Page 594
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Tension-Driven Innovation: Reconceptualising Sustainable Entrepreneur-
ship Through Paradox Fields
1
Bhargabi Hazarika &
2
Prof. Arup Barman
*
1
Research Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Assam University, Silchar
2*
Professor, Department of Business Administration, Assam University, Silchar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600047
Received: 13 June 2026; Accepted: 18 June 2026; Published: 04 July 2026
ABSTRACT
Sustainable entrepreneurship serves at the nexus of economic viability, ecological stewardship, and social re-
sponsibility. However, the prevailing Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, which treats these aspects as har-
moniously aligned, fails to adequately capture the ongoing conflicts entrepreneurs face when balancing sustain-
ability objectives. This limitation has created a theoretical gap in understanding how sustainability-related con-
tradictions can generate entrepreneurial innovation. Therefore, this study aims to examine the limitations of the
TBL framework, synthesise insights from paradox theory and the sustainable entrepreneurship literature, and
propose a novel conceptual model that explains how sustainability tensions can become sources of innovation.
The study is based on conceptual theory-building research design grounded in a systematic review and synthesis
of the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship, paradox theory, and the Triple Bottom Line. Through thematic
analysis and theory synthesis, key concepts, tensions, and mechanisms underlying sustainable entrepreneurial
action were identified and integrated.
The study proposes the Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Economic sustainability, social
sustainability, ecological sustainability, and entrepreneurial innovation comprise the four interrelated dimen-
sions of the three-dimensional tetrahedral framework. The model identifies six persistent paradoxical tensions
and explains how entrepreneurs transform these tensions into innovative outcomes through five mechanisms:
tension recognition, rethinking cognitive, both/and thinking, dynamic cycling, and tetrahedral integration.
The study concludes that sustainability tensions should not be viewed as obstacles to be resolved but as produc-
tive forces that stimulate entrepreneurial innovation, offering a new theoretical foundation for future research
and practice in sustainable entrepreneurship.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Sustainable entrepreneurship, Paradox Theory, Triple Bottom Line, Entrepreneur-
ial innovation, Sustainability Tensions, conceptual mode
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship has long been recognised as a primary engine of economic vitality, serving as a conduit that
transforms market uncertainties into structured value (Schumpeter, 1942; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). How-
ever, the modern business paradigm has undergone a profound shift. The contemporary global market no longer
evaluates entrepreneurial success solely by financial metrics; it demands a dual commitment to preserving eco-
logical boundaries and advancing social equity (Rockström et al., 2009; Raworth, 2017). This evolution has
thrust sustainable entrepreneurship into the academic spotlight, positioning it not merely as a sub-discipline of
management, but as a critical area of inquiry at the intersection of economic growth, planetary survival, and
community wellbeing (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011).
Page 595
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Yet as sustainable entrepreneurship matures, a sharp divergence has emerged between prevailing corporate sus-
tainability theory and the on-the-ground realities faced by business owners. The dominant framework for con-
ceptualising business sustainability remains John Elkington's (1994) Triple Bottom Line (TBL), which tradition-
ally portrays economic, social, and environmental imperatives as overlapping circles in a state of harmonious
equilibrium. While this flat, two-dimensional model succeeded in legitimising non-financial metrics in the cor-
porate world (Elkington, 1997), it inadvertently promoted a flawed assumption: that these three dimensions nat-
urally converge toward a central point of win-win alignment (Hahn et al., 2015).
Empirical reality consistently contradicts this idealised harmony. In practice, the demands of profit maximisa-
tion, ecosystem preservation, and community equity do not neatly align; they systematically tug in opposing
directions (Hahn et al., 2018; Van der Byl & Slawinski, 2015). Choosing to maximise market efficiency often
comes at the direct expense of social investment, while adhering to strict ecological boundaries inherently con-
strains standard paths of industrial expansion (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Porter & Kramer, 2011). These are not
minor, fleeting operational hurdles that can be ironed out with better management. They are structural, perma-
nent, and fundamentally contradictory demands baked into the very architecture of sustainability (Hahn et al.,
2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).
The flat TBL framework fails to account for these systemic frictions, leaving a glaring gap in the literature
(Elkington, 2018; Norman & MacDonald, 2004). It mischaracterises the entrepreneur as an external manager
balancing three static pillars from a safe distance, rather than the internal integrating force who must actively
absorb and navigate these clashes (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Consequently, management science lacks a struc-
turally accurate, three-dimensional spatial model that explains how a sustainable entrepreneur can process these
competing demands to generate innovative business strategies (Hahn et al., 2018). This paper addresses this
specific theoretical gap by asking: How can sustainability theory and organisational paradox theory be formally
synthesised to explain how the permanent frictions within sustainable entrepreneurship are converted into crea-
tive business innovations?
