types of entrepreneurs
described in the previous section, motivations for ecopreneurship may also be
multi-faceted (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). One of the key distinguishing features of 209
ecopreneurs is their strong ethical reasoning (Linnanen, 2002). Usually the ecopreneur
has a “raison d’être” that exceeds their desire for profits and often this is associated
with making the world a better place to live (Linnanen, 2002). Indeed ecopreneurs are
often positioned as “crucial change agents” (Walley and Taylor, 2002) or “a critical
force in enabling the world to change its path” (Cohen and Winn, 2007, p. 46). Thus,
their motivations for making a difference and the role they play in doing so through
displacing unsustainable means (Cohen and Winn, 2007) suggests that they have an
important transitional role in sustainability. For the ecopreneur though, the ethical
reasons are often not the only reasons for developing the business. Cohen and Winn
(2007) found the motivations of ecopreneurs could be to fill a market need. Such market
needs have arisen as a result of market imperfections – imperfections that produce
environmental degradation (Cohen and Winn, 2007) – or as a response to the market
failing to deal with negative externalities (Pastakia, 1998).
While this discussion implies that all ecopreneurs are similar, this is not necessarily
the case. People have many different goals, even within the sub-group of ecopreneurs
(Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). These studies have produced a number of varying
typologies or categories of ecopreneurs. At the most simple level, ecopreneurs have been
divided into two groups based on their objectives (social and commercial), although these
boundaries may be blurred (Pastakia, 1998). Others have proposed there are a greater
number of typologies of ecopreneurs such as: desire to make money or change the world
(Linnanen, 2002); hard or soft structural influences and economic or sustainability
orientation (Walley and Taylor, 2002); and priority of business goal and market effect of
business (Schaltegger, 2002). The typologies produce types of ecopreneurs such as the
“ad hoc environpreneur”, the “ethical maverick”, the “visionary champion” and
“innovation opportunist” (Walley and Taylor, 2002). Another proposes the following
types: the non-profit business, self-employer, successful idealist, and the opportunist
(Linnanen, 2002). These different types of ecopreneurs may also have varying
motivations for starting their business. Freimann et al’s focus on start-ups provides
insights relevant to our study (Freimann et al., 2005). Their study of German companies
results in three categories of ecological orientation: eco-dedicated, eco-open and
eco-reluctant start-ups. In other research from New Zealand, a framework (green
entrepreneurship framework) offers a matrix which includes market orientation and
green entrepreneurship responses (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). A related study offers
interesting insights: a study of associative entrepreneurs in the renewable energy field
found people were motivated by independence (being independent from the National
Grid) and sustainability, but less concerned with financial achievement (Cato et al., 2008,
p. 325). On the whole, this study found “striking similarities” between these types of
entrepreneur and the traditional model of entrepreneurship.
While this discussion shows little empirical research has been conducted on
ecopreneurs, even less is known about differences between ecopreneurs and conventional
IJEBR entrepreneurs (Freimann et al., 2005; Gibbs, 2007; Schaper, 2002a). Researchers have
16,3 specifically called for further investigation into understanding what drives
environmental entrepreneurs (Cato et al., 2008), and whether (and if so, how)
ecopreneurs differ in their motivations to entrepreneurs in general (Gibbs, 2007). This
study, as outlined in the following section, has as one of its aims to compare and contrast
these two groups in order to contribute to the understanding of ecopreneurship.
210
3. Method
Given the limited understanding we have of ecopreneurship, a qualitative research
method was considered to be the most appropriate approach in this study. Qualitative
approaches are particularly useful in areas that are not well advanced theoretically
(Edmondson and McManus, 2007). This study is case studies of 14 ecopreneurial
companies. Case research is useful in addressing research which has explanatory
questions such “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 1984). Yin (1984) concludes that
different types of research question demand different research strategies. Research
involving explanatory questions requires a need to make operational links over time,
and case studies are appropriate. Case studies therefore differ from other research
approaches which are intent on answering how, what and how-much questions, which
focus on measuring frequencies or the incidence of an event (Yin, 1984). Theory
development is the aim of this study, in addition to the usual description questions
such as what, how, when and who (Bacharach, 1989; Whetten, 1989). We use
Eisenhardt’s (1989, p. 532) method and process for building theory from cases that is
“highly iterative” and “tightly linked to data”.
The primary data collection chosen was fieldwork in the form of semi-structured
interviews. Interviews were chosen as it is often a complex decision to become an
entrepreneur and interviews allow for “full expression of the interrelationships between
the many variables that can impact on one person’s ultimate decision to start a business”
(Stevenson, 1990, p. 442). The sample arose from businesses we heard were operating in
Dunedin. The sample emerged from searching web sites such as Ecobob
(www.ecobob.co.nz) and companies’ own web sites. Word of mouth referrals also
provided potential names of people who may meet the definition of an ecopreneur used in
this study. Either one or both of the authors interviewed the 14 companies in a
face-to-face format. There were 17 participants in total, because in three of the companies
two ecopreneurs were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were held in three of
New Zealand’s largest cities and one in a rural town. We purposefully selected
ecopreneurs in a wide range of different industries, given the limited understanding of
ecopreneurs to date. Ethical approval was gained for this study. The researchers gained
approval from the companies to be identified, but for the purposes of confidentiality, we
do not identify individuals with the direct quotes in the discussion. Interviews ranged
from 40 minutes to one hour and 50 minutes and all were tape recorded and transcribed.
In total, 17 hours of interviews were conducted. Additionally, information from
secondary sources such as media reports, industry statistics, company web sites and
promotional material were gathered to supplement the interviews. Overall, 88 such
documents and reports were analyzed for the study. The study concluded after 14 cases
as it was apparent that similar themes were emerging in a number of cases. While we
make no claim that these 14 cases are exhaustive (or generalizable), it is more than
adequate for the purposes of moving forward the dialogue and theory on ecopreneurs.
 Computers have become more recognized lately as tools to assist with analysing What motivates
qualitative data (Richards, 1999, 2000). The QSR NUD *IST Vivo (NVivo) software ecopreneurs?
package was used to manage the data. NVivo allows coding to be undertaken in a
relatively simple and useful way. It comprises both a code and retrieve component, as
well as an index system of nodes and trees (Richards and Richards, 1994). We coded
transcripts according to themes, and analyzed them using a constant comparison
approach (Glaser, 1992). The data were coded by paragraph and sentence as proposed 211
by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Code notes were initial thoughts about themes, and
possible relationships and issues that appeared to be important to the participants.
Reliable methods and valid conclusions are essential to any good piece of research.
In this study, the issue of credibility and transferability was addressed in three main
ways: using convergent interviews and native categories, selecting quotes and
contrary cases, and in the use of tabulations. Native categories are those that the
participants use themselves, rather than those developed by the researcher when
interpreting their answers. Data reduction in qualitative research is a necessary task
and portions of transcripts have been selected to illustrate the views of participants.
Participants’ own categories were tabulated as suggested by Silverman (2000). The
issue of dependability was also addressed in three ways: inter-coder agreement
(between the authors), field notes, and tape recording the interviews.

