The Implementation of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a New Venture : A Single Case Study Through the Lense of the Actor-Network Theory

(1)

Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s thesis, 30 credits | MSc Business Administration - Strategy and Management in International Organizations Spring 2017 | ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--17/02577--SE

The Implementation of

Business Sustainability 3.0 in a

New Venture

A Single Case Study Through the Lens of

the Actor-Network Theory

Wibke Papenbroock Emmy Österberg

Supervisor: Andrea Fried

(2)

English title: The Implementation of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a New Venture Authors: Wibke Pappenbroock and Emmy Österberg Advisor: Andrea Fried Publication type: Master’s thesis in Business Administration Strategy and Management in International Organizations Advanced level, 30 credits Spring semester 2017 ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--17/02577--SE Linköping University Department of Management and Engineering (IEI) www.liu.se

(3)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Researcher have identified a relevance for profit-seeking new ventures to implement “Business Sustainability 3.0” standards in order to face current social and environmental challenges, like scarcity of resources. Research, moreover, suggest that new ventures would me more open to implementing the standards of “Business Sustainability 3.0”. The authors of this thesis initiate this field of research in the context of a new venture in the form of a single case study.

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation process of “Business Sustainability 3.0” standards in a new venture. The aim is to identify challenges in the implementation process and how they can be approached by new ventures.

METHODOLOGY. The implementation process of “Business Sustainability 3.0” standards was researched based on a single case study in a new venture striving to achieve the standards. The authors conducted a semi-structure interview with a sustainability manager within the company. The empirical data was analyzed based on the translation process of the Actor-Network Theory.

RESULTS. The authors conclude that a new venture cope with “Business Sustainability 3.0” by making use of being a new venture founded with a specific purpose and by addressing challenges that appear during the implementation process. Two measures are suggested to support addressing these challenges: striving for transparency and internalizing the standards for the company’s compartments. The Actor-Network translation process is considered to be a suitable method when analyzing the integration process of “Business Sustainability 3.0”.

KEYWORDS. Business Sustainability, New Ventures, Actor-Network Theory, Implementation Process.

(4)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the people who have helped and encouraged us throughout the two years of the SMIO program and especially during the process of writing our master thesis.

First, we want to thank our supervisor Andrea Fried for her advice, constructive feedback, and valuable ideas that brought our thesis forward. Thanks for always keeping us motivated and encouraging us to proceed with our ideas.

We would like to express our gratitude to our case company Einhorn and particularly thank Linda Preil for believing in our idea, providing us with insights in the company, and dedicating her time to our project. We, moreover, thank you for the permission to use all information you have provided us with.

Our deepest appreciation goes to our fellow SMIO students. Thank you for fruitful discussions, motivating us through your own drive and enthusiasm, and being in the same boat with us.

Last, but not least, we especially want to thank our families and friends for their unlimited support, for always being there in trying times and for celebrating the big and small milestones with us.

(5)

3.2. Research Approach ... 20 3.3. Research Context ... 21 3.3.1. Literature Assessment ... 21 3.3.2. Case Study ... 21 3.3.3. Sampling ... 21 3.4. Company Description ... 22 3.5. Data Collection ... 23 3.5.1. Primary Data ... 24 3.5.2. Secondary Data ... 25 3.6. Data Analysis ... 26 3.7. Research Quality ... 27

3.7.1. Translation of the Interview ... 27

3.7.2. Transferability and Reliability of Results ... 27

3.7.3. Ethical Issues ... 28

4. Empirical Findings and Analysis ... 29

4.1. Fairstainability Approach ... 29

4.1.1. Sustainability 3.0 and “Fairstainability” ... 29

4.1.2. Fairstainability Gaps ... 33

4.2. ANT Translation Process ... 33

4.2.1. Problematization ... 34

4.2.2. Interessement ... 38

4.2.3. Enrollment ... 46

4.2.4. Mobilization ... 48

(6)

5.2. Challenges and how they can be Addressed ... 53

5.3. Primary Measures ... 57

5.3.1. Striving for Transparency ... 57

5.3.2. Internalizing Business Sustainability 3.0 Standards ... 58

5.4. ANT as a Relevant Analysis Tool ... 59

5.5. Limitation and Suggestions for Further Research ... 60

6. Conclusion ... 61

Reference List ... 62

Appendix I: Business Sustainability Typology Grid ... 67

Appendix II: Interview Guide ... 69

Appendix III: Secondary Sources ... 71

Appendix IV: Picture Einhorn Condom Packaging ... 72

List of Tables

Table 1: The Different Typologies of Business Sustainability ... 8

Table 2: Business Sustainability 3.0 in the Business Sustainability Typology Grid ... 10

Table 3: Einhorn in the Business Sustainability Typology Grid ... 52

Table 4: Challenges Identified in the Implementation Process of Business Sustainability 3.0 and the Identified Approaches to Solution (authors’ own table) ... 56

List of Figures

Figure 1: Overview ANT Translation Process with Codification ... 18

Figure 2: Einhorn Supply Chain ... 23

Figure 3: Overview of Relevant Actors in Einhorn’s Actor-Network ... 37

Figure 4: Summary of Interessement ... 45

(7)

1. Introduction

“We are tired of complaining about unsustainable, harmful, greedy and ugly products and as entrepreneurs we only have one choice, do a better job ourselves.” (Einhorn, n.d. a.)

Condoms are sold all over the world every day, so why does sustainability not play a key role in the production and distribution yet? This is what the founders of a German condom production company asked themselves and as a result the idea of the first environmentally sustainable and fairtrade condom was born. Since 2015, the company has defined clear “fairstainability” goals. It is a concept of business sustainability established by the company with the aim to continuously improve the company’s positive impact on the society and the environment. The goal is not only to minimize the negative impact, but also to contribute positively to planet and people while being a profitable business (Einhorn, n.d. a.).

