Designing for sustainable work during industrial startups—the case of a high-growth entrepreneurial firm

There has been increasing interest in sustainability and a common understanding that sustainable development needs to consider three pillars: ecological, economic, and social sustainability (Brundtland et al. 1987). Out of these, social sustainability is increasingly important for industrial development (Sutherland et al. 2016), although less studied than the other pillars (Vavik and Keitsch 2010; Cuthill 2010) and referred to as a ‘concept in chaos’ (Vallance et al. 2011). As the social dimension pillar considers an extensive range of issues such as safety, diversity, labour rights, justice, health, equity, and governance, it is challenging to operationalise these dimensions (Sutherland et al. 2016). Furthermore, research emphasises the necessity to consider social sustainability dimensions specifically related to work, as trends such as globalisation and information technologies have impact on working conditions, with increased risks for work intensity and work-related stress (Docherty et al. 2002, p.5). Research related to sustainable work focuses both on an individual and organisational perspective, where this paper focusses on the latter perspective. Social sustainability in relation to work is described with the concept of sustainable work systems, for which Docherty et al. (2002, p.11) have addressed four basic areas with impact on organisations where people are part of regeneration processes and allowed to grow:

Recent research advocates increased attention to social sustainability in fast-changing industrial contexts. Socially sustainable workplaces are regarded as a means to successfully progress towards the Industry 4.0 paradigm, where new-generation workplaces will arise according to technology development, also requiring abilities to handle increased complexity (Sutherland et al. 2016; Romero et al. 2020). Hence, training opportunities are vital and abilities of designing attractive and competitive workplaces. Demographic changes also have an impact as this will require longer working life, thus requiring ability to provide workplaces that attract, develop, and sustain people (Berlin and Adams 2017). There is also research advocating that health is an enabler for the ability to achieve vital goals (Nordenfelt 1995); thus, it is crucial to consider human growth and well-being when developing new production systems (Gregori et al. 2017). Hence, social aspects such as working environment, worker satisfaction, and safety need to be integrated with the traditional aspects of cost and productivity (Rodrigues et al. 2016; Cherrafi et al. 2016). In a recent review-based framework for production systems, Pinzone et al. (2020) identified four main social sustainability dimensions: safety management, ergonomics/human factors, learning and training, and work-life balance. Other dimensions are labour practices and decent work (including employees’ development, diversity, health and safety, job creation, talent attraction, and retention and human rights (Delai and Takahashi 2011). Furthermore, in a literature review on social sustainability, performance areas were identified including health and safety risk, operator’s learning, human capital, knowledge and information capital, innovation and knowledge, physical and psychosocial well-being, and attractiveness of workplace (Pinzone et al. 2020). However, it is common that these dimensions are addressed mainly at a corporate level, rather than in operations in production (Winroth et al. 2016). A comprehensive literature review highlights that major changes, such as rationalisation, also stress risks in changing work environments creating negative health effects (Westgaard and Winkel 2011). Reasons mentioned are increased physical and psychosocial workload, and that efforts are needed both from an individual and an organisational perspective to gain long-term sustainable health effects, also claimed by Docherty et al. 2002). Specifically, in work environments with high job demands, research emphasises that there are increased health risks such as burnout, even though organisations provide work support and improve job resources (Fagerlind Ståhl et al. 2018). Thus, there is a need to reduce conflicting demands, work pace, and workload.

Backström et al. (2002) further advocate that work systems are complex and ‘always on the move’ and hence require consideration of changed conditions over time. Zink (2014, p.127) also states the need to ‘consider the surrounding environment to achieve economic or operational objectives’, thereby advocating that the three sustainability pillars need to be worked on in parallel. This is further illustrated in a model showing the interdependencies and potential conflicts between the three pillars over time, and that environmental, social, and economic concerns should all be addressed and that none of them can be achieved alone, also put forward by Sutherland et al. (2016) in manufacturing contexts. Having considered dimensions of sustainable work, the following section will look more closely at these aspects in relation to entrepreneurial contexts.