The case companies

Before presenting the findings, some notes on the demographics of the sample are
useful (refer also to Table I).
As can be seen in Table I, the participants were mainly in the 40-49 age category (11
people). Ten were male and seven were female. The businesses they operated were
relatively small, employing on average five full-time staff and 0.5 part-time workers.
Half of the businesses had an annual sales turnover of less than $100,000 and only
three businesses had sales over $1 million ($1 NZD ¼ 0.35 GBP). This is partially due
to the age of the businesses studied – the majority had been in business less than three
years. Given that this study is of 14 companies, it is important to understand each of
the cases and their mode of entry into business. Brief descriptions of the companies are
shown in the following list (names have not been disguised as full permission was
given to use the companies’ identities in the study):
(1) CA Solar Ltd was started by former colleagues in 2000. The company sells and
installs solar panels and related services. The two shareholders each have
different roles in the company at present, with one keeping his day job until the
company is more financially viable, while the other works full time in the
business. They currently employ no other staff and run the business out of one
of the owner’s homes.
(2) Powerhouse Wind is a company that produces windmills for residential use. It
was started in 2007 by two engineers, who both have a passion for windmills.
Funded through personal savings and a research and development grant, the
company’s first three prototype windmills has recently been developed in their
rented premises.
(3) Just Organic is an organic food delivery service run by a couple with two
pre-school children. It started in 2007 from home. The couple are passionate about
 16,3

212

Table I.
IJEBR

for the cases

Demographic information
Employees Age of founder(s) (italics Gender (italics indicates
(including indicates these people were these people were not Date
Company Product/service founders) not interviewed) interviewed) founded Location

Powerhouse Wind Windmills 3 40-49, 40-49 M, M 2007 Dunedin

Green Man Brewery Organic beer 3 40-49 M 2006 Dunedin
CA Solar Ltd Solar panels/installation 2 40-49, 50 þ M, M 2000 Wellington
Just Organic Organic produce delivery 4 40-49, ,29 M, F (couple) 2007 Christchurch
NZ Essence Skincare products 1 40-49 F 2007 Christchurch
Focus – Sustainable Cleaning company 20 , 29 M 2005 Wellington
Commercial Cleaning
Totel Shopping bags 1 40-49 F 2007 Wellington
Green Cabs Taxi service 15 (þ 30-39 M 2007 Wellington
franchised
drivers)
Fernbird Eco Store Online store (clothing, 1 30-39, 30-39 F, M (couple) 2005 Wellington
accessories, household
goods)
Puna Flax Paper Flax paper 3 40-49 F 1990 Dunedin
Hybrid House Green Architect 1 50 þ M 2000 Dunedin
Serra Foods Cyclops Yoghurt 15 40-49 M 1988 Christchurch
Earthly Delights Worm farms 1 40-49 F 2005 Christchurch
Waitaki Honey Honey 4 40-49, 40-49 F, M (couple) 1990s Waitaki
 organics and have very firm beliefs that their business is playing a service role in What motivates
terms of spreading the word about the benefits of organics. They employ two ecopreneurs?
part-time staff who also share their values and are in the process of moving the
business out of home in order to maintain more work-family balance.
(4) Green Man Brewery crafts beers using organic ingredients, and offers a bottle
return and reuse service. It operates a micro-brewery in a small Dunedin street
and now sells to Australia as well as all over New Zealand. The business 213
employs a full time brewmaster and two part time employees as well as the
founder. They have won national recognition for a few of their beers which are
styled on traditional varieties such a as Radler, Stout, Pilsner and Lager.
(5) NZ Essence was started by two friends who were looking for a business
opportunity and saw a gap in the market for natural skincare and body
products. Started in 2007, recently one partner bought the other out and is
continuing operating out of the ecopreneurs home. The owner has strong beliefs
about what she will and won’t produce and sell, but is also mindful that if the
company does not begin to make a profit shortly she may have to abandon it.
She and her husband have two young children.
(6) Focus – Sustainable Commercial Cleaning is a cleaning company that has social
objectives as well as environmental and financial. The company has 20
employees and was started in 2005. Later the founder brought on an additional
partner to help run the company. Both partners have other businesses they
operate as well. The company turns over in excess of $1 million and is
profitable.
(7) Totel was founded in 2007. The owner saw a gap in the market for
design-focused shopper bags that are sold in supermarkets to attempt to replace
plastics carrier bags. Since starting, the market has become very competitive
and this has meant Totel has had to look into diversifying into other related
products. The business is run from home and does not employ anyone else at
this stage.
(8) Green Cabs has grown substantially since it was started in 2005. The owner
was originally quite sceptical about climate change until he saw Al Gore’s
documentary An Inconvenient Truth. After this, he started thinking about taxi
travel and ways it could be made more environmentally friendly. The company
now employs 15 people, as well as a number of franchisees (drivers). Part of the
company’s profits are invested in tree planting in developing nations –
something the owner sees as a way to offset the company’s carbon emissions.
(9) Fernbird Eco store sells a range of products for the home that are eco-friendly.
The business was started by a couple from their in 2005. The owner who has
primary responsibility for the business was working full-time and has only
recently quit her job to focus full-time on the business. While the company
employs only one person at the moment, there are plans to grow the company
by targeting corporate markets.
(10) Hybrid House is a consultancy business primary involved with architecture
services. It is a husband and wife team and currently employs people on
contract but in the past has employed up to five people. Established 20 years
IJEBR ago, it was after completing a Masters in sustainable design that the practice
16,3 moved to be offering “sustainable design” and has since won architecture
awards for sustainable building projects.
(11) Waitaki Honey is an organic honey producer based in the Waitaki Valley. The
company operates as a supplier for products that contain organic honey not a
retailer and has significant contracts with overseas companies including Dr
214 Hauschka and turnover over $1million. The husband and wife took over the
family honey businesses and turned organic as it sat with their values and was
a lucrative market – especially from Europe. They employ three workers on the
farm who all have their own hives as part of the job.
(12) Earthly Delights operates in Christchurch selling worm farms and worms all
over New Zealand. The owner is passionate about worms and worm farming
and has contracts to educate community groups, schools and interested citizens
about the benefits of worm farms. The business began in 2005 and while there is
still just the founder she struggles to keep up with the demand.
(13) Serra Foods produces high quality yoghurt and yoghurt products (over 2/3 of
the range is organic) made in a traditional style. The yoghurt is found in most
supermarkets in New Zealand under the brand name of “Cyclops” and in 2008
the company began shipping frozen yoghurt to the USA. The founder now
employs 14 people in the Christchurch factory which operates with many
sustainable practices. Last year Serra Foods started collecting its own plastic
containers (plastic nos. 5) from customers to encourage councils to increase their
recycling operations.
(14) Puna Flax paper is a small manufacturer of flax paper from home in Dunedin.
The business processes include looking after the flax bushes in various places
around the city and harvesting that flax to be mulched into high quality paper.
The paper is old throughout New Zealand often in tourist shops and also is used
by businesses as gifts or for company paper.