1.1. Background

In later years, our society has focused on environmental concerns, such as global warming and increased energy consumption. The available resources have become scarcer, which has put an increased amount of pressure on organizations (Chiu and Chu, 2012). Many organizations are aware of the expectation from society and stakeholders for a change to increase their sustainable efforts (Ozanne et al., 2016). However, researchers lack agreement of the definition of the term “sustainability” (Bateh et al., 2013). One common characterization suggests that it includes three dimensions, namely environmental, social, and economic sustainability, which can be referred to as the triple bottom line of sustainability (Elkington, 1999). Ozanne et al. (2016) state that the triple bottom line only extends to the minimization of negative impact. It does not include efforts to have positive repercussions. Dyllick and Muff (2016) go further in their description of “true business sustainability” (p.157), which they also refer to as Business Sustainability 3.0 and defined as follows:

Truly sustainable business shifts its perspective from seeking to minimize its negative impacts to understanding how it can create a significant positive impact in critical and relevant areas for society and the planet. (Dyllick and Muff, 2016, pp.165–166).

(8)

Historically, companies tend to seek financial benefits from investments in environmental and social sustainability. By doing so, they put the economic dimension ahead of the other two dimensions (Ozanne et al., 2016). However, there are new ventures founded with the aim to become “truly sustainable” (Dyllick and Muff, 2016, p.156) while making profit. Compared to established companies, new ventures seem to have an advantage and are increasingly delivering sustainable products and services (Keskin, 2015). Although they face challenges, such as lack of brand recognition and not having an established supply chain, new ventures are flexible in the decision-making process (Keskin, 2015). Moreover, they are not afraid of uncertainty and see it as an opportunity (York and Venkataraman, 2010).

1.2. Problem Discussion

The former studies of sustainability are open to interpretation in their definition of sustainability. One reason can be that the term sustainability does not have generally agreed upon standards, as stated earlier. Due to this, companies can claim to be sustainable although different standards are followed. The focus of the most common views on business sustainability, like the triple bottom line perspective, is an inside-out view, meaning that a company aims to reduce its negative social and environmental impact while staying profitable (Chiu and Chu, 2012).

Business Sustainability 3.0, introduced by Muff and Dyllick (2014), takes the outside-in view into account by identifying environmental and social issues outside of the organization that can be addressed. It is a concept used to describe a “truly sustainable business” (p.5), which is when a business not only minimizes their negative impact on the environment and society but also maximizes their positive impact. Currently, Business Sustainability 3.0 has mainly been analyzed in non-profit organizations and social work, but not in profit-seeking businesses (Muff and Dyllick, 2014). However, due to current environmental and social challenges, the topic of implementing Business Sustainability 3.0 in a profit-seeking context can be seen as relevant in today’s world. This is due to a scarcity of resources and the impact of humans and businesses on people and planet. Additionally to negative reputations and increased demand of society and stakeholders to be sustainable, these repercussions can affect a company’s production and distribution in the future (Chiu and Chu, 2012). As a result, companies are pressured to eliminate the negative and increase the positive input on the society and the environment.

(9)

Dyllick and Muff (2016) argue that there is room for profit-aiming businesses to become Business Sustainability 3.0 companies. However, this would require changing the perspective to the outside-in perspective as well as being coherent in using and providing sustainable options, while not being swayed due to less sustainable yet economically more attractive options being available.

It is considered to be easier for new ventures to achieve Business Sustainability 3.0, while established companies might be limited to earlier stages of sustainability integration (Muff and Dyllick, 2014). New businesses that are founded with a specific purpose, such as having a sustainable product or service, tend to be more open towards radical changes compared to large established companies (Dyllick and Muff, 2016). Even though established companies seem to have an advantage in new product development compared to new ventures due to their economies of scale, researches have been sceptic to whether these companies are performing in the sustainable products and services (Hall, Dankek and Lenox, 2010). Moreover, these large established companies already possess market share and are argued to be lacking the motivation for investing in new products (Ali, 1994).

Previously conducted case studies in business sustainability literature are focusing solely on internal factors (e.g. Keskin, 2015), instead of taking both internal and external influence factors into account. Moreover, the focus of those case studies is set on specific perspectives, such as product innovation, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn (Hallstedt, Thompson and Lindahl, 2013; Keskin, 2015). There are tools to analyze the implementation process of concepts in a broader setting than the ones taken in the aforementioned case studies. One of these tools is the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) that has been previously used in different fields, however, so far not in a business sustainability context. It takes all relevant compartments, so-called actors, and their interactions into account that are relevant for the structure and development of a so-called actor-network, e.g. an organization (Callon, 1986). By analyzing the implementation process through the lens of ANT, it is possible to generate a full picture of how a new venture cope with Business Sustainability 3.0.

(10)

1.3. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation process of what Dyllick and Muff (2016) are referring to as Business Sustainability 3.0 standards in a new venture. The main reason for choosing this field is the relevance for profit-seeking businesses to implement Business Sustainability 3.0 standards in order to face current social and environmental challenges, for example a scarcity of resources. Moreover, there is no sufficient practical research of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a profit-seeking context.

The reason to analyze the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a new venture is that researchers such as Keskin (2015) have argued that new ventures are more open to radical changes, and therefore would be more open to implementing such a concept. Thus, the authors of this thesis will initiate this field of research in the context of a new venture in the form of a single case study.

To identify how the case company is integrating the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0, the authors decided to use the ANT. With the ANT, the authors are able provide an overview of all relevant compartments that influence the implementation process as well as an understanding of the challenges and how they can be solved.

The research question and sub question asked by the authors are: How do new ventures cope with Business Sustainability 3.0?

Sub question: What are the challenges faced by new ventures in the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0 and how can they be addressed?

1.4. Contribution and Target Audience

As for academia, this thesis contributes to the literature of sustainability practices in business. The contribution is made in form of a single case study performed at a new venture. It delivers an example that profit-seeking new ventures are able to achieve Business Sustainability 3.0 and of how the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0 is characterized in practice. By using the ANT as an analysis tool, the authors further create a foundation to take all relevant internal and external compartments and their relationship into account. This contributes to sustainability literature with a complete view on the

(11)

implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0. Moreover, even though the method of ANT has been used in several fields, there has not been a study conducted in the context of business sustainability up to this point. In result, this thesis adds a new perspective to the literature of business sustainability by using the ANT lens, i.e. analyzing all relevant actors and their role in the implementation process. This in turn adds data of how such an implementation can be achieved and can also work as a starting point for more research of a similar kind.

The information gathered and the conclusions drawn in this thesis can be used by other new ventures and entrepreneurs that are aiming to implement the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0. This by taking all relevant internal and external compartments and their relationship into account when facing the challenges related to this implementation. Therefore, this authors discover challenges and approaches to solutions based on the research case study that were made transferable to other new ventures by the authors of this thesis.

