Entrepreneurship centers in the development of sustainable innovation: two country perspectives
- Open Access
- 01.12.2025
Erschienen in:
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)
Abstract
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has been recognized as a mechanism to stimulate economic development due to its capability to generate economic benefits and jobs (Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018; Segal et al., 2005). However, entrepreneurship is also a vehicle to contribute to new and more pressing public policy goals and concerns such as rising social and ecological challenges to sustained human well-being (Parrish, 2008; Terán-Yépez et al., 2020).
In this regard, the emergence of the concept of sustainable development as a pressing issue affecting the current global system constitutes an opportunity for entrepreneurship to contribute to society in new and significant ways (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; Terán-Yépez et al., 2020). The traditional definition of entrepreneurship has been expanded, reinterpreted and revised by considering new dimensions beyond economic growth and increased productivity to encompass the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship. New businesses proposing innovative solutions to societal and environmental challenges are crucial for developing products and services that address current environmental and social problems, making sustainability impact a core business goal (Lamperti et al., 2023).
Anzeige
Entrepreneurs need to integrate sustainability from the very beginning, during the business formulation and creation phases, while connecting to various opportunities and networks. Supporting programs developed by business incubators or Entrepreneurship Centers (ECs) are essential in this process. These programs assist in the establishment and development of start-ups by providing a broad range of services and resources in their early stages. They also transfer explicit and tacit knowledge to encourage the generation of sustainability impacts (Lamperti et al., 2023). Hence, ECs play a crucial role in driving innovation and entrepreneurship with a sustainable focus.
An EC is an entity that enables and supports business start-ups through activities such as market research and encouraging entrepreneurial mindset and skills. ECs based in higher education institutions carry out these functions across their ecosystem, contributing to knowledge capitalization, small business management, and supporting third-mission activities. However, the goals of ECs vary significantly depending on their focus and the capabilities of the staff therein (del-Palacio et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2021).
Higher education institutions (HEI), for its part, are acknowledged as hubs of knowledge and innovation. They hold a vital position in fostering sustainability through their fundamental functions in research, education, and community engagement (Oosterlinck, 2004). The imperative of sustainability has broadened these roles, prompting higher education institutions to form alliances with different actors to spearhead sustainable changes. This shift towards collaborative efforts in sustainability represents a novel mission for higher education institutions (Trencher et al., 2014). In response, they have developed various strategies to manage and engage their innovation ecosystems (Heaton et al., 2019).
However, HEIs worldwide face significant challenges in transforming their practices and business models to support sustainable entrepreneurship. To remain relevant and competitive, HEIs can rely on the role of ECs in promoting sustainable enterprise and entrepreneurial activities within these institutions (Peláez-Higuera & Calderón-Hernández, 2024).
Anzeige
University-based ECs are recognized for fostering sustainable innovation through stakeholder collaboration. However, little research has examined their contributions at the institutional level, and there is limited empirical evidence on the factors enabling sustainable practices within ECs, particularly in the context of HEIs (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018; Karahan, 2024; Tiemann et al., 2018).
Similarly, few studies have explored sustainable innovation at the system level (Adams et al., 2016; Cillo et al., 2019), particularly at the institutional level. To address these gaps, our focus is on the university context, which provides an ideal setting to investigate sustainable innovation from its early stages. This study adopts a micro-foundational perspective (Cillo et al., 2019) to deepen the understanding of how university-based EC integrate and monitor social and environmental sustainability dimensions to support the establishment of new sustainable enterprises, while aligning with internal and external policies and meeting stakeholder expectations.
Following an inductive case study approach (Yin, 2009), we conducted two case in university-based EC located in United States and Spain. Our study explores challenges and facilitators faced by university-based ECs in balancing economic viability with social and environmental responsibility. By comparing sustainability practices across two distinct cultural and regulatory contexts, this research sheds light on both universal and context-specific drivers and barriers. This study contributes to the discourse on sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation systems by advancing our understanding of ECs’ role in fostering sustainable innovation.
Accordingly, this research addresses the following questions:
-
RQ1. What is the extent of integration of social and environmental sustainability dimensions in university-based Entrepreneurship Centers (ECs)?
-
RQ2. How do university-based Entrepreneurship Centers (ECs) monitor the social and environmental dimensions of their innovation outcomes?
In the following sections of this paper, we first review the literature on sustainable innovation, sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability in ECs. Next, we outline the research methods used in this study. We then present our findings, followed by a discussion and conclusions.
Literature review
ECs have emerged as pivots for fostering innovation, business creation, and economic development in their contexts. ECs serve as incubators for entrepreneurial activity, providing resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities. As sustainability becomes increasingly important in global discourse, ECs are under pressure to integrate social and environmental concerns into their operational frameworks (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018).
This research explores how these centers incorporate social and environmental sustainability into their programs and strategic objectives. The literature review focuses on the concept of sustainable innovation and the integration of sustainability in EC.
Sustainable innovation
Since the introduction of the concept of sustainable development, new theoretical and practical values have continuously complemented it (Szopik-Depczyńska et al., 2018; Wever & Vogtlander, 2014). Innovation is an important means to contribute to sustainability (Klewitz & Hansen, 2014). Therefore, innovation, whether through formal R&D or other activities, should be oriented towards the development of socially desirable technologies, products, services, business models or social innovations (Stahl et al., 2014; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017).
The field of innovation research focusing on environmental and social benefits is relatively new but has growth rapidly (Adams et al., 2016). The interdisciplinary essence of sustainability and innovation processes have facilitated the development of several methodologies and frameworks to define and implement these concepts (Cillo et al., 2019; Klewitz & Hansen, 2014). Regarding sustainable innovation, this can be defined as “the development of new products, processes, services and technologies that contribute to the development and well-being of human needs and institutions while respecting the worlds’ natural resources and regenerative capacity” (Tello & Yoon, 2008). It explores not only technological and environmental considerations but also the dynamics of social change (Hall 2002).
Recent studies have focused on assessing innovation in its early stages by considering both economic and environmental indicators (Fraga et al., 2022; Lamberts-Van Assche & Compernolle, 2022). However, these approaches have largely concentrated on the environmental impacts of the outcomes, with less emphasis on social benefits. Measuring sustainability and quantifying its social dimension remain challenging tasks (Milutinović et al., 2016). Additionally, various challenges can emerge from the complex nature of sustainability requirements (Haase et al., 2022).
In the recent literature, entrepreneurship and business models have received great attention (Evans et al., 2017) because the reformulation of business models can enable sustainable innovations to be implemented in a more radical and systemic way (Bolton & Hannon, 2016; Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013).