Country context
Before presenting the findings, it is important to explain the setting for the study as
this potentially has an impact on the findings. This recognizes that the participants in
our study are socially embedded in a particular country context, which has a
potentially strong impact on both their motivations for ecopreneurship and the
conclusions we draw. New Zealand is a country of small to medium enterprises (SMEs).
SMEs are those with 19 or fewer employees (Ministry of Economic Development, 2007).
New Zealand is also widely regarded as being highly entrepreneurial compared to
other countries (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). With respect to entrepreneurial
motivations, GEM found New Zealand to have the highest percentage of opportunity
entrepreneurs of all 35 participating countries, suggesting that entrepreneurs are
primarily pulled into entrepreneurship rather than pushed into it (necessity
entrepreneurs) (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). This high level of entrepreneurship
(particularly opportunity entrepreneurs) may impact on the findings because of the
high number of people who are open to entrepreneurship.
New Zealand also has a reputation of being “clean and green” and this is important
to the study of ecopreneurship (for a more extensive explanation of New Zealand’s
environmental climate with respect to entrepreneurship, see de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). What motivates
One of the key branding images used by the New Zealand Tourism Board is of being ecopreneurs?
100 per cent pure. Such by-lines are accompanied by images depicting the “pristine”
natural environment of New Zealand. The branding and image of a clean green country
is argued to be “strongly embedded in the cultural imagination” (Coyle and
Fairweather, 2005, p. 148). As such it is not just the tourism board and export brands
that rely on the clean green image but it is also a significant part of a national identity 215
(Bell, 1996; Dew, 1999). Such an image requires careful preservation. A report
commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment quantifies the clean green image
for the New Zealand economy. It concludes that the green image is worth millions of
dollars for exports in terms of the value it adds to products and services (Ministry for
the Environment, 2001).

4. Presentation of findings
The ecopreneurs in this study were motivated to start their own business by a number
of factors. These revolved around five common drivers. As indicated in Table II, three
motivators were apparent in seven cases (half the sample):
(1) their green values;
(2) identifying a gap in the market; and
(3) making a living.
Two related motivators were evident in six cases:
(1) being their own boss; and
(2) passion.
The following sections present verbatim quotes from the participants on the five key
motivators found in this study. Following this, a discussion around the
inter-relationship between the motivators is presented. This is due to the
observation (see Table II) that in all but one case, participants described their
motivations for starting the business as being the result of more than one factor.

Green values
A key motivator for half of the ecopreneurs was their underlying green values. These
green values often worked in combination with the ecopreneur seeing a gap in the
market. The ecopreneurs in this study would not engage in the exploitation of market
opportunities at the expense of their green values. They would certainly not exploit a gap
in the market for a product or service that they did not believe was sustainable. The
following quotes illustrate three ecopreneur’s motivations for starting their businesses:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total

Be own boss U U U U U U 6
Gap in market U U U U U U U 7
Passion U U U U U U 6 Table II.
Make a living U U U U U U U 7 Primary motivators for
Green values U U U U U U U 7 each case company
IJEBR I sat there watching all the taxis come and drop people off and thought about the emissions
and everything they were producing. [I thought] there’s got to be a better way than this
16,3 (participant 8).

It’s a way of life really. It’s really a lifestyle; it’s a way of life decision to operate this way. It’s a
deliberate one (participant 11).

216 These excerpts from two of the participants show their conscious decision to do things
differently in their businesses compared to what was currently on offer in the market;
and in the second example, differently to what they had been doing in the past.
Similarly, another participant discussed the way the green side of the business “gave
meaning to the business” (participant 12). Interestingly, a number of the participants
described their green motivations as being tied to their monetary motivations. Two
examples illustrate this:
50 percent my set of values and 50 percent financial because it was worth us doing it, you
know? (participant 14).

