The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2053-4604.htm

JEEE
12,1 An empirical study on
entrepreneurial bricolage behavior
for sustainable enterprise
34 performance of startups
Received 28 January 2019
Revised 12 May 2019
Evidence from an emerging economy
Accepted 28 May 2019
Brijesh Sivathanu
Department of Management, Symbiosis Centre for Information Technology
(SCIT), Symbiosis International University (SIU), Pune, India, and
Rajasshrie Pillai
Department of Management, Pune Institute of Business Management, Pune, India

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to study is to empirically investigate the role of entrepreneurial orientation
(EOR), entrepreneurial bricolage (EBR), technology orientation (TOR), sustainability orientation (SOR) and
Trust (TUR) in the sustainable enterprise performance (SEP) of tech startups in India. It uses a framework
grounded in the EBR theory, upper echelon theory and resource-based view theory.
Design/methodology/approach – A primary survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire
amongst 285 sample respondents from 425 tech startups and the data were analyzed using the partial least
squares-structural equation modeling technique.
Findings – The findings suggest that EOR and TOR significantly influence SEP. SOR and TUR do not
significantly affect the SEP. EBR plays a significant mediating role between TOR and EOR and SEP in the
context of Indian technology-based startups.
Research limitations/implications – This cross-sectional study has a geographic limitation as it was
conducted in Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune and their suburbs. As this study was carried out in the context of
tech startups in a developing country such as India, caution needs to be exercised while generalizing the
findings of this study to other regions, countries and cultural contexts.
Practical implications – This study highlights the significance of TOR and EOR in the long-term SEP to
the budding entrepreneurs who have strong EOR and deploy EBR strategy to start their new business
ventures. It also infers that few of the reasons for the failure of tech startups are because of the lack of
attention to TUR and SOR.
Originality/value – This study has a novel contribution as it empirically validates the role of multiple
constructs such as EOR, TOR, TUR, SOR and EBR toward SEP in a resource-constrained startup
environment in the context of a developing country such as India.
Keywords Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Bricolage, Technology orientation, Trust
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies
As the research interest in the entrepreneurship domain has grown, so have multiple
Vol. 12 No. 1, 2020
pp. 34-57
entrepreneurship theories to describe the reasoning behind the behaviors of entrepreneurs.
© Emerald Publishing Limited Initial theories were more focused on the supply and demand gap of offerings while some of
2053-4604
DOI 10.1108/JEEE-01-2019-0009 the latest theories focused on the resources available to the entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial
bricolage (EBR) proposed by Levi-Strauss (1966) is one such resource-based theory that Study on
explains how entrepreneurs use limited resources at their hands to exploit the opportunity entrepreneurial
by creating some unique offerings (Fisher, 2012; Ferneley and Bell, 2006).
The startup scenario in India is developing at a fast pace accompanied by the country’s
bricolage
growing economy, the availability of cheap and skilled workers along with lower political behavior
uncertainty. Being a developing nation with a large population, Indian entrepreneurs are
almost always short of resources during the initial phase of their startup ventures and
bricolage creativity helps them navigate through this initial phase of their startup (Ansari 35
and Jain, 2017; Khanna and Raghavan, 2018). However, the recent trends of Indian startups
are worrisome. The survey conducted by IBM and Oxford Economics found that 90 per cent
of Indian startups fail within the first five years and 77 per cent of venture capitalists believe
lack of new technology and lack of unique business models are the reasons behind it
(D’Cunha, 2017). There are more than 4,750 technology startups (tech startups) in India and
they are increasing at an annual growth rate of more than 10 per cent (Yes Bank report,
2017). Technology entrepreneurship got momentum in India because of the reverse
migration of Indian IT talent from other countries (Meil and Salzman, 2017). The main tech
startups cities in India are Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi NCR and Pune. These startups are
mainly fintech, health tech, e-commerce, info-tech and B2B business. It was also found that
50 per cent of the tech startups fail in the first five years and there is a 39 per cent drop in the
funding of new tech startups in 2016 (Yes Bank report, 2017).
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EOR) is the innovative entrepreneurial behavior that
proactively chases the opportunities with the uncertainty of results. Technology orientation
(TOR), strategy and plan help the firms develop their technological capabilities to get a
competitive advantage in the market. In this internet-driven digital era, technology has
become a key enabler to achieve efficiency and productivity at all stages of the firm
(Deshpande et al., 2013; Zahra, 1996; Mahrous and Genedy, 2019). Other than technology
adoption, sustainability orientation (SOR) towards the business ecosystem plays a crucial
role in the overall sustainable development of the firm. Customers tend to get attracted
towards firms that incorporate economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability
in their marketing campaigns (Hooi et al., 2016). Trust (TUR) is a crucial factor to be
considered in any entrepreneurship study because business transactions are often
dependent upon commitment and trust (Chen et al., 2013). TUR helps in the integration and
collaboration of stakeholders and firms to invest in more resources (Salam, 2017).
Surprisingly, meager academic research and scholarly work are available in the domain
of Indian technology-based startups exploiting the technological capabilities for the
sustainable development of their enterprise. The authors intend to bridge this gap by
studying trust-based, technology-oriented and EBR strategy for the successful scaling up
and sustainable enterprise performance (SEP) of the Indian tech startups.
Research objectives of this study are as follows:

to develop a theoretical model linking EOR, TOR, SOR, TUR, EBR and SEP in the
context of Indian tech startups; and

to empirically validate the theoretical framework.

Literature review
Over the past two decades, the entrepreneurship domain has seen multiple theoretical views
explaining the interplay between logic, actions and outcomes of entrepreneurial practices.
Among them, causation theory, effectuation theory and EBR theory have received major
attention from researchers (Fisher, 2012). EBR seems to be particularly applicable in the
JEEE context of Indian tech startups where entrepreneurs are highly constrained by resources
12,1 during the initial phase of their firm. Table I elucidates the comparison of these theories.
However, comprehensive knowledge is not yet available that empirically studied and
validated the interaction between the variables: EOR, EBR, TUR, TOR, SOR and SEP in the
context of tech startups in a resource-constrained environment of a developing nation.

36 Theoretical framework
For examining the SEP of Indian tech startups, this study uses a theoretical framework
grounded in three theories, namely, EBR Theory, upper echelon theory and resource-based
view theory and supported by three factors – TOR, TUR and SOR.
Entrepreneurial bricolage theory. The theory of EBR proposes that the choices
entrepreneurs make considering the limited resources at hand decides the bricolage activities
and the performance of the firm (Davidsson et al., 2017). Bricolage actions can empower
entrepreneurs to overcome resource needs; however, they may sometimes go against the
growth of the firm (Fisher, 2012). The extant literature mentions the application of bricolage
theory to entrepreneurship and the organization (Baker and Nelson, 2005; Baker, 2007; Garud