To build this architecture, the study explicitly draws on the foundational paradox theory established by Smith
and Lewis (2011). Within organisational scholarship, a critical distinction must be made regarding the term
tension. It is not used here casually to denote a stressful emotional state or a temporary business problem. Rather,
tension is the precise, operative academic descriptor for contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simul-
taneously and persist over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Organisational theorists use this term because it describes
a permanent, productive state (Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). Unlike a conflict or a trade-off, which
implies that an entrepreneur must choose one side or settle for a weak compromise, a tension represents a struc-
tural reality in which opposing demands coexist indefinitely without cancelling one another out (Smith & Lewis,
2011; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009).
Rather than attempting to patch or recreate the flawed assumptions of the traditional TBL, this paper re-envisions
it through a three-dimensional geometric lens integrated into ‘The Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entre-
preneurship’. By elevating the flat Venn diagram into a three-dimensional tetrahedron, this model maps eco-
nomic, social, and ecological sustainability as the base vertices and introduces Entrepreneurial Innovation as the
defining apex (cf. Hahn et al., 2018; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The edges of this structure represent six distinct,
permanent paradoxical tensions, while the interior space forms the Paradox Field.
The primary purpose of this study is to formally introduce this model and delineate the five sequential conceptual
mechanisms contextualising entrepreneurship, which are- Tension Recognition, Rethinking Cognitive,
Both/And Thinking, Dynamic Cycling, and Tetrahedral Integration—that operate within the Paradox Field
(Smith & Lewis, 2011; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008).
By embedding the entrepreneurial agent directly inside the structure as an integrating vertex rather than an ex-
ternal balancer, this paper offers a significant theoretical contribution to management science (Shepherd & Pat-
zelt, 2011; Dean & McMullen, 2007). It moves beyond traditional win-win myths (Hahn et al., 2015) to demon-
strate that the systemic structural tensions inherent in sustainable business are not indicators of market failure
Page 596
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
but rather stem from a shortage of the ultimate creative resource for sustainable innovation (Schumpeter, 1942;
Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
Sustainable entrepreneurship has emerged as one of the most consequential fields in contemporary management
science, operating at the intersection of economic vitality, ecological preservation, and social equity (Dean &
McMullen, 2007; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). As planetary boundaries tighten and societal expectations of busi-
ness expand, entrepreneurs are no longer evaluated solely on financial performance; they are expected to gener-
ate profit, protect ecosystems, and serve communities simultaneously (Rockström et al., 2009). This tripartite
demand is not merely an added responsibility; it fundamentally reshapes the nature of entrepreneurial decision-
making, particularly in ecologically sensitive and economically developing regions, where the contradictions
among economic, social, and ecological imperatives are especially pronounced. Understanding how entrepre-
neurs navigate these simultaneous, competing demands is therefore not an academic abstraction; it is an urgent,
practical and theoretical necessity (Hahn et al., 2018; Van der Byl & Slawinski, 2015).
The dominant framework for conceptualising this challenge remains Elkington's (1994) Triple Bottom Line,
which presents the economic, social, and ecological dimensions as three overlapping circles converging on a
natural point of harmony. This framework has made a significant contribution by legitimising non-financial
metrics in corporate practice and policy (Elkington, 1997). However, the bulk of scholarship building on the
TBL has focused on measuring performance across its three dimensions rather than theorising the structural
contradictions among them (Norman & MacDonald, 2004; Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Paradox theory offers the
most conceptually appropriate lens for understanding simultaneous, irresolvable contradictions. Scholars such
as Hahn et al. (2018) and Roome and Louche (2016) have begun applying it to corporate sustainability. Yet no
study has formally brought these two bodies of knowledge together within an entrepreneurship framework. Most
critically, the entrepreneur, the very agent who must absorb and navigate these tensions daily, remains absent
from the architecture of existing models.
This absence constitutes a critical theoretical limitation. The TBL's flat, two-dimensional geometry cannot rep-
resent the direction, intensity, or dynamic interplay of sustainability tensions, and its implicit message of har-
mony actively misleads practitioners and researchers alike (Hahn et al., 2015; Elkington, 2018). More funda-
mentally, no existing framework positions the entrepreneur as an internal integrating force within the sustaina-
bility structure rather than an external balancer of its components.
The result is a field that can describe what sustainable entrepreneurs face but cannot explain how they convert
those structural tensions into innovation. This paper addresses that precise gap: the absence of a theoretically
coherent, three-dimensional model that formally integrates paradox theory, sustainability architecture, and the
entrepreneurial agent to explain how tension becomes the engine of innovation.
Aim of this paper: How can sustainability theory and paradox theory be formally combined to create a theoret-
ically sound model that explains how the tensions that exist in sustainable entrepreneurship lead to innovation?