Well a business is an organization designed for profit and a cause is motivated by changing
the world and I’ve just melded the two. I don’t see it as separate. I think, you know they’re one
in the same (participant 13).
Both of these participants indicate the interrelationship between their motivations for
becoming ecopreneurs. Additionally the ecopreneurs were strongly motivated by
spreading their green values to others. They were motivated to spread the word about
their business and environmentalism in a number of different forums. Much of this
occurs through educational strategies that ecopreneurs operate as core to their
business. They do this through web sites, visiting markets and expos, and word of
mouth. Word of mouth should not be underestimated, with some customers acting as
“disciples” and selling the product or service to their friends. The ecopreneurs placed
great importance on younger generations being more aware of environmental
concerns. For example, five ecopreneurs saw that Generation Y was more
environmentally conscious and aware than older generations. In one case, children
drove the decision to eat organic food and asked their parents to change their
purchasing behaviour. Others sought to educate people directly, seeing this as an
important part of their role. For example, one offered “education programmes to
sustain those key values because it’s about putting back as well as taking” (participant
10). One ecopreneur had a contract from local government to provide environmental
education in schools. Others targeted these young people who they saw as particularly
open to their products, attempting to “try to excite the emerging green consumer”
(participant 13).
While a further seven ecopreneurs did not mention their green values as being a
motivating factor for their business start-up, it is evident that their underlying green
values have a major influence on the type of business they started. That is, these
remaining participants started eco-businesses and many of their practices were
environmentally focused, but green values were not necessarily the key motivator for
them in starting the business. Perhaps more importantly than at the time of business
start-up, these green values appear to be held as a top priority in the ongoing
management of the business (see future research questions in Section 6).
Gap in the market What motivates
Half of the participants stated they saw a gap in the market for a particular eco-friendly ecopreneurs?
product or service. The following two excerpts from participants illustrate their
perception of these gaps in the market:
The first thing I did was I started an [type of] business because I thought there was a sort of
need in that market (participant 6).
217
With this business it was an opportunity I guess. . .natural products were growing worldwide
(participant 5).
These examples are classic cases of entrepreneurs seeing market imperfections and
viewing these gaps as an opportunity to start a new venture. For another ecopreneur,
the gap in the market was more closely aligned with their expertize and interest:
To me it was just a glaring gap, it was something I was interested in and could do
(participant 3).
For another ecopreneur, business was more user-driven:
As a family, we’re very environmentally friendly and it was really frustrating because there
was nothing available (participant 9).
In this example, the ecopreneur had identified a personal need that was currently
unmet in the market and that spurred her to start the business. Interestingly, none of
these participants had prior experience in the industries in which they started their
businesses. In fact, their work experience was totally unrelated. The gap in the market
was identified through their awareness of environmental issues rather than purely
commercially-based opportunity recognition.
These findings mirror the few existing studies on ecopreneurs’ motivations which
show ecopreneurs taking advantage of market imperfections and opportunities (Cohen
and Winn, 2007; Freimann et al., 2005). They also highlight examples where
ecopreneurs started a business as a response to the market failing to deal with negative
externalities (Pastakia, 1998). Ecopreneurs exhibited typical entrepreneurial
behaviours in terms of opportunity recognition. Interestingly they did not tend to
have prior experience in the area in which they started the business, as prior studies of
entrepreneurs in general have found to be most common (Terjersen, 2005).

Making a living
For other ecopreneurs (seven cases), monetary motivations were apparent. They spoke
very little about being profit-driven but more about wanting to earn a living or cover
their costs. Two ecopreneurs explain their views further:
Neither Tim or I are particular profit driven so it’s not like we’d looking to extract every
single profit from an organization so we would be looking at covering costs and making a
living and that would be it (participant 3).
The business is incidental in a way. It’s simply a word to describe the way we earn a
living. . .there’s this tendency to sort of categorize business as being, you know this ugly
monster, you know the elephant in the rainbow, nobody wants to talk about it, it’s an ugly
thing that if you’re in business, you must be a greedy little maximizer. But in fact it’s simply
the way we earn a living (participant 11).
IJEBR The second of these two examples highlights the view the ecopreneur has of other
16,3 people’s perceptions of business. He is almost apologetic for the fact that the couple
own a business in order to make their living.
In another case, one ecopreneur’s motivations were more clearly focused on profit.
This participant decided to start a business to avoid the financial pitfalls of working
for another company:
218 Basically it was financial for us. They weren’t paying until nearly the next season’s crop.
They were paying us in December for what we produced in January so I decided to, that I
could do better than that (participant 14).
In all of the cases where ecopreneurs talked about financial motivations, none
mentioned a desire to make a large profit. It is important to note that many stated they
were definitely “not profit driven”. In fact, the business just had to make enough money
to be sustainable and support their families and lifestyle.

Be their own boss

Six ecopreneurs mentioned that they wanted to be their own boss and own a business.
These ecopreneurs all had a pre-existing desire to own their own business. Four
examples show this succinctly:
Owning my own business is something that I wanted to do (participant 3).
I’ve always been interested in, you know, developing a business (participant 9).
I’d always been interested in being self-employed (participant 5).
I decided I wanted to do something for myself (participant 6).
These quotes infer that being ones’ own boss and owning a business was important to
these ecopreneurs. The first three examples show this motivation was something
which they had held over time. This finding shares some parallels with those found in
a related study on associative entrepreneurs. That study found independence from the
National Grid to be a factor in the case of renewable energy entrepreneurs (Cato et al.,
2008).
Another two examples show the decision to start a business was one they made as a
couple:
We sort of just liked [idea of being] self-employed in a business (participant 12).
We were looking for a business to start . . . We’d been in businesses before . . . we just couldn’t
work for other people (participant 4).
These two quotes from participants offer another interesting insight into the
motivations of ecopreneurs. In our study, three businesses could be classed as being
copreneurial (couples working in the business together). For these participants, their
motivation for starting their business was a joint one with their spouse, and shows the
connectivity of the ecopreneur with their families. While six ecopreneurs were
motivated by being their own boss, a further eight were not. It is important to illustrate
their views as comparison cases. Two ecopreneurs however showed a contrary view
and were not pulled into entrepreneurship by a desire to be their own boss. One
explained “No, I was scared of working for myself. I just didn’t know how people could
do it. So much risk” (participant 8). In this example, the ecopreneur saw a gap in the What motivates
market and as illustrated by this excerpt, it obviously took higher priority than
wanting to own a business. In another case, the participant wanted a career shift:
ecopreneurs?
I was looking perhaps to change jobs but wasn’t necessarily to have my own business
(participant 7).
These two cases indicate that independence-related motivators did not appear to be as 219
important as other motivators such as seeing a gap in the market and identifying a
need for their product or service. This took priority over a desire to start a business. In
fact, it is questionable whether these ecopreneurs would have started a business if they
had already located existing competitors in that market.