Entrepreneurial
Parameters Causation Effectuation bricolage

Theory proposed by Sarasvathy, 2001 Sarasvathy, 2008 Baker and Nelson, 2005
Key theoretical construct Start with the known Start with available Start with whatever
business outcome resources and possible resources available and
Select from one of the outcomes social support
many available resources Enter into a new market Create something new
Existing market with with a high level of risks from the existing
lower levels of risks Iterative and resources
experimental decision- Typically, very low
making financial resources with a
high risk of business
failure
Distinguishing To choose between the To imagine a possible To “make do” with the
characteristic given resources to new goal using a given limited materials at hand
achieve a pre-determined set of resources to concoct whatever tools
goal are needed to accomplish
a particular project as it
develops
Example of the business Starting a local flavor Starting a foreign cuisine Starting of food delivery
type restaurant with own restaurant with the menu venture by bringing
budget and popular changing as per established restaurants
menu customer feedback and customers online
Applicability in the It is observed that such It is observed that such It is observed that the
context of Indian types of new ventures are types of new ventures are recent Indian tech
startups or enterprises mainly taken by mainly started by foreign startup scene is full of
established businesses or businesses or joint such ventures. Also,
wealthy families with ventures to capture vast India is a resource-
surplus finances with Indian consumer or constrained country.
minimal risk in India industrial market Hence the author has
Table I. chosen this theory for the
Comparison of the study
entrepreneurial
theories* Source: *Adapted from Fisher (2012) research work and modified as per the Indian business context
and Karnøe, 2003). Bricolage mindset or background of an entrepreneur is assumed to act as Study on
a key factor for achieving sustainable entrepreneurship (Phillips and Tracey, 2007). entrepreneurial
The upper echelon theory. It discusses the relationship between the managers’
background, the firm’s strategic alternatives and its performance outcomes (Hambrick and
bricolage
Mason, 1984). It mentions the characteristics of the top management members, which behavior
include the values, personalities and past experience that impact the organizations’ strategic
decisions and subsequent outcomes (David et al., 2012; Hambrick, 2007). The top
management team is less influential when they face executive job demands emanating from 37
the task and performance challenges or when they lack managerial discretion (Herman and
Smith, 2015). In the context of this study, the top management comprising the entrepreneur
exhibiting the bricolage behavior is considered to be important in attaining SEP.
The resource-based view theory. Resource-based view theory (RBV) focuses on the type
of the firms’ resources such as uniqueness, criticality and indispensability, which helps them
get a competitive lead in the marketplace in a sustainable manner (Hooi et al., 2016). RBV
focuses more on building a competitive advantage through resources (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000). RBV is frequently discussed in entrepreneurship studies and it is applicable
to new start-up ventures and organizations that are already established (Kellermanns et al.,
2016). RBV proposes that the study of various resources is required by entrepreneurs to be
successful in new ventures (Zhao et al., 2009; Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001). The cognitive
ability of entrepreneurs to use their resources differently is to create benefits known as RBV
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
The following variables are considered in the framework to study the SEP of the new
tech startups.
Entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation (EOR) is the degree to which an
organization is entrepreneurial in its structures, activities and behaviors of the
organization’s people and processes (Stam and Elfring, 2008). EOR entails three concepts –
pro-activeness, innovation and willingness of the managers to be persistent in identifying
opportunities with uncertain outcomes (Hakala, 2011; Anderson et al., 2015). EOR projects
the proactive and innovative entrepreneurial behaviors and readiness to chase opportunities
with uncertain results (Anderson et al., 2015). EOR should mainly provide emphasis on
responding to the changing market scenario through deliberate and purposeful action
wherein the top management develop value and leverage available new opportunities
(Sørensen and Stuart, 2000; Anderson et al., 2009).
Technology orientation. Technology orientation (TOR) involves the firm’s decision to
align to a particular technology strategy for bringing in innovation, process efficiencies,
automation and new offering creation (Zahra and Covin, 1993).
TOR refers to organizations that have an R&D focus and emphasize on obtaining and
integrating new technologies for product development (Deshpande et al., 2013). TOR comprises
the firm’s bent to leverage technologies for bringing in innovation to products and services and
efficiently perform business activities. Technology is considered as core competency of a firm
and the adoption of technology majorly impacts the positioning of startups in the business
landscape (Zahra, 1996; Itami and Numagami, 1992). Technology-oriented firms invest in
technological advances with the assumption that technology disruption will open up new
opportunities for them (Urban and Heydenrych, 2015). Such a strategy and technological
choices the firm makes, based on the skills and budget availability, may result in a competitive
advantage for the organization, which ultimately results in the SEP (Urban and Heydenrych,
2015). TOR is an integral part of technology-based startups.
Entrepreneurial bricolage. Bricolage means the behavior of an entrepreneur that “make
do” by using existing resources to explore new opportunities (Baker and Nelson, 2005) and
JEEE when resources are constrained, it is one of the ways to growth and innovation of the
12,1 organization (Senyard et al., 2014). It is also mentioned that EBR means creating something
from nothing (Fisher, 2012) where “nothing” refers to the under-used resources that can be
recombined into productive resources. EBR comprises leveraging social, human and
financial resources to embrace the challenging opportunities available (Gundry et al., 2011).
Sustainability orientation. Sustainability orientation (SOR) is the firm’s conviction of the
38 impact of its business activities on the economy, environment and society and accordingly
maneuvers its operations as per the established sustainable development practices and
policies (Urban and Heydenrych, 2015; Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010; Tata and Prasad, 2015).
SOR includes environmental, economic and social responsibilities of the firm and helps
provide competitive advantage (Hart, 1995). These days, government regulatory bodies and
the International Organization for Standardization promote the use of sustainable business
practices in the organization’s decision-making. The organization is held accountable for the
impact on the environment and society because of its activities (Hooi et al., 2016). SOR helps
the organization to be innovative so that it can perform business operations in a sustainable
manner (Dacko et al., 2013). It is argued that the SOR of an individual leads to a tendency to
opt for sustainable entrepreneurship (Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010).
Trust. Trust (TUR) is the psychological state of an individual, which consists of the
intention to accept susceptibility depending upon positive expectations of the intention
(Rousseau et al., 1998). TUR is not a choice or behavior; however, it is the state of individual
psychology that can be interpreted as positive expectation, confidence and perceived
probabilities (Hagen and Choe, 1998; Bhattacharya et al., 1998). The extant studies mention
that trust between the business partners is the outcome of factors such as contact person’s
likeability, positive experience with partners, firm similarity, partner size and shared values
(Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). It is imperative that new entrepreneurs
develop and sustain trust between business partners and customers. Thus, TUR can be
developed by sharing information, developing a personal rapport and seeking feedback
informally from various parties involved in the business (Nguyen and Rose, 2009).
Sustainable entrepreneurship performance. Sustainable entrepreneurship performance
(SEP) is the inter-disciplinary area of research that comprises entrepreneurship and
sustainable management of the business (Belz and Binder, 2017). SEP is mainly discussed as
the exploitation of opportunities, environmental settings and socio-economic development
(Belz and Binder, 2017). SEP mainly balances environmental care, economic growth and
social responsibility (Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010). SEP takes responsibility of the
community that comprises environmental as well as social entrepreneurship because it
provides continuous care.
The entrepreneur needs to be proactive, innovative and a risk-taker for building SEP and
these traits are reflected in EOR (Hakala, 2011; Anderson et al., 2015). This study considered
the technology-based startups; hence, the invention of new technology products, services
and R&D focus is essential, which is reflected in TOR (Deshpande et al., 2013). Most of the
times, entrepreneurs need to manage resources effectively in a constrained setting (Fisher,
2012); hence, EBR needs to be studied. Entrepreneurs need to develop trust with the various
stakeholders such as customers and partners for the long-term business association and
lower the risk of entrepreneurship activities (Welter, 2012). Hence, TUR is considered to
understand the SEP. Entrepreneurs need to be aware of the related sustainability issues
such as economic, social and environmental issues, which are discussed as SOR (Hart, 1995).
Hence, this study amalgamates these constructs – EOR, TOR, TUR, EBR, TUR and SOR –
in a single integrated framework to provide better explanatory power and more comprehensive
model to understand their collective influence on the SEP of technology-based startups.
 Conceptual model and hypotheses development. Hooi et al. (2016) proposed a model to Study on
study the impact of EOR, SOR and EBR on SEP in the context of Malaysian startups. The entrepreneurial
model studied the mediating role of EBR between EOR and SOR on SEP. Zahra and Covin bricolage
(1993) measured TOR of the firm using pioneering posture, internal vs. external R&D
sources, basic vs applied research and the focus on patents. TUR is one of the vital factors in
behavior
the research area of entrepreneurship behavior (Doney and Cannon, 1997).
With reference to the extant studies, the authors propose the theoretical model as shown 39
in Figure 1 that amalgamates EOR, TOR, SOR and EBR for SEP of tech startups. This
framework adds important variables –TOR and TUR. TOR is considered because this study
surveys tech startups and for them technology orientation is imperative. TUR is included in
the model as SEP must develop the trust with the stakeholders and the conceptual
framework leads to the following set of hypotheses, which the research propose to evaluate
in the context of Indian tech startups.

Entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial bricolage

Entrepreneur’s innovation, risk-taking and pro-activeness constitute EOR. EBR “make do”
things in resource-constrained environments. The innovation capability refers to the ability
to generate new services or products (Gundry et al., 2011), risk-taking is the extent to which
the top management utilize resources for uncertain outcomes and pro-activeness means
predicting the future opportunities (Mahmood and Hanafi, 2013; Kraus et al., 2012).
Entrepreneurial firms generally have resource constraints for their initiatives (Sirmon et al.,
2007; Salunke et al., 2013; Mehrotra and Verma, 2015). It is revealed that EOR influences
EBR in the context of Malaysian SMEs (Hooi et al., 2016):

H1. There exists a positive relation between EOR and EBR.

Trust
(TUR)

H7

Entrepreneurial H4
Orientaon (EOR)
H1
Entrepreneurial Sustainable
Bricolage (EBR) Entrepreneurship
H3 (SEP)

Technology H2
H5
Orientaon (TOR)

H6
Sustainability
Figure 1.
Orientaon (SOR)
Proposed conceptual
framework
JEEE Technology orientation and entrepreneurial bricolage
12,1 The TOR refers to a set of organizational decisions regarding the aggressive use of
technology position, Process innovation and automation and new product development
(Zahra and Covin, 1993). In developing countries, many firms have innovation strategies and
venture in new technology which is generally creative imitation, reactive imitation, import
substitution and proactive localization. Firms attain competitive advantage by adopting
40 technology aligned with the firm’s strategic goals (Galbraith et al., 2008). TOR is done by
coordinating organization’s system, resources and structure to achieve competitive
advantage (Hajir et al., 2015; Kateb et al., 2015) and bricolage mentions the “make do”
approach with resources in constraints. TOR aids organizations to be proactive in adopting
and utilizing new technology to create new services/products (Tsou et al., 2014):

H2. TOR positively influences EBR.

Entrepreneurial bricolage and sustainable entrepreneurship performance

The extant study mentions that EBR led to resource advantage (Steffens and Senyard, 2009).
As per RBV theory, organizations arrange for resources and leverage those resource
capabilities to achieve competitive advantage by creating value (Grant, 1996). It is discussed
the EBR helps in achieving competitive advantage. It is confirmed that EBR significantly
leads to SEP (Hooi et al., 2016). It is argued that EBR supports to develop a SEP because
EBR is a transformative process (Phillips and Tracey, 2007):

H3. EBR positively impacts the SEP.

Entrepreneurial orientation –entrepreneurial bricolage – sustainable entrepreneurship

performance
As per RBV theory, managers can use the available resources for implementing business
strategies to have a sustainable competitive advantage and improved performance. The
behavior of the top management team has a great impact on organizational performance
and outcome (Hambrick, 2007; David et al., 2012). Organizations and top management need
to safeguard the resources of business including environmental as well as social resources.
Social responsibility is an important business activity for the organization for sustainable
development (Khan et al., 2009). EBR mentions the utilization of limited resources for
successful business performance. Top management start the new processes and activities
which mainly contribute to profitability and sustainability of business and to do so, the EOR
of entrepreneurs utilize the EBR and exploit new opportunities of business for SEP
(Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011; Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011). It is confirmed that EOR and
SEP are mediated by EBR with reference to SMEs in Malaysia (Hooi et al., 2016):

H4. The relation between EOR and SEP is mediated by EBR.

Technology orientation – entrepreneurial bricolage – sustainable entrepreneurship

performance
TOR is discussed as initiatives of the organization for creating new ideas and developing
new technologies and its utilization for new product development (Li, 2005). TOR shows the
organization’s firms belief and values for resource allocation (Noble et al., 2002). TOR
ensures that organizations are ready for new methods, changes and ideas, which will be
beneficial for business performance, and it promotes innovation in the organization. EBR Study on
utilizes technological resources available for innovations and organizational performance as entrepreneurial
mentioned in bricolage theory. As per RBV, technology orientation uses technology bricolage
resources for the competitive advantage of the organization. In today’s technology-driven
world, if technology resource is leveraged for organizational performance on a continuous
behavior
basis, it will lead to the SEP of the organization. SEP also mentions identifying and
exploiting entrepreneurial strengths for competitive advantage for social and environmental 41
benefits (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011). TOR is used by the organization to develop a
sustainable competitive advantage (Ali et al., 2016); therefore, technological resources
should be leveraged properly. It is found that EBR mediated the relationship between
innovation ecology and catalytic innovation (Gundry et al., 2011):

H5. The relation between TOR and SEP is mediated by EBR.

Sustainability orientation and sustainable entrepreneurship performance

Top management has crucial role in organizational performance as they have the power to
take decisions (David et al., 2012). In business operations, entrepreneurs who consider social,
economic and environmental factors are called as sustainable entrepreneurs (Young and
Tilley, 2006; Parrish, 2010) and these organizations achieve success with triple-bottom-line
consideration (Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010). SOR displays the willingness of the
organization to execute the sustainability-related activities (Tata and Prasad, 2015). SEP
provides the economic, environmental and social solutions through their business (Gray
et al., 2014). So it is considered that entrepreneurs having SOR influence the SEP:

H6. SOR positively impacts the SEP.

Trust and sustainable entrepreneurship performance

SEP is the creation, invention and utilization of entrepreneurial opportunities that provide
sustainability through engendering environmental and social benefits to the society (Groot
and Pinkse, 2015). Environmental and social problems are addressed by SEP (York and
Venkataraman, 2010). SEP is concerned with institutional entrepreneurship, environment
and society (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). For SEP, it is imperative for an entrepreneur to
build trust with the stakeholders and society. In business, formal relations are made based
on agreement and contracts. However, informal social relation is rooted in trust
(Hoogendoorn et al., 2017). TUR is very important for entrepreneurship and supports in
lowering the risk of entrepreneurial activities (Welter, 2012). SEP is majorly built on social
ties, so trust is an important factor for SEP:

H7. TUR positively impacts the SEP.

