5 Ethical and sustainable thinking
5.1 Introduction
If you ask people why they want to be or become entrepreneurial, you may get very different answers. Becoming rich is usually not the first answer. Answers that are often given are being independent, a need for achievement, having fun, have personal success or to solve a pain or problem [see: Motivation and perseverance]. These are all reasons that connect to motives or values of people. Next to self-interest, answers of sustainable and social entrepreneurs show the additional relevance of value orientations that transcend the self: like wanting to do good for others or for nature. Entrepreneurship is for these entrepreneurs also about underlying values that aim at balancing 'people, profit and planet'. In general, it is important to gain insight into underlying drivers and value orientations of entrepreneurs because we know that they guide decisions and affect actions made in the entrepreneurial process, both internally (for example, within your team) and externally (for example, decisions that have to do with users and stakeholders). The influence of motives and values already starts when generating and evaluation ideas: what are implicit assumptions, what are (future) additions that you still feel comfortable with and which not? What is the basis of the idea, and what are underlying assumptions of pursuing it, individually and/or groupwise? What if the idea is very successful and scales quickly from 10 to 10 billion users, but this also comes at the expense of others or at an environmental cost? Are you still comfortable with the idea? Insight into one's own ethical and sustainable thinking helps in navigating and making such decisions. This competency is therefore one of the meta-competencies in the EntreComp framework, a competency that acts as a driver, catalyst and compass for the other competencies in the EntreComp framework.
5.2 Insights
Research on ethnical and sustainable thinking competence is in the field of entrepreneurship education still in its infancy. Adjacent fields like learning for sustainable development and business ethics have a much stronger research tradition on this competence. According to that literature, ethical and sustainable thinking is not only about the values themselves, but also about the ability to 'identify, clarify, bring together or even negotiate values, principles and goals' [1]. This stream of literature also teaches us that this competence cannot be seen separately from the action itself, i.e. the actual employment of it. Sensitivity to ethical and sustainability issues (thinking about them) and the action itself (the decision you take) are - simply put - two sides of the same coin.
Darwinians, communitarians and missionaries
The idea that entrepreneurs only think and act in their own interests is widespread. However, research shows that there many other value orientations from which entrepreneurs think and act - such as community spirit, involvement or empathy. A famous study is that of Emmanuelle Fauchart and Marc Gruber [2]. In their research, they distinguish "darwinians, communitarians and missionaries". Darwinians are the traditional entrepreneurs who reason on the basis of values, principles and goals aimed at self-interest. These entrepreneurs look at themselves from the idea that entrepreneurship is successfully running a business. The “others” are seen as competitors, and, it is therefore important to be as unique and protective as possible with your own idea, project, product or service. Communitarians reason on the basis of values, principles and goals that relate to wanting to achieve something in a community of which they themselves are a part. For example: a sportsman starts in his own neighbourhood a gym with a restaurant in order to get people to exercise more or eat more healthily. It is therefore important for communitarians to be involved and well-informed about what is going on in a community. Ultimately, entrepreneurship is about the community benefiting from their idea, project, product or service. The last group, the missionaries, see their entrepreneurial values, principles and goals in the light of larger societal challenges, for example to solve problems related to climate change or inequalities. Taking responsibility, wanting to do the right thing and being held accountable for it are important. Entrepreneurship is about showing that there are alternatives and that as an entrepreneur they can take the lead in this as change agent. Take for example the Dutch entrepreneur Boyan Slat, who already at the age of 18 wanted to tackle the plastic soup in the oceans with his Ocean Clean-Up Foundation.
Ethical choices in teams
Obviously the three types mentioned above are extremes, so called archetypes. Reality is - for example that of students in a typical classroom - more complex. There will be a hodgepodge of values, principles and goals in school classes: mixes of darwinians, communitarians and missionaries. As entrepreneurship - certainly in school contexts - is often a team matter, the (unconscious) use of this competence is at the order of the day. After all, many decisions in entrepreneurial projects are taken in consultation with others. Does it help if you share the same values and goals in your team when you generate or evaluate entrepreneurial ideas, or is a certain degree of difference just fine because it keeps everyone on their toes? And when there is conflict, when is it still constructive? Research is not completely clear about this. What is clear is that entrepreneurial teams are usually formed on the basis of similarities and not on the basis of complementarities [3] [see: Working with others].
Ultimately, a certain degree of agreement is important to be able to make decisions efficiently, but too much agreement can lead to tunnel vision in the longer term. Practice shows that lack of insight into, and disagreement on underlying motives and value orientations plays an important role in the breakup of entrepreneurial teams. One team member is in the project because it looks good on her cv, another because she wants to improve the world with the idea. Or, do we want to do business with a company which has no problem that human rights are not respected in his factory? Or, do we want to use product based on soy or palm oil, commodities responsible for the vast majority of tropical deforestation? Addressing fundamental issues like these will influence the choices that have to be made - often under pressure - in entrepreneurial teams. From a learning perspective, it is important that when discussing dilemma’s the situations and choices should be authentic (and not imaginary or even fake), conflict should remain cognitive (and do not become emotional or affective), and issues should remain manageable for the team in terms of content [4] [see: Working with others].