Passion
Related to their green values, six participants spoke of the passion they had for the
business and the products or services they offered for sale. Statements such as “I’ve
really got a real passion for it” (participant 9) and “I was so passionate about
[business]” (participant 8) were common. Another participant expands on the role of
passion in her motivations for starting the business:
I was passionate about making this journey something I wanted to enjoy. . . To look after the
[raw material] (participant 10).
This example shows the participants’ passion was with the natural, raw material which
went into the product. This example shows that passion may be closely linked to the
ecopreneurs’ strong underlying green values. This parallels prior work from New Zealand
(on three cases) which shows passion for the “green cause” to be a primary goal of
ecopreneurs (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005). The ecopreneurs in this study were passionate
about the environment and wanted to play a part in reducing environmental degradation.
They also had a similar passion for their product or service and this illustrates the close
linkage between this passion and the ecopreneurs’ green values. In fact it may be difficult
to separate the two motivators (passion and green values) in the case of ecopreneurs.

Relative importance/relationship between motivators

In summary, we found five main motivators for starting a business; although Table II
indicates a wide range of combinations of factors for each participant. The findings
detailed above led us to support authors who have found that various ecopreneurs have
different motivations (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). The participants described being
motivated to start their business by between one and four motivators. Specifically, eight
ecopreneurs were motivated by two motivators; three were motivated by three factors;
two were motivated by two factors; and finally, one ecopreneur had a single motivation
for entering business. Motivations for business ownership in general have often been
described as complex and intertwined (Mallon and Cohen, 2001) and the findings from
this study of ecopreneurs are no exception. While the motivations for ecopreneurship are
intertwined, our findings do not allow us to rank-order the motivations in terms of their
importance. Other researchers have noted the difficulty in assessing the magnitude of
each motivation (Shane et al., 2003). Further research of a quantitative nature may be
able to clarify this (see RQ2 in section 6). With a larger sample, it would be interesting to
explore patterns of motivation (as shown in Table II) to further understand the
relationship between motivators.
IJEBR Like Pastakia (1998), we conclude that the boundaries between ecopreneurs’ social
16,3 and commercial motivations are blurred. While the ecopreneurs are in business for the
purposes of profit-making they appear to have strong social motivations, in the form of
their green values, which underpin many of their other motivations. Similarly, our
findings parallel Cohen and Winn’s (2007) study, which found that ethical reasons are
often not the only motivations for starting a business – there were a wider range of
220 motivators. Sustainability and independence were found to be key motivators for
renewable energy entrepreneurs, while monetary motivators were less important (Cato
et al., 2008). Not only are social and commercial boundaries blurred, but we posit that
these ecopreneurs exhibit similarly blurred boundaries between themselves and the
environment. This may be similar to Cato et al.’s (2008) study on associative
entrepreneurs, who work in co-operative type businesses. These blurred boundaries
highlight the importance of our theoretical framework in focusing on a sociological
perspective for the study – whereby ecopreneurs are embedded in a wider perspective.
Thus, we conclude that studying ecopreneurs requires such a sociological perspective,
rather than much of the traditional entrepreneurship literature that has focused on
economic and psychological viewpoints. This leads to the question of whether
ecopreneurs are similar or different to the general population of entrepreneurs in terms
of their motivations.

5. Are ecopreneurs’ motivations similar to entrepreneurs?

This section summarizes the findings and compares and contrasts them with the
extant literature on entrepreneurial motivations and on ecopreneurship (if research
exists). Table III illustrates these similarities and differences.
In terms of comparisons between these ecopreneurs and entrepreneurs in general,
independence is usually the highest ranking motivating factor. Independence-related
motivators are generally pull factors for entrepreneurship, and are often considered to
be a universal factor in people choosing entrepreneurial careers (Pinfold, 2001). Note
that none of the ecopreneurs in this study used the term “independent”, as they tended
not to have similar types of job dissatisfaction that other entrepreneurs had (shown in
Table III). Prior studies of entrepreneurs have found that job dissatisfaction is a key
motivating factor for leaving paid employment (Honig-Haftel and Marin, 1986) and this
translates into their desire to be independent from a boss or a job.
In wider research on entrepreneurs, many studies have found making money to be a
high-level motivator. While many of the participants in the current study were still
motivated by money (earning a living), we argue that there is an important difference
between these ecopreneurs and traditional entrepreneurs. As noted in the literature
review and indicated in Table III, money is often a factor in wanting to start a business.
We argue that entrepreneurs may be more inclined to want to earn a profit or to
generate wealth than the ecopreneurs we observed (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003).
This lower prioritization of money was also the case in associative entrepreneurs,
where financial achievement was less important than factors such as independence
(Cato et al., 2008).
First, green values emerged as a key reason why these ecopreneurs started a
business. The difference between these ecopreneurs and entrepreneurs may be that
when entrepreneurs view opportunities in growing markets for eco-friendly goods,
they start a business without necessarily holding strong green values. As Table III
 What motivates
Motivator Ecopreneurs in this study Prior studies of entrepreneurs
ecopreneurs?
Green values There must be a better way
Sustainability
Educating others
Gap in market Observe a gap in market Opportunity recognition (Hakim, 1989)
See the need for a product or 221
service (user-based)
See a growing market
Money Make a living Profit/wealth generation (DeMartino and Barbato,
Provide for family 2003)
Independence Be own boss
Do something for self, or as Desire independence and autonomy (often from a job)
a couple (Carter et al., 2003; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003)
Passion Passion for the environment Passion for business (de Bruin and Lewis, 2005, in a
Passion for their product or study on green entrepreneurs)
service
Family-related Lifestyle Work-family balance (Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008)
motivators Copreneurs making joint Flexibility with childcare (Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008)
decisions
Provide for family
Work-related Job/career dissatisfaction (DeMartino and Barbato,
motivators 2003)
Dissatisfaction with a boss (Kirkwood, 2004)
Difficulty finding employment (Hakim, 1988; Hakim,
1989) Table III.
Redundancy (Borooah et al., 1997) Comparison of findings
with the extant
Note: The idea for this table was gained from Cato et al.’s (2008) comparison of associative entrepreneurship
entrepreneurs and concepts around entrepreneurship literature