Objective: Three main objectives are designed to accomplish the aim of the paper-
To critically examine the theoretical limitations of the existing Triple Bottom Line framework in capturing
sustainability tensions,
To synthesise paradox theory, Triple Bottom Line theory, and sustainable entrepreneurship theory into a
coherent theoretical framework,
To propose the Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship as a novel theoretical contribution to
management science.
METHODOLOGY
Page 597
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
This study adopts a conceptual theory-building research design to develop a novel framework for understanding
how sustainability tensions generate entrepreneurial innovation. The study was conducted in four sequential
stages (Table 1).
Table 1: Objective-wise Literature Review
Objective
Type
Statement
Focus Area
Method
Objective 1
Examina-
tion
To critically examine the theoretical lim-
itations of the existing Triple Bottom
Line framework in capturing sustainabil-
ity tensions.
Triple Bottom
Line framework
Integrative Lit-
erature Review
Objective 2
Synthesis
To synthesise paradox theory, Triple
Bottom Line theory, and sustainable en-
trepreneurship theory into a coherent the-
oretical framework
Paradox theory,
Triple Bottom
Line theory, and
sustainability
Theoretical syn-
thesis
Objective 3
Contribu-
tion
To propose the Paradox Field Model of
Sustainable Entrepreneurship as a novel
theoretical contribution to management
science
The Paradox
Field Model
Model Develop-
ment
First, an integrative literature review, which combines narrative and thematic reviews to discern purposive and
systematic elements, was conducted to identify and examine the key theoretical foundations of sustainable en-
trepreneurship, including Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory, organisational paradox theory, and the sustainability
paradox literature. Relevant peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2005 and 2025 were retrieved
from major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
Second, the selected literature underwent purely a thematic analysis. The analysis focused on identifying recur-
ring concepts, theoretical assumptions, paradoxical tensions, and explanatory mechanisms across the four the-
matic domains. Through iterative coding and comparison, four major themes emerged: paradox theory and or-
ganisational tensions; Triple Bottom Line theory and its limitations; sustainability paradoxes in business; and
entrepreneurship under competing demands.
Third, a theory synthesis approach was employed to integrate insights from these diverse but related streams of
literature. Following the principles of conceptual synthesis, the study compared theoretical assumptions, identi-
fied conceptual complementarities, and reconciled overlapping constructs. This process enabled the development
of a unified explanatory framework linking sustainability dimensions, paradoxical tensions, and entrepreneurial
innovation.
Finally, the study utilised conceptual modelling to develop the Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepre-
neurship. The model was developed by identifying four core constructs—economic sustainability, social sus-
tainability, ecological sustainability, and entrepreneurial innovation and mapping their relationships within a
three-dimensional tetrahedral structure. The model further explains how entrepreneurs transform sustainability
tensions into innovative outcomes.
The methodological contribution of this study lies not in empirical testing but in theoretical integration and
model development. By systematically reviewing existing scholarship, synthesising complementary theoretical
perspectives, and constructing a novel conceptual framework, the study may serve as a foundation for future
empirical validity through qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research designs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Page 598
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The literature review identifies four thematic streams that collectively constitute the intellectual foundation of
the Paradox Field Model: the paradox theory and organisational tensions; the Triple Bottom Line and its struc-
tural limitations; the sustainability paradox in business; and entrepreneurship under competing demands.
Paradox Theory: Tension as a Theoretical Concept
Smith and Lewis (2011), who published in the Academy of Management Review, are recognised for providing
the fundamental formulation of paradox theory in organisational studies. In their paper, the term "tension" has a
specific literary meaning; it is not used arbitrarily. "Contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultane-
ously and persist over time" is how they describe paradox, and tension is their operative condition. They sort
organisational paradoxes into four categories: performing, organising, belonging, and learning. They contend
that organisations that manage these tensions in parallel, rather than resolving them, reach what they call dynamic
equilibrium, a state of fruitful coexistence that eventually fosters innovation and adaptation.
This is a significant departure from how management literature had previously handled contradiction. The dom-
inant instinct in strategy, operations, and leadership has been to resolve tension through prioritisation. Choose
efficiency or flexibility. Choose profit or purpose. Smith and Lewis argue that this either-or logic is not only
limiting but also theoretically incorrect. Paradoxes cannot be resolved. They can only be worked with; earlier
contributions had gestured toward this idea. Poole and Van de Ven (1989) identified four strategies for managing
paradox, including acceptance and synthesis. Lewis (2000) explored how organisations reinforce rather than
escape their paradoxes. But it was Smith and Lewis (2011) who gave the field a coherent, generalisable frame-
work — one that this paper directly builds upon.
The Triple Bottom Line: A Framework and Its Limits
Elkington's (1994) Triple Bottom Line was a genuine intellectual intervention. At a time when business success
meant shareholder returns, proposing that firms should be accountable to people and planet as well as profit was
a meaningful challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy. The framework has since become the dominant language of
corporate sustainability used in reporting standards, policy frameworks, and business education worldwide. But
the TBL has a structural problem that has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Its visual representation, three
overlapping circles, implies that economic, social, and ecological objectives naturally converge. The message,
intended or not, is that sustainability is achievable through alignment. That tension, if it exists, is a temporary
management problem rather than a permanent structural condition.
Hahn et al. (2015) were the first to formally challenge this. They showed that the three pillars of the TBL are
inherently incompatible: Economic growth systematically externalises ecological costs; social equity measures
often conflict with market efficiency; ecological boundaries constrain the very expansion that funds social in-
vestment. These are not occasional conflicts, but they are all structural.
In a 2018 article for the Harvard Business Review, Elkington himself called for a "recall" of the TBL, admitting
that it had been misused as an accounting instrument rather than a transformative framework. This paper con-
tends that the issue goes beyond misuse. It's a representation issue. The complexity of the challenges faced by
sustainable entrepreneurs just cannot be captured by a flat, two-dimensional paradigm.
These structural limitations, identified across the literature, establish the theoretical necessity for a spatial re-
conceptualisation of the TBL. This paper directly addresses that necessity in the theoretical synthesis.
Sustainability Paradox in Business
The explicit application of paradox theory to corporate sustainability is relatively recent, and it has produced
some of the most useful thinking in this space. Hahn et al. (2018), drawing directly on Smith and Lewis (2011),
identify four paradoxes specific to sustainability-oriented organisations: performing (profit versus planet), or-
Page 599
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
ganising (efficiency versus resilience), belonging (shareholder versus stakeholder primacy), and learning (ex-
ploiting existing capabilities versus building new ones). Their contribution is important because it moves the
conversation from "how do we balance sustainability dimensions" to "how do we live productively within their
contradiction.
Walker et al. (2020), in a longitudinal study of 746 firms, provide empirical weight to this theoretical shift.
Organisations that accepted all three TBL tensions simultaneously, instead of trading one off against another,
performed significantly better than those that used trade-off logic. This is not a minor discovery. It implies that
the both/and strategy is better, practical, and theoretically sound. Roome and Louche (2016) further develop this
argument, demonstrating that genuine sustainability transformation in businesses requires a level of paradox
tolerance not typically cultivated by traditional management training. Firms that achieve transformation resist
the pressure to resolve tension prematurely.
Entrepreneurship Under Competing Demands
Shepherd and Patzelt (2011), writing in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, provide the most direct articula-
tion of sustainable entrepreneurship as a paradoxical endeavour. They argue that sustainable entrepreneurs must
simultaneously address what is to be sustained (natural and communal environments) and what is to be developed
(economic value, human well-being). This dual mandate is inherently paradoxical, and they observe that the
most innovative sustainable entrepreneurs are those who find ways to create value from the tension itself rather
than resolve it in favour of one side.
The reviewed literature reveals important theoretical insights but also exposes the absence of an integrated
framework that explains how sustainability tensions generate entrepreneurial innovation.
Research Gap
There is currently no model that unifies the entrepreneurial agent, paradox theory, and a three-dimensional sus-
tainability framework into a single theoretical construct. In ecologically delicate and economically developing
areas like Assam and the Northeast, tensions between the triple bottom line (TBL) dimensions are most pro-
nounced.
THEORY SYNTHESIS
The Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship- The literature reviewed in the previous section
reveals a consistent and important absence. Paradox theory has the language but not the spatial model. The Triple
Bottom Line has the architecture, but misrepresents it as harmonious. Sustainable entrepreneurship theory lacks
an agent but provides a framework for the field in which the agent operates. This section brings these three
streams together to construct the Paradox Field Model—a theoretical framework that, to the best of this author's
knowledge, is the first to formally integrate all three.
From Limitation to Necessity: The Case for Re-conceptualisation- The TBL's structural flaw is not merely
empirical; it is representational. By flattening three structurally contradictory dimensions onto a single plane,
the framework implies a harmony that does not exist in practice. What the literature establishes, then, is not
simply that the TBL has gaps, but that its geometry actively misrepresents the entrepreneurial condition. This
paper takes that representational failure as its starting point: if the structure is wrong, the structure must change.
Paradox Theory as the Conceptual Bridge- Where the TBL lacks the language for contradiction, paradox
theory provides it. Smith and Lewis's (2011) framework does not merely tolerate tension; it theorises it as pro-
ductive. Applied here, they-are-each logic reframes the six sustainability tensions not as design failures of the
TBL but as the permanent, generative conditions of sustainable entrepreneurship. Paradox theory supplies what
the TBL cannot: a principled reason to inhabit contradiction rather than resolve it.
The Missing Agent: Entrepreneurship Theory's Contribution-Both the TBL and paradox theory, however,
share one absence: the entrepreneur. Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) establish that sustainable entrepreneurs do not
Page 600
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
balance sustainability dimensions from outside; they absorb and navigate competing demands from within the
system. This paper treats that insight as structural. The entrepreneur is not the model's manager. The entrepreneur
is the fourth vertex, the point without which the entire three-dimensional structure collapses into a flat triangle.
The integration of these three streams necessitates a new geometric and conceptual architecture: the Paradox
Field Model, developed in the following section.
The Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship
The Tetrahedron- The first and most fundamental move of this model is geometric. The Triple Bottom Line
has always been represented as three overlapping circles on a flat plane. This paper replaces that representation
with a tetrahedron, a three-dimensional solid with four vertices, four triangular faces, and six edges, in which
every vertex is directly connected to every other.
This is not an aesthetic choice. It is a theoretical one. The flat Venn diagram suggests that the three sustainability
dimensions lie on the same plane, converging toward a central point of harmony. But sustainability tensions do
not flatten. They operate in multiple directions simultaneously. A three-dimensional structure is therefore more
honest, as it reflects the actual complexity of what sustainable entrepreneurs navigate.
The tetrahedron also has a specific geometric property that makes it theoretically useful: it is the simplest three-
dimensional structure in which every point is equidistant from every other point. No dimension dominates. No
vertex is closer to the centre than another. This captures something important about sustainability: that economic,
social, and ecological imperatives carry equal theoretical weight, even when they pull in different directions
(fig.1).
Fig. 1- Rationale for Adopting a Tetrahedral Structure in the Paradox Field Model
Source: Contents from cited Manuscripts designed by Authors with Gemini Prompt
The Four Vertices- The tetrahedron has four vertices. Three form the base. One sits at the apex. The three base
vertices carry the original TBL dimensions:
Page 601
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Economic — value creation, market viability, financial sustainability
Social — community wellbeing, equity, stakeholder inclusion
Ecological — planetary boundaries, biodiversity, resource integrity
The fourth vertex—the apex—is Entrepreneurial Innovation.
This is the model's most significant departure from the TBL. In Elkington's framework, the entrepreneur sits
outside the sustainability system, a manager who balances the three circles from a distance. In this model, the
entrepreneur is inside the structure. The apex vertex is not above the base in a hierarchical sense; it is the fourth
point that gives the entire structure its three-dimensional form. Without it, the model collapses back into a flat
triangle. Without the entrepreneur, sustainability remains an aspiration rather than a practice.
The Six Edges: Six Paradoxical Tensions- Every edge of the tetrahedron connects two vertices. With four
vertices, six edges are converging to emerge tension dimensions, and each one of which represents a distinct
paradoxical tension inherent in sustainable entrepreneurship:
Economic ↔ Social — the tension between profit maximisation and equitable value distribution
Economic ↔ Ecological — the tension between growth imperatives and planetary boundaries
Social ↔ Ecological — the tension between community employment and ecosystem preservation
Economic ↔ Entrepreneurial Innovation — the tension between short-term returns and long-term trans-
formative investment
Social ↔ Entrepreneurial Innovation — the tension between stakeholder expectations and disruptive
change
Ecological ↔ Entrepreneurial Innovation — the tension between ecological constraints and the entrepre-
neurial opportunity that those constraints create
The theoretical grounding of each tension is clustered.
Table 1: Six Paradoxical Tensions of the Paradox Field Model
Edges
Theoretical Grounding
E–S
Profit maximisation vs equitable distribution of value (Hahn et al., 2018)
E–Ec
Growth imperatives vs planetary boundaries (Walker et al., 2020)
S–Ec
Community employment vs ecosystem preservation (Ferrer-Serrano et
al., 2025)
E–EI
Short-term returns vs long-term transformative investment (Smith &
Lewis, 2011)
S–EI
Stakeholder demands vs disruptive innovation (Shepherd & Patzelt,
2011)
Ec–EI
Ecological constraints as entrepreneurial opportunity (Dean & McMul-
len, 2007)
Source: Compiled by Authors
Theoretically, what matters is that all six tensions are permanent in the reality of entrepreneurship. They do not
disappear, even if managed well. They are not operational problems to be solved; they are the structural condi-
tions for sustainable entrepreneurship and, as the next section demonstrates, also its greatest creative resource.
Page 602
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The Paradox Field: Interior Space as the Arena of Innovation- The interior space of the tetrahedron, termed
the Paradox Field, is not a compromise zone where tensions are merely averaged. Instead, it serves as an active
arena in which the entrepreneur simultaneously engages with competing demands, thereby generating innovative
responses that would be unattainable through single-goal approaches. Five mechanisms operate sequentially
within the Paradox Field (bottom box of Figure 2):
Tension Recognition — The first and most fundamental step. The entrepreneur does not run from the tension
or pretend it does not exist. All three pressures, economic, social, and ecological, are acknowledged as real and
simultaneous. Without this recognition, the remaining mechanisms cannot activate.