Previous studies in entrepreneurial firms have reported sustainable work from both an individual and organisational perspective. Challenges on an individual level are, for example, working conditions perceived as an ‘emotional rollercoaster’ with periods of stress, long work hours, and trade-offs of their own physical health (McMullen and Dimov 2013; Cardon and Patel 2015). On the other hand, work in entrepreneurial organisations involving challenging tasks is also perceived as attractive due to a competitive mindset (Foo et al. 2009). Literature points out several success factors for new firms in early development phases related to turnover, liquidity, and solidity measurements, but also that ‘soft values’ have impact and need to be increasingly regarded (Klofsten and Norrman 2013). These soft values are, for example, the history of the firm, such as the founders’ background, prior experiences, and motives (Henreksen and Johansson 2010); contextual understanding of the home market as well understanding of local prerequisites (Qin et al. 2017); and abilities of finding, recruiting, developing, and retaining human capital with the capability to innovate (Cadorin et al. 2019). ‘Active engagement’ in entrepreneurship is another important soft value for success in entrepreneurial organisations which is also strongly associated with well-being due to higher degree of autonomy and individual self-organisation in entrepreneurial work compared with ‘non-entrepreneurial’ work (Shir et al. 2019). In nascent entrepreneurial communities, it is important to build relationships and social networks enabling fruitful synergies (Audretsch et al. 2011), where a dynamic collaboration between interdependent actors and stakeholders in an entrepreneurial ecosystem are found vital for success (Bank et al. 2017; Volkmann et al. 2019; Audretsch and Belitski 2017). Hence, innovative collaborations with entrepreneurial suppliers, customers, government, incubators, and public funding organisations for accelerator programs are strongly recommended.

When a new firm evolves, structures are needed along with the ability to relate to regulations and to regularly develop internal routines and relationships among employees (McKelvie et al. 2018). This also includes establishing external relationships with stakeholders such as suppliers and customers (McMullen and Dimov 2013). However, new firms are subjected to uncertainties, and it takes time and resources to create organisational structures and processes (Wiklund et al. 2010), which is a challenge in fast-growing organisations. Over time when project phases come closer to operational phases, collaboration with external actors might also be needed due to the lack of the entrepreneurs’ own expertise to design and realise the forthcoming plans (Davila et al. 2010). To keep up with fast changes, it is necessary to develop both organisational approaches and approaches for skills and training (Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2011). Earlier studies identify advantages and the need to establish relationships in early phases in a startup ecosystem, e.g. collaboration between organisations that support the creation of the startup in a region, e.g. entrepreneurs, investors, educational institutions, government, funding agencies, etc. (Tripathi et al. 2019). Furthermore, it is important for new firms to collaborate with suppliers and customers to build relationships among employees and to develop internal routines and structures (Sako 2018; Wiklund et al. 2019). In particular, it is crucial to create capabilities to innovate as well as to have the collective ability to identify and respond to opportunities (Akehurst et al. 2009).

Primary concerns in entrepreneurial organisations such as new firms, emerging ventures, and other incubator environments are to successfully transform ideas towards realisation and fulfil their business vision and mission. A rising trend is that European businesses strive towards purpose-driven entrepreneurship, wanting to contribute ‘to making a difference in the world’ (Bosma et al. 2020), thus paying greater attention to environmental and social components in the organisation and development processes. Also earlier studies in entrepreneurial contexts report on several areas that influence sustainable development of new firms and their potential to succeed, e g. growth paths and abilities to grow at a fast pace in early phases as well as ability to maintain this growth over time (Coad et al. 2013; Haltiwanger et al. 2013).

During the first 3 years, the new firm grew from scratch to 500 employees representing over 50 nationalities with several development projects in parallel, constantly escalating. The first year focus was on preparing conditions and finding a geographic location for establishing a large-scale factory and a test and industrialisation factory including a R&D facility. The large-scale factory planned to recruit over 2500 employees and include around 15 integrated production processes. During the second year, the firm proceeded with additional projects and extended production facility development, for example, planning for an additional assembly factory located abroad. Furthermore, the funding for a second large-scale factory was secured in a new international joint venture. During the third year, an initiative started aiming to develop a pilot recycling plant including R&D. The time pressure was demanding, as the order books already were fully booked during construction phases, 5 years ahead of time. However, the employees were excited to be part of the greenfield project.