shows, no similar findings have found this to be a factor in motivations for

entrepreneurship in general. This difference was not unexpected, and may be the case
for two reasons. First, ecopreneurs appear to have very strong green values that drive
their decision to become entrepreneurs. That is, ecopreneurs may be quite different to
other entrepreneurs – although this would only be uncovered by undertaking
comparative research. The second reason why green values have not emerged in
research on entrepreneurial motivations is due to the primary method used in
motivations research. The majority of such research has used quantitative surveys to
enquire about motivations for starting a business. In such cases, green values would be
unlikely to be included on survey forms as an “option” for survey participants.
Likewise, in studies of entrepreneurs in general, passion has not been widely studied –
which could be due to similar methodological factors.
While this discussion shows a different motivator (green values) for ecopreneurs
that has not previously been uncovered, and variations on other common motivators,
the list of case companies displayed previously shows the ecopreneurs did not discuss
being motivated by family or work-related factors. The participants did not mention
IJEBR being motivated by their families a great deal. However, for the three copreneurial
16,3 businesses whose motivations for starting their business were made together, the link
to their family is strong. This highlights the sociological perspective discussed at the
beginning of the paper, whereby participants’ embeddedness in their surroundings is
an important factor in entrepreneurship. In other prior studies of entrepreneurs, people
have been found to be motivated by a desire to balance their work and families
222 (Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008). While it may initially seem perplexing not to find this in
the current study, we suggest it may be that these ecopreneurs already had a good
work-family balance prior to entering entrepreneurship, so they did not see it as a
primary reason to start their own business. In addition, it was difficult to distinguish
solid boundaries between the business and the person. This was evident particularly in
the ecopreneurs who operated their businesses from home (8 cases).
Additionally, another significant difference between entrepreneurs in general and
these ecopreneurs is that they did not appear to suffer from job and career
dissatisfaction to any extent. This is generally a positive finding, as factors relating to
work are often classed as factors which push people into entrepreneurship. The
absence of such job dissatisfaction means that other motivators (primarily pull factors)
drew the ecopreneurs into business, and these pull motivators are known to have a
more successful outcome for entrepreneurs (Amit and Muller, 1995). In summary, we
tentatively conclude from our exploratory study that ecopreneurs may have relatively
similar motivations to the wider population of entrepreneurs, as has been the case in
other studies of associative entrepreneurs (Cato et al., 2008). However, there are still
many unanswered questions, and some specific research questions are suggested next.

6. Future research questions

While this research has uncovered some answers about the motivations of ecopreneurs,
further research would allow the findings to be better understood and to be more
generalizable. We pose the following questions:
RQ1. What motivates people to become ecopreneurs?
RQ2. Which motivators are most important to ecopreneurs?
RQ3. What is the impact of founders’ green values on starting (and running) a
business?
RQ4. Do these motivations differ from the general population of entrepreneurs?
How?
A logical extension of our work on motivations for starting an ecopreneurial
business would be to propose that ecopreneurs who are motivated by their green
values, continue to run their business using these values. Thus, their initial
motivations for starting the business guide their subsequent decisions within the
business. Others have suggested motivations “influence the transition of individuals
from one stage of the entrepreneurial process to another” (Shane et al., 2003, p. 275).
This appeared to be particularly apparent around decisions such as employing
others, and growth and diversification into other markets. It also affected the way
they perceived internationalization issues such as importing and exporting.
Exploring these ongoing business decisions is beyond the scope of this research
study, as the majority of businesses had only been in operation for one or two What motivates
years. Two broad questions emerge as relevant. How do ecopreneurs balance their ecopreneurs?
green values and profit objectives? And how do their motivations affect their
growth aspirations?
RQ5. How do ecopreneurs manage their business while retaining their green
values? There appears to be a potential tension between the two which could
impact on decision making and practices within the company. 223
RQ6. What strategies do ecopreneurs employ for balancing these tensions?
RQ7. What makes it possible for green values to be retained and valued?
RQ8. Do green values change over the life cycle of the business and the life of the
ecopreneur? If so, how?
RQ9. What views do ecopreneurs have on growing their business?
RQ10. Do any of the tensions outlined above limit their growth intentions?
RQ11. What do ecopreneurs define as success in terms of their business? We
believe this might be quite different to many other entrepreneurs and this
would be useful to understand.
While it is beyond the scope of this exploratory research, our findings open up the
emerging dialogue that ecopreneurship may represent a new business paradigm. Our
view at the outset of this study was that ecopreneurship is a subset of
entrepreneurship. This was shown in Table III, which indicates a large overlap with
our findings and those of wider entrepreneurship studies. However, the ecopreneurs in
this study appear to have significantly wider motivations than merely exploiting a
niche market. This was evident in the strong focus the ecopreneurs in this study had
on their green values and the related education awareness-raising roles they
undertook – not only regarding their product or service but significantly wider issues
of environmental concern. Thus, our view is that they may represent a shifting
paradigm in terms of the way businesses operate. Further work around the research
questions above (particularly numbers 5-11) will shed more light on this proposition.