Rethinking Cognitive — Once tension is recognised, it is reframed. The three competing pressures are not the
enemy. They are sharpening the entrepreneur's thinking, forcing a level of cognitive complexity that single-goal
pursuit never demands. This is the shift from seeing tension as a burden to seeing it as an intellectual resource.
Both/And Thinking — The entrepreneur resists the instinct to choose one dimension over the others. Instead
of asking "which one do I prioritise?" the question becomes "how can I serve all three at once?" This is Smith
and Lewis's (2011) both/and logic made operational.
Dynamic Cycling — Holding all three simultaneously does not mean treating them identically at every moment.
The entrepreneur cycles through dimensions over time. Today's focus may be profit, tomorrow's ecology, and
next week's social impact without abandoning the others. This temporal movement keeps the paradox field alive
and productive.
Tetrahedral Integration — The outcome of the four preceding mechanisms. When tension is recognised, re-
framed, held simultaneously, and dynamically cycled through, the entrepreneur arrives at a solution that no sin-
gle-goal thinker would ever find. That solution, emerging from the model's full three-dimensional structure, is
the innovation.
These five mechanisms do not operate in isolation or in sequence. They work simultaneously, reinforcing each
other within the Paradox Field. Together, they explain the central claim of this model: that sustainable entrepre-
neurs who inhabit tension rather than escape it are the ones who innovate.
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of the Tetrahedral Paradox Field
Page 603
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Source: Contents from cited Manuscripts designed by Authors with Gemini Prompt.
Integrated Theoretical Contribution- This paper began with a simple but consequential observation: that sus-
tainable entrepreneurship is structurally paradoxical, and that the frameworks available to understand it are not.
The Triple Bottom Line, for all its contributions, presents sustainability as a condition of harmony. The world
that sustainable entrepreneurs actually inhabit is not harmonious. It is tensioned, contradictory, and demanding,
and no amount of better management makes it otherwise. The three objectives of this paper were not independent
tasks. They formed a single, unfolding argument.
The first objective was to examine the theoretical limitations of the Triple Bottom Line. What this examination
revealed is more than a gap; it is a fundamental failure of representation. The TBL was built on the assumption
that economic, social, and ecological dimensions naturally converge. They do not. Hahn et al. (2015) demon-
strated that these three pillars are structurally contradictory. Walker et al. (2020) empirically showed that firms
that treated them as a trade-off consistently underperformed those that held all three tensions simultaneously.
Even Elkington himself, in 2018, called for a recall of the very framework he created. A framework that its
author has disowned cannot be the foundation on which sustainable entrepreneurship theory continues to be
built. This paper does not patch the TBL. It reconceives it.
The second objective, synthesising paradox theory, TBL scholarship, and sustainable entrepreneurship theory,
produced the intellectual architecture of the Paradox Field Model. Each stream contributed what the others
lacked. Smith and Lewis (2011) gave tension its theoretical dignity. Elkington (1994) identified three dimensions
of sustainability. Shepherd and Patzelt (2011) gave the entrepreneur their rightful place inside the system. These
three streams produce something none of them could yield alone: a framework where tension is not a problem
to be solved but a field to be inhabited, and where that inhabitation, when navigated through the five mechanisms
of Tension Recognition, Rethinking Cognitive, Both/And Thinking, Dynamic Cycling, and Tetrahedral Integra-
tion, produces innovation that single-goal thinking could never reach.
Page 604
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The third objective is to propose the Paradox Field Model as a theoretical contribution. There is no metaphor
associated with the tetrahedron. It is an exact geometric decision: a structure where all sustainability dimensions
are equally spaced from one another, no dimension is dominant, and the entrepreneur is the fourth vertex that
gives the structure its three-dimensional form, rather than an external balancer. The internal space, known as the
Paradox Field, is not empty. Real work in sustainable entrepreneurship takes place there. Ultimately, this model
contends that the tension experienced by sustainable businesses is not a sign of an unresolved issue. It is the state
of their work. And when properly understood, it is their most valuable creative resource.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The Paradox Field Model does not end with its proposal. A theoretical model earns its place in the literature not
just by what it argues but by what it makes possible for academics, practitioners, and the institutions that shape
entrepreneurial behaviour. This section reflects on those possibilities.
Academic Implications- This model opens more doors than it closes. For researchers working at the intersection
of entrepreneurship and sustainability, the field of paradoxes as a unit of analysis is largely unexplored territory.
Most existing studies either measure sustainability performance across the three TBL dimensions or apply par-
adox theory to large corporate organisations, rarely both, and rarely in the context of small entrepreneurial firms.
The Paradox Field Model invites scholars to ask different questions: not whether sustainable entrepreneurs bal-
ance their dimensions well, but how they inhabit the tensions among them and what kinds of innovation emerge
from this.
How the Model Differs in Application- The most important practical difference between the Paradox Field
Model and the Triple Bottom Line is not structural — it is orientational. The TBL tells an entrepreneur to balance
three dimensions. This model tells an entrepreneur to navigate the tension among them. These are not the same
instructions. Here, balancing implies stability, a careful allocation of attention and resources so that no dimension
is neglected. Another aspect, in navigating, implies movement, an ongoing, dynamic process of holding contra-
dictions without resolution and allowing that discomfort to produce something new. An MSME owner who feels
pulled between cutting costs, reducing waste, and paying fair wages is not failing to balance. They live in a
paradoxical field. This model gives that experience a name, a structure, and a pathway forward.
Designing for the Real World: MSME Context- The Paradox Field Model is not designed for large corpora-
tions with dedicated sustainability departments and compliance budgets. It is designed for entrepreneurs who
face sustainability tensions with limited resources, limited time, and maximum pressure. This is precisely the
MSME condition. What makes the model useful in this context is that its five mechanisms are not resource-
intensive. They do not require new technology, new capital, or new staff. They require a different way of think-
ing, one that treats tension as information rather than obstruction. An MSME owner who learns to recognise
tension rather than avoid it, reframe it rather than resent it, and cycle through competing demands rather than
collapse them into a single priority is already operating inside the paradox field. The model makes that process
visible, nameable, and repeatable.
Future research should operationalise the five mechanisms as measurable constructs and test them across MSME
populations through structured interviews and survey-based research. That empirical work will determine
whether the model holds across different industries, firm sizes, and regional contexts and where it needs refine-
ment.
Policy Implications- Most entrepreneurship development programmes teach single-goal optimisation. Entre-
preneurs are trained to maximise profit, minimise waste, or meet social targets one at a time, in sequence, as
separate priorities. The Paradox Field Model suggests that this entrepreneurship training is not merely theoreti-
cally limited. It is actively counterproductive when training teaches entrepreneurs to escape tension rather than
work with it.
Walker et al. (2020) empirically demonstrated that firms that embraced all three TBL tensions simultaneously
significantly outperformed those that used trade-off logic. If that finding holds at the MSME level, then there is
Page 605
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
a strong theoretical reason to believe it does. The policy implication is clear: entrepreneurship training pro-
grammes need to shift from teaching balance to teaching navigation. Paradox tolerance, both/and thinking, and
dynamic cycling should be core competencies in any serious sustainable entrepreneurship curriculum, not ad-
vanced concepts reserved for corporate strategy courses.
Future Implications toward a Robust and Validated Model: A proposed model is a starting point, never
becomes an ultimate destination. The Paradox Field Model, as it stands, is theoretically grounded and internally
coherent. Still, its real strength will only emerge once it is tested against the messy, contradictory reality of
entrepreneurial life. Qualitative fieldwork with sustainable entrepreneurs will validate whether the five mecha-
nisms reflect how entrepreneurs actually experience and navigate tension. Quantitative testing through structural
equation modelling will determine whether those mechanisms reliably predict innovation outcomes. Compara-
tive studies across different sectors and geographies will reveal the model's boundaries where it holds, where it
needs adjustment, and where the tensions it describes take on different forms.
That empirical journey will be the next step in future research. But a model that has not yet been tested is not
weak; it is an open invitation. The ‘Paradox Field Model’ is offered to the academic community in that spirit:
not as a final answer, but as a theoretically honest and practically urgent framework for understanding one of the
most important challenges facing entrepreneurs today.
CONCLUSION
This paper argues that sustainable entrepreneurship is inherently paradoxical and that the theoretical frameworks
currently used to understand it are insufficient. Despite its historical contribution, the Triple Bottom Line regards
entrepreneurs as external to the sustainability system rather than as its constitutive agents, and portrays sustain-
ability as a state of harmony rather than of tension. The Paradox Field Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship
addresses this gap by formally integrating paradox theory, tri -dimensional sustainability architecture, and en-
trepreneurship theory into a coherent theoretical framework. The model's tetrahedral geometry gives the TBL a
three-dimensional form for the first time. The fourth apex vertex positions the entrepreneur as the integrating
agent within the sustainability system, rather than outside it. The Paradox Field, the interior space of the tetra-
hedron, provides a conceptual arena within which five mechanisms operate to convert sustainability tensions
into entrepreneurial innovation.
The model’s central claim is that tension is not the enemy of sustainable entrepreneurship — it is its greatest
creative resource. When understood theoretically and, in practice, navigated through the mechanisms identified
in this paper, the paradoxes of sustainable entrepreneurship may become a generative force for entrepreneurial
innovation. The future empirical validation of this claim, in the rich and theoretically significant context of other
parts of the world, will serve as a foundation for future research.