The employees’ work tasks were continuously developed. During the entire startup period, there were employees onboarding constantly from all over the world, where the firm worked actively with cultural issues and social factors related to employees’ need for support to adjust to a new country, as well as to a new high-growth firm. There were assigned resources to support issues regarding housing, permit procedures, schools, peer support activities in the company, language, etc. to create practical conditions as well as an innovative inclusive ‘we-culture’ and transparent supportive leadership daily ‘walking the talk’. Organisational structures and work processes were developed according to actual needs; hence, it was challenging to continuously update and develop relevant structures and support in the evolving firm. For example, there was an increasingly structured onboarding process, leadership training, and development of digital solutions enabling transparency. Furthermore, the human resource team dedicated time for mentorship to support employees from other countries. Management at all levels were trained to create an inclusive and open communication, striving to support individuals and teams in the fast-moving environment. Top managers and team members were recruited globally, and besides requirements on specific expertise, it was important that the employees were flexible, team players, and solution oriented. In common, the employees had strong individual drivers to contribute to the unique industrial greenfield project and shared ecological sustainability focus, as expressed in the firm’s overarching vision and mission. During the second year, the team was strengthened with senior industrial employees, contributing to a holistic perspective and management for merging the complexity towards the common mission.

‘Sustainability without compromising’ was the expressed goal, and strategic efforts were made to develop new cost-efficient concepts, specifically regarding recycling and circular economy. Sustainability, from several perspectives, was constantly communicated and expressed by the firm’s employees in illustrative quotes, see Table 1.

There were several initiatives on social sustainability approaches addressed in policy and strategic documents. For example, the ‘Code of Conduct’ described the firm’s ambition to take responsibility for areas such as decent employment and safe work environments, also beyond directly contracted organisations. Other examples of the firm’s attention to ecological and social sustainability were the establishment process of the planned factories in the municipalities. This included its relationship building with stakeholders and citizens, ambitions to construct, and design production facilities that would contribute to new job opportunities and development of society, thus building trust and positive relationships with stakeholders in the production location municipalities. A sustainability team was part of top management and the board from the start where they daily worked across internal and external borders, ‘switching roles’ and finding solutions in processes for procurement, production process development, finance, talent acquisition, etc., as well as building structures and concepts for the future.

To fend off future obstacles, the firm expressed the need for close collaboration with many stakeholders and had an approach ‘to partner up with people taking you to the next level’. Challenges were regarded by the employees as potential competitive factors, and the firm initiated several activities with stakeholders to jointly develop new solutions. Table 2 illustrates examples of processes of stakeholder collaboration with ambition to proactively consider human aspects in early development phases.

From a society perspective, a top manager also expressed the new firm’s possible impact through stakeholder collaboration:

I see this startup project as a fantastic opportunity also driving social sustainability. To make this a platform to integrate people who are outside the labour market today, or don´t have our national background, into our society. We could create 3000 direct jobs, maybe 13,000 indirect jobs in areas where there is large unemployment.

The firm’s three core value words—passion, boldness, and excellence—were frequently used in the attempt to build a united firm culture where they were operationalised in leadership training and team building. The aim was to create a strong team spirit, good attitude facing challenges, enjoyable work, and commitment to push targets and to expect and offer feedback. For example, individuals and teams were given the task of transforming the value words on the basis of their own work situation and further set up actions. These values were means to build a strong company culture working towards the same goals. As expressed by a manager:

We have a larger scope in this company for the environment and for the work environment. In a few years it would be great to show that this is the coolest company, with women both in management positions and on the board, with diversity from around the world, and an inclusive work environment where everybody can be their best.