Darwinians, communitarians and missionaries
The idea that entrepreneurs only think and act in their own interests is widespread. However, research shows that there many other value orientations from which entrepreneurs think and act - such as community spirit, involvement or empathy. A famous study is that of Emmanuelle Fauchart and Marc Gruber [2]. In their research, they distinguish "darwinians, communitarians and missionaries". Darwinians are the traditional entrepreneurs who reason on the basis of values, principles and goals aimed at self-interest. These entrepreneurs look at themselves from the idea that entrepreneurship is successfully running a business. The “others” are seen as competitors, and, it is therefore important to be as unique and protective as possible with your own idea, project, product or service. Communitarians reason on the basis of values, principles and goals that relate to wanting to achieve something in a community of which they themselves are a part. For example: a sportsman starts in his own neighbourhood a gym with a restaurant in order to get people to exercise more or eat more healthily. It is therefore important for communitarians to be involved and well-informed about what is going on in a community. Ultimately, entrepreneurship is about the community benefiting from their idea, project, product or service. The last group, the missionaries, see their entrepreneurial values, principles and goals in the light of larger societal challenges, for example to solve problems related to climate change or inequalities. Taking responsibility, wanting to do the right thing and being held accountable for it are important. Entrepreneurship is about showing that there are alternatives and that as an entrepreneur they can take the lead in this as change agent. Take for example the Dutch entrepreneur Boyan Slat, who already at the age of 18 wanted to tackle the plastic soup in the oceans with his Ocean Clean-Up Foundation.
Ethical choices in teams
Obviously the three types mentioned above are extremes, so called archetypes. Reality is - for example that of students in a typical classroom - more complex. There will be a hodgepodge of values, principles and goals in school classes: mixes of darwinians, communitarians and missionaries. As entrepreneurship - certainly in school contexts - is often a team matter, the (unconscious) use of this competence is at the order of the day. After all, many decisions in entrepreneurial projects are taken in consultation with others. Does it help if you share the same values and goals in your team when you generate or evaluate entrepreneurial ideas, or is a certain degree of difference just fine because it keeps everyone on their toes? And when there is conflict, when is it still constructive? Research is not completely clear about this. What is clear is that entrepreneurial teams are usually formed on the basis of similarities and not on the basis of complementarities [3] [see: Working with others].
Ultimately, a certain degree of agreement is important to be able to make decisions efficiently, but too much agreement can lead to tunnel vision in the longer term. Practice shows that lack of insight into, and disagreement on underlying motives and value orientations plays an important role in the breakup of entrepreneurial teams. One team member is in the project because it looks good on her cv, another because she wants to improve the world with the idea. Or, do we want to do business with a company which has no problem that human rights are not respected in his factory? Or, do we want to use product based on soy or palm oil, commodities responsible for the vast majority of tropical deforestation? Addressing fundamental issues like these will influence the choices that have to be made - often under pressure - in entrepreneurial teams. From a learning perspective, it is important that when discussing dilemma’s the situations and choices should be authentic (and not imaginary or even fake), conflict should remain cognitive (and do not become emotional or affective), and issues should remain manageable for the team in terms of content [4] [see: Working with others].
5.3 Further reading
[1] Lisa Ploum and her colleagues investigated the role of normative competence in the identification of opportunities by entrepreneurship students. This showed that there is a clear relationship between students' normative competence and the proportion of ideas that students identify in the area of sustainability. Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2019). Educating for self-interest or-transcendence? An empirical approach to investigating the role of moral competencies in opportunity recognition for sustainable development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 243-260.
[2] Emmanuelle Fauchart and Marc Gruber conducted extensive qualitative research on identity differences among owners/teams of 49 young companies (no older than 8 years) in the sporting goods industry. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935-957.
[3] Martin Ruef and colleagues conducted an extensive, unique study of more than 800 entrepreneurial teams in the making. They asked who was involved in the team formation process and what characteristics potential team members had. Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American sociological review, 195-222.
[4] In her research, Eefje Cuppen describes how constructive conflict can be optimally facilitated when working on complex problems with stakeholders. Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 23-46.
[2] Emmanuelle Fauchart and Marc Gruber conducted extensive qualitative research on identity differences among owners/teams of 49 young companies (no older than 8 years) in the sporting goods industry. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935-957.
[3] Martin Ruef and colleagues conducted an extensive, unique study of more than 800 entrepreneurial teams in the making. They asked who was involved in the team formation process and what characteristics potential team members had. Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American sociological review, 195-222.
[4] In her research, Eefje Cuppen describes how constructive conflict can be optimally facilitated when working on complex problems with stakeholders. Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 23-46.
5.4 Exercises for students
Exercise 1)
An exercise to map the differences between darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries with students is to have them find an example of each type in an industry. For example think of the difference between the ING, the Rabobank, and the Triodos bank.
Explanation: This exercise simply shows that within a sector there can be a lot of diversity in underlying motives and values.
Exercise 2)
One step further is to expose students to stories of local entrepreneurs in which these entrepreneurs share their stories through critical choices (live, recorded, or documented in biographies). You can discuss these choices in class using the triptych mentioned above. What values were central to making these choices?
Explanation: Studying role models and stories of entrepreneurs is in general a good way to 1) get students to think about the consequences and about which consideration(s) they would make themselves and 2) to encourage students to tell personal stories about entrepreneurial dilemmas.
Exercise 3)
A simple next step to start the discussion about personal values is to take a look at everyone's Instagram page. Which people, companies or organisations does the student follow, which posts/photos does s/he like? What are the (implicit) choices and values behind them: creativity and autonomous action or rather excitement and novelty, pleasure or rather personal success, status and prestige or rather personal safety, tradition or rather care for others, protection of nature and tolerance? As a teacher, you could link these answers to the ten universal motivational value types by Shalom Schwartz: self-determination, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, safety, tradition, conformism, altruism and universalism.
Explanation: In the research by Lisa Ploum mentioned earlier, the moral compass of students was also studied in several ways. Shalom Schwartz's value types were a part of that.
Exercise 4)
Finally, a simple experiment to make the role of values visible in entrepreneurial teams is firstly by letting students individually prioritize values prior. Subsequently, the teacher divides the class into two types of groups: 1) groups in which the values are completely aligned (e.g., all darwinians or all communitarians) 2) groups in which the values differ greatly within the group (e.g., a mix of darwinians and missionaries). The students do not know beforehand about the values of their classmates and why they have been assigned to a particular group. All groups are instructed to reach agreement on an entrepreneurial idea within half an hour. After that half hour, both the outcomes and the process are discussed. Did the students understand in what kind of group they were and how the grouping influenced the process and the outcome?
Explanation: this classroom experiment allows students to experience what it is like to be in a homogenous or heterogenous group in terms of values. Did the students understand why they were in a certain group and how the group arrangement influenced the process and the outcome?
An exercise to map the differences between darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries with students is to have them find an example of each type in an industry. For example think of the difference between the ING, the Rabobank, and the Triodos bank.
Explanation: This exercise simply shows that within a sector there can be a lot of diversity in underlying motives and values.
Exercise 2)
One step further is to expose students to stories of local entrepreneurs in which these entrepreneurs share their stories through critical choices (live, recorded, or documented in biographies). You can discuss these choices in class using the triptych mentioned above. What values were central to making these choices?
Explanation: Studying role models and stories of entrepreneurs is in general a good way to 1) get students to think about the consequences and about which consideration(s) they would make themselves and 2) to encourage students to tell personal stories about entrepreneurial dilemmas.
Exercise 3)
A simple next step to start the discussion about personal values is to take a look at everyone's Instagram page. Which people, companies or organisations does the student follow, which posts/photos does s/he like? What are the (implicit) choices and values behind them: creativity and autonomous action or rather excitement and novelty, pleasure or rather personal success, status and prestige or rather personal safety, tradition or rather care for others, protection of nature and tolerance? As a teacher, you could link these answers to the ten universal motivational value types by Shalom Schwartz: self-determination, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, safety, tradition, conformism, altruism and universalism.
Explanation: In the research by Lisa Ploum mentioned earlier, the moral compass of students was also studied in several ways. Shalom Schwartz's value types were a part of that.
Exercise 4)
Finally, a simple experiment to make the role of values visible in entrepreneurial teams is firstly by letting students individually prioritize values prior. Subsequently, the teacher divides the class into two types of groups: 1) groups in which the values are completely aligned (e.g., all darwinians or all communitarians) 2) groups in which the values differ greatly within the group (e.g., a mix of darwinians and missionaries). The students do not know beforehand about the values of their classmates and why they have been assigned to a particular group. All groups are instructed to reach agreement on an entrepreneurial idea within half an hour. After that half hour, both the outcomes and the process are discussed. Did the students understand in what kind of group they were and how the grouping influenced the process and the outcome?
Explanation: this classroom experiment allows students to experience what it is like to be in a homogenous or heterogenous group in terms of values. Did the students understand why they were in a certain group and how the group arrangement influenced the process and the outcome?