7. Conclusion
The outcomes of this study are twofold. First, we add empirical data to the worldwide
literature on ecopreneurs. The 14 case companies is one of the largest samples of
ecopreneurs that have been studied to date and the resulting empirical findings offer
new insights into this under-researched type of entrepreneur. Theoretical contributions
to the ecopreneurship and entrepreneurship literature were also made which add to our
understanding of ecopreneurs’ motivations for starting new businesses. In addition,
the extensive list of future research opportunities helps to advance the field of
ecopreneurship, which we argue is going to grow in significance as environmental
awareness increases.
Within the entrepreneurial motivation literature reviewed at the start of this paper,
it was noted that push-pull theory is the primary way of categorizing entrepreneurs’
motivations. When applying this categorization to the participants of our study, the
following became apparent: these ecopreneurs could all be classed as being pulled into
IJEBR business ownership rather than being pushed into it. This is important because
16,3 entrepreneurship works best if it is an individual initiative (Sriram et al., 2007). This
may be highly significant, as studies have concluded that those entrepreneurs who
start businesses with pull factors are more financially successful in ongoing business
(Amit and Muller, 1995). This bodes well for the ecopreneurs in the longer term,
especially when considered alongside their strong green values, passion for their
224 product or service, and their relatively low monetary motivations.
There are undoubtedly limitations to this study. The most apparent is the small
number of case studies, although this is due to the limited understanding of ecopreneurs
and the need for initial qualitative research to develop further research questions.
Additionally, the setting of the study is a potential limitation. The results of this study
may be country specific. Prior research found New Zealanders were primarily pulled into
entrepreneurship rather than pushed into it (Frederick and Chittock, 2006). This high
level of entrepreneurship (particularly opportunity entrepreneurs) may impact on the
findings because of the high number of people who are open to entrepreneurship.
Similarly, the country context in terms of its reputation for being clean and green may
also make ecopreneuership a more viable option than in other countries.