Research methodology
Survey instrument design
The extant literature on entrepreneurship is considered for development of research
instrument. The measurement scale for EOR, EBR, SOR and SEP is adapted from extant
literature (Knight, 1997; Hooi et al., 2016; Gundry et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2014; Kuckertz and
Wagner, 2010; Ahmad and Seet, 2009; Turker, 2009). TOR (Zahra, 1996; Urban and
JEEE Heydenrych, 2015) and TUR (Rouziès and Hulland, 2014; Cummings and Bromiley, 1996;
12,1 Mayer et al., 1995; Zaheer et al., 1998) scales were adapted from existing literature.
A pre-test was conducted to scrutinize the validity and reliability of a questionnaire
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Prior to the data collection, five subject matter experts from
Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India (EDII), The IndUS Entrepreneurs (TiE),
National Entrepreneurs Network (NEN) were identified and the details of the research were
42 discussed. Subsequent to conducting a review of existing scales, the multi-item reflective
scales for each construct were modeled using DeVellis (2003). The questionnaire was
modified as per the suggestions from the experts to ensure the face validity, and then the
pre-test questionnaire was finalized. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the
operationalized constructs in this research. Pre-test and pilot test were conducted to inspect
the research instrument’s reliability and validity.
As per the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Government of
India (GoI), startups are defined as follows:
Firm working towards innovation, development or improvement of products or processes or
services, or if it is a scalable business model with a high potential for employment generation or
wealth creation.
These organizations are called startups till the period of seven years and with an annual
turnover not exceeding Rs. 25 crores for any of the financial years from the date of
incorporation/registration (startupindia.gov.in, 2019). The above criterion is considered by
the researchers to select the sample startups for this study. This research considered only
tech startups. The list of entrepreneurs was obtained from AngelList and PuneConnect,
NEN and TiE.
The pilot study was conducted in NEN and TiE monthly meetings by explaining the tech
startup entrepreneurs about the various constructs in the study including SEP. The
respondents were reassured of their confidentiality and anonymity. Initially, the pilot survey
was launched to 35 tech startup entrepreneurs and subsequently, based on their feedback, a
modified survey questionnaire was finalized for the main data collection process using the
constructs as in Table II. Cronbach alpha (a) was used to inspect the internal consistency
and reliability of the data. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
was used to analyze the data of the pilot study (N = 35). The main data collection was done
after adequate results in the pilot test. Table II displays the operationalization of the
constructs.

Higher order constructs formation

In this study, the SEP is modeled as a higher order (second-order) formative construct,
which is formed by three first-order reflective constructs – Environment, Social and
Economic.
EOR and TOR factors are highly correlated with each other, so they are modeled as a
higher order reflective-reflective type construct. EOR is modeled as a second-order reflective
construct, constituted of three first-order reflective constructs – Innovativeness, Pro-
activeness and Risk-taking. TOR is modeled as a second-order reflective construct, formed
by four first-order reflective constructs –Pioneering posture, Internal/External R&D,
Applied/Basic Research and Patenting. The second-order constructs (EOR and TOR) were
measured and modeled following the repeated indicator method (Becker et al., 2012 and Chin
et al., 2003).
 Study on
Second order First order
construct construct Type Item/Measures
entrepreneurial
bricolage
Entrepreneurial Reflective
oientation
behavior
(EOR)
Innovativeness Reflective IN1: Our startup has different products and services.
IN2: Our products or services modify with 43
unexpected features
IN3: We focus on R&D and technology and
innovation
Pro-activeness Reflective PR1: Our startup is about a new type of product or
service or a new way of doing the task
PR2: We adopt competitive strategies to overcome
competitors
Risk Taking Reflective RT1: We incline to take the high risk - high returns
work
RT2: We encourage bold decision making
RT3: We aggressively go after opportunity with risks
Technology Reflective
orientation
(TOR)
Pioneering Reflective PP1: We introduce new products to the market
posture PP2: Customers recognize us for non-traditional
products
Internal/ Reflective RD1: Avg. spending on R&D in Year1
External R&D RD2: Avg. spending on R&D in Year2
RD3: Avg. spending on R&D in Year3
Applied/Basic Reflective AB1: We perform basic R and D in for advancing our
Research industry domain science
AB2: We perform applied R and D leads to new
products and technologies
Patenting Reflective PT1: We hold patents
PT2: We lead in patenting compared to other startups
in our domain
PT3: We have spent more efforts every year on
patenting for the past three years
Entrepreneurial Reflective EB1: We use existing resources to take on new
Bricolage challenges
(EBR) EB2: We use existing resources to respond to a new
opportunity
EB3: When we face new challenges, we use existing
means and other inexpensive resources to provide a
workable solution
Sustainability Reflective SO1: We believe in environmental protection
Orientation SO2: Employee gets attracted to our startup since we
(SOR) care for the environment
SO3: We believe we have a social responsibility as
part of business operations
Sustainable Formative
enterprise Table II.
performance Construct
(SEP) operationalization
(continued) and measurement
JEEE
12,1 Second order First order
construct construct Type Item/Measures

Economic Reflective EC1: Our sales are growing every year

EC2: Our startup seeing business growth
EC3: Our growth is profitable
44 EC4: Our market share is increasing
Social Reflective SC1: Our business helps promote social well-being
SC2: We encourage employees to volunteer for social
causes
SC3: Our policies are employee friendly and created
considering employee needs
SC4: We have flexible working hours policy for better
work-life balance
Environment Reflective EV1: We participate in environmentally friendly
initiatives
EV2: Our investments are done based on the future
needs of the next generations
EV3: Our business activities minimize the negative
impact on the environment
EV4: We plan for the sustainable growth of our firm
Trust (TUR) Reflective TU1: We are always truthful to our stakeholders and
partners
TU2: We always act in the spirit of collaboration
TU3: We have a healthy relationship with customers
and partners for transactions
TU4: We feel secure in sharing business-related
information with the partner.
TU5: We believe that our partners keep our best
Table II. interests in mind

Sampling and data collection

This research study is based on the quantitative methodology and carried out using a
survey questionnaire instrument. The primary data was collected from the tech startups
operating in Pune and Mumbai , Maharashtra, and Bangalore, Karnataka, India. The
researcher found that more than 750 technology-based startups are operating in Pune,
Mumbai, and Bangalore as per NEN, TiE, AngelList and PuneConnect database of startups.
Most of the startups in Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune are Fin-Tech, Health-tech, Food-tech,
e-commerce, info-tech and analytics (Yes Bank Report, 2017; NASSCOM Report, 2017). The
samples were considered using the purposive convenience sampling technique and the key
respondents of the survey questionnaires were the founders, owners, key executives and
partners of the targeted tech startups. The respondents were surveyed in NEN and TiE
meetings as well as by visiting their offices. During the survey, details about the TOR, EOR,
SOR, EBR, TUR and SEP were explained to the respondents and reassured of their
confidentiality and anonymity.
Out of the 685 tech startups surveyed, 425 questionnaires were filled up, of which 285
questionnaires were found to be complete in all respects and suitable for analysis with a
response rate of 41.6 per cent. The respondents were appropriate for the study because they
were founders, owners, entrepreneurs, partners and key executives of tech startups and
while choosing the samples, the definition of a startup by DIPP, GoI, was used as the
eligibility criteria for selection. The total revenue for startups as per definition was Rs. 25 Study on
crore/$3.5 bn. So, the sample tech startups considered were with total revenues below or entrepreneurial
around $3.5 bn. The demographic details are provided in Table III.
bricolage
Non-response bias
behavior
The T-test was carried out to analyze the difference between the early wave (180) and late
wave (105) groups and the t-test analysis found no significant differences (p = 0.42), showing 45
that non-response bias does not affect this research. Finally, the total responses found to be
fit in all respect were 285.

