2019 Edition - Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices_ Global Case Studies-Springer International Publishing_ Palgrave Pivot (2019)

Transformational
Entrepreneurship
Practices
Global Case Studies
Edited by
Gideon Maas
Paul Jones
Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices
Gideon Maas • Paul Jones
Editors
Transformational
Entrepreneurship
Practices
Global Case Studies
Editors
Gideon Maas Paul Jones
International Centre for Transformational School of Management
Entrepreneurship Swansea University
Coventry University Swansea, UK
Coventry, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-11523-4 ISBN 978-3-030-11524-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019935189
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
We set out to edit three books on the theme of transformational entrepre-

neurship, and in this third book the focus is on global case studies illus-
trating transformational entrepreneurship in a practical manner. In our
first book (Systemic Entrepreneurship—Contemporary Issues and Case
Studies, 2015), the focus was on providing a broad overview of systemic
(transformational) entrepreneurship. That book addressed the issues of
low and slow socio-economic growth patterns and how a transforma-
tional approach can address this dilemma. It was highlighted that sys-
temic entrepreneurship is about enabling change to how entrepreneurs
and society act beyond local levels of entrepreneurial engagement.
Our second book (Entrepreneurship Centres—Global Perspectives on
Their Contributions to Higher Education Institutions, 2017) used the first
book as basis and explores how entrepreneurship centres can act as the
kingpin within universities to stimulate transformational entrepreneur-
ship. It is well known that entrepreneurship centres are the key leaders in
universities, stimulating enterprise and entrepreneurial activities.
However, these important centres experience various challenges that
sometime cloud their focus and activities.
This third book focuses on taking this conversation about transforma-
tional entrepreneurial practices further and adds global case studies to
illustrate the concept. Case studies are from the UK, Malaysia, and Africa.
In order to allow interpretation of the case studies by readers, this book
v
vi Preface
firstly provides an updated overview of transformational entrepreneur-

ship in Chap. 1. In Chap. 2, the important issue of innovation and inno-
vative ecosystems are discussed, forming one of the most important pillars
of transformational entrepreneurship. Chapter 3 provides a case study
about a social enterprise in the UK, followed by a case study in Africa in
Chap. 4. Chapter 5 focuses on a case study from Australia, and Chap. 6
highlights a case from Malaysia. Chapter 7 focuses on concluding remarks
on the way forward for transformational entrepreneurship. These case
studies highlight different issues pertaining to transformational entrepre-
neurship, illustrating that there is not a one-system-fits-all case within
this concept. Principles should be interpreted and contextualised to add
value within countries and specific regions in those countries.
In this book the main message is that transformational entrepreneur-
ship is not a static concept, but should be regarded as a journey over time
influenced by a magnitude of factors often not imaginable. This book is
a further step in developing deeper thoughts and knowledge about trans-
formational entrepreneurship and through that the authors attempt to
set the direction for renewed research and development into the future.
Coventry, UK Gideon Maas

Swansea, UK Paul Jones
Acknowledgements
Many people made this book possible. Firstly, the editors want to thank
the leadership team of Coventry University, who created the freedom and
innovative space for the editors to explore principles and practices of
transformational entrepreneurship. The home created for this process,
the International Centre for Transformational Entrepreneurship, is cer-
tainly going from strength to strength in this regard. Discussions among
the staff of this centre further contributed to the knowledge captured in
this book. Secondly, the editors want to thank the various contributors of
the cases, who are all noted individually within the ‘Notes on Contributors’
section. Lastly, thanks are due to Palgrave Macmillan, who are undertak-
ing this creative journey with us—we need more institutions like that!
vii
Contents
1 The Journey to Transformational Entrepreneurship 1

Gideon Maas, Paul Jones, and Joan Lockyer
2 Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as Important

Building Blocks 15
Zimu Xu and Gideon Maas
3 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in the

UK—“From UK Bread Waste to Global Beer Brand” 33
Rebecca Connolly
4 Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa 55

Keren Naa Abeka Arthur
5 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

Australia 69
Heather Round
ix
x Contents
6 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

Malaysia—Dare to Dream, Dare to Talk, Dare to Act(ion) 89
Sok Kwan Say and Kii Geat Johan Lim
7 Conclusions on Transformational Entrepreneurship105

Paul Jones and Gideon Maas
Index 115
Notes on Contributors
Keren Naa Abeka Arthur is Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the Centre for

Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprise Development at the University of Cape
Coast, Ghana. She holds a PhD and an MBA in Entrepreneurship and
Innovation from the University of Exeter Business School, UK. Prior to her
graduate studies, she pursued a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration at
Ashesi University, Ghana. She has over five years of teaching and research experi-
ence, with extensive international exposure. Her research interests are in respon-
sible innovation, innovation management and governance, transformational
entrepreneurship and small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) development.
Her work is multidisciplinary and includes studies on the responsible emergence
of financial innovation, responsible innovation in the global South, entrepre-
neurship education and training in religious institutions, sustainable business
practices within SMEs in the sachet water industry, and loan repayment and
capital formation in SMEs among others.
Rebecca Connolly is a research assistant at the International Centre for
Transformational Entrepreneurship at Coventry University. Connolly com-
pleted a master’s degree in Cross-Cultural Communication and International
Relations at Newcastle University, following which she spent two years working
on projects focused on education and entrepreneurship in Ghana and Sierra
Leone. Connolly has also worked in entrepreneurial development roles at
Newcastle University and the School for Social Entrepreneurs. Connolly is con-
ducting research into the role social entrepreneurship plays in creating social
transformation in the UK, Ghana, and South Africa for her PhD project.
xi
xii Notes on Contributors
Paul Jones is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Swansea

University. He has worked in further and higher education for over 25 years and
is an active researcher in the entrepreneurship and small business management
discipline. His articles have been published widely in leading journals in the
field. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research and Associate Editor of the International Journal of
Management Education. In addition, he has also acted as a guest editor for several
special issues exploring entrepreneurial activity. He is a visiting professor at
Coventry University, Anglia Ruskin, Manchester Metropolitan and the
University of South Wales. He is also a senior fellow of the Higher Education
Academy.
Kii Geat Johan Lim is Associate Dean of Management Department at the
Faculty of Accountancy, Finance and Business, Tunku Abdul Rahman University
College, Malaysia. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport, Malaysia. He also holds an MSc (International Business Management)
from the University of Nottingham. His teaching interests include case-study
analysis, international business environment, and entrepreneurship. His pri-
mary specialisation is in case analysis, supply chain innovation, and strategic
business positioning. In addition, he holds special interest in mentoring stu-
dents for business case competition and career development.
Joan Lockyer is Acting Deputy Director, International Centre for
Transformational Entrepreneurship (ICTE) at Coventry University. Formed in
2015, the Centre evolved from the Institute of Applied Entrepreneurship (IAE).
Lockyer joined the IAE in 2009 and transferred to ICTE in 2015, maintaining
responsibility for the development and delivery of its academic programmes.
Lockyer has worked in higher education for 17 years, prior to which she worked
in industry (in product development, testing, and certification) for over 10 years
and in consultancy for 12 years. Her teaching experience covers the full spec-
trum of accredited and non-accredited programmes (undergraduate, postgradu-
ate to doctoral level, professional development and vocational). She is experienced
in enterprise education, leading on the development of the Master’s in Enterprise
and Entrepreneurship Education and co-delivering the International Enterprise
Educators Programme. She has developed a range of modules that support
enterprise and entrepreneurship skills development in undergraduates, regard-
less of discipline. She has successfully delivered/contributed to a number of
European projects, with a total value of over 5 million Euros.
Notes on Contributors xiii
Gideon Maas is Director of the International Centre for Transformational

Entrepreneurship and Professor of Professional Practice at Coventry University,
UK. Maas has broad international business and academic experiences in various
countries. Within the academic environment, Maas has created various entre-
preneurship centres at different universities over the past years, developed and
implemented undergraduate and postgraduate modules and programmes focus-
ing specifically on enterprise and entrepreneurship. Maas has also created the
African Institute for Transformational Entrepreneurship and the South-East
Asia Institute for Transformational Entrepreneurship to facilitate conversations
supporting sustainable socio-economic growth. Maas’s research focus and expe-
riences are in entrepreneurship, open innovation, growth strategies, entrepre-
neurial universities, implementation of entrepreneurial systems, and family
businesses. His research activities are industry and academic related, and he has
published various books and articles in the public domain. Maas is also an
extraordinary professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, and an adjunct
scientific fellow at the Munster University of Applied Sciences, Germany. Lastly,
Maas is President of the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Heather Round is a lecturer at Deakin Business School, Melbourne, Australia,
and Director of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Business and
Law. She holds an MBA from the Graduate School of Business, Cape Town,
South Africa, and a PhD in Creativity from Melbourne University. Round’s
research interests lie in the area of entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation.
Prior to becoming an academic, Round worked on large-scale, technology-
intensive, organisational change projects within public and private corporations
in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
Sok Kwan Say is Vice President in charge of administration and internationali-
sation, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Malaysia. Her previous roles
at the University College include the vice president in charge of collaboration,
innovation, and entrepreneurship, and the head of the business school. Her
experiences in entrepreneurship include assisting the University College in set-
ting up an incubation centre, organising programmes to promote entrepreneur-
ship, and collaborating with industries, institutions of higher learning, and other
organisations in entrepreneurship-related areas. She is a member of the Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants, UK. She also holds an MBA from the
University of Leicester, UK.
xiv Notes on Contributors
Zimu Xu works as a research assistant at the International Centre for

Transformational Entrepreneurship at Coventry University. Alongside her work,
she is also on a PhD programme, looking at influencing factors of business
growth in the UK digital gaming industry. After graduating with a BSc MORSE
(Mathematics, Operational Research, Statistics and Economics) degree from the
University of Warwick, Xu stayed on and obtained an MSc degree in Innovation
and Entrepreneurship. While working collaboratively with senior colleagues on
a range of research projects, Xu is particularly interested in the creative and tech-
nology sector. Outside work, Xu enjoys outdoor sketching, traditional Chinese
painting, and calligraphy.
Abbreviations
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
HE Higher Education
HEI Higher Education Institutions
ICTE International Centre for Transformational Entrepreneurship
MSE Micro and Small Enterprises
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
QAA Quality Assurance Agency
SME Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises
TE Transformational Enterprises
TEA Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
UK United Kingdom
xv
1
The Journey to Transformational
Entrepreneurship
Gideon Maas, Paul Jones, and Joan Lockyer
Abstract A need exists for renewed thinking to stimulate entrepreneur-

ship to support socio-economic growth. Within this context, “transfor-
mational entrepreneurship” refers to a holistic and heuristic orientation
in terms of entrepreneurship promotion and combines the individual
and other sub-systems (such as society and institutions) interacting and
collaborating to create a positive framework in which opportunities can
be exploited beyond the local level.
Keywords Enterprise • Entrepreneurship • Transformational

entrepreneurship • Ecosystem
G. Maas (*) • J. Lockyer

Coventry University, Coventry, UK
e-mail: aa4122@coventry.ac.uk; aa7114@coventry.ac.uk
P. Jones
Swansea University, Swansea, UK
e-mail: w.p.jones@swansea.ac.uk
© The Author(s) 2019 1

G. Maas, P. Jones (eds.), Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_1
2 G. Maas et al.
1.1 Introduction
The global environment is characterised by various phenomena which
the National Intelligence Council (2017) has summarised as follows: the
rich are aging, the poor are not; weak economic growth will persist in the
near term; technology is accelerating progress but causing discontinui-
ties; growing global connectivity amid weak growth will increase tensions
within and between societies; governing is getting harder; risk of conflict
will increase due to diverging interests among major powers, an expand-
ing terror threat, continued instability in weak states and the spread of
lethal, disruptive technologies; and climate change, environment and
health issues will demand attention. Entrepreneurs and stakeholders sup-
porting entrepreneurs find themselves in the midst of these phenomena,
and it is expected that they collectively work together to stimulate sus-
tainable socio-economic development. The role and importance of entre-
preneurship creating sustainable socio-economic development are not
questioned—rather, it is questioned whether the current landscape pos-
sesses the right capability, capacity, ecosystems and policies to transform
or maintain progressive socio-economic landscapes.
A plethora of initiatives supporting entrepreneurship exists. However,
Sautet (2013) and Maas and Jones (2015) concur that although entrepre-
neurship is socially productive, it struggles to address major challenges
such as those identified by the National Intelligence Council (2017).
Thus a new approach to the development of socio-economic develop-
ment is required—a systemic process that is more heuristic and holistic in
nature to accommodate both individualistic and societal needs. Without
such a new approach, that is, transformational entrepreneurship, the
potential for socio-economic development will remain limited and only
benefit a minority of individuals, businesses and nations.
Within such a transformation there are more questions than answers.
Do we base decision-making on historical data or do we dare to be more
futuristic in our entrepreneurial solutions? Do we focus on the right type
of innovation or are we merely “me-too” orientated where everyone is
doing the same? Are we enlarging the existing “economic cake” or are we
dividing it into smaller pieces, which makes sustainable socio-economic
The Journey to Transformational Entrepreneurship 3
development difficult? Do we have the right capability, capacity,

ecosystems and policies to manage the current and future environment
successfully?
It is the premise of this book that all existing approaches stimulating
entrepreneurship should be investigated—those practices that are rele-
vant should be continued and those outdated should be replaced by cur-
rent and futuristic solutions. Built on the basis of theoretical principles
associated with transformational entrepreneurship and ecosystems, prac-
tical cases are provided to illustrate the concept of transformational entre-
preneurship globally. Finally, transformational entrepreneurship is not
focusing on subsistence entrepreneurs or people who are regarded as life-
style entrepreneurs. In addition, it needs to be highlighted that there is
nothing wrong being a subsistence or lifestyle business owner. However,
transformational entrepreneurship is focusing on stimulating socio-
economic development in a dynamic manner. Schoar (2010: 58) agrees
with this distinction between subsistence and transformational entrepre-
neurs, indicating that transformational entrepreneurs “are those who aim
to create large, vibrant businesses that grow much beyond the scope of an
individual’s subsistence needs and provide jobs and income for others”.
1.2 Definitions
Various definitions exist for terminologies used in this chapter. However,
it is not the intention of this chapter to debate different definitions or
explore why a specific definition was selected over another. The defini-
tions below are sufficient to support the core concepts that will be dis-
cussed in this chapter:
• Enterprise: The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA 2018: 7) defines

enterprise as: “Enterprise is defined here as the generation and applica-
tion of ideas, which are set within practical situations during a project
or undertaking. This is a generic concept that can be applied across all
areas of education and professional life.”
• Entrepreneurship: The QAA (2018: 7) defines entrepreneurship as:
“Entrepreneurship is defined as the application of enterprise behaviours,
4 G. Maas et al.
attributes and competencies into the creation of cultural, social or eco-

nomic value. This can, but does not exclusively, lead to venture creation.”
• Innovation involves the utilisation of ideas in problem solving by
developing processes and improving the way things are done by creat-
ing new products, services, processes and organisations (Dawson and
Andriopoulos 2014).
• The entrepreneurial ecosystem is a network of interconnected actors
which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and gov-
ern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment
(Mason and Brown 2013).
• Holistic approaches recognise the interconnectedness of people and
the environment and look to support continuous adaptation, transfor-
mation and coordination through a process of change and evolution
(Best 2011; Wapner and Demick 2003).
• A heuristic orientation refers to the process by which individuals make
decisions in conditions of uncertainty. The value of a heuristic approach
is that decisions are made. The downside is that decisions are limited
and the options are circumscribed by the limits of time, knowledge
and information. How decisions are made is a function of social, cul-
tural and individual rationality (Gigerenzer 2010).
• Socio-economic growth is a process that seeks to identify both the
social and the economic requirements within a community and looks
to create strategies that address those needs in ways that are practical
and in the optimum interests of the community over the long term
(Jaffee 1998).
• Systemic entrepreneurship involves sub-systems interacting and col-
laborating to create a positive framework in which opportunities can
be exploited; it should be socially productive and go beyond the local
level (Sautet 2013).
Based on the above definitions and discussions following this para-

graph, transformational entrepreneurship is defined by the authors of this
chapter as follows: Transformational entrepreneurship is to promote enter-
prise and entrepreneurship through a systemic approach, bringing about
transformation in socio-economic development.
There are four areas in this definition, namely:
• It represents a broad area of activity—the enterprising area, which

should be applicable to all areas of work.
• It represents a focused area—entrepreneurship, which represents the
“doing” part of the definition.
• A systemic approach referring to a holistic approach.
• Transformation in socio-economic development representing an opti-
mal balance between economic and societal development.
1.3 Transformational Entrepreneurship

There is a general consensus that entrepreneurship can and should play
an important role in socio-economic development (Ács et al. 2014; COM
2012; Cooney 2012). Moreover, it is pointed out that entrepreneurial
activity which focuses predominantly on the individual entrepreneur or
local region will probably not have the desired positive impact on national
socio-economic development hoped for (Ács et al. 2014; COM 2012;
Cooney 2012). A balance should be struck between a focus on individual
entrepreneurial activities and society-wide changes, which may have a
more positive impact on socio-economic growth. This shift in thinking
from individual to country-wide conceptualisations of entrepreneurship
is not without its difficulties; however, the step is an important one if
policy-makers are to be persuaded of the economic contribution of entre-
preneurship. Ács et al. (2014) argue that society- or even country-level
entrepreneurial measurements have never previously received adequate
attention. In order to address global phenomena such as poverty, unem-
ployment, and low or no growth, transformation is required in the way
entrepreneurship is supported as part of a total system, that is, a system
consisting of individuals, the community, public sector, private sector
and natural resources.
Two important concepts can be identified from the previous para-
graph, namely, systemic and transformational entrepreneurship.
According to Ács et al. (2014: 477) the term “system” “constitutes of
multiple components that work together to produce system perfor-
mance”. Ács et al. (2014) further illustrate that it is not implicit that the
sub-components of a system are in perfect harmony with each other.
6 G. Maas et al.
There might be weaknesses in the system, which require specific attention

to restore the balance of the total system. However, the world is experienc-
ing a complex system, brought about by various factors such as the global
phenomenon factors discussed previously, which provide challenges to
decision-makers. In this regard, Madelin and Ringrose (2016: 18) defines
a complex system where “no one can have a complete map of the actors
and forces at play, the system’s behaviour is not simply the sum of the
behaviour of those parts, feedback loops surprise us and change the behav-
iour of the system, the system is ‘autopoietic’: behaving in a self-driven
way and not just in ways we have yet to understand”. Within this context
“systemic entrepreneurship” refers to a broader orientation in terms of
entrepreneurship promotion and combines the individual and other sub-
systems such as society and institutions interacting and collaborating to
create a positive framework in which opportunities can be exploited.
In order to have a positive impact on socio-economic growth, systemic
entrepreneurship should be socially productive (it should be legal) and go
beyond the local level (Sautet 2013: 393). This approach emphasises the
need for holistic thinking and, in essence, moves the concept of the entre-
preneur from the individual to the context in which the individual is situ-
ated, that is, to society more generally. This approach is not arguing against
the existence of locally focused entrepreneurial activities, micro enterprises
or subsistence enterprises; to the contrary, they are important for cascad-
ing wealth to the broader society. However, if not enough focus is put on
systemic entrepreneurial activities (activities that go beyond local levels),
socio-economic growth can be under pressure to create wealth in a coun-
try. Re-thinking the way entrepreneurship is promoted is therefore called
for and the focus of this drive is systemic, which can lead to transforma-
tional results. In terms of the latter, Miller and Collier (2010: 85) define
transformational entrepreneurship “as the creation of an innovative vir-
tue-based organization for the purpose of shifting resources out of an area
of lower and into an area of higher purpose and greater value under condi-
tions requiring an holistic perspective. Transformational Entrepreneurship
transcends economic terms and emphasizes the centrality and value of
people, their vocations, and the many levels of relationality involved in
entrepreneurship, in addition to the technical aspects of the business.”
Marmer (2012) agrees with this definition and states that a
c ombination between technology entrepreneurship and social entrepre-

neurship is desired to address the current stalemate in terms of global
socio-economic growth. Within the transformational entrepreneurship
domain, the focus is on researching and finding improved ways to address
current and future challenges and to create a holistic and heuristic
approach which can form a sound basis for socio-economic growth in the
future. To bring about effective transformation, it is important to evalu-
ate and challenge, when necessary, the heuristics upon which decisions
are currently made. The danger of real-time, tried-and-tested solutions
(default heuristic) is that they can be short term and policy driven. New
approaches need to be devised that challenge default reactions and create
new frameworks for adaptive thinking. These new ways should ultimately
find their way through to policies that can guide current and future socio-
economic development. Within an environment that is characterised by
short-term orientations (e.g. according to the length between political
elections), policies are often equally short term and out of sync with
global phenomenon.
If one argues that the total entrepreneurship ecosystem should trans-
form in order to address current and future phenomenon in a construc-
tive manner, creating and maintaining sustainable socio-economic
growth, it is evident from a transformational perspective that a holistic
and (adaptive) heuristic approach should be followed. Roth and DiBella
(2015: 7) state that “Systemic change encompasses the enterprise, the
larger set or system of organizations that depend upon each other and
make improvements in ways that produce enduring rather than ephem-
eral value.” Mason and Brown (in OECD and the Government of the
Netherlands 2013: 1) agree with the notion that an ecosystem is a net-
work of interconnected actors “which formally and informally coalesce to
connect, mediate, and govern the performance within the local entrepre-
neurial environment”. Within this ecosystem context (see a more
detailed discussion of this ecosystem in Chap. 2), for example, universi-
ties cannot change their entrepreneurship education and support prac-
tices in isolation and need to take other sub-systems (i.e. role-players such
as industry) into consideration when making changes. Therefore, entre-
preneurial development cannot act in isolation—it is a networked
approach of different role-players.
8 G. Maas et al.
1.4 Encouraging Transformational

Entrepreneurship
Taking into consideration the dynamic nature of the global environment
and the changing nature of systems operating in this environment, the
diverse nature of cultures, economic sectors and the rate of innovation,
encouraging transformational entrepreneurship is by no means an easy
task. In many cases old habits need to be unlearned first before new ones
can be created. Turner (2018) and Rugeruza (2017) add to this debate of
promoting transformational entrepreneurship, indicating firstly that
traits commonly associated with transformational entrepreneurship
include factors such as having a futuristic and sometimes disruptive
dream. Other factors highlighted by Turner (2018) and Rugeruza (2017)
include realising the importance of building a strong team (disruptors
work best when they work together); the importance of knowledge; not
being afraid to break conventional wisdom to keep their business fresh,
persistent and courageous; realising that products/services can be copied
but not strategic alliances (team work is essential); and defining success
for their own situations that might not be the norm in similar
industries.
Roth and DiBella (2015) further argue that five capabilities are required
to enable transformational change, namely, enterprise awareness (e.g.
knowledge of the total industry in which one operates), innovation, bal-
ancing push (e.g. actions from management side) and pull factors (e.g.
new knowledge obtained by employees) of change, and seeking growth
and leadership. Enterprise awareness calls for a clear perspective on who
the role-players are within a specific context such as entrepreneurship
education and support. Individual role-players need to think beyond
their own individual systems and create sound relationships among
autonomous units within the larger system. In order to affect change,
people need to acquire and practice new approaches, which can be on
multiple levels at the same time. Balancing change will consist of push
change (managers making plans for change) and pull change (people
implementing what they have learned). New knowledge is therefore
essential for innovation and the total process of change. This process
should challenge the validity of accepted solutions for given problems and
lead to new heuristics as guiding principles for more adaptive decision-
making. Within a global fast-changing environment growth is essential
for sustained success and continued improvement. Creating aspirations
among people through learning and applying new knowledge is a sound
basis for such growth. Transformation in socio-economic development
cannot occur if everything is held stable. By creating more businesses one
should also focus on growing the economic potential, otherwise the eco-
nomic potential is only sub-divided into smaller pieces, which is debat-
able that it can improve issues such as wealth and an equal distribution of
income. The OECD (2018: 5) indicated in this regard that assisting
entrepreneurs to scale up “can help countries address low productivity
growth and widening income gaps, since SMEs that grow have a consid-
erable impact on competition, innovation, employment and wages”.
Roth and DiBella (2015) further indicate that sound leadership is
required to implement changes on multiple levels on a continuous basis.
Within an innovative society (where new knowledge creates new innova-
tions) leaders need to hold their own and accelerate at the same time
quite often just to maintain their current market share. Changes are not
the prerogative of a specific area only; they often happen on multiple
levels, both internally and externally to the organisation. In such an envi-
ronment, leadership and entrepreneurship need to combine to stimulate
innovative thinking, allowing the exploitation of new opportunities on a
continuous basis. In this regard, Eyal and Kark (2004: 215) indicate that
“leadership and entrepreneurship overlap to some degree, leadership
involves influencing subjects’ symbolic realm in order to move them
towards certain actions and determining the time and scope of these
actions whereas entrepreneurship represents the operational translation
of symbols and behaviours into actions”.
It can be argued that leaders need to create compelling narratives in
terms of entrepreneurship development (or intrapreneurship develop-
ment within larger institutions). These narratives are needed to create
growth opportunities. The current dominant focus on cost-efficiency
might blind leaders from being more opportunity orientated. Roth and
DiBella (2015: 39) agree that “in a competitive environment success
comes not from efficient systems but from those with the capacity to
10 G. Maas et al.
grow”. Linear models cannot provide optimal solutions anymore. In this

regard, Philpott et al. (2011: 161) argue that “historical accepted linear
models are now being surpassed by the contemporary and dominant view
that innovation is most appropriately perceived as a systemic, networked
phenomenon”. A further dimension is added by Knickel et al. (2009),
who refer to first- and second-order innovation. First-order innovation
focuses on limited changes, and second-order innovation on system
changes, which necessitates that existing assumptions, beliefs and values
can only be challenged through second-order innovation. When second-
order innovation is successful, it can act as the breeding ground for first-
order innovation. Innovation should be moving away from predominant
linear training for innovation (what, how and when) to a more explor-
ative approach focusing on process questions such as “why not” or/and
“what if ”. Such innovation will go beyond incremental innovation and
focus on transforming relationships and interactions between industry,
competitors and people’s behaviours and lifestyles.
The existence of entrepreneurs, leaders, innovation and an entrepre-
neurial ecosystem is by no means a guarantee that socio-economic devel-
opment will be positively stimulated. These focus areas can create a
positive environment for transformational entrepreneurship to flourish,
but can equally be a major stumbling block when policies are not sup-
portive of such an environment or when policy-makers simply rely on the
past to predict the future. It can be argued that an overly reliance on the
provision of grants and subsidies may influence the creation of entrepre-
neurial mind-sets negatively, that is, it creates a dependency culture.
Policies influencing the entrepreneurial ecosystem should be investigated
and tweaked, or in some cases radically changed, to support the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem. Therefore, a careful analysis of the total ecosystem is
required which can guide finding optimal solutions for the current and
future challenges facing socio-economic growth.
1.5 Applying Transformational

Entrepreneurship
The question that remains to be addressed is how to go about implement-
ing transformational entrepreneurship? Transformational entrepreneur-
ship focuses more on the future than the present or the past—without
neglecting the present. Various methods can be used to achieve a more
structured approach implementing transformational entrepreneurship
and one such way is by utilising the conceptual model of Marmer (2012)
(see Fig. 1.1). In Fig. 1.1, it is clear that transformational entrepreneur-
ship addresses socio-economic development—see vertical and horizontal
axes.
An illustration of how the International Centre for Transformational
Entrepreneurship (ICTE) at Coventry University addresses the promo-
tion of transformational entrepreneurship based on the Marmer (2012)
model might assist in understanding transformational entrepreneurship
better. The following applies to ICTE:
• Entrepreneurship education: Curriculum is adapted to address trans-

formational entrepreneurial criteria such as personal development as
an entrepreneur, applying second-order innovation and understanding
the business/industry in which students operate. Curriculum is
adapted on a continuous basis to stay in a floating equilibrium with
environmental changes.
Fig. 1.1 Transformational entrepreneurship (Source: Adapted from Marmer 2012)

12 G. Maas et al.
• Research: Doctorate and project research focuses on critical topics

within specific environments such as the role of crowdfunding, devel-
opment of entrepreneurial ecosystems within specific regions and
improving the transformational role of social businesses.
• Continuous improvement: Continuous improvements are discussed
annually on think tanks, where the focus is on future solutions. These
think tanks (can also be labelled as open entrepreneurial laboratories)
are held around the world and are currently growing in support from
leading entrepreneurial thinkers around the world.
• Business model: ICTE’s business model was changed from a predomi-
nant product/service orientation to a platform model, that is, plat-
forms (e.g. think tanks) are organised around the world which also act
as the basis to accelerate the understanding and support for transfor-
mational entrepreneurship.
Above is only one way that the implementation of transformational

principles is addressed. Each institution should develop their own con-
textualised way of implementing transformational entrepreneurship.
From experience, the easiest manner is to develop a very simplistic system
as point of departure and improve that continuously over time as capacity
and capability in the institutions grow over time.
1.6 Conclusion
The global and even local changes make it difficult to treat entrepreneurs
as a homogeneous group of actors that are uniformly affected by eco-
nomic conditions or policy interventions. Dedicated support for specific
groups or institutions need to be developed. This support should focus
on innovative thinking on how enterprise and entrepreneurship can sup-
port socio-economic growth in the local, regional, national and interna-
tional environment. Current challenges within the environment indicate
that novel approaches are required to address these challenges and find
sustainable solutions.
In the rest of the chapters cases are presented on how such transforma-
tional entrepreneurial practices are adapted in different parts of the world.
An essential part of potential solutions is the part innovation is playing.

Therefore, Chap. 2 will focus on innovation expanding the understand-
ing of transformational entrepreneurship.
References
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship:
Measurement Issues and Policy Implications. Research Policy, 43, 476–494.
Best, K. C. (2011, Winter/Spring). Holistic Leadership: A Model for Leader-
Member Engagement and Development. The Journal of Value-Based
Leadership, 4(1), Article 5. Retrieved from https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/
vol4/iss1/5.
COM. (2012). European Commission: ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’
(2012) (COM(2012) 795 Final). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:en:PDF.
Cooney, T. M. (2012, November). Entrepreneurship Skills for Growth-Orientated
Businesses. Danish Business Authority. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
cfe/leed/Cooney_entrepreneurship_skills_HGF.pdf.
Dawson, P., & Andriopoulos, C. (2014). Managing Change, Creativity and
Innovation (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.
Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How Do Transformational Leaders Transform
Organizations? A Study of the Relationship Between Leadership and
Entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 211–235.
Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as
Bounded Rationality. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 528–554. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01094.x.
Jaffee, D. (1998). Levels of Socio-economic Development Theory. London: Praeger.
Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J. (2009). Towards a Better
Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural
Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(2), 131–146.
Maas, G. J. P., & Jones, P. (2015). Systemic Entrepreneurship: Contemporary Issues
and Case Studies. London: Palgrave Publishing.
Madelin, R., & Ringrose, D. (2016). Opportunity Now: Europe’s Mission to
Innovate. The Publications Office of the European Union.
Marmer, M. (2012, April 23). Transformational Entrepreneurship: Where
Technology Meets Societal Impact. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2012/04/transformational-entrepreneurs.
14 G. Maas et al.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013, November 7). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and
Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. Paper prepared for the OECD LEED
Programme and Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, Netherlands.
Miller, R. A., & Collier, E. W. (2010). Redefining Entrepreneurship: A Virtues
and Values Perspective. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8(2),
80–89.
National Intelligence Council. (2017, January). Global Trends – Paradox of
Progress. Retrieved from www.dni.gov/nic/globaltrends.
OECD. (2018, February 22–23). Enabling SMEs to Scale Up. Discussion Paper.
SME Ministerial Conference, Mexico City.
OECD and the Government of the Netherlands. (2013, November 7).
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth-Orientated Entrepreneurship –
Summary Report of an International Workshop. The Hague.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The Entrepreneurial
University: Examining the Underlying Academic Tensions. Technovation, 31,
161–170.
QAA. (2018, January). Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for
UK Higher Education Providers. London: The Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education.
Roth, G. L., & DiBella, A. J. (2015). Systemic Change Management – The Five
Capabilities for Improving Enterprises. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rugeruza, A. (2017, February 22). 4 Distinct Traits of Transformational
Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from http://iroikos.co.uk/4-distinct-traits-transfor-
mational-entrepreneurs/.
Sautet, F. (2013). Local and Systemic Entrepreneurship: Solving the Puzzle of
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 37(2), 387–402.
Schoar, A. (2010). The Divide Between Subsistence and Transformational
Entrepreneurship. National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 57–81.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11765.
Turner, S. (2018, February 9). 5 Traits of Transformational Entrepreneurs.
Retrieved from http://www.cose.org.
Wapner, S., & Demick, J. (2003). Adult Development: The Holistic,
Developmental and Systems-Oriented Perspective. In J. Demick &
C. Andreotti (Eds.), Handbook of Adult Development (pp. 66–83). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Cited in Best, K. C. (2011).
Holistic Leadership: A Model for Leader-Member Engagement and
Development. The Journal of Value Based Leadership, 4 (Winter/Spring).
2
Innovation and Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems as Important Building
Blocks
Zimu Xu and Gideon Maas
Abstract Transformational entrepreneurship enables social-economic

development. It goes beyond just focusing on economic returns and
stresses the importance of people and the multi-level connectivity in the
entire entrepreneurial process. In order to achieve the transformational
purpose, entrepreneurship and second-order innovation, which is often
disruptive in nature, are key in the process, as such activities can subse-
quently maximise the chances of successful transformational ventures. To
nurture such innovation and entrepreneurial activities, a supportive envi-
ronment is crucial. Extant literature suggests that such an environment is
linked to two existing concepts: innovation and entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems. Thus, this chapter investigates the two ecosystem concepts and
highlights the differences between the two. As well as they are different,
the two ecosystems are not mutually exclusive. Acknowledging the impor-
tance of such ecosystems, key principles are followed in building sound
ecosystems that can best support transformational entrepreneurship.
Z. Xu (*) • G. Maas
e-mail: ac2841@coventry.ac.uk; aa4122@coventry.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_2
16 Z. Xu and G. Maas
Keywords Innovation • Ecosystem • Entrepreneurship • First-order

innovation • Second-order innovation
2.1 Introduction
Extant literature indicates that there is general agreement that one of the
important traits of entrepreneurs is their ability to innovate (Kirby 2003;
Van der Sijde et al. 2004; Burns 2007). Furthermore, innovation has
been recognised as one of the most important factors in fostering growth
at the macroeconomic level (Mazzucato and Parris 2013). The process of
bringing an idea to commercialisation involves numerous parties, and the
creation of entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems has been consid-
ered to be an effective way to nurture and support this process (Rabelo
and Bernus 2015). In terms of innovation, there are various classifica-
tions of innovation. However, within the context of transformational
entrepreneurship, the classification of innovation into first- or second-
order innovation is of specific relevance (Knickel et al. 2009). According
to Knickel et al. (2009), first-order innovation is incremental and often
involves a linear process towards product or service innovation, whilst
second-order innovation is often disruptive and involves business model
innovation. The development of second-order business model innovation
is usually network based, which implies a much more complex process
and involves various actors. The ecosystem concept emerged as a direct
consequent of this complexity and to effectively support this complex
process (Adner 2006; Frenkel and Maital 2014).
The term ecosystem was first introduced in biology and, at a later stage,
adopted and used widely in fields such as economics and business (Willis
1994, 1997; Peltoniemi 2005). When analysing components of the bio-
logical and ecological concepts and applying them to a social science con-
text, various ecosystem analogies emerge such as industrial ecosystem,
business ecosystem, innovation ecosystem and entrepreneurship ecosys-
tem (Frosch and Gallopoulos 1989; Korhonen et al. 2001; Moore 1993;
Peltoniemi 2005; Pilinkienė and Mačiulis 2014). In particular, entrepre-
neurial and innovation ecosystems are perceived to be closely related to
Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as Important… 17
innovation and have much higher concentrations on nurturing high-

impact activities. Within this context, this chapter first investigates the
differences between the two ecosystems and then discusses key principles
of building sound entrepreneurial ecosystems that can assist transforma-
tional entrepreneurship.
2.2 Entrepreneurial and Innovation