REFERENCES
1. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4
2. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organisational ambi-
dexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organisation Science, 20(4), 696–717.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
3. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same,
different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2006.00107.x
Acknowledgement
This paper was presented in the Department of Business Administration, Assam University, Silchar, as the term paper
for the PhD Course Work Exam held in May, 2026, under the supervision of author2 (Prof Arup Barman), who conceived
the concept and guided the review work for the pre-PhD research writing exercise.
Page 606
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
4. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
5. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556363
6. Bechtel, N., Bojko, M., & Volling, T. (2025). When do sustainability tensions harm or benefit innovation
portfolios? A paradoxical perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12721
7. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
9. Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
10. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001
11. Dabak, S., & Mulla, Z. (2022). Paradoxical HR practices to respond to tensions: The need for clarity, co-
creation, and change-readiness. South Asian Journal of Management, 29(1), 30–57.
12. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.
13. Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing envi-
ronmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003
14. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurial Lead-
ership. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857570
15. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strat-
egy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
16. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism.
Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707694
17. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustain-
able development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746
18. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone
Publishing.
19. Elkington, J. (2018, June 25). 25 years ago, I coined the phrase "triple bottom line." Here's why it's time
to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-
bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it
20. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Re-
view, 35(2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202
21. Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Research, 67(5), 663–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.024
22. Ferrer-Serrano, M., Latorre-Martínez, M. P., & Lozano-Blasco, R. (2025). Mapping the intersection of
community employment and ecosystem preservation in rural sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of
Rural Studies, 114, 103531.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103531
23. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience think-
ing: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), Article 20.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420
24. Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of
Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1245-2
25. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency. Organ-
isation Studies, 28(7), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078958
26. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group &
Organisation Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
27. Gupta, V., Gollakota, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2014). Business policy and strategic management: Concepts
and applications (2nd ed.). PHI Learning.
Page 607
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
28. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability:
Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3680-6
29. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an
integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
014-2047-5
30. Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.002
31. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4),
986–1014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033
32. Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: Theorising about
the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
25(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005
33. Idowu, S. O., & Louche, C. (Eds.). (2011). Theory and practice of corporate social responsibility.
Springer.
34. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
35. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organisations.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772
36. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnér, P. (2017). Exploring strategy: Text
and cases (11th ed.). Pearson.
37. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian ap-
proach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
38. Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. (2015). Principles of responsible management: Global sustainability, respon-
sibility, and ethics. Cengage Learning.
39. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 25(4), 760–776.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712
40. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organisational change and managerial sensemaking: Working
through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217
41. Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and
delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
42. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659
43. Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a
platform for pursuing multiple goals: A special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12214
44. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628
45. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
46. Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common
futures. Organisation & Environment, 21(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608321329
47. Neck, H. M., Brush, C. G., & Allen, E. (2009). The landscape of social entrepreneurship. Business Ho-
rizons, 52(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.09.002
48. Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of "triple bottom line." Business Ethics
Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211
49. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognising opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.x
Page 608
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
50. Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change across theory and
practice. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 57–85). Palgrave
Macmillan.
51. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organisation theories.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389
52. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–
77.
53. Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world's poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review,
80(9), 48–57.
54. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea
Green Publishing.
55. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … Foley, J. A. (2009).
A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
56. Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models for sustainability: A conceptual
model found inside the black box of organisational transformation. Organisation & Environment, 29(1),
11–35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615595084
57. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental perfor-
mance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257052
58. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science:
Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
59. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Cat-
egories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
60. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
61. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy
of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
62. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepre-
neurial action linking "what is to be sustained" with "what is to be developed." Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 35(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x
63. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Or-
ganisation Science, 26(2), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960
64. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of
organising. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
65. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic par-
adoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003
66. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model
for managing innovation streams. Organisation Science, 16(5), 522–536.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
67. Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organisations: Learning and knowledge creation.
Routledge.
68. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … Sörlin, S. (2015).
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), Article
1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
69. Thompson, J., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Business models: Creating new markets and societal wealth.
Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.002
70. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new ap-
proach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
71. Traore, L., Lescuyer, G., & Lescuyer, G. (2023). A systematic review of the scope and patterns of green
consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 15(8), 6343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086343
Page 609
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
72. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organisations: Managing evolutionary and
revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
73. Van der Byl, C. A., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of
research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organisation & Environment, 28(1),
54–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575047
74. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepre-
neurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3, 119–138.
75. Volery, T., & Mazzarol, T. (2015). The evolution of the small business and entrepreneurship field: A
bibliometric investigation of articles published in the International Small Business Journal. International
Small Business Journal, 33(4), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516139
76. Walker, K., Ni, N., & Bhatt, B. (2020). Corporate sustainability and the triple bottom line: Trade-off or
both/and? A longitudinal study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 783–800.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2397
77. Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found.
Journal of Management, 29(6), 859–881.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00082-5
78. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. Sage.
79. Wicks, A. C. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration of business and
society research. Business & Society, 35(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039603500105
80. York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation,
and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449–463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.003
81. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepre-
neurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007
82. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265