Common method bias

The single-factor Harman test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was conducted to verify the existence
of common method bias. The variance explained by a single factor as seen in the results was
28.76 per cent, which is less than 50 per cent justifying that common method bias is not a
concern for this study. Hence, the reliability and validity of the measures have been
corroborated.

Data analysis and results

Measurement model
The SmartPLS 2.0 software (Ringle et al., 2005) was applied for primary data analysis. The
measurement properties in the final model were calculated for the latent constructs,
reflective and formative in nature having multiple indicators.

Convergent validity
The convergent validity was checked using factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and
average variance extracted (AVE). The data exhibited factor loadings of all constructs as
more than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2006) and Cronbach’s alpha (a) as more than 0.7, thus establishing
the reliability of the measure and high internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). The reflective
measurement was evaluated using outer item loadings and CR. Data analysis had shown the

Demographic Characteristics Frequency (%)

Year (Tech startup registration) Less than 1 year 90 32

1 to 3 years 120 42
3 to 5 years 75 26
Type of Business Heath-tech 52 18
Fin-tech 45 16
E-commerce 65 22
Food -Tech 47 17
Info-tech 76 27
Turnover Less than $0.14 m (less than Rs. 1 Crore) 93 33
$0.14-$0.70 m (Rs. 1-5 Crore) 69 24
$ 0.70-$ 1.4 m (Rs. 5-10 Crore) 61 21
$ 1.4-2.1 m (Rs. 10-15 Crore) 34 12
$ 2.1-3.5 m (Rs. 15-25 Crore) 28 10
Gender Male 182 64 Table III.
Female 103 36 Demographic profile
Owners and Partners Owners 212 74 of respondent
Partners 73 26 (N = 285)
JEEE minimum value of outer item loadings more than the minimum threshold of 0.6, while CR
12,1 values display high levels of internal consistency. AVE was measured for convergent
validity, which were more than the minimum thresholds of 0.5 for all the constructs as
presented in Table IV.
The indicators’ weight, significance of the weight and multi-collinearity (Variance
inflation factor (VIF)) of the indicators was assessed for the formative scale (Becker et al.,
46 2012; Hair et al., 2011). The indicator weights of the items in the results exceed the
recommended value of 0.2 (Chin, 1998) with a significance level of at least 0.05, meaning that
the indicator is appropriate to the construction of the formative index, which proves a
sufficient level of validity (Thien et al., 2014). The VIF values that explain the degree of
multi-collinearity among the formative indicators in the results are below 3.3
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006). Hence, formative scale convergent validity is verified
as in Table IV.

Discriminant validity
The off-diagonal values in Table V show the correlation between the latent constructs. The
discriminant validity was verified by comparing the inter-correlations of the constructs with
AVE, as displayed in Table V. As the shared variance values were lower than the
corresponding AVE, discriminant validity between the constructs in the study was proved
as per Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria.

Structural model
The relationship between the constructs was evaluated by performing the path analysis
using the structural model. Table VI displays the values of the path coefficients and
itssignificance level using PLS-SEM. The relationship between the constructs in the
theoretical model is verified (Figure 2).
H1 tested the relationship between EOR and EBR, while H2 tested the relationship
between TOR and EBR. The analysis indicates that EOR ( b = 0.352, p < 0.01) positively
impacts EBR, which supports SMEs study in Malaysia (Hooi et al., 2016). It is found that
TOR ( b = 0.447, p < 0.01) positively influences EBR because it helps in creating new
product/services (Tsou et al., 2014) and achieve competitive advantage (Hajir et al., 2015).
Thus, both H1 and H2 are supported. This establishes that EBR is supported by both EOR
and TOR in the context of tech startups in a developing country. It is found that EBR ( b =
0.538, p < 0.01) positively influences the SEP. Hence, H3 is supported, which indicates that
EBR is essential for SEP of tech startups. This result supports Bojica et al. (2014) and
contradicts that EBR has a negative influence on SEP when organizations are in the up and
running stage (Senyard et al., 2009).

Mediating relationships
The mediation effect takes place when the indirect relationship between the independent
variables (EOR and TOR) and the dependent variable (SEP) becomes significant (Preacher
and Hayes, 2008). Following the two-step method of mediation analysis (Preacher and
Hayes, 2008), first the significance of the direct effect (without the EBR mediator) and then in
the second step, the indirect effect significance (with the presence of EBR mediator) were
established for H4 and H5 using the corresponding T-values and p-values of the path co-
efficients. Using the parameters – “Variance Accounted For” (VAF) and the Total effect, the
strength of the EBR mediator was examined where Total effect = Direct effect þ Indirect
effect and VAF = Indirect effect/Total Effect. According to Hair et al. (2014), partial
mediation exists when VAF > 0.2 threshold level and full mediation exists when VAF > 0.8.
 Study on
Second order Outer Composite Cronbach’’s entrepreneurial
construct First-order construct Item loading AVE reliability alpha bricolage
Entrepreneurial 0.762 0.879 0.811 behavior
orientation (EOR)
Innovation IN1 0.872 0.748 0.892 0.802
IN2 0.830 47
IN3 0.807
Pro-activeness PR1 0.899 0.764 0.864 0.806
PR2 0.805
Risk taking RT1 0.837 0.776 0.881 0.813
RT2 0.804
RT3 0.818
Technology 0.758 0.874 0.814
orientation (TOR)
Pioneering posture PP1 0.819 0.766 0.892 0.807
PP2 0.887
Internal/external RD1 0.818 0.748 0.874 0.802
R&D RD2 0.804
RD3 0.812
Applied/basic AB1 0.815 0.762 0.839 0.804
Research AB2 0.858
Patent PT1 0.825 0.754 0.893 0.824
PT2 0.817
PT3 0.805
Entrepreneurial
bricolage (EBR) EB1 0.860 0.733 0.887 0.818
EB2 0.852
EB3 0.884
Sustainability
orientation (SOR) SO1 0.857 0.763 0.875 0.817
SO2 0.840
SO3 0.888
Economic (EC) EC1 0.835 0.718 0.862 0.824
EC2 0.812
EC3 0.800
EC4 0.835
Social (SC) SC1 0.865 0.724 0.879 0.822
SC2 0.884
SC3 0.849
SC4 0.862
Environment (EV) EV1 0.892 0.725 0.886 0.834
EV2 0.800
EV3 0.846
EV4 0.868
Trust (TUR) TU1 0.816 0.746 0.858 0.824
TU2 0.853
TU3 0.830
TU4 0.801
TU5 0.887 Table IV.
(continued) Construct validity
JEEE
12,1 Second order Outer Composite Cronbach’’s
construct First-order construct Item loading AVE reliability alpha

Weights t value VIF

Sustainable enterprise Economic 0.364 2.564** 1.248
performance (SEP)
48 Social 0.268 2.236** 1.364
Environ. 0.244 2.142** 1.484

Notes: Average variance extracted (AVE) = (summation of the square of the factor loadings)/{(summation
of the square of the factor loadings) þ (summation of the error variance)}; composite reliability (CR) =
(square of the summation of the factor loadings)/{(square of the summation of the factor loadings) þ
Table IV. (square of the summation of the error variance)}; **indicates significance level p < 0.05

Construct EOR TOR EBR SOR TUR SEP

EOR 0.872
TOR 0.578 0.870
EBR 0.521 0.670 0.856
SOR 0442 0.579 0.642 0.873
TUR 0.357 0.548 0.571 0.598 0.863
SEP 0.478 0.397 0.378 0.397 0.547 Formative
Table V.
Discriminant validity Note: Italic data indicates the square roots of AVE

Hypothesis Path Path coefficient Standard error T-statistics Decision

H1 EOR ! EBR 0. 352 0.042 3.308*** Supported

H2 TOR ! EBR 0.447 0.052 3.628*** Supported
H3 EBR ! SEP 0.538 0.055 5.028*** Supported
H4 EOR ! EBR! SEP 0.246 0.051 3.066*** Supported
H5 TOR ! EBR! SEP 0.330 0.047 3.800*** Supported
H6 SOR ! SEP 0.190 0.044 1.404 Not Supported
Table VI. H7 TUR ! SEP 0.238 0.056 1.334 Not Supported
Hypothesis testing
summary of results Notes: t-values for two-tailed test: ***t-values 2.58 (sig. level = 1%), (Hair et al., 2011)

As the calculated VAF values for H4 and H5 were 0.224 and 0.268, respectively, such that it
lies in the range 0.2 < VAF < 0.8, the magnitude of the EBR mediator is considered to be
“partial” for H4 and H5. Hence, the results indicate that EBR plays a mediating role ( b =
0.246, p < 0.01) between EOR and SEP, and EBR also mediates ( b = 0.330, p < 0.01) the
relationship between TOR and SEP; hence, H4 and H5 are supported. The result supports
studies in the context of Malaysian SMEs (Hooi et al., 2016) and Chinese firms (Guo et al.,
2015). This reflects that EOR and TOR of the entrepreneurs drive EBR, which leads to the
SEP of tech startups.
SOR ( b = 0.190, ns) was not found to be a significant antecedent for SEP; thus, H6 was
not supported. SOR depicts the willingness of entrepreneurs towards sustainability-related
 Study on
entrepreneurial
bricolage
behavior

49

Figure 2.
Results of PLS-SEM
model

activities and organizations achieve success on triple bottomline (Kuckertz and Wagner,
2010) because of SEP. It is not supported in this study because tech startups focus mainly on
economic performance, which is one of the reasons for their failure because of lack of
cognizance of social and environmental factors. This result conveys that even though tech
startup entrepreneurs welcome socially responsible practices to some extent, the degree of
their participation in SOR may not be sufficient. It is also found that TUR ( b = 0.238, ns)
does not influence SEP; hence, H7 is not supported. TUR is important to lower the risk of
entrepreneurial activities (Welter, 2012) and the results show that tech startups do not give
much importance to trust. This is also one of the reasons for the failure of tech startups
because they are not able to build confidence among the stakeholders and customers. The
results summary is shown in Table VI.

Discussion
This research was conducted to empirically scrutinize the influence of different constructs
such as EOR, TOR, EBR, SOR and TUR on SEP. It also validates the mediation of EBR
between EOR and TOR on SEP. The study targeted founders, owners, entrepreneurs,
partners and key executives of startups operating in Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore, India. It
deployed quantitative methods and empirically proved the research objectives. The results
indicate that EOR and TOR significantly affect the EBR, which further significantly affects
the SEP. EBR plays a significant mediating role between TOR as well as EOR and SEP in
the context of Indian technology-based startups. SOR and TUR do not significantly
influence the SEP.
The results depict that the TOR of the tech startup entrepreneurs portrays their belief
and values of resource allocation for creating new services and products using new ideas,
methods and technologies. For the technology-based startups, the invention of new
technology products, services and R&D focus, including applied/basic research and
patenting is essential, which is captured by the TOR (Deshpande et al., 2013). This confirms
JEEE the bricolage theory, which uses technological resources available for innovations and
12,1 organizational performance.
The results suggest that the EOR of the tech startup entrepreneurs helps them to initiate
further steps required for the business in adverse situations without possessing the required
resources. The tendency to take on a bold and aggressive posture, pro-activeness in business
operations and the power of innovativeness helps the entrepreneurs to adopt bricolage. The
50 startup entrepreneurs are set to face challenges in their new business ventures to ascertain
SEP, which reflects the results of Salunke et al. (2013). EOR aids the startup entrepreneurs to
face new business challenges by administering an amalgamation of the present limited
resources at hand. The self-belief in facing unpredicted challenges is in fact developed by the
EOR of the startup entrepreneurs. Hence, entrepreneurs demonstrating a high EOR shall use
whatever limited resources presented to develop and transform new services and products
according to the challenges and market requirements, thus evolving into a true bricoleur.
Hence, it is confirmed that EOR is a vital and strong predictor for EBR. This reveals that
EOR has a direct effect on EBR, which confirms the bricolage theory of entrepreneurship.
The findings also support the UET, which suggest the importance of viewpoint of the
management in forecasting the outcome of the firm (Child, 1972; Hambrick, 2007). The
strengths of embracing pro-activeness in business, risk-taking ability and innovativeness
(Chatterjee et al., 2019) support tech startup entrepreneurs to accept bricolage, which
prepares them to identify workable solutions for the emerging challenges. The results also
show that higher levels of bricolage behavior among tech startup entrepreneurs led to a
better level of overall resource advantage that conforms to the study (Steffens et al., 2013).
The tech startup firms are able to accomplish a competitive advantage and make better
profits when resource advantage is obtained (Grant, 1996). Hence, EBR among the tech
startup entrepreneurs would foster the transformation of their new business ventures into
SEP.
The RBV theory advocates that by innovative utilization of resources, a firm can
accelerate its economic performance. For ensuring long-term survival, firms need to be
socially responsible (Khan et al., 2009). EBR expedites producing something new to conquer
emerging challenges and exemplifies the state of confidence in the entrepreneur’s ability to
build feasible solutions in turbulent times, which are apt for a developing economy. As SEP
portrays the triple bottom line principle, it is imperative for tech startup entrepreneurs to
hold the bricolage characteristics. Because environment and social issues sometimes emerge
all of a sudden, EBR helps startup entrepreneurs to align their tech startup ventures to fix
emerging issues.
EBR has a significant mediating effect on the relationship of EOR and TOR on SEP. This
outcome is coherent with the underlying theories of EBR, UET and RBV and links them to
SEP in the context of tech startups in a developing country. When tech startup
entrepreneurs exhibit EOR and TOR, they are able to adapt and remix their available
existing resources to develop solutions for economic, social and environment success. This
will help to ensure business transformation toward SEP.
The insignificant relation between SOR and TUR on SEP explains the rationale that tech
startups focus mainly on economic performance, which is one of the reasons for a large
number of failures of tech startups in the Indian context. The tech startup entrepreneurs are
not much concerned about the sustainability orientation such as the environment and social
issues. The tech startups were reported to practice weak measures of sustainability-related
activities toward the employees, customers and other business stakeholders. The
willingness of entrepreneurs toward sustainability-related activities is captured by SOR;
hence, it turned out to be insignificant towards SEP in this study. The lack of cognizance of
social and environmental factors along with the lack of ability to build confidence and Study on
healthy long-term relations among the stakeholders and customers are some of the key entrepreneurial
reasons to be accounted for. Because the startup entrepreneurs lacked the ability to develop
TUR with the various stakeholders such as business partners and customers for the long-
bricolage
term business association to lower the risk of entrepreneurship activities, TUR was behavior
insignificant toward SEP.