Furthermore, the firm saw a unique opportunity to design for good working conditions from scratch with potential for rapid decision-making and flexibility in work tasks between employees across roles, as well as branding advantages. They established a woman council, culture education, assigned resources for support integration of employees in the society, language training, team-building activities, as well as family activities in the firm. Furthermore, health and safety issues were considered important as they needed to deal with a wide range of subcontractors from many countries during ground preparation and construction.

In the effort to build a strong company culture, benchmarking activities were carried out to successful global companies. Part of gaining knowledge, the strategy was to establish relationships with stakeholders such as social partners, human resource managers, and senior production managers. Specifically, an early process was established with employee and employer organisations jointly collaborating with issues regarding work flexibility requirements during the startup, competences needed, roles, leadership, recruitment, and development of good working conditions both during the high-growth phase and for design of future production workplaces and work organisation. Initially, they focussed important collaboration issues during the startup, e.g. handling working hours with peaks of work load during startup of new sites and safety; creating a work environment avoiding sick leave and staff turnover; creating flexible ways of working across borders, competence development included in work for all, and development of relations and networks; and creating an environment with possibilities to grow within the company and future collective work agreements that are suitable for a fast-changing work environment in the startup phase and flexible according to working across borders. Furthermore, the collaboration addressed cultural issues, onboarding, competence validation, policies, bureaucracy, work permits, safety, security, communication, training of personnel, working methods when everything is not in place, temporary premises, production organisation, roles, shift structure, and housing for employees.

Due to dynamic processes, workplaces are constantly developed and ‘on the move’, and literature advocates the need to pay increased attention to social sustainability dimensions related to work (Backström et al. 2002; Romero et al. 2020). From both an individual and organisational perspective, it is vital to create work environments characterised by safety, well-being, and health, with possibilities for people to be part of improvement work, regeneration of processes, and individual growth. Human resources are necessary for sustainable development of organisations (Nordenfelt 1995). However, it is common that dimensions of sustainable work, part of social sustainability, are not a major concern in startups (Davila et al. 2010). As described in the findings, the firm evolved and grew rapidly to over 500 employees with over 50 nationalities during the first 3 years, where the fast development pace had high impact on working conditions. For example, issues related to working conditions were visualised during frequent introduction and onboarding of new colleagues in the firm, communication in a fast-moving and multi-cultural work environment, and in daily work when continuously needing to keep track of changes in parallel processes due to interdependencies. However, due to the entrepreneurial mindset in the organisation, it was observed that these challenges were drivers for innovative solution-oriented processes, e.g. improving structures for onboarding processes, developing rapid communication channels for different purposes, and utilizing individual’s secondary skills such as language, cultural understanding, etc. in vital collaborative work processes with stakeholders, etc.

Despite demanding working conditions, it was observed that the firm was found attractive where people were prepared to work hard, which is also recognised in similar entrepreneurial environments (Shir et al. 2019). However, warning signals for sustainable working conditions were observed such as high workload during a fast-moving development pace, lack of available resources, the needed ability to cope with actual and future uncertainties, and cultural differences. These aspects had high attention from top management, which led to increased focus on inclusive, transparent leadership, organisational development, recruitment, and strengthening teams. Thus, the firm had to cope with working condition challenges regarding high job demands with a fast work pace, heavy workload, and conflicting interests during the startup. These are all necessary to consider, however, as pointed out by Fagerlind et al. (2018), supporting approaches alone cannot compensate for health risks of high job demands. Examples of operational approaches observed in the findings to reduce workload and conflicting demands at work were mentorship, individual and leadership dialogue of the work situation, team activities aiming to strengthen a ‘we-culture’, characterised by helping one another regardless of role and function, cross-functional collaborations, and strong teamwork. These constitute examples of possibilities for employee’s ‘active engagement’ which for Shir et al. (2019) is an important soft value for successful development of entrepreneurial organisations and strongly associated with well-being. In addition to other well-being aspects, it was observed in the case that employees shared the firm’s purpose-driven vision, also recognised as a growing trend by Bosma et al. (2020), and despite the demanding workload, employees expressed satisfaction with the opportunity to be part of a greenfield project. The workload might be a risk in the long term, if performance measures related to working conditions are fuzzy. Thus, sustainable work dimensions need to be further operationalised with attention on workplace level, as stated by Winroth et al. (2016) and Sutherland et al. (2016).

The founders of the firm were convinced of the sustainability potential for their business and described ‘sustainability’ as one of the initial core work stream processes and key differentiating competitive factors. The firm had an overarching mission wanting to contribute to a better world, which also is in line with growing trends of purpose-driven entrepreneurship in European businesses (Bosma et al. 2020). This requires the ability to manage a broad view on sustainability combining a business, ecological, and human perspective, which is in line with other studies stating that aspects of corporate societal responsibility are of increasing financial importance (Schönborn et al. 2019). The study showed that the startup firm’s approaches had reciprocal impact on economic, ecological, and social sustainability dimensions; see examples in Table 1: Economic-Ecological-Social (quotes no. 1, 6, 8, 10); Economic-Ecological (quotes no. 2, 5); Economic-Social (quotes no. 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13); and Ecological-Social (quote no. 11). This illustrates that dimensions of sustainability in practice are integrated, rather than isolated, and need to be regarded in a holistic perspective. This is in line with reasoning of Backström et al. (2002), Zink (2014), and Sutherland et al. (2016) that the three pillars of sustainability are interrelated and need to be regarded according to the actual state, as well as be reconsidered and evaluated over time. This is relevant when designing for sustainable work and specifically important in fast-moving working environments, such as dynamic startup firms aiming to design for good working conditions in new generation of industrial workplaces (Sutherland et al. 2016).

Furthermore, entrepreneurial research highlights the importance of building relationships and stakeholder collaboration in startup ecosystems (Audretsch et al. 2011; Bank et al. 2017; Volkmann et al. 2019). The findings describe examples of stakeholder collaborations regarding technological and production process solutions but also organisational aspects which had impact on working conditions. Even though a future perspective of creating organisational structures and work procedures for managing potential risks is not usually a primary concern during startups (Wiklund et al. 2010), findings in the firm’s early development phase show examples of proactive strategic initiatives with focus on working conditions.

Findings of efforts on stakeholder collaboration at workplace level were related to procurement and process development processes and efforts to eliminate health and emission risks. On the organisational level, the firm strived to collaborate with social partners, such as employee and employer organisations, with possibilities to find innovative and proactive solutions. This was illustrated in the firm’s early collaboration with employee organisations with deep experience of industrial and sustainable work development in practice. After the initial contact, top management gained insights resulting in an established stakeholder collaboration with employer and employee organisations. This was described by stakeholders as an unusual proactive approach where both actual working condition issues and long-term issues were addressed at top management level where stakeholders together with the firm worked together to develop ‘good working conditions from scratch’ and concepts for the firm’s future production organisation.

From the start, dimensions of social sustainability were addressed in the firm’s policy statements and included its aim of taking social responsibility in the value chain, thus striving to develop their role as agents. This was operationalised in several work procedures where they strived to build strong relationships with stakeholders such as investors, suppliers, customers, and partners. Some examples were collaboration with machine suppliers during procurement, municipalities during the site selection process, regional industrial companies, and employee and employer organisations for understanding of sustainable work prerequisites and local contexts. These are also illustrations of how external stakeholders became ‘partners’ with the firm in the entrepreneurial community, supporting the startup and at the same time learning about work environment conditions and flexibility needs during startups. As the external stakeholders also shared the firm’s purpose-driven vision and high attention to sustainability, there were driving forces for solution-oriented collaboration. This example thereby shows how internal stakeholders in new firms collaborating with external stakeholders in a startup ecosystem can act as facilitators for learning. Their collaboration resulted in the development of new work procedures and flexible collective agreements suitable for the specific work situation during the startup phase which were institutionalised (Crossan et al. 1999). This constituted a potential for development of future workplaces through the stakeholder collaboration in the startup ecosystem where they also could develop their roles as agents for designing for sustainable work both within and outside their own organisations.