(12)

1.5. Outline of the Study

INTRODUCTION In the introduction chapter the authors provide the reader with the background to the study, the problem discussion, purpose and research questions.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the theoretical framework the relevant theories and concepts used in this thesis are described:

- Business Sustainability

- The Business Sustainability Typology Grid - Greenwashing

- New ventures

- New ventures versus established companies - Social entrepreneurship

- Actor-Network Theory

METHODOLOGY In the methodology chapter the literature assessment, the case study, the sampling, the company description, the data collection, the data analysis, as well as the research quality is described and discussed.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

In the empirical finding and analysis chapter the authors discuss the case company’s “fairstainability” approach and show the case company’s implementation process through the ANT translation process.

DISCUSSION In the discussion chapter the authors discuss:

- New ventures’ approach to business sustainability - The challenges identified and how they can be addressed - Primary measures new ventures can take in order to

initiate the implementation of Business Sustainability 3.0 concept

- Why has been ANT a relevant analysis tool - Limitations

- Further research

All information discussed is based on the case study performed by the authors.

CONCLUSION In the conclusion chapter the authors draw their final conclusions from the research performed. How new ventures cope with Business Sustainability 3.0 and the two measures to address the challenges of the implementation process is concluded.

(13)

2. Theoretical Framework

In the theoretical framework the relevant concepts used by this thesis are described. First, the authors define the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0 and guide the reader through the development from the early stages of Business Sustainability, also known as Business Sustainability 1.0, to the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0. This to provide the reader with a profound understanding of the main concept of this thesis that builds the foundation of the case study. Second, the authors give an overview of the Business Sustainability Grid developed by Muff and Dyllick (2014) with the criteria that need to be met in order for a company to achieve Business Sustainability 3.0. Later in this thesis, the authors will use the grid to evaluate whether the case company can be considered suitable for analyzing the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0. Third, the concept of greenwashing is distinguished from Business Sustainability 3.0. This is relevant in order for the reader to further comprehend the meaning of what it entails, and what should be avoided, when striving to become a Business Sustainability 3.0 company. Fourth, the authors define the concept ‘new venture’, since this is the chosen context of the research performed by the authors. This is done by defining the differences between an established company and a new venture, which is a factor that can influence how Business Sustainability 3.0 is implemented. Moreover, the authors define and explain the concept of ‘social entrepreneurship’, as the founders of the case company can be considered to be social entrepreneurs, which is another factor that can influence the implementation process. Fifth, the authors specify the theoretical background of the analysis tool ANT, which is used to analyze the case study in chapter 4 of this thesis. A definition is presented as well as all relevant compartments within the ANT. Moreover, it is described how the ANT is used as an analysis tool.

2.1. Business Sustainability 1.0 to 3.0

To understand the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0, the authors describe the development from Business Sustainability 1.0 to 3.0. Dyllick and Muff (2016) define the range of Business Sustainability as going from business as usual, i.e. no measures have been taken to incorporate sustainability in the business, to Business Sustainability 3.0. There are two more concepts to be found within the range of Business Sustainability: Business Sustainability 1.0 and Business Sustainability 2.0. Table 1 provides an overview of the Business Sustainability ranges.

(14)

Business Sustainability Typology Concerns (What?) Values created (What for) Organizational perspective (How)

Business-as-usual Economic concerns Shareholder value Inside-out

Business Sustainability 1.0 Three-dimensional Concerns

Redefined shareholder value

Inside-out

Business Sustainability 2.0 Three-dimensional Concerns

Triple bottom line Inside-out

Business Sustainability 3.0 Starting with sustainability challenges

Creating value for the

common good Outside-in

The key shifts involved: 1st_{shift: broadening}

the business concern

2nd_{shift: expanding}

the value created

3rd_{shift: changing}

the perspective Table 1: The Different Typologies of Business Sustainability

(Dyllick and Muff, 2016)

Business Sustainability 1.0 is described as “Refined Shareholder Value Management” (Dyllick and Muff 2016, p.156). The shareholder management is the responsibility of the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) of a company. In order to motivate CMOs, they are rewarded with equity, which can be explained as an avoidance of a conflict between the CMO’s and the company’s interests (Minchung et al. 2016). Business Sustainability 1.0, in other words, only focuses on the shareholders’ interest of return on investment with no focus put on social or environmental sustainability.

Business Sustainability 2.0 refers to “Managing the Triple Bottom Line” (Dyllick and Muff 2016, p.156). According to Elkington (2004), who was one of the originators of the Triple Bottom Line, the concept was formed due to a realization that the social and economic sustainability had to be focused on in unification with environmental sustainability. This was something that had been brought to attention by the 1987 Brundtland Report prior to the development of the Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 2004).

Dyllick and Muff (2016) describe Business Sustainability 3.0 as an approach to sustainability where a company not only aims to minimize the negative impact of their business activities. When using the Business Sustainability 3.0 approach a business also gains an understanding

(15)

of how to create a meaningful positive impact in areas that are important to the society and the planet. A Business Sustainability 3.0 company turns the sustainability challenges it faces in its environment into business opportunities. By doing so, the Business Sustainability 3.0 company creates value for the common good in its environment. Moreover, compared to the other two levels of Business Sustainability, the 3.0 level takes an outside-in organizational perspective, meaning that instead of focusing on the business itself, the focus is on the society and its sustainability challenges (Dyllick and Muff, 2016). Business Sustainability 3.0 is also referred to as “true sustainable” (p.157). From here on, the authors refer to Dyllick and Muff (2016) when mentioning true sustainability and Business Sustainability 3.0.

2.2. The Business Sustainability Typology Grid

For commercial businesses to achieve true sustainability, Muff and Dyllick (2014) developed a grid containing 13 perspectives that a company should take into account. Thereby, they differ between Business-as-usual, Business Sustainability 1.0, Business Sustainability 2.0 and Business Sustainability 3.0 for each perspective. For the purpose of this thesis, only the relevant criteria to achieve Business Sustainability 3.0 for each perspective is shown in Table 1. The whole Business Sustainability Typology Grid can be found in Appendix I.

Criteria Business Sustainability 3.0

Value Creation Creating significant positive impact in critical areas of societal/planetary concern

Primary corporate

attitude A pattern of voluntary, proactive and most likely interactive collaboration with new players Primary focus Society & planet

Strategy Societal concerns replace the traditional customer and trigger an “outside-in” view on the company’s capabilities and resources which are employed to provide significant positive societal & planetary value while ensuring the long-term wellbeing of the company

Market definition and positioning

Defining business activities outside existing markets

Product & services Creation of new products and services as a voluntary & proactive response to societal/environmental problems, likely in collaboration with new partners

Governance & leadership

Relevant societal representatives are fully integrated in the relevant decision-making processes at all levels of the organization

(16)

Type of CEO Idealist

Type of companies A largely empty space Sustainability

implementation

The company reorganizes around the societal issues they address and include other players into such new open & dynamic structures

Processes Becomes a service-function key to deliver the value

Reporting Reporting reflects the societal value created and includes voices of beneficiaries

Stakeholder influences Company takes a proactive approach in identifying and engaging concerned stakeholders

Table 2: Business Sustainability 3.0 in the Business Sustainability Typology Grid (cited from Muff and Dyllick, 2014)

The grid will be further used in the analysis chapter of this thesis when the authors aim to identify whether the case company can be considered to be a Business Sustainability 3.0 company based on the 13 criteria (chapter 4.1.1.). For this reason, the grid is only presented briefly in this chapter; each criterion for a Business Sustainability 3.0 company is further developed and explained in the analysis based on the example of the case company.

2.3. Greenwashing Versus True Business Sustainability

In order to comprehend the meaning of Business Sustainability 3.0, its relationship to the method of greenwashing is considered to be relevant. “Greenwashing is the selective disclosure of positive information without full disclosure of negative information so as to create an overly positive corporate image.” (Bowen and Aragon-Correa, 2014, p.107). A company can choose which information to disclose. However, greenwashing can also happen when a company is not fully aware of the level of sustainability in its actions. By using greenwashing, a company misleads how the product or service is perceived by the customers (Hansen, Bullinger, Reichwald, 2011). The Business Sustainability 3.0 approach can help companies to avoid greenwashing by taking the outside-in perspective (Dyllick and Muff, 2016).

2.4. New Ventures

Besides Business Sustainability 3.0, the concept of ‘new venture’ is relevant in order to get a full picture of the case study performed in this thesis. There is no common definition of a new

(17)

venture that researchers agree on (Grünhagen, 2008). Curran and Blackburn (2001) researched about the variety in definitions and identified three key perspective a new venture can be defined on the characteristics size, age, and financial turnover. Keskin (2015) further state that size, age and finance are the main differences between new ventures and established companies and lead to strengths and weaknesses of both business types (Keskin, 2015). The characteristics lead to strengths and weaknesses of both business types (Keskin, 2015), which are explained in the following sub-chapter.

2.4.1. New Ventures versus Established Companies

Researchers identified informal structures in new ventures as an advantage (Hannan and Freeman, 1984; York and Venkataraman, 2010), because it leads to faster decision-making as well as responsiveness to changes in the environment (Keskin, 2015). Moreover, an entrepreneurial spirit including informal communication and fast-responsive management style are seen as opportunities for new ventures, as it supports an approach towards uncertainty (York and Venkataraman, 2010). Established companies, in contrast, tend to stick to former approaches and are challenged when new skills and capabilities are required (Keskin, 2015). New ventures tend to be open to radical innovations and have the abilities to build their resources and capabilities based on new innovation and thus, are able to challenge the status quo (Henderson and Clark, 1990). New ventures do not need to take an elaborate product portfolio into consideration when analyzing the influence a new product has on the market. Instead, they can solely focus on the new product development, while established companies have to take their product portfolio into account when developing new products, in order to avoid cannibalization. The entrepreneurial spirit and strong commitment of the founders in personal and financial terms can thereby convince outsiders to contribute with resources (Bolumole et al., 2014).

Despite of these advantages, new ventures face difficulties compared to established companies. New ventures lack an established supply chain and production process, which can additionally lead to increased costs. Due to the company being new, they lack brand recognition and standing on the market, which can cause difficulties when entering with a new product (Acs and Audretsch, 1987). For established companies, in contrast, the integration of sustainable aspects in the product can influence the brand image positively (Chen and Chang, 2012). Moreover, new product development requires resources that can

(18)

established companies tend to have an advantage. They usually have more capital resources available and easier access to outside sources due to their reputation and history, whereas new ventures need to prove the possible success and relevance of an innovation extensively (Bolumole et al., 2014). Nevertheless, new methods of financing can be used to overcome founding difficulties. For instance, crowdfunding is a helpful fundraising tool especially for new ventures to generate financial resources for starting the business (Van Wingerden and Ryan, 2011). Thereby, the project is presented on an online platform with the aim of receiving funding from supporters, i.e. possible customers. This also means that the company founders do not lose control over their ideas, since crowdfunding investors invest a low amount that does not give them the power to interfere in company decisions (Schienbacher and Larralde, 2010). Another advantage beyond the fundraising is the testing of demand of the suggested product or service (Macht and Weatherston, 2014).

Another difficulty for new ventures compared to established companies is the acquisition of employees. In contrast to large, established companies, most new ventures cannot offer a stable working environment or a large salary due to their novelty. Thus, a new venture has to define other methods to attract and motivate new employees. This can be done by communicating goals and visions clearly, integrating employees in the decision making process and offering flexible working arrangements (Batra, 2017).

2.4.2. Social Entrepreneurship

For new ventures that are founded with the specific purpose to be beneficial for the environment, the social entrepreneurial approach needs to be taken into account as driving force for the company. There is no general agreement of what the concept ‘social entrepreneurship’ entails. According to Mair and Martí (2006), there are three groups of interpretations of social entrepreneurship:

1. Nonprofit activities that apply business principles in the process of social value creation.

2. Commercial businesses that have taken a social responsibility.

3. Innovative endeavors in the creation of solving social problems and reconstructing social systems. (Mair and Martí, 2006)

The first group has historically gained the most scholarly attention due to its roots in the nonprofit sector. The second group has an increased interest in profit oriented businesses with

(19)

sufficient, just like any other enterprises. In the third group, academics envision social entrepreneurship as an innovative sensation (Keskin, 2015). In general, social entrepreneurs can be seen as idealist with idealistic values that gives them the motivation to found a social business. The challenge for an idealist is to combine their social interest with a profitable business (Dixon and Clifford, 2007).

Both, social entrepreneurship and the differences between new ventures and established companies, are presented as relevant influence factors when analyzing the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0 in chapter 4.

2.5. Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

After describing the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0 and of ‘new venture’, the authors proceed to describe the analysis tool used in chapter 4 of this thesis. The ANT founded by Callon (1986), Law (1986), and Latour (1987) is a theory within the field of science and technology. It is used to analyze the relationships between different actors within a network as well as their influence on the structure and development of the network. Thereby, human and non-human actors are taken into account and treated as being equally important for the implementation of organizational patterns within a network (Law, 1992). Law (2007) defines the ANT as follows:

The actor-network approach [...] describes the enactment of materially and discursively heterogeneous relations that produce and reshuffle all kinds of actors including objects, subjects, human beings, machines, animals, ‘nature’, ideas, organisations, inequalities, scale and sizes, and geographical arrangements. (Law, 2007, p.2)

Thus, the ANT can be used as a qualitative instrument to evaluate and analyze the implementation process of a concept in a network, e.g. in an organization and its surroundings. A focus is set equally on all relevant actors and their interdependencies within the network (Norbert and Schermer, 2003). The implementation process derived from the ANT perspective is called translation process and made up of four steps: problematization, interessement, enrollment and mobilization. Before explaining these four steps, the authors will give examples of previous studies that have used the ANT, define the concept of actors and actor-networks as well as the specific terms used within the ANT.

(20)

2.5.1. ANT in Previous Studies

The ANT has been used in various studies to provide insights in implementation and changing processes. The fields of the studies are broad and include sociology as well as accounting. The perspectives range from evaluating an implementation process and solving challenges to integrating new strategies, e.g. in socio-technical studies with changes in IT (Bloomfield, Cooper and Rea, 1992). Moreover, it has been used to identify the decision making processes within a company (Grabowski, 2012). As such, the ANT is concerned with social relations, for instance power and organizational structure (Law, 1992). An example of a previous study that has used the ANT is Wang et al. (2015), who investigated the framework of mobile text messaging in China. The study aimed to understand how text messaging developed during the course of the study (Wang et al., 2015). Another example is a study conducted by Norbert and Schermer (2013) about how marketing initiatives impact and is impacted by relevant actors in a regional development project. The study set a focus on the relationship between the marketing initiatives and the relevant actors as well as the interaction of the relevant actors with each other. This in order to generate a complete picture of the implementation of the marketing initiatives (Norbert and Schermer, 2003).

2.5.2. Actors and Actor-Networks

The ANT takes all relevant factors into account that influence each other. These factors can be human and non-human. However, in order to support an equal treatment of each factor, human or non-human, the founders of the ANT established the term actors (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987; Law, 1986). An actor is defined as anything that has an impact on other actors and is relevant to the context, i.e. the network. Moreover, actors are able to transform and take over different roles and functions (Latour, 2007) within the actor-network. The continuous interaction between the actors is more relevant than each actor itself (Law, 1992).

Callon (1990) identifies two perspectives that describe the interaction between actors. The economic perspective uses the term intermediaries to describe the interaction between actors, which is defined as things that connect two or more actors with each other, such as a business and a consumer establishing a relationship through a product. Thus, intermediaries can be anything that is transferrable between actors and defines their relationship. Moreover, interaction between actors is done through intermediary circulation. From a sociology perspective, in contrast, actors are only reasonable in a common space that they have created

(21)

on their own. Thus, an actor cannot be separated from the relationships with others within the common room and is defined on that base. Callon (1990) suggest to combine the two meanings that “actors define one another in interaction - in the intermediaries that they put into circulation” (p.144).

In terms of the ANT, actors have a relationship and interact with each other within a so-called actor-network. An actor-network is based on groups, actors, and intermediaries within a certain context (Callon, 1990). Thereby, networks are composed of “any material that you care to mention” (Law, 1992, p.381), including humans, objects, animals, ideas, and concepts. Thus, it can be referred to as a heterogeneous network (Law, 1992). As for organizations, they can be seen as networks of people, machines, texts, and buildings that have different roles that can be uncertain and all influence the organization as a network. This because, within a network, the characteristics are marked based on the internal relationships of the included actors and intermediaries. Outside of the actor-network, the network as entity can further be influenced by outside actors or other actor-networks. Since networks adapt according to the change of actors, their relationships, and outside influence, it can further be defined as being a process rather than a static object (Law, 1992). A network can be seen as a collection of actors and intermediaries or in its entity; as an actor itself, making the individual components of actors and entities irrelevant. This depends on the relevance for the context (Law, 1992).

2.5.3. Translation Process

The main objective of the ANT is to analyze the development of an actor-network with all relevant actors being involved. This can be the implementation of a new concept or strategy and is known as the translation process. The translation process is made up of four steps which can be overlapping. During this process the identity of the actors and the prospect of communication are handled and bound (Callon, 1986). It is crucial for the result of the analysis that all actors within the process are treated equally and without previous judgment. Thus, a coding scheme needs to be made for each step of the process. It enables the researchers to categorize qualitative data and label it based in themes (Gunawong and Gao, 2010). For each step, different codenames are relevant and are defined.

(22)

Problematization

The translation process starts off with problematization. In this moment, an actor which will be called the “focal actor” is aiming to become essential to other actors by determining the initial challenge (which is given the codename “initial challenge” in the analysis). Therefore, it is crucial for the focal actor to identify all relevant actors (coded “relevant actors”) and their connection to the initial challenge. It is up to the researcher conducting a study to decide which actors to include and exclude (O’Connell, Ciccotosto and De Lange, 2014). Since there is no general guideline to follow, the authors of this thesis included all actors with a direct (e.g. the employees) and an indirect (e.g. the transportation) impact.

Moreover, it is in this part of the translation process that the focal actor suggests a solution by arguing for an obligatory passage point (OPP) (Callon, 1986), which will be given the codename “OPP”. An OPP transmits all interests in one direction. It is set up by an actor in order to accomplish a substantial relationship and a marked direction (Norbert and Schermer, 2003). It is also through the OPP that the focal actor will show its intrigue in the other actors (Callon, 1986).

Interessement

The second step of the translation process is interessement, which describes the process of other relevant actors developing an interest in the solution proposed by the focal actor. In this step, the focal actor makes attempts to secure other actors that have been identified in the problematization process into positions that have been suggested to them. Thereby, the obstacles for each individual actor to achieve the solution needs to be identified as well as an interest for the actors to overcome those obstacles (Callon, 1986; Law, 1992), which leads to the codenames “obstacles for relevant actors” and “interest for the solution”. The approach for the focal actor is to get in contact with the relevant actors and argue for their individual benefits. If the relevant actors agree, the next step for the focal actor is to define methods and strategies for each actor to overcome the obstacles and implement the suggested solution, which in the following will be called “implementation strategies”. Thus, the interactions between the relevant actors are crucial for a success of identifying a stable position for each relevant actor (Callon, 1986) and referred to as “interactions between relevant actors” and “defined role” in the analysis. Moreover, the focal actor tries to build a stable identity for the other that is in line with the suggested solution. Once accepted, these roles are inscripted,

(23)

meaning that the relevant actors follow certain roles or behaviors assigned by the focal actor. This enables actors to interact with each other by accepting their own roles and are aware of the roles of other actors (Grabowski, 2012).

Enrollment

Enrollment is the third step of the translation process. The step refers to actions in which the focal actor tries to characterize and assign the multiple roles that will enable the other actors to enroll and interact with each other. Callon (1986) describes enrollment as “the group of multilateral negotiations, trials of strength and tricks that accompany the interessements and enable them to succeed” (Callon, 1986, p.205). The focal actor is in negotiation with the relevant actors, testing their reaction to their assigned roles, which will be referred to as “negotiation” and “actor’s reaction”. Thus, only the actors that are in negotiation with the focal actor, act in the step of enrollment. In order for the negotiation to be considered successful, the relevant actors need to accept the roles given to them. Next, the solution to the main problem is tested through the roles and identities of the relevant actors within the network (Callon, 1986). Once accepted, these roles are inscripted, meaning that materialized actors are created and a program for other actors is created. This process is named “inscription” (Grabowski, 2012).

Mobilization

The fourth and last step of the translation process is mobilization. In this step, the focal actor makes sure that the other actors have speakers who can speak on their behalf, coded “spokespeople”. These speakers are certain actors with the ability to speak on behalf of other actors (Callon, 1986). Actor-networks and their activity might be recorded in a “black box” as one entity. As soon as a black box has recorded the information, it becomes irreversible (Grabowski, 2012). Once the mobilization step is finished, the solution to the main problem is complete.

(24)

Figure 1: Overview ANT Translation Process with Codification (authors’ own visualization)

Figure 1 provides an overview of the four steps of the translation process including all relevant codifications. Since the ANT is an analysis tool, it is further captured in the methodology chapter. Moreover, it builds the foundation of the analysis of the empirical findings in chapter 4.

(25)

3. Methodology

The methodology chapter provides the reader with an understanding of the research conducted in this thesis. Therefore, the authors first explain how the research topic was identified. Second, the research approach is described. Third, the authors present the context of the research including how the literature has been assessed and the single case study performed. Forth, the case company Einhorn is introduced. Fifth, it is described how the primary and secondary data was collected. Sixth, the analysis of the data is explained and seventh, the quality of the study evaluated.

3.1. Research Topic Identification

The authors’ area of interest is within the field of business sustainability and the challenge for companies to be profitable while taking environmental and social factors into account. While extended research has already been conducted within this field, a lack of common understanding of the term sustainability in the business context was identified. Thus, the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0 came to the authors’ attention. It has been identified that literature about this concept has up to this time been lacking research about the implementation process of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a profit-seeking context. This even though the founders of the concept have argued that such an implementation would be possible and of relevance (Muff and Dyllick, 2014). The German condom manufacturer Einhorn was considered to be a suitable case company, since they developed their own principles of business sustainability, called “fairstainability”, which relates to the academic concept of Business Sustainability 3.0. The company is, moreover, in the process to achieve their sustainability goals together with employees as well as external collaboration partners, such as manufacturers and suppliers as well as universities and scientists. The company was known by one of the authors through a previous job. Thus, the topic was defined to research how this new venture implements the standard of Business Sustainability 3.0.

In the next step, the authors evaluated different methods of analyzing how a new venture can cope with Business Sustainability 3.0. Therefore, the main aim of contributing with a complete view of the implementation process was in focus. By reading about previous studies in various fields conducted with the ANT as analysis tool, the authors got inspired to use this

(26)

approach. It takes all relevant internal and external actors of an organization and their interactions into account and thus, can support the authors to create a complete picture.

3.2. Research Approach

The authors now proceed to explain the research approach taken by this thesis, which shows the decision made about prioritizing dimensions within the research process and provides an overview of how the research is addressed (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). First, it is argued why the ANT is a suitable analyzation tool for this research study. Second, the authors argue for the choice of a qualitative study. Third, arguments for choosing an inductive research approach is presented. Fourth and last, the authors’ choice of an interpretivist approach will be provided before continuing to present the research context.

The authors chose to use the ANT to analyze the integration process of Business Sustainability 3.0, as it takes all relevant actors inside and outside the company into consideration. Thus, it helps to provide a complete view of the integration process within the company (Callon, 1986). The ANT is suitable for qualitative studies, and for the purpose of this thesis, the authors have chosen a qualitative research approach. This due to the character of the information being studied. It is not possible to quantify the data collected, in part, due to the novelty of the concept explored. Moreover, the thesis aims to generate an in-depth understanding of the topic, which supports the decision to use a qualitative approach (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).

The authors chose to use an inductive approach as it aims to explore a specific field that is unchartered and draw general conclusions from it. This supports the choice to use research questions over hypothesis in order to narrow the scope of the study as well as in the choice of doing qualitative over quantitative research (Gabriel, 2013). The concept of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a profit-seeking context can be considered unchartered. Thus, the authors had to assume that there is no objective truth or reality; there are different versions of events due to the difference in people’s interpretation of their environment (Taylor, Wilkie and Baser, 2006). This lead to the decision to view the collected data with an interpretivist approach. Interpretivism states that people interpret the world around them (Taylor, Wilkie and Baser, 2006). This approach to research is in line with a qualitative approach.

(27)

3.3. Research Context

In the following part the authors explain the context of the research conducted, starting with how the literature was reviewed and used. Afterwards, the authors argue for why a case study is used and describe the process of sampling.

3.3.1. Literature Assessment

Due to the interest of the authors’, several of the articles used in the theoretical framework were found before the thesis course started. This is most often the case, according to Weed (2005), as the literature review is used to set the scene for the research to be conducted. The theoretical framework of this thesis, where the relevant concepts are presented, provides no evaluation of the literature, but merely an overview of the definitions that are relevant for the study. It presents the literature the authors have found necessary to conduct the research (Weed, 2005).

3.3.2. Case Study

The method of performing a case study is established in social science and flexibly applicable in various fields. It is defined as “an empirical research method used to investigate a contemporary phenomenon, focusing on the dynamics of the case, within its real life context” (Teegavarapu, Summers and Mocko, 2008, p.4, based on Roth, 1999 and Yin, 2003). The decision to perform a case study was made in order to answer the research question und sub-question. Business Sustainability 3.0 can be seen as a contemporary phenomenon that the authors aim to analyze in the context of a new venture that is currently implementing the concept within their business. Moreover, the research questions are formulated as how-questions, which makes a case study a suitable approach to answering the questions (Teegavarapu, Summers and Mocko, 2008). A case study can either focus on one individual or a set of individuals including their interaction and engagement. Thereby, not the description of the case but the connection to theory and the drawn conclusions are of relevance (David, 2006).

3.3.3. Sampling

In order to receive empirical data, a non-probability sampling was conducted. The samples were selected based on the relevance for the research topic and the subjective judgement of the authors whether the samples can meet the objectives of the study. This because an

(28)

in-depth study of a case is needed in order to gain insights about the research field that is to be explored (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).

The authors, moreover, decided to self-select the sampling by proactively asking a new venture that seemed to be relevant for the case. The case company Einhorn was considered to be a suitable sample, as the new venture is still in the process of becoming truly sustainable, and is therefore facing the challenges of implementing sustainability in their everyday business.

Individuals and organizations often reply to those requests based on a personal interest in the topic (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009), which was the case for this thesis. The requested new venture agreed to take part in our study based on their interest in connecting the concept of Sustainability 3.0 to their own principles of “fairstainability”. In result, the empirical data used in this thesis is from the case company Einhorn.

3.4. Company Description

The case study is based on the new venture Einhorn. The company Einhorn was founded in February 2015 (Preil, L., personal communication, 2017-03-31) by the entrepreneurs Waldemar Zeiler and Philip Siefers in Berlin, Germany, with the aim to produce sustainable and fairtrade (“fairstainability”) condoms that are fun to buy due to a unique package design (Einhörnchen, 2015). Thus, they show that an everyday product, such as a condom, can be sustainably produced and be a lifestyle product. Both Waldemar and Philip have been active in the startup scene before and previously founded other businesses. They additionally initiated the “Entrepreneur’s Pledge” in order to engage other entrepreneurs to found at least one sustainable business in their life (Einhorn, n.d. b.).

In order to finance Einhorn, a crowdfunding campaign was started in February 2015 and for the business to become feasible, they needed €50,000 minimum. With the campaign, the supporters pre-financed the production of the condoms by ordering condoms in advance. The money was mainly invested in the condom production. However, the initial funds of €50,000 were also used to cover the cost of cooperation with scientists for setting the standards for the rubber plantation. These standards were set during a two-month trip to Malaysia. During this trip, the founders and employees adjusted processes together with the local producers. They

(29)

also validated the working conditions on the plantation and production facilities, and developed ideas on how to improve the production with local partners. In the end of the funding campaign, 1,934 customers have supported the crowdfunding campaign with more than €100,000 in total (Einhörnchen, 2015).

At the time of the data collection for this thesis, i.e. March 2017, the company consists of 17 employees including the co-founders that are working in the head office in Berlin mainly in design, marketing, sales, HR, or in the “fairstainability” team (Einhorn, n.d. a.). The production of the condoms is outsourced and part of the Einhorn supply chain (Figure 2). It consists of the rubber plantation, the latex manufacturer, and the condom manufacturer, all located in Malaysia. From there, the condoms are transported by ship to the harbor in Hamburg and further to the Einhorn head office in Berlin by truck where they are distributed to the consumers and retailers with a climate neutral postal service (Einhorn, n.d. c.).

Figure 2: Einhorn Supply Chain (Einhorn, n.d. c.)

Waldemar’s and Philip’s overall aim is to show that entrepreneurship can have a social and environmental impact (Einhorn, n.d. b.). With Einhorn they wanted to create a profitable business that also influences the conditions for people and the environment positively and thus, be a role model for other entrepreneurs and sustainable businesses (Einhorn, 2016).

3.5. Data Collection

The data used for this thesis was gathered from a primary source within the case company by conducting a qualitative interview. Moreover, the authors used secondary data provided by

(30)

Sustainability 3.0. In the following part, the data collection from the primary and the secondary sources are explained in detail.

3.5.1. Primary Data

The empirical data was collected in form of a qualitative interview. A qualitative interview is especially well suited as it gives insights to the interviewee’s own experiences, thoughts and feelings. The interview was conducted with Linda Preil, Fairstainability-Assistant at Einhorn. The authors of this thesis chose to only conduct an interview with one person in the case company, due to a number of reasons. First, the company’s size; as there are only 17 people working in the head office, including the two founders, interviewing one person gives a profound insight. Second, in her position as Fairstainability-Assistant, Linda Preil has deep insights in the “fairstainability” approach of the company as well as the strategies to achieve “fairstainability” goals. Third, the case company preferred to conduct the interview via e-mail due to the limited time of the employees in the company. Thus, it was easier for both parties to be in contact with one spokesperson on each side. Nevertheless, the interviewee Linda Preil stated that she gathered information from the co-founders of the company for question she was not fully able to answer on her own (Preil, L., personal communication, 2017-04-10). Fourth, the secondary data provided by the company gave a full picture of their work for being truly sustainable.

In order to collect the necessary information, the authors of this thesis have chosen to use semi-structured interviews. This is due to the fact that semi-structured interviews allow the interviewee to answer in her own words, while still keeping within the frames of the subject picked by the interviewer beforehand (Dalen, 2007). Moreover, the possibility to ask follow-up questions is available when performing interviews (Teegavarapu, Summers and Mocko, 2008). This was possible even though the interview took place via e-mail, as the authors used the opportunity to ask follow-up questions by replying the case company’s e-mails.

The interview guide was constructed with the central theme of Business Sustainability 3.0 in mind. Due to the novelty of the concept, it was assumed that the interviewee had no prior knowledge of what Business Sustainability 3.0 entails. However, as the company’s own term “fairstainability” is related to Business Sustainability 3.0, this term was used instead during the interviews.

(31)

When developing the questions, the following concerns were taken into consideration (as found in Dalen, 2007):

1. Is the question clear and unambiguous? 2. Is it a leading question?

3. Does the question require special knowledge that the interviewee perhaps does not have?

4. Does the question contain too sensitive matters that may result in the interviewee refusing to answer?

5. Does the question give room for the interviewee to give his or her own comprehensions?

The interview guide was built based on the ANT translation process, meaning that the questions are divided according to the four steps. It can be found in Appendix II. When referring to the information gathered during the interview, this thesis refers to this as personal communication as well as provides who the communication was with and the date the communication took place. Secondary data was used to gather information about the company and their “fairstainability” approach as preparation for the interview and as additional sources for the analysis.

3.5.2. Secondary Data

The secondary data used in the case study included documents published by the case company. Due to the case company’s aim to be transparent, both internally and externally, these documents provided the authors with a sufficient foundation to comprehend the company’s work and to implement the interview. First, the authors used material from the company’s webpage to gather information about the company in general, for instance the number of employees, their description of “fairstainability”, including the company’s vision and approach as well as the different actors of the supply chain. Second, the company blog was used as a source with articles published by different employees of the company. This to be updated about the current “fairstainability” projects, for instance on the plantation in Malaysia. Third, the authors used press releases about different topics concerning the company’s social and environmental projects. Forth, the company’s presentation on the crowdfunding page Startnext was used to collect information about the background and outcome of the crowdfunding campaign. Some of the documents have been available in

(32)

In Appendix III, the authors outline the main sources used as secondary data including information about the content and what they have been used for in detail. When referring to the secondary sources, the authors use the sources listed in the reference list. Both the empirical data and the secondary data built the foundation for the analysis that is conducted by the authors of this thesis. In the next part, the authors proceed to introduce the company.

3.6. Data Analysis

The analysis is based on the information gathered from the company. In the first part of the analysis, the authors use the Business Sustainability Typology Grid presented in the theoretical framework to evaluate the case company’s degree of Business Sustainability. Moreover, the academic concept of Business Sustainability 3.0 and the company’s own term “fairstainability” are compared by using the main characteristics described in the theoretical framework.

In the second part, the translation process of the ANT method is used to analyze how the case company implements the concept of Business Sustainability 3.0. The analysis is based on four steps of the translation process; problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization, that need to be completed by the new venture to ensure a successful implementation (Callon, 1986). The four steps and how these are used are presented in the theoretical framework (chapter 2.5.3) including a codification scheme, presented as Figure 1.

For the authors to be able to use the ANT, three principles needed to be followed: agnosticism, generalized symmetry, and free association (Callon, 1986). These principles make sure that the actors are treated equally (Tatnall and Gilding, 1999). Agnosticism refers to the ambiguity between actors within the network as well as the observer. Generalized symmetry refers to the requirement of the observer to use the same vocabulary when describing scientific and technological discussions. Free association infer that the observer must discard all divisions between natural and social events based on theory (Callon, 1986).

Besides describing the way of analyzing the empirical and secondary data, it is moreover of relevance to identify the quality of the conducted research.

(33)

3.7. Research Quality

In this sub-chapter, the authors show the quality of the research conducted by showing the translation of the interview as well as the level of transferability and reliability of the results. Moreover, the ethical implications that this thesis has encountered and how it has been dealt with is described.

3.7.1. Translation of the Interview

The process of translation contains the transcription of a text from one language into another (Larson, 1991). Due to the company language of Einhorn being German, the questions were translated from English to German before the interview was conducted. The information collected during the interview was then translated to English in order to be used in this thesis. Conducting an interview in a language different from the target language of the thesis asks for flexibility and preparation prior to the interview. Moreover, it requires a decision whether to translate the interview questions and answers literally, i.e. word-by-word, or free, i.e. by interpreting and adapting to the context. One of the methods suggested to increase the reliability of the translation is to consult with bilingual people (Filep, 2009). In case of this thesis, one of the authors is a native German as well as fluent English speaker. Thus, decisions could be made about the suitable translation. The interview questions as well as the direct quotes from the interview and secondary sources have been translated as literally as possible to avoid a confusion of the meaning while having the context in mind. To further secure the quality of the translation, the original quotes in German are inserted as footnotes.

3.7.2. Transferability and Reliability of Results

Reliability is determined by “the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same results on repeated trials” (Carmines and Zeller, 1979, p.11). As for the case study performed by the authors of this thesis, the empirical data was collected from only one company, which limits the scope of the study. Literature states that generalizations made from a single case study has an identified limitation, as each case is unique. It can provide similarities that are most likely transferable to other cases, but some characteristics are special to the particular study. A generalization should therefore not be made by the authors of a case study. They should instead provide the readers with detailed information of the case and the relevant findings that could be applicable in other cases. However, based on the information and findings the authors share, the receivers that wish to

(34)

apply those findings to a similar situation can evaluate the appropriateness and relevance (David, 2006). Due to this limitation, it is not possible to determine to what extent the results are reliable. However, there are also some of the issues related to Business Sustainability 3.0 encountered by Einhorn can been seen as general and are therefore applicable to other companies.

3.7.3. Ethical

Issues

The communication conducted by the authors with Einhorn can be considered to have been open; during the initial contact, an explanation of the purpose of the study was given, as well as the arguments for why Einhorn would be a suitable company for the case study (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). The information used in the case study was either published by the company or received through the interview. Due to this, the company has been in full control of all the information made available to this thesis, as no information about the company has come from a third party. Moreover, the disclosure of the name of the interviewee was done after permission was given from the interviewee.

The Implementation of Business Sustainability 3.0 in a New Venture : A Single Case Study Through the Lense of the Actor-Network Theory