Implications
51
Theoretically, this research took a step in a direction to comprehend SEP in tech startups in
the Indian context. The authors integrated multiple theories such as EBR theory, upper
echelon theory and resource-based view theory along with other key constructs such as
EOR, TOR, EBR, SOR and TUR to explain SEP in the tech startups. SOR and TUR are not
found significant and tech entrepreneurs need to give more importance to SOR and TUR for
sustainable business. The proposed theoretical model empirically validates the associations
between the three theories of EBR, UET and RBV. It also provides comprehensive factors
that are required for SEP.
This research academically contributes to the entrepreneurship domain literature by
developing a framework for SEP with reference to tech startups. This research provides the
direction for studying the SEP of startups by considering EBR, UET and RBV Theory. This
study highlights the importance of TUR for SEP in the context of tech startups adding value
to the literature.
From managerial implications perspective, this research suggests entrepreneurs take
cognizance of different constructs while planning for scaling up for sustainable growth of
the firm. It guides the budding entrepreneurs regarding the key factors to be considered and
instruments to adopt for SEP. It emphasizes TOR, SOR and TUR are required along with
EOR in this digital age. SEP is neither simple nor easy for any firm to achieve and retain.
Startup entrepreneurs need to be socially and environmentally responsible while carrying
out business activities. Moreover, startup entrepreneurs need to develop confidence and
healthy long-term relations among the stakeholders and customers to achieve SEP. Startup
entrepreneurs need to take cognizance of other drivers such as government regulations and
comply with the international environmental protection laws to achieve SEP.
The Government can play a major role in developing sustainable orientation in new
entrepreneurs by providing training on sustainable business practices through government
websites and startup association centers. Policymakers need to ensure the development of
conducive policies that provide proper guidelines for facilitating sustainable business.
Government should provide an appropriate environment for R&D and innovation of new
technology products and services by facilitating associations and tie-ups along with
opportunities for funding through angel investors and venture capitalists. Setting up
technology incubation cells and training centers in higher education institutions and
universities is essential to build TOR in budding entrepreneurs of tech startups. Private and
government funding agencies for startups can train entrepreneurs for resource management
toward SEP. Policymakers can develop suitable policies that foster the trust between
entrepreneurs and other business stakeholders.

Limitations
Although this study found that EOR, TOR and EBR impact SEP, it has several limitations
that provide opportunities for future research. First, the survey has geographic limitations
because data was only collected from startup founders, owners, partners and key executives
based out of three cities and their suburbs in Maharashtra and Karnataka, India. The
JEEE generalization of the results needs extreme caution in other regions, countries and contexts.
12,1 This study quantitatively explored EOR and TOR of tech startup entrepreneurs and
mediating effect of entrepreneurial bricolage on SEP. It also empirically tested SOR and
TUR effect on SEP. Future studies may incorporate qualitative methods and approaches
such as focus group discussions and interviews with startup entrepreneurs for better
understanding of entrepreneurship and more comprehensive findings on SEP. Further
52 studies may explore other variables such as entrepreneur’s age and gender, entrepreneur
intention/commitment and moderators such as firm size and industry type. Future
researchers may explore the outcomes of EBR such as innovation performance.

References
Ahmad, N.H. and Seet, P.S. (2009), “Understanding business success through the lens of SME founder-
owners in Australia and Malaysia”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 72-87.
Ali, D., Leifu, G. and Rehman, R.U. (2016), “The impact of technology orientation and customer
orientation on firm performance: evidence form Chinese firms”, International Journal of
Management and Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Alvarez, S.A. and Busenitz, L.W. (2001), “The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 755-775.
Anderson, B.S., Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (2009), “Understanding the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning: an empirical investigation”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 219-241.
Anderson, B.S., Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Eshima, Y. (2015), “Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial orientation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1579-1596.
Ansari, K. and Jain, G. (2017), “Impact of GST on Indian startups”, International Education and
Research Journal, Vol. 3 No. 5.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Baker, T. (2007), “Resources in play: bricolage in the toy store(y)”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 694-711.
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines
for using reflective-formative type models”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
Belz, F.M. and Binder, J.K. (2017), “Sustainable entrepreneurship: a convergent process model”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M. and Pillutla, M.M. (1998), “A formal model of trust based on
outcomes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 459-472.
Bojica, A.M., Istanbouli, A. and Fuentes-Fuentes, M.D.M. (2014), “Bricolage and growth strategies:
effects on the performance of Palestinian women-led firms”, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 19 No. 4, p. 1450023.
Chatterjee, N., Das, N. and Srivastava, N.K. (2019), “A structural model assessing key factors affecting
women’s entrepreneurial success: evidence from India”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 122-151.
Chen, Y.-C., Li, P.C. and Lin, Y.-H. (2013), “How inter- and intra-organisational coordination affect
product development performance: the role of slack resources”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 125-136.
Child, J. (1972), “Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice”,
Sociology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in Study on
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Psychology Press: New York,
NY, pp. 295-336.
entrepreneurial
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling
bricolage
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an behavior
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The organizational trust inventory (OTI)”, Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Vol. 302 No. 330, pp. 39-52. 53
D’Cunha, S. (2017), “90% of Indian startups will fail because of lack of innovation”, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2017/05/18/startups-in-india-fail-due-lack-of-innovation-according-
to-a-new-ibm-study/#4e9e7fa0657b
Dacko, S.G., Claudy, M., Garcia, R. and &Wilner, S.J. (2013), “Sustainability orientation as a driver of
innovation within firms”, Paper presented at the ISPIM Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-10.
David, K., Paul, M., Ongeti, W., Nicholas, L. and Evans, A. (2012), “Upper echelons theory and research:
a review of theory and empirical literature 28 years later”, Prime Journal of Business
Administration and Management, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 697-703.
Davidsson, P., Baker, T. and Senyard, J.M. (2017), “A measure of entrepreneurial bricolage behavior”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 114-135.
Deshpande, R., Grinstein, A., Kim, S.H. and Ofek, E. (2013), “Achievement motivation, strategic
orientations and business performance in entrepreneurial firms”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 231-252.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), “Scale development: theory and applications (applied social research methods)”,
Social Research, Vol. 900, p. 14929.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1121.
Ferneley, E. and Bell, F. (2006), “Using bricolage to integrate business and information technology
innovation in SMEs”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 232-241.
Fisher, G. (2012), “Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: a behavioral comparison of emerging theories
in entrepreneurship research”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 1019-1051.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Galbraith, C.S., Rodriguez, C.L. and DeNoble, A.F. (2008), “SME competitive strategy and location
behavior: an exploratory study of high technology manufacturing”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 183-202.
Garud, R. and Karnøe, P. (2003), “Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in
technology entrepreneurship”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 277-300.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as
knowledge integration”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-387.
Gray, B.J., Duncan, S., Kirkwood, J. and Walton, S. (2014), “Encouraging sustainable entrepreneurship
in climate-threatened communities: a Samoan case study”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 401-430.
JEEE Groot, K. and Pinkse, J. (2015), “Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity:
overcoming market barriers in the clean energy sector”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
12,1 Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 633-654.
Gundry, L.K., Kickul, J.R., Griffiths, M.D. and Bacq, S.C. (2011), “Creating social change out of nothing:
the role of entrepreneurial bricolage in social entrepreneurs catalytic innovations”, Social and
Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 1-24.
54 Guo, H., Su, Z. and Ahlstrom, D. (2015), “Business model innovation: the effects of exploratory
orientation, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Hagen, J.M. and Choe, S. (1998), “Trust in Japanese interfirm relations: institutional sanctions matter”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 589-600.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hajir, J., Obeidat, B., Al-dalahmeh, M. and Masa’deh, R. (2015), “The role of knowledge management
infrastructure in enhancing innovation at mobile telecommunication companies in Jordan”,
European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 313-330.
Hakala, H. (2011), “Strategic orientations in management literature: three approaches to understanding
the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 199-217.
Hambrick, D.C. (2007), “Upper echelons theory: an update”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 334-343.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Herman, J.L. and Smith, B. (2015), Upper Echelons Theory, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management,
Chichester, 1.
Hoogendoorn, B., van der Zwan, P. and &Thurik, R. (2017), “Sustainable entrepreneurship: the role of
perceived barriers and risk”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-22.
Hooi, H.C., Ahmad, N.H., Amran, A. and Rahman, S.A. (2016), “The functional role of entrepreneurial
orientation and entrepreneurial bricolage in ensuring sustainable entrepreneurship”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1616-1638.
Itami, H. and Numagami, T. (1992), “Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 119-135.
Kateb, G., Swies, R., Obeidat, B., Masa’deh, R. and Maqableh, M. (2015), “An investigation on the
critical factors of information system implementation in Jordanian information technology
companies”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 36, pp. 11-28.
Kellermanns, F., Walter, J., Crook, T.R., Kemmerer, B. and Narayanan, V. (2016), “The resource-based
view in entrepreneurship: a content analytical comparison of researchers’ and entrepreneurs’
views”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 26-48.
Khan, H.U.Z., Halabi, A.K. and Samy, M. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: a
study of selected banking companies in Bangladesh”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 344-357.
Khanna, T. and Raghavan, K.V. (2018), “How science can bring about a Eureka moment for Indian Study on
startups”, available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/how-science-
can-bring-about-a-eureka-moment-for-indian-startups/articleshow/64533483.cms
entrepreneurial
Knight, G.A. (1997), “Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial
bricolage
orientation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 213-225. behavior
Kraus, S., Rigtering, J.C., Hughes, M. and Hosman, V. (2012), “Entrepreneurial orientation and the
business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from The Netherlands”, Review of
Managerial Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 161-182. 55
Kuckertz, A. and Wagner, M. (2010), “The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial
intentions-investigating the role of business experience”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 524-539.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966), The Savage Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Li, J.J. (2005), “The formation of managerial networks of foreign firms in China: the effects of strategic
orientations”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 423-443.
Mahmood, R. and Hanafi, N. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance of women-
owned small and medium enterprises in Malaysia: competitive advantage as a mediator”,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 82-90.
Mahrous, A.A. and Genedy, M.A. (2019), “Connecting the dots: the relationship among intra-
organizational environment, entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and organizational
performance”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Mehrotra, S. and Verma, S. (2015), “An assessment approach for enhancing the organizational
performance of social enterprises in India”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Meil, P. and Salzman, H. (2017), “Technological entrepreneurship in India”, Journal of Entrepreneurship
in Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 65-84.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nasscom Report (2017), “Indian startup ecosystem - traversing the maturity cycle”, available at: https://
smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/nasscom-start-up-report-2017.pdf
Nguyen, T.V. and Rose, J. (2009), “Building trust-evidence from Vietnamese entrepreneurs”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 165-182.
Noble, C.H., Sinha, R.K. and Kumar, A. (2002), “Market orientation and alternative strategic
orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 25-39.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Patzelt, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2011), “Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 631-652.
Phillips, N. and Tracey, P. (2007), “Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage:
connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization”, Strategic
Organization, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 313.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
JEEE Ringle, C.M. Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), “Smart PLS 2.0”, available at: www.smartpls.de
12,1 Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-
discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Rouziès, D. and Hulland, J. (2014), “Does marketing and sales integration always pay off? Evidence from a
social capital perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 511-527.
Salam, M.A. (2017), “The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between
56 technology, trust and operational performance”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 298-317.
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2013), “Competing through service innovation:
the role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1085-1097.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and effectuation: towards a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 243-288.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2008), Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. New Horizons in
Entrepreneurship Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2011), “Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation:
categories and interactions”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 222-237.
Senyard, J., Baker, T. and Davidsson, P. (2009), “Entrepreneurial bricolage: towards systematic
empirical testing”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 29 No. 5, p. 5.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P. and Davidsson, P. (2014), “Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for
resource-constrained new firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 211-230.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292.
Sørensen, J.B. and Stuart, T.E. (2000), “Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 81-112.
Stam, W. and Elfring, T. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: the
moderating role of intra-and extra industry social capital”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
startupindia.gov.in (2019), available at: www.startupindia.gov.in/
Steffens, P.R. and Senyard, J. (2009), “Linking resource acquisition and development processes to
resource-based advantage: bricolage and the resource-based view (summary)”, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 29 No. 13, pp. 1-16.
Steffens, N.K., Haslam, S.A., Ryan, M.K. and Kessler, T. (2013), “Leader performance and
prototypicality: their inter-relationship and impact on leaders’ identity entrepreneurship”,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 606-613.
Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (2015), “Immigrant family businesses: social capital, network benefits and
business performance”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 842-866.
Thien, L.M., Ramayah, T. and Razak, N.A. (2014), “Specifying and assessing a formative measure for
hofstede’s cultural values: a malaysian study”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 3327-3342.
Tsou, H.T., Chen, J.S. and Liao, W.H. (2014), “Market and technology orientations for service delivery
innovation: the link of innovative competence”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 499-513.
Turker, D. (2009), “Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study”, Journal of Study on
Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 411-427.
entrepreneurial
Urban, B. and Heydenrych, J. (2015), “Technology orientation and effectuation – links to firm
performance in the renewable energy sector of South Africa”, South African Journal of Industrial bricolage
Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 125-136. behavior
Welter, F. (2012), “All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature”,
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 193-212.
Zahra, S.A. (1996), “Technology strategy and new venture performance: a study of corporate-sponsored
57
and independent biotechnology ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 289-321.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1993), “Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 451-478.
Zhang, H., Zhang, T., Cai, H., Li, Y., Wei Huang, W. and Xu, D. (2014), “Proposing and validating a five-
dimensional scale for measuring entrepreneurial orientation: an empirical study”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 102-121.
Yes Bank Report (2017), “India’s startup landscape-adapting to the new normal”, available at: www.
yesbank.in/pdf/indias_startup_landscape.pdf
York, J.G. and Venkataraman, S. (2010), “The entrepreneur-environment nexus: uncertainty,
innovation, and allocation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-463.
Young, W. and Tilley, F. (2006), “Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward
effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 402-415.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of inter
organizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 141-159.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2009), “The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial
intentions and performance: a meta-Analytic review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 381-404.

Further reading
Shepherd, D.A. and Patzelt, H. (2011), “The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: studying
entrepreneurial action linking ‘what is to be sustained’ with ‘what is to be developed”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 137-163.

Corresponding author
Brijesh Sivathanu can be contacted at: brij.jesh2002@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com