The role of internal practices in making organizations more sustainable has been explored in other studies. To innovate for sustainability, new managerial and organizational capabilities are necessary (Del Giudice et al., 2017). As a result, recent research has shifted toward exploring specific practices and perceptions within organizations. However, fundamental evidence on the factors that enable sustainable practices remains scarce (Cillo et al., 2019).
According to Cillo et al. (2019) sustainable innovation can be analyzed from three key perspectives: internal managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation. The internal-managerial perspective looks at strategies, practices, structures, resources, capabilities, and processes that support environmental and social goals in innovation. The external-relational perspective views organizations within a broader context, considering regulatory and social governance, value chains, and sociotechnical regimes. The performance evaluation perspective aims to move beyond traditional financial measures and develop a deeper understanding of how innovation can generate profit while also benefiting society.
Sustainable entrepreneurship
Sustainable entrepreneurship also known as sustainability entrepreneurship, have been linked to social entrepreneurship or environmental entrepreneurship. However, it is seen as a more comprehensive perspective that merges the creation of environmental, social, and economic values, focusing on ensuring the well-being of future generations (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Terán-Yépez et al., 2020).
In the literature, sustainable entrepreneurship has emerged from concepts more related to social and environmental entrepreneurship (Bennett, 1991; Mair & Martí, 2006). Nowadays, sustainability entrepreneurship research is a field of study that has grown out of the broader areas of business, environment, and corporate responsibility research in response to questions about affecting change in business social and environmental practices (Parrish, 2008).
Among the key characteristics of sustainable entrepreneurship, we can highlight the consideration of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1998); the development of innovative and inclusive business models (Bocken et al., 2014), stakeholder orientation (Goodman et al., 2017); a long-term perspective (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011); and resilience and adaptability (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).
The literature also identifies several challenges that sustainable entrepreneurship faces. These include limited access to financial and human resources; market barriers, such as high costs and low consumer awareness; the lack of standardized metrics to measure social and environmental impact; and cultural resistance (Haanaes et al., 2012; Parrish, 2010; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Furthermore, some studies highlight the urgency of comparing sustainable entrepreneurship practices across different cultural and regulatory contexts to identify universal and context-specific drivers and barriers (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010).
Sustainability in Entrepreneurship Centers (ECs)
As the global focus on sustainability intensifies, ECs are increasingly expected to embed social and environmental considerations into their operations and educational frameworks (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2018). However, academic articles have rarely discussed how an incubator can drive sustainability start-ups in the process of creating a business with an impact (Lamperti et al., 2023).
In terms of social sustainability, ECs enhance entrepreneurs’ awareness of social issues and their motivation to create ventures addressing societal challenges (Wong et al., 2019). They promote social values such as equity, inclusion, and social justice through entrepreneurial initiatives that incorporate ethical business practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR), community engagement, and diversity and inclusion (Lamperti et al., 2023; Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013; Teasdale et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2019).
Additionally, studies show that ECs integrating environmental sustainability focus on fostering business practices that minimize environmental impact and promote ecological balance. Key strategies include offering training on sustainable business models, environmental management, and green technologies; implementing eco-friendly practices; and encouraging the development of green Innovations (Fonseca & Chiappetta Jabbour, 2012; Karahan, 2024; Lamine et al., 2018; Lamperti et al., 2023).
Previous studies have also identified barriers that ECs face in integrating sustainability dimensions, including limited financial and human resources, cultural resistance, and difficulty in measuring the impact of sustainability initiatives and demonstrating tangible benefits (Karahan, 2024; Lamine et al., 2018; Russo & Tencati, 2009; Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018).
On the other hand, For the development of sustainable innovation, the academy is recognized for its role as educator, initiator and concept refiner supporting activities such as product-service innovation, idea generation and educational events (Goodman et al., 2017). Universities’ roles also include contributing to societal sustainability and economic development through incubators, science parks and spin-offs (Hayter & Cahoy, 2018). University-based centers, such as ECs, can play a crucial role in developing sustainable innovations through collaboration with various stakeholders and the development of different mechanisms (Sarkis et al., 2010). These alliances help improve innovation outcomes and positively impact the development of sustainable innovation (Inigo et al., 2020).
Due to the above-mentioned challenges and gaps in the literature, this study adopts the three-perspective approach proposed by Cillo et al. (2019)—internal management, external relations, and performance evaluation—to analyze how ECs contribute to sustainable entrepreneurship through the integration of social and environmental sustainability dimensions.
Methods
This study used an exploratory approach to understand the role of universities as transformative institutions in promoting social and environmental sustainability through ECs. A qualitative and inductive approach was adopted and operationalized through the case study research strategy (Yin, 2009).
As outlined in the introduction, this research examines the extent to which social and environmental sustainability dimensions are integrated into university-based ECs and how these dimensions are monitored in their innovation outcomes. As suggested by Yin (2009), the study employs a case study approach, as “what” and “how” research questions are particularly suited to this methodology. While inductive case studies are not traditionally representative or conclusive, they provide valuable insights that can inform subsequent quantitative research and broader theoretical developments.
The study was designed following the guidelines of Eisenhardt (1989), Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) and Yin (2009).
Case selection strategy
Two university-based ECs were selected as our case studies. The rationale for selecting the two institutions for this study lies in their operation within distinct (international) socio-economic contexts, where the inclusion of sustainability goals varies in terms of development levels. This comparative approach enables the study to yield broader, more generalizable insights. Furthermore, the study was conducted within a research agreement framework involving scholars from two major institutions—one based in the United States and the other in Spain.
To ensure the confidentiality of the participants, the names of the universities involved are not disclosed. Revealing the university names could unintentionally lead to the identification of individuals who participated in the research, thus compromising their privacy. This decision aligns with ethical research practices and our commitment to maintaining participant anonymity.
Both universities offer two clear, observable, and complementary examples of the phenomenon being studied. With extensive research experience, they are recognized as key agents of change within their respective contexts. Additionally, both ECs are well-organized and are part of the main university’s innovation office/function. They are situated in two distinct geopolitical settings, which influence their specific strategies, and are affiliated with top-tier universities in their respective contexts. A brief overview of the selected universities and ECs is provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Selected universities
University A | University B | |
|---|---|---|
Type | Public state-related research university | Public |
Year founded | 1787 | 1968 |
Students (2021–2022) | approx. 33,800 Undergraduates: 24,600 Postgraduates: 9,200 | approx. 30,700 Undergraduates: 21,900 Postgraduates: 7,500 |
Academic staff (2021–2022) | approx. 14,200 employees 5,700 faculty 700 research associates 7,800 staff | approx. 4,000 employees 2,500 faculty and research associates 1,500 staff |
Budget (2023) | USD 2.470 million | USD 442 million |
Academic Ranking 2023 | 51–100* | 401–500* |
Entrepreneurship Center (EC) - Number of employees | Staff: 10 Number of Director/Senior managers: 4 | Staff: 13 Number of Director/Senior managers: 3 |
University A is a semi-private university that gets monetary support from the state government and which is mainly aimed to provide lower tuition rates to the state residents. University B operates within strong regulation of the national government.
Data collection
The research questions around which our case studies are organized involve qualitative evidence gathered through two data-collection techniques: (i) collection and analysis of documents; and (ii) in-depth interviews (Table 2).
Table 2
Data collection techniques and sources
Data collection techniques | Details |
|---|---|
Collection and analysis of documents | Strategic and organizational documents, websites, newsletters, etc. |
In-depth interviews -Interviewee profile | Individuals responsible for decision-making within the CE, especially at the operational level such as a director or senior managers with 10 years of experience. |
Relevant documents were initially found online in both English and Spanish. Documents were reviewed to gain a general understanding of the predefined categories of analysis. This preliminary step allowed for the contextualization, identification of key themes and provided a foundation for deeper exploration.
Subsequently, in-depth interviews were conducted to collect additional information and gain nuanced insights into the same categories (Boyce & Neale, 2006). We pursued particular attributes to connect with interviewees: they held leadership roles within their respective ECs and had over 10 years of experience.
Interviews were conducted with four of the seven senior managers at the selected ECs (three men and one woman). These interviews took place in 2022 both in person and virtually (using Microsoft Teams and Zoom). Each interview lasted approximately one hour and was audio recorded with the interviewees’ prior consent and assurance of confidentiality.
During the interviews, topics such as the primary purpose of the EC, expected outcomes, stakeholder identification and activities related to various social and environmental issues were discussed (see Appendix 1). The data obtained through document analysis were contrasted during the interviews. Finally, the interviews served to refine the themes proposed for the analysis.
The Ethics Committee of the leading research institution conducting this study has approved the data collection process.
Data analysis
For data analysis we conducted a content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Schreier, 2013). This systematic method was carried out with the support of NVIVO- 14® to facilitate the organization, coding, analysis of the data, ensuring a structured, transparency and replicability of the study (Gläser & Laudel, 2013). The content analysis consisted of five different phases:
1.
2.
Qualitative content analysis: We linked different parts of the interviews (e.g., phrases, sentences, or paragraphs) to different codes. During the analysis, the themes and codes were iteratively refined through a data-driven process to ensure they adequately captured emerging themes and patterns. This reflexive and iterative approach allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the meanings and contexts embedded in the data.
3.
Quantitative content analysis: To complement the qualitative analysis, a quantitative content analysis was conducted by counting the occurrences of predefined codes across the dataset. This approach provided a numerical representation of the prominence of specific themes and facilitated the identification of patterns that might not be immediately apparent through qualitative interpretation alone.
4.
Evaluation and interpretation of the results: The results from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of the data. Qualitative insights illuminated the contextual and interpretive dimensions of the themes, while quantitative findings highlighted their relative prominence across the dataset. This triangulated approach strengthened the validity of the study and ensured a robust interpretation of the findings.
5.
Validation: A peer expert in qualitative methods reviewed the data coding and analysis.
Table 3
Categories, themes and codes analyzed
RQ | Perspectives/categories of analysis | Definition | Themes | Codes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The extent of integration | Internal Managerial | Characteristics, strategies and practices for managing innovation activities | Organizational structure Function Manager profile Perception and concerns about environmental and social dimensions | Main goal Organizational structure Interviewees profile Potential impacts Socioenvironmental challenges Awareness Ethical issues |
External Relational | Way the EC collaborates and engages with stakeholders regarding socio-environmental dimensions | Stakeholder identification Stakeholder engagement (activities and mechanisms regarding socio-environmental dimensions) Origin of actions | Stakeholders Supporters Origin of contacts Diversity and inclusion Gender Environment Openness Education Local commitment Origin of actions | |
Outcome monitoring | Performance Evaluation | How the EC reports its results | Products/outcomes Indicators used Reporting impacts Benefits | Outcomes Evaluation criteria Indicators/Reporting Impact/Benefices Economic results Environmental impacts Social impacts |
Results
Internal managerial perspective
The first perspective explores the EC’s self-perception, the benefits it provides, and its stance regarding the social and environmental aspects of sustainability. The following table summarizes the key findings from this perspective (Table 4).
Table 4
Summary of internal managerial perspective
EC-A | EC-B |
|---|---|
Advises people who want to start an industrial or service business Social-environmental impact is NOT a support criterion or considered in business plans Ethical considerations are constituted by industry regulatory issues | Enables members of the university community to setup a business (with a focus on technology) Actively concerned for a positive social-environmental impact of technology Policy exists to promote diversity and inclusion by treating everyone equally Accepts that openness depends on the entrepreneur and the nature of the business |
The EC at the University A (EC-A) specializes in advising people who want to open an industrial or service business. It focuses on internal and external entrepreneurs and assigns them a consultant or mentor who assists them in obtaining financing to start up their business. This center focuses on people inside or outside the university. There are other offices that are specifically for undergraduate or graduate students.
This center’s functions can be summarized as follows:
-
Assisting in the elaboration of the business plan.
-
Assisting companies and people who come from other countries and want to start a business.
-
Having personalized consulting services available.
-
Training and education.
-
Advising on specialized topics (financial, legal, contractual, technical).
-
Supporting in market research.
The center is supported by other units within and outside of the university. These include a network for big companies, a program in low-income areas, and the office of Sponsor Programs, etc.
Some of the main impacts or benefits of the EC are:
-
Access to the international market.
-
Connections with other agencies and supporting units within and outside of the university.
-
Personalized and free consulting services.
-
Help producing a business plan ready to apply for financing.
-
Assistance during the first years of the business.
-
Economic development for the city and the region, through business creation and employment generation.
Business plans do not consider aspects regarding social and environmental dimensions except when there may be a regulatory issue that could affect the business, as reported by one of our interviewees (EA1): … we’re going to support, but you’re not going to see anything proactive from our side….
The EC at the University B (EC-B) has more than 30 years of experience. It was the first entrepreneurship unit at a Spanish university. Its mission is to enable students, graduates, professors, researchers and administrative staff to set up a business or acquire entrepreneurial skills. It assists them during the incubation process and up to five years after they are established. Its functions can be summarized as follows:
-
Attracting the entrepreneurial culture to the university community.
-
Encouraging the university community to create new start-ups.
-
Inspiring vocations in entrepreneurship.
-
Providing entrepreneurial skills for entrepreneurship and life.
Two aspects differentiate this EC from others. The first is the use of technology, which is due to the specific characteristics of the university. The second is a concern for the positive impact of technology. Therefore, they have tried to focus both on access to technology and providing the tools to improve its impact.
The main benefits or results of the EC include:
-
Counseling through a mentor assigned to entrepreneurs.
-
Training in business modeling, investment, intellectual protection, environmental impact, social impact, etc.
-
Hosting internal business idea contests.
-
Developing “challenges” with other private and public institutions.
-
Helping in the incubation and acceleration of start-ups.
-
Supporting participation in start-up competitions.
-
Validating business models.
-
Promoting co-working.
In terms of social aspects, the EC has a policy of treating everyone equally. The EC actively participates in and supports development projects and organizes “challenges” that include topics related to social problems. Also, the EC has started to develop metrics to promote diversity within the groups of entrepreneurs. As one of our interviewees (EB4) explained:… the economy has to be social, and if it is not social, it should not even be an economy.
The entrepreneur interests and the type of business determine the concern with openness in science. Not all businesses can operate with an open source philosophy. Some need to be made profitable, through protection, to continue researching or developing a technology.
External relational perspective
The second perspective analyzes the actions that the universities perform through the ECs to engage stakeholders and contribute to sustainable development (Table 5). This analysis was based on the work by Breuer and Lüdeke-Freund (2017) who proposed a conceptual framework for values-based innovation management, Gutiérrez and Macken-Walsh (2022)’s study which proposed the identification of values associated with different stakeholders, and the UNECE/Eurostat/OECD’s (2014) framework to ensure sustainable development. Following these studies, we identify the stakeholders associated with each EC and discuss the social and environmental issues that the ECs address with the identified stakeholders. The issues identified include diversity and inclusion, gender equality, interdisciplinarity, collective engagement, local commitment, ethical considerations, education, openness, environmental impact, and new values in business.
Table 5
Summary of the external relational perspective
EC-A | EC-B |
|---|---|
Main stakeholders are external: entrepreneurs (clients) Entrepreneurs are not required to impact or report on any socio-environmental issue Actively developing programs to address socio-environmental issues Environmental issues are mainly addressed in terms of state and federal regulations | Main stakeholders are the university community Entrepreneurs must explicitly indicate what SDGs they are committed to impact Actively involved in programs, even at European Union (EU) level, to address issues related to diversity and inclusion (e.g. women’s participation and gender perspective) Prioritize and redirect projects for more positive impact |
EC-A is locally recognized; therefore, many stakeholders approach the center asking to be an active part (such as a sponsor). This is mainly because their support of the university looks good communally; they are motivated by an interest in the economic development of the city.
The main stakeholders of this EC are the entrepreneurs whom they call clients. Clients can be anyone as the center is open to the public. All the EC’s services and contacts revolve around these entrepreneurs. The second group of stakeholders are those who help drive entrepreneurs. Collaborations with this group can range from simple contacts, such as a call to discuss a specific topic, to financing. As stated by one of our interviewees (EA1)… a great spirit of collaboration, even if the company requires only a phone call and have a chat….
In the ecosystem of EC-A, there are students who are hired as support staff; other ECs also located within the university; some local incubation programs; a state ECs network; and the state government, which supports the presence of U.S. embassies in more than 80 countries. A group referred to as professionals, such as bankers, lawyers, accountants, insurance companies and groups specialized in different types of business, are also included in the ecosystem. Another group included is those supporters specialized in promoting business generation in certain communities. Finally, there are the funders including sponsors, banks, nonprofits, government agencies or crowdfunding entities that are in charge of approving and financially supporting new businesses.
Table 6 presents the EC-A’s actions to address socio-environmental issues. Among the social issues, diversity and inclusion are the most developed. The EC is open to the public but focuses on supporting immigrants who intend to start a business in the city. At the institutional level, there is a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee with representatives from all university units, including a representative from the Innovation Office to which this EC belongs. Although EC-A is not actively or proactively involved, it provides support when necessary for activities or actions carried out by the committee. Additionally, the EC collaborates with other local programs and institutions focused on underrepresented groups. To attract the Latino community, the EC also seeks out and provides specialized services in Spanish.
Table 6
Actions implemented by EC-A to address socio-environmental issues
Issues | Stakeholders involved | Practices and Actions | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|
Local commitment | Citizenship | Provide service open to the public | University |
Diversity and inclusion | Vulnerable and underrepresented groups | Support to the Diversity and Inclusion Committee | Institutional Policy |
Work in consortium with internal and external units focused on minorities | Associated units | ||
Provide bilingual services to increase the presence of the Latino community (banking advisors, lawyers…) | Internal | ||
Environmental impact | Entrepreneurs (clients) | Provide program (other unit) of legal advice for compliance with environmental regulations | Normative |
Employee staff and entrepreneurs | Reduce of the EC's environmental impact: reduction in the use of paper and supporting teleworking | Internal |
With respect to the environmental dimension, the unit is supported by another unit in charge of compliance with federal and state regulations in order to avoid possible sanctions. Furthermore, at the internal level, the use of paper has been reduced by delivering all materials in electronic format. Likewise, they have also supported a hybrid work policy, which gives employees greater freedom and reduces travel.
The actions identified have a strong regulatory component. Internally, the actions are proposed by the University and the government also has regulations that must be complied with. However, the EC’s work model is determined by entrepreneurs and funders.
Conversely, the main stakeholder of EC-B is the university community, mainly students, as well as graduates, faculty, researchers or administrative staff who want to start their own business. Externally, contacts flow in both directions. EC-B benefits from the reputation of the university and its research vocation to attract new connections. Likewise, the EC has attempted to have a closer relationship with other actors in the local ecosystem. The interest among local actors has increased recently, and has been beneficial for parties. For example, the EC has achieved joint participation in large technology and entrepreneurship fairs. In addition, it is important to mention investors, sponsors, local government, other incubators, accelerators, the local start-up association, lawyers, companies, internal control bodies, and the national patent and trademark office as important stakeholders.
Table 7 shows how EC-B deals with socio-environmental issues. Regarding the connection with social problems, all entrepreneurs must clearly state which Sustainable Development Goals SDGs they are committed to impacting. Furthermore, every year, the EC develops two “challenges” at the university in which social challenges are proposed and solved by the students. Similarly, at the local level, together with other public actors, public activities such as “challenges” or hackathons have been promoted. In these activities, citizens can propose challenges and solve them together with students. In addition, forums have been created to promote start-ups in which citizens can purchase products or services, suggest changes, and ask for other services, etc.
Table 7
Actions implemented by EC-B to address socio-environmental issues
Issue | Stakeholders involved | Practices and Actions | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|
Positive social and environmental impact | Entrepreneurs | Includes of the SDGs in business plans | Internal University Funders |
Local commitment | Citizenship | Makes events open to the public: challenges or hackathon, and forums for the exchange of ideas | Local stakeholders |
Third sector | Annually campaign to help an NGO | Internal | |
Diversity and inclusion/Gender equality | Low-income countries | Actively participates in development projects to initiate entrepreneurship units | Internal |
Provides mentoring for start-ups in low-income countries | Sponsor | ||
Women | Seeks for parity of 30/70 in the activities and actions undertaken by the center | Internal | |
Has indicators related to female leadership | Internal | ||
Entrepreneurs | Includes the gender perspective in bootcamps to increase diversity in work teams | Start-up competitions | |
Environmental impact | Entrepreneurs | Generates start-ups with high environmental and social impact | Research consortium |
Users and entrepreneurs | Provides training to determine the climate impact (reducing the CO2 footprint in new products, reducing ecotoxicity, use of natural resources). | Internal | |
Entrepreneurs | Promotes the generation of ideas that address climate change | International Competition University | |
Users and investment funds | Includes environmental objectives in addition to economic objectives | Investment funds |
In relation to diversity and inclusion, every year EC-B organizes a solidarity campaign to help an NGO. This is accompanied by inspirational talks not only in terms of entrepreneurship, but also in terms of organizational culture, personal goals, etc. The EC also participates in development projects in South America and the former Soviet republics to support them in the creation of their own university entrepreneurship ECs. Also, together with a sponsor, mentoring services have been offered to support entrepreneurship in Africa. Moreover, in order to support gender equality, the EC is working to achieve 30/70 parity within the ecosystem, although ideally it should be 50/50. This challenge is particularly difficult given the technological nature of the university. In addition, indicators on women’s participation have begun to be monitored, and gender perspective issues and the advantages of having more diverse teams have been included in some training sessions.
In relation to the environment, EC-B actively participates in a European consortium about climate change in which several start-ups have been generated. The EC offers training and tools to measure the climate impact of start-ups, all of whom are asked to submit an impact report in which they evaluate alternatives to reduce their environmental impact on human health and the use of natural resources. The start-ups must also compare their innovation or business model with other alternatives and demonstrate that they are greener and are reducing the CO2 footprint of their new products and services. Additionally, the EC collaborates with some investment funds that include social and environmental impact in their partner agreements. The objectives they ask from a start-up are not only economic but also environmental.
With respect to ethical issues, the EC has an obligation to address all ideas. However, when these ideas go against human dignity, ethics or morals, the EC will try to reorient the proposed business model. The EC’s internal policy is to prioritize projects that have more positive impacts as well as redirect projects to have a more positive impact. The role of the mentor is key as he/she can dedicate more time to those projects that interest him/her most even if they are not the most lucrative.
Regarding openness, the EC tries to engage entrepreneurs about intellectual property and raise awareness of its implications. The better protective actions will be prioritized with the help of legal experts in protection issues. Whenever possible, open source is encouraged.
The actions identified in issues related to the environmental dimension, such as including the SDGs and environmental impact began as an internal initiative arising from experience participating in projects financed with European funds. The same requirement has been replicated at the university. Similarly, some of these requirements are part of the demands from investors, who are beginning to generate a framework for action towards projects focused on sustainable development.
Another way to encourage the development of new businesses with positive socio-environmental impact comes from business idea competitions and the “challenges” strategy arising from a strategic plan of the university that aims to have a greater influence on society. The latter factor is recognized as particularly influential in the design of actions. An emphasis at the institutional level on issues such as gender and climate change have made the need to design actions that contribute to these more explicit, as exemplified by the following quote (EB05):… the university is trying to do its homework well in not being an outsider partner to society.
Performance evaluation
Finally, for the third perspective we provide a brief summary of the mechanisms used in the ECs to report or monitor their activities (Table 8).
Table 8
Summary of performance evaluation
EC-A | EC-B |
|---|---|
Performance metrics do not incorporate sustainability-related evaluation criteria | Businesses must indicate which SDGs they are targeting Internal indicators related to female leadership Can choose businesses that have a high socio-environmental impact since it is not pressured to generate revenue |
EC-A does not include sustainability assessment items in their performance evaluation. It measures its success through a set of indicators that includes the number of participants in the training program, number of entrepreneurs, and the financing obtained. The latter is the most important evaluation indicator, as the mentors are evaluated based on the annual funding goal achieved. Moreover, the turnover of new businesses is measured, as once a business reaches a certain amount of annual turnover, it is transferred to another unit specialized in networking for larger businesses.
On the other hand, the main indicators used in EC-B include number of people participating in the activities organized by the unit, hours of mentoring, number of training events carried out, number of businesses created, number of university spin-offs, investment received, turnover of new businesses and the survival rate.
Regarding impacts related to sustainability, businesses must indicate the SDGs they are targeting and a record is kept of projects led by gender. In addition, there are other positive impacts that are not recorded related to the entrepreneurial skills generated in students who arrive and propose solutions in other environments, the support provided to other entrepreneurship units, and the impact that start-ups generate in society.
One of the main advantages of EC-B is that because it is within a public university it does not have the pressure to generate economic resources. Therefore, this EC can look more towards impact and other types of businesses rather than be concerned about deficits.
Quantitative content analysis
A quantitative content analysis was conducted to complement the previous results and assess the prevalence of key themes within the dataset. Table 9 presents the thematic distribution of data between the two cases.
Table 9
Cross-tabulation analysis
Codes | EC-A | EC-B | |
|---|---|---|---|
Internal Managerial | Main goal | 12 | 15 |
Organizational structure | 9 | 1 | |
Interviewees | 11 | 9 | |
Reflection on potential impacts | 1 | 8 | |
Socioenvironmental challenges | 0 | 2 | |
Awareness | 4 | 7 | |
Ethical issues | 0 | 3 | |
External Relational | Stakeholders | 1 | 2 |
Supporters | 16 | 8 | |
Origin of contacts | 7 | 4 | |
Diversity and Inclusion | 11 | 5 | |
Gender | 0 | 7 | |
Environment | 8 | 6 | |
Openness | 0 | 2 | |
Education | 4 | 2 | |
Local commitment | 3 | 5 | |
Origin of actions | 4 | 12 | |
Performance Evaluation | Outcomes | 11 | 10 |
Evaluation criteria | 0 | 3 | |
Indicators-Reporting | 7 | 11 | |
Impact-Benefices | 9 | 9 | |
Economic results | 6 | 1 | |
Environmental impacts | 0 | 1 | |
Social impacts | 0 | 2 |
In terms of themes related to internal organizational elements, Main Goal, Organizational Structure, and Interviewees have a higher occurrence in EC-A, while Main Goal, Interviewees, Reflection on Potential Impacts, and Awareness are more prominent in EC-B. Indicating that the organizational context was a central focus in both contexts. Similarly, the role of managers responsible for operational activities in these units is crucial for the implementation of targeted actions.
EC-A also places greater emphasis on structural arrangements and internal organization (Organizational Structure), whereas EC-B focuses more on reflecting on the socioenvironmental implications of its actions and responsiveness (Reflection on Potential Impacts and Awareness). The Socioenvironmental Challenges and Ethical Issues codes were either absent or minimally mentioned.
The external relational perspective shows the most contrasting results between the two centers. For EC-A, Supporters and Diversity and Inclusion are the most prominent themes, indicating that EC-A actively prioritizes external supporters or partnerships and demonstrates a commitment to diversity and inclusion activities, particularly in relation to socio-environmental dimensions. EC-A also shows moderate attention to discussing the sources of external contacts (Origin of Contacts) and environmental actions. EC-A lacks any mentions of Gender and Openness.
In contrast, for EC-B, Origin of Actions has a higher frequency of mentions, indicating a greater focus on the sources of initiatives behind sustainability-oriented actions. Regarding sustainability-related themes, Diversity and Inclusion, Gender, Environment, and Local commitment have a similar distribution, suggesting a more balanced approach to these topics in EC-B.
Notably, both EC-A and EC-B show low attention to the Stakeholders code. However, the findings indicate clear collaboration with multiple stakeholders, suggesting that, although neither EC explicitly prioritizes a stakeholder identification strategy, stakeholders are implicitly included in their activities and play a direct role in shaping strategic priorities.
Regarding performance evaluation, both ECs place greater emphasis on the Outcomes of their efforts, evaluation practices (Indicators-Reporting), and understanding the broader benefits of actions (Impact-Benefits). EC-A places greater importance on economic outcomes, suggesting a stronger focus on financial metrics, whereas EC-B prioritizes defining evaluation criteria (Evaluation Criteria). However, both ECs demonstrate limited attention to Environmental and Social Impacts.
Finally, a general visualization of the data through a Treemap (Fig. 1) highlights the relative prominence of each theme within its respective perspective. Larger areas represent more frequently occurring codes, while smaller areas indicate less prominent themes.
Fig. 1
Treemap visualization. Hierarchical discourse distribution
The discourse in both cases was more concentrated within the external perspective. The most dominant themes reflect a strong focus on external alliances, funding, and partnerships, while also highlighting an emphasis on inclusive and environmental practices. From an internal perspective, the most prominent themes suggest that defining strategic objectives, leadership commitment, and institutional support are crucial components. Finally, in terms of performance evaluation, the most prominent themes indicate a strong focus on measuring results, the importance of traditional reporting practices, and assessing benefits.
Moreover, socioenvironmental challenges and impacts, ethical issues, activities aimed at increasing transparency, and evaluation criteria receive very little attention, suggesting that these may not be primary concerns.
Cross-case analyses: key factors to promote sustainable entrepreneurship
Although both universities have demonstrated different approaches to integrating sustainability within their ECs, a comparative analysis highlight critical factors for embedding sustainability into their operations. These factors are categorized according to the three-perspective approach outlined in the theoretical framework. Each factor is defined, with an emphasis on its influence and role in mediating the adoption of sustainable innovation (Table 10).
Table 10
Key factors to promote sustainable innovation
Perspectives | Factors (drivers/barriers) | Definition | University A | University B | Influence/mediation on sustainable innovation adoption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internal Managerial | The EC mission | The principal purpose and objectives of the EC | Focuses on advising industrial and service businesses, open to internal and external entrepreneurs | Focusing on enabling entrepreneurial skills, start-ups incubation, mentoring and entrepreneurial challenges within the university community | Internal mission impacts decision-making and alignment with sustainability goals |
Commitment to sustainability | The level of dedication by the EC to embed sustainability in its programs, policies, and initiatives | Sustainability is aspirational; not proactively integrated into business plans unless regulatory issues arise | Sustainability goals are institutionalized and embedded into the managerial structure | Commitment to sustainability determines how deeply sustainability is embedded in operations | |
Institutional support | The backing provided by the university to promote sustainability | Programs related to some aspects of sustainability, but little connected with EC activities | Multiple opportunities for connection and cooperation between university functions (training, research, entrepreneurship, CSR, etc.) | Institutional support provides a framework of systems (policies, resources, programs, evaluation systems, etc.) to actively promote and prioritize sustainable practices | |
Leadership commitment | The role of EC managers in advocating for and prioritizing sustainability initiatives | Sustainability-related initiatives are driven by managers inspired by their background | Personal initiates to enforcing intended goals | Middle-level managers have a significant role in linking organizational strategies into real practices | |
Resources (financial/human) | The availability of funding and skilled personnel to support sustainability initiatives | Limited financial resources dedicated to sustainability; support from funders, sponsors, and EC networks | Access to EU funding and partnerships with local and international actors for sustainability initiatives | Human and financial resources availability influences capacity to implement sustainable practices | |
External Relational | Political/regulatory context | The policies, laws, and governmental frameworks that influence sustainability integration | Driven by private financing and regulations | Influenced by EU policies, with an emphasis on SDGs and sustainability at all levels | Regulatory environment influences the availability of resources and shapes the integration of sustainability practices |
Cultural/geographical context | The influence of societal norms, regional characteristics, and local economic conditions | Competitive and industry-focused urban setting; emphasis on economic development | Collaborative and regionally oriented; emphasizes community engagement and socio-environmental responsibility | Cultural and geographical factors influence EC priorities, networks and innovation outcomes | |
External Relational | Partnerships | Strategic alliances with other units within the University, industry, government agencies, NGOs, etc. to enhance sustainability initiatives | Broad, specialized network with connections to internal and external units (e.g., big companies, local programs, sponsors) | Integrated into the local ecosystem and connected with international partners | Partnerships provide access to expertise, technology, funding, and market opportunities, accelerating the adoption of sustainable practices |
Stakeholder engagement (oriented to sustainability) | The involvement of key stakeholders in sustainability initiatives | Main stakeholders are external entrepreneurs; minimal requirements for socio-environmental impact, demonstrates a commitment to diversity and inclusion activities | Stakeholders include the university community; entrepreneurs must report on SDG alignment, initiatives focus on diversity and inclusion, environment and local commitment | Active stakeholder engagement towards positive socio-environmental impact drives alignment with sustainability objectives | |
Performance evaluation | Outcomes | The tangible and intangible EC results | Focused on economic development for the city and region through business creation and employment generation | Stronger emphasis on aligning new start-ups with positive social and environmental impact | Tracking outcomes helps ECs assess their contribution to sustainability goals |
Evaluation criteria from financing agents | The standards and expectations set by investors, venture capitalists, and funding agencies regarding sustainability performance | Priority is given to revenues | Mixed, some financing agents are beginning to consider social/environmental benefit generated | Financing agents may increasingly require EC-supported ventures to demonstrate environmental and social impact as part of funding eligibility. This pressure drives ECs to embed sustainability in business models | |
Monitoring frameworks | Metrics, reporting systems, and performance indicators used to track, evaluate, and improve EC operations | Performance metrics focus on financial indicators like funding obtained and business turnover; no sustainability metrics | Businesses must report targeted SDGs; internal indicators include gender leadership | Establishing responsible monitoring frameworks are key to assessing and promoting sustainable innovation |
The key factors identified in this study function as both drivers and barriers to promoting sustainable innovation within the university context. For EC-A, the primary drivers include institutional support, leadership commitment, resources, political/regulatory context and partnerships. However, the stated mission, commitment to sustainability, cultural/geographical context, outcomes and evaluation criteria from financing agents pose significant barriers to sustainability integration. Conversely, EC-B benefits from multiple drivers, including its mission, commitment to sustainability, institutional support, leadership commitment, political/regulatory context, stakeholder engagement, cultural/geographical context and evaluation criteria from financing agents. Nevertheless, resource constraints and the absence of robust monitoring frameworks act as barriers to fully embedding sustainability into its operations.
Discussion
The findings of our study provide several important insights that address the research questions formulated at the beginning of the study. We discuss the results in relation to the guiding research questions: (1) What is the extent of integration of social and environmental sustainability dimensions in university-based ECs? and (2) How do university-based ECs monitor the social and environmental dimensions of their innovation outcomes?
Regarding the strategies for integrating social and environmental sustainability dimensions, and in line with the proposal of Tiemann et al. (2018), we found a combination of top-down and bottom-up strategies. Our results suggest that these strategies can also be analyzed beyond the institutional context, considering the influence of political and cultural factors, as well as the role of financing and regulatory agents.
The support system for sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship has been primarily analyzed at the institutional level through the educational function of universities (Bautista-Puig & Sanz-Casado, 2021; Peláez-Higuera & Calderón-Hernández, 2024). At the level of university business incubators, Karahan (2024) recently highlighted that they undergo different stages of transformation toward sustainability. In our particular cases, both ECs exhibited characteristics of different stages, even though the explicit intention to work toward sustainability was not always stated.
The results reveal different approaches between EC-A and EC-B. EC-A appears more operationally focused, prioritizing organizational structure, diversity, and partnerships. In contrast, EC-B adopts a more reflective and values-driven approach, reflecting on potential impacts, ethical considerations, and proactive engagement with socio-environmental challenges. These differences highlight distinct strategic priorities shaped by their institutional, regulatory, and cultural contexts.
The organizational change framework proposed by Mirvis and Googins (2006) helps explain why ECs adopt sustainability at different levels and how internal and external factors influence their progression through these stages. Both ECs can be positioned within different stages of organizational change regarding sustainability adoption. EC-A appears less concerned with sustainability goals beyond compliance with university or government regulations. This stage of organizational change is classified as “basic,” meaning sustainability is not a strategic priority but rather a reactive compliance measure. Conversely, EC-B is committed to generating a positive socio-environmental impact through entrepreneurship, reflecting a more favorable context for sustainability. This center falls between the “engaged” and “innovative” stages, where sustainability becomes a core part of operations and entrepreneurial programs. However, some efforts remain fragmented, and leadership is still in the process of fully structuring sustainability frameworks and monitoring progress.
Regarding the second research question, on monitoring the social and environmental dimensions, neither of the two centers exhibits strong evaluation practices. While EC-B has initiated some evaluation efforts, these have not yet been institutionalized. Both centers primarily measure their results using traditional indicators, particularly EC-A, which prioritizes economic outcomes over socio-environmental impact.
Our study also identified key factors influencing the adoption of sustainable innovation. These factors fall into three main categories: internal managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation (Fig. 2). While previous studies have highlighted some challenges and enablers in promoting sustainable entrepreneurship in the university context (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018; Karahan, 2024), this study is the first to integrate all these factors in combination with the evaluation perspective.
Fig. 2
Factors influencing sustainable innovation adoption in ECs
The stated mission of the EC has a direct impact on alignment with sustainability goals (Karahan, 2024). EC-A demonstrated a stronger connection to the business sector, whereas EC-B had a broader mission connected to the university community and local priorities. This factor is closely linked to commitment to sustainability and institutional support.
At EC-B, a stronger commitment to sustainability was observed. The SDGs are institutionalized and integrated into the management structure of the organization. At the institutional level, University B has demonstrated an increasing commitment to and awareness of sustainability issues, leading to greater integration of sustainability objectives into its management structure—an increasingly common feature among universities in Spain (Bautista-Puig & Sanz-Casado, 2021).
Institutional support is one of the most frequently identified factors influencing sustainability integration (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018; Karahan, 2024; Tiemann et al., 2018). Our findings emphasize that strong leadership commitment from university administration is crucial to driving change. For this reason, EC-A differs significantly from EC-B in terms of sustainability goals, stakeholder engagement, and expectations concerning socio-environmental issues.
Continuous leadership commitment has been recognized as a mediating factor in the transformation of HEIs toward sustainability (Karahan, 2024). However, previous studies have primarily examined leadership at the top management and firm levels (Hansen et al., 2022). Our research highlights the significant role of middle-level managers in linking top management initiatives with real organizational practices. Middle managers drive sustainability objectives during their development phase (e.g., by actively targeting the Latino community in EC-A) and reinforce them once they are integrated into organizational operations (e.g., by requiring entrepreneurs to indicate which SDGs they are addressing in EC-B).
Access to funding and the availability of human resources are critical factors influencing sustainability integration (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018; Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018). However, the presence of these resources does not necessarily guarantee effective sustainability integration. EC-A demonstrated broad access to resources from various sources and maintained a large and specialized network connected to internal and external units, including large corporations and local programs. However, limited resources were specifically allocated to sustainability initiatives. EC-B, on the other hand, showed greater access to European funding and partnerships for sustainability projects.
External relational factors cover aspects that can be considered “external settings,” as defined by Tiemann et al. (2018). The political and regulatory context can support sustainability goals to some extent (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018). Our findings indicate that the lack of explicit government regulations limits the extent to which ECs can enforce sustainability expectations on stakeholders. Additionally, cultural and geographical contexts play a role in shaping sustainability integration. EC-A operates in a private funding-driven environment with a broad and highly specialized network of stakeholders focused on economic development (Garde Sánchez et al., 2013). In contrast, EC-B is influenced by EU policies and a local ecosystem that prioritize SDGs and societal challenges. These findings align with broader trends showing that European institutions often integrate sustainability more comprehensively due to EU directives (Fichter & Tiemann, 2018).
ECs strategically engage in external partnerships based on their priorities and interests. Our findings suggest that proactive stakeholder engagement and sustainability-driven external partnerships allow ECs to function more comprehensively and with enhanced accountability. The combination of these factors contributes to universities’ transformation into “transformative institutions” engaged in sustainability innovation through business models (Trencher et al., 2014). Proactive engagement aligns with the need for universities to adopt comprehensive sustainability approaches (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008). This result supports previous findings that sustainable initiatives are more likely to succeed when supported by “connectors” who bridge academia and society (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008).
Finally, regarding impact measurement, despite some progress, ECs face several challenges in capturing the impact of their interventions and innovation outcomes related to sustainability. Among the performance evaluation factors identified were outcomes, evaluation criteria from financing agents, and monitoring frameworks. Of these, only incentives have previously been identified as a key aspect of university transformation toward sustainability (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008). Efforts to develop evaluation systems have been studied in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship but not in relation to the management and promotion functions of ECs (Fonseca & Chiappetta Jabbour, 2012; Karahan, 2024; Lamine et al., 2018).
Conclusions
This study provides a novel contribution to the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation systems toward sustainability by applying a micro-foundational perspective to examine how EC sustainability efforts influence institutional context. It provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that institutionalized sustainability policies enhance the long-term adoption of sustainable practices in entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The findings demonstrate the crucial role of institutional and regulatory frameworks in shaping sustainability adoption in ECs. They highlight the importance of integrating sustainability objectives and monitoring systems within management structures to ensure long-term impact and effectiveness. These results emphasize the need for stronger institutional policies that support ECs in embedding sustainability into their strategic objectives.
Furthermore, the study confirms that ECs reinforce the university’s role as a transformative institution, particularly by promoting sustainable innovation through entrepreneurship. The research also identifies in ECs organizational dynamics and behaviors that influence sustainability integration, analyzed from three perspectives: internal managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation.
From these perspectives, we conclude that integrating sustainable practices in entrepreneurial ecosystems requires a holistic approach that:
-
Embeds sustainability across all EC operations, from strategic planning to daily activities.
-
Encourages interdisciplinary collaboration to develop comprehensive sustainability programs.
-
Promotes stakeholder engagement to co-create sustainable solutions and ensure broad-based support.
-
Develops robust monitoring frameworks to track and evaluate sustainability initiatives effectively.
Practical or entrepreneurial implications
Results provide valuable insights for universities and ECs seeking to foster a more structured and impactful approach to sustainable entrepreneurship. Additionally, these findings are relevant to policymakers, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders aiming to shape sustainable innovation ecosystems.
For policymakers and university administrators, the findings emphasize the need to strengthen institutional frameworks that encourage ECs and universities to integrate sustainability goals into their strategies and evaluation systems. We suggest that universities adopt structured sustainability frameworks to ensure long-term impact and alignment with broader sustainability objectives. This strategic shift provides a global competitive advantage for universities (Irungu & Liu, 2024). Furthermore, policymakers should develop targeted incentives and funding mechanisms to encourage ECs to embed sustainability into their programs. National and regional policies should support sustainable entrepreneurship, ensuring ECs align with environmental and social goals.
The results also provide actionable insights for EC management. We recommend that ECs strengthen relationships with social actors, industry partners, investors, and government agencies to drive sustainable innovation. One practical policy measure for universities and ECs is the development of grant programs and financial support for start-ups with strong social and environmental commitments. Additionally, ECs should establish clear metrics to assess the sustainability impact of their initiatives, ensuring accountability and progress tracking (Karahan et al., 2022; Surana et al., 2020).
Moreover, our case studies highlight the urgency of integrating sustainability into business education and incubation programs while prioritizing support for start-ups that address environmental and social challenges. Embedding sustainability principles into entrepreneurial training programs can equip future entrepreneurs with the knowledge and skills needed to develop sustainable business models (Lamperti et al., 2023).
Middle management plays a critical role in sustainability implementation at an operational level. Their active participation in institutional strategy design and evaluation systems should be emphasized to ensure they help bridge high-level sustainability goals with practical implementation. Allocating resources and training to develop sustainability leadership at all levels within ECs is crucial to fostering a culture of sustainability (Jiang et al., 2025; Taylor et al., 2012).
For entrepreneurial ecosystems in general, entrepreneurs and their start-ups need to recognize that early integration of sustainability can attract impact investors and provide a competitive market advantage. They should adapt their business models to align with sustainability criteria set by financial agents and investors, which can improve their access to funding and market opportunities.
Finally, to effectively promote sustainable entrepreneurship, enhance stakeholder collaboration, and foster the development of support systems adapted to different university contexts, it is essential to identify and understand both the driving and limiting factors identified in this study. Additionally, documenting and sharing best practices, along with facilitating knowledge exchange between managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers, will enable mutual learning and the refinement of sustainability strategies across institutions.
Future research lines
Future research should apply the framework developed in this study to other universities and innovation support units to analyze sustainability integration across different institutional contexts. Additionally, research could compare ECs operating in the same region or within consortia to better understand the role and influence of regulatory, political, and geographical environments.
Another avenue for exploration is the impact of funding agencies’ policies and mechanisms—both public and private—on ECs and universities. Examining how financial incentives and funding models shape sustainability adoption could provide valuable policy insights.
Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of sustainability integration in ECs and their start-ups. These studies could identify correlations between sustainability adoption and key influencing factors, such as regulatory frameworks.
Finally, there is a pressing need to develop and refine sustainability evaluation frameworks. Future research should focus on designing new performance measurement systems that promote innovative sustainable approaches, not only within educational institutions but also in the business sector.
Limitations
This study was conducted in two university-based ECs located in different economic and contextual environments. While the proposed analytical framework proved useful in both cases, the limited number of cases restricts the generalizability of the findings.
Additionally, as a qualitative case study, this research does not provide statistical validation of sustainability adoption drivers. Future research should expand the sample size and incorporate quantitative methodologies to enhance the broader applicability of these findings.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the European Union - Next generation EU [Ministerio de Universidades de España; Margarita Salas grant UPV MS/41]; and by First Research Projects Grant (PAID- 06 - 22), Vice-rectorate for Research Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)”.
Declarations
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