References
Alstete, J. (2003), “On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 222-34.
Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1995), “Push and pull entrepreneurship (two types based on
motivation)”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 64-80.
Anderson, A.R. (1998), “Cultivating the garden of eden: environmental entrepreneuring”, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-44.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-36.
Belcourt, M. (1987), “Sociological factors associated with female entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 22-31.
Belcourt, M., Burke, R.J. and Lee-Gosselin, H. (1991), The Glass Box: Women Business Owners in
Canada, Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ontario.
Bell, C. (1996), Inventing New Zealand: Everyday Myths of Pakeha Identity, Penguin, Auckland.
Berthold, N. and Neumann, M. (2008), “The motivation of entrepreneurs: are employed managers
and self-employed owners different?”, Intereconomics, July/August, pp. 236-44.
Bogenhold, D. and Staber, U. (1991), “The decline and rise of self-employment”, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 223-39.
Borooah, V.K., Collins, G., Hart, M. and MacNabb, A. (1997), “Women in business”, in Deakins, D.,
Jennings, P. and Mason, C. (Eds), Women in Business, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
Campbell, C.A. (1992), “A decision theory model for entrepreneurial acts”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-7.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. and Carland, J.A.C. (1984), “Differentiating entrepreneurs
from small business owners: a conceptualization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 354-9.
Carter, N., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of nascent What motivates
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 13-39.
ecopreneurs?
Cato, M.S., Arthur, L., Keenoy, T. and Smith, R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial energy: associative
entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector in Wales”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 313-29.
Clemens, B. (2006), “Economic incentives and small firms: does it pay to be green?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 492-500. 225
Cohen, B. and Winn, M. (2007), “Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Coyle, F. and Fairweather, J. (2005), “Challenging a place myth: New Zealand’s clean green image
meets the biotechnology revolution”, Area, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 148-58.
Cromie, S. (1987), “Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs”, Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 251-61.
de Bruin, A. and Lewis, K. (2005), “Green entrepreneurship in New Zealand: a micro-enterprise
focus”, in Schaper, M. (Ed.), Green Entrepreneurship in New Zealand: A Micro-Enterprise
Focus, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
de Bruin, A., Welter, F. and Brush, C. (2007), “What we know about the ‘mothers of invention’:
an overview and research agenda”, International Council for Small Business, Turku.
Dean, T.J. and McMullen, J. (2007), “Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: reducing
environmental degradation through environmental action”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 50-76.
DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Dew, K. (1999), “National Identity and controversy: New Zealand’s clean green image and
pentachlorophenol”, Health Place, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Dixon, S. and Clifford, A. (2007), “Ecopreneurship – a new approach to managing the triple
bottom line”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 326-45.
Edmondson, A. and McManus, S. (2007), “Methodological fit in management field research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1155-79.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R. and Dyke, L.S. (1993), “A theoretical overview and extension of
research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 151-68.
Fox, M.A. (1998), “Motivations and aspirations of self-employed Maori in New Zealand”, working
paper, Lincoln University, Canterbury.
Frederick, H. and Chittock, G. (2006), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Aotearoa New Zealand:
2005 Executive Report, Unitec, Auckland.
Freimann, J., Marxen, S. and Schick, H. (2005), “Sustainability in the start-up process”, in
Schaper, M. (Ed.), Sustainability in the Start-Up Process, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Gibbs, D. (2007), “The role of ecopreneurs in developing a sustainable economy”, paper presented
at the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, University of Leeds, Leeds.
IJEBR Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J. and Krause, T. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
implications for management theory and research”, Academy of Management Review,
16,3 Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 874-907.
Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
226 American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Hakim, C. (1988), “Self-employment trends in Britain: recent trends and current issues”, Work,
Employment & Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 421-50.
Hakim, C. (1989), “New recruits to self-employment in the 1980’s”, Employment Gazette, June,
pp. 286-97.
Honig-Haftel, S. and Marin, L.R. (1986), “Is the female entrepreneur at a disadvantage?”, Thrust:
the journal for employment and training professionals, Vol. 1&2, pp. 49-64.
Hurley, A. (1999), “Incorporating feminist theories into sociological theories of entrepreneurship”,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 54-62.
Issak, R. (2002), “The making of the ecopreneur”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38,
Summer, pp. 81-91.
Keogh, P. and Polonsky, M. (1998), “Environmental commitment: a basis for environmental
entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 38-49.
Kirkwood, J. (2004), “One size doesn’t fit all: gender differences in motivations for becoming an
entrepreneur”, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Management, University of Otago,
Dunedin.
Kirkwood, J. and Tootell, B. (2008), “Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-family
balance?”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-302.
Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Langan-Fox, J. and Roth, S. (1995), “Achievement motivation in female entrepreneurs”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 209-18.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Folero, G. (2001), “Targeting consumers who are willing to
pay more for environmentally friendly products”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 503-20.
Linnanen, L. (2002), “An insider’s experiences with environmental entrepreneurship”, Greener
Management International, Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 71-80.
McClelland, E., Swail, J., Bell, J. and Ibbotson, P. (2005), “Following the pathway of female
entrepreneurs: a six-country investigation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 84-107.
McKeiver, C. and Gadenne, D. (2005), “Environmental management systems in small and
medium businesses”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 513-37.
Mallon, M. and Cohen, L. (2001), “Time for a change? Women’s accounts of the move from
organizational careers to self-employment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 217-30.
Marlow, S. (1997), “Self-employed women – new opportunities, old challenges?”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 9, pp. 199-210.
Marlow, S. and Strange, A. (1994), “Female entrepreneurs – success by whose standards?”,
in Tanton, M. (Ed.), Female Entrepreneurs – Success by Whose Standards?, Routledge,
London.
Ministry for the Environment (2001), “Valuing New Zealand’s clean green image”, Ministry for What motivates
the Environment, Wellington.
ecopreneurs?
Ministry of Economic Development (2007), “SME’s in New Zealand: structure and dynamics”,
Ministry of Economic Development, Wellington.
Pastakia, A. (1998), “Grassroots ecopreneurs: change agents for a sustainable society”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 157-73.
Penrose, E.T. (1968), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 227
Pinfold, J.E. (2001), “The expectations of new business founders: the New Zealand case”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 279-85.
Post, J. and Altman, B. (1994), “Managing the environmental change process: barriers and
opportunities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 64-81.
Rao, P. (2008), “Environmental initiatives undertaken by entrepreneurs in the Phillipines”,
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-81.
Richards, L. (1999), “Data alive! The thinking behind NVivo”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 412-28.
Richards, L. (2000), Using NVivo in Qualitative Research, QSR International, Victoria.
Richards, T.J. and Richards, L. (1994), “Using computers in qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K.
and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Schaltegger, S. (2002), “A framework for ecopreneurship: leading bioneers and environmental
managers to ecopreneurship”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38, Summer,
pp. 45-58.
Schaper, M. (2002a), “The essence of ecopreneurship”, Greener Management International,
Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 26-30.
Schaper, M. (2002b), “Small firms and environmental management: predictors of green
purchasing in Western Australian pharmacies”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-51.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L. and Westhead, P. (1991), “An exploratory examination of the reasons
leading to new firm formation across country and gender”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 431-46.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C. (2003), “Entrepreneurial motivation”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 257-79.
Shinnar, R. and Young, C. (2008), “Hispanic immigrant entrepreneurs in the Las Vegas
metropolitan area: motivations for entry into and outcomes of self-employment”, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 242-62.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage, London.
Smith, N.R. (1967), “The entrepreneur and his firm: the relationship between type of man and
type of company”, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Sriram, V., Mersha, T. and Herron, L. (2007), “Drivers of urban entrepreneurship: an integrative
model”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 235-51.
IJEBR Stevenson, L.A. (1990), “Some methodological problems associated with researching women
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 439-46.
16,3 Still, L.V. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Generational and gender differences in the start-up goals and
later satisfaction of small business proprietors”, Australia and New Zealand Academy of
Management (ANZAM), Auckland, New Zealand.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
228 Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1991), “The Growth of women entrepreneurship – push or pull
factors?”, in Davies, L.G. and Gibb, A.A. (Eds), The Growth of Women Entrepreneurship –
Push or Pull Factors?, Avebury, Aldershot.
Taormina, R.J. and Lao, S.K.-M. (2007), “Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivations:
personality and environmental influences”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 200-21.
Terjersen, S. (2005), “Senior women managers’ transition to entrepreneurship”, Career
Development International, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 246-62.
Walley, E. and Taylor, D. (2002), “Opportunists, champions, mavericks..? A typology of green
entrepreneurs”, Greener Management International, Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 31-43.
Watson, J. and Robinson, S. (2002), Risk Adjusted Performance Measures: Comparing Male and
Female Controlled SME’s, International Council for Small Business, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A. and Harris, K.E. (2008), “A re-examination of socially responsible
consumption and its measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 91-8.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-5.
Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

About the authors

Jodyanne Kirkwood is a Lecturer in the Department of Management, School of Business,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Jodyanne teaches innovation management,
entrepreneurship and operations management and her research interests are focused around
women entrepreneurs – particularly the role of family in entrepreneurship and work-family
balance. Other research interests include succession planning, Ecopreneurship and Tall Poppy
Syndrome. Jodyanne Kirkwood is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
Jodyanne.kirkwood@otago.ac.nz
Sara Walton lectures in the Department of Management at the University of Otago, Dunedin,
New Zealand in organisational sustainability, business ethics and research methods. Sara’s
research expertise encompasses the broad area of business and sustainability. Her current
research is in the area of examining environmental conflicts, exploring the notion of an
ecopreneur and critically examining the concept of “carbon neutral”.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints