Tension-Driven Innovation: Reconceptualising Sustainable Entrepreneur-ship Through Paradox Fields

Sustainable entrepreneurship serves at the nexus of economic viability, ecological stewardship, and social responsibility. However, the prevailing Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, which treats these aspects as harmoniously aligned, fails to adequately capture the ongoing conflicts entrepreneurs face when balancing sustainability objectives. This limitation has created a theoretical gap in understanding how sustainability-related contradictions 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 dimensions 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 productive forces that stimulate entrepreneurial innovation, offering a new theoretical foundation for future research and practice in sustainable entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship, Sustainable entrepreneurship, Paradox Theory, Triple Bottom Line, Entrepreneurial innova-tion, Sustainability Tensions, conceptual mode

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, dif-ferent, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through en-trepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bechtel, N., Bojko, M., & Volling, T. (2025). When do sustainability tensions harm or benefit innova-tion portfolios? A paradoxical perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12721 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to devel-op sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurial Lead-ership. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857570 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 67(5), 663–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency. Or-ganisation Studies, 28(7), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078958 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gupta, V., Gollakota, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2014). Business policy and strategic management: Concepts and applications (2nd ed.). PHI Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an in-tegrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Idowu, S. O., & Louche, C. (Eds.). (2011). Theory and practice of corporate social responsibility. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnér, P. (2017). Exploring strategy: Text and cases (11th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian ap-proach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. (2015). Principles of responsible management: Global sustainability, re-sponsibility, and ethics. Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12214 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognising opportunities for sustainable development. Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organisation theo-ries. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world's poor, profitably. Harvard Business Re-view, 80(9), 48–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entre-preneurial 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organisations: Learning and knowledge creation. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepre-neurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Formation Control of Multi Agent Systems Using Ann Based Technique
• Improving Sliding Mode Control with Chattering Reduction using Fuzzy Based Technique
• Cooking Quality, Fasting Blood Glucose, Glycemic Index and Load of High–Fiber Noodles Made from Wheat, Tiger Nut Residue and Cassava Flour Blends
• Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
• Formulation and Sensory Evaluation of Functional Cake Prepared from Sweet Potato Powder