Ecosystems
The concepts of innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems started to
appear formally in literature around the same time in the late 1990s and
both concepts rapidly gained popularity in the recent decade.
Entrepreneurial ecosystems have evolved from the changing debate on
entrepreneurship. In searching for ways to explain entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial activities, the personality approach started to be chal-
lenged and scholars began to recognise the importance of the broader
environment that entrepreneurs or their ventures are located within
(Dodd and Anderson 2007; Spigel and Harrison 2018). Early contribu-
tions established initial frameworks on how socio-cultural, economic and
political environment can nurture and influence entrepreneurs and their
ventures (Neck et al. 2004; Spigel and Harrison 2018). One of the most
influential publications, which has driven the popularity of the concept,
was Daniel Isenberg’s (2010) seminal work The Big Idea: How to start an
Entrepreneurial Revolution. Books such as Startup Communities by Brad
Feld’s (2012) also contributed to draw the interest from both policy prac-
titioners and academics on the concept. In those studies, the idea of
entrepreneurs interacting with various actors within the ecosystem that
can support their development from different perspectives (e.g. through
funding, experience and training programme or professional services) has
been reinforced. This concept has since been regarded as a way of foster-
ing economic growth, often with a focus on driving employment and
high-growth firms (HGFs) (Mason and Brown 2014; Spigel and Harrison
2018). Much of the attention from practitioners and academics has
focused on studying the characteristics and the ecosystem and how they
could be effectively supported.
In comparison, the emergence of the innovation ecosystem is thought

to be closely related to two concepts: the innovation system and the busi-
ness ecosystem. Lundvall (1985: 28) introduced a ‘system of innovation’ in
his publication on user-producer relations and has since influenced the
rise and development of the innovation system. Following which,
Freeman (1987: 31) introduced the ‘national innovation system’ concept
as a means to explain the economic booming and success of Japan.
Facilitated by contributions from the OECD, the national innovation
system concept has been accepted by policy makers and applied in policy-
making practices (Sharif 2005). However, Japan suffered a dramatic eco-
nomic downturn in 1990, drawing attention to constructively evaluate
the country’s innovation system (Umemura 2013; Yoshino and
Taghizadeh-Hesary 2015). In comparison, also with a national innova-
tion system, America regained its competitive advantage in the world
market with the rise of Silicon Valley (Atkinson 2014). The distinct con-
trasts had drawn attention from both scholars and policy makers to criti-
cally study and examine the differences between the two innovation
systems (OECD 1997; Fukuda and Watanabe 2008, 2012; National
Research Council 2009; Atkinson 2014). Following which, the ecosys-
tem concept started to emerge as a response and was used by both schol-
ars and policy makers to explain the success of Silicon Valley (Clinton
and Gore 1994; Saxenian 1994; Lee 2000).
Dedehayir et al. (2016) and Gomes et al. (2016) suggested that the
ecosystem analogy on innovation should be traced back to the concept of
business ecosystems, which was introduced by Moore in the 1990s.
Moore’s (1993, 1996) work on business ecosystems has been seen as one
of the first seminal contributions on ecosystem analogy in the field of
business and management (Dedehayir et al. 2016). Moore (1996) dis-
cussed examples from firm level (e.g. Apple Computer) to industry level
(American Airline) to country level (e.g. Costa Rica) and applied the
business ecosystem concept into different contexts to explain their suc-
cess. Moreover, Moore (1993) believed that a business ecosystem operates
across diverse industries, where industries need to co-evolve and compete
at the same time. It is apparent that innovation has been seen as the core
of Moore’s definition on the business ecosystem. Dedehayir et al. (2016)
had almost equalled the innovation ecosystem and the business ecosystem
proposed by Moore (1996) in their publication and agree that innovation

ecosystem is a collaborative effort towards innovation.
Both entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems emerged in hope of
explaining successful socio-economic development in terms of a region
or even a country. As the names suggest, the two ecosystems have differ-
ent emphases: one is on entrepreneurs and the other is on innovation.
Entrepreneurial ecosystem starts from entrepreneurs and their ventures,
with emphasis on people, though it is worth noting that innovation is
considered to be the core of the entrepreneurial process. In contrast, the
innovation ecosystem is centred on the innovation and knowledge out-
puts and then assembling resources to enable it to happen. Although the
two ecosystems are different concepts, many believe that they are closely
associated and suggest they are interchangeable (Levie et al. 2013; Stern
2014). In order to build ecosystems that support transformational entre-
preneurship, it is useful to understand the two concepts and draw lessons
from them. Thus, the next section discusses and compares the two eco-
systems from aspects of construct, evolutionary nature and measurement
framework.
2.3 onstruct, Evolutionary Nature

C
and Measurement
2.3.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Academics have suggested a range of different models in studying entre-

preneurial ecosystems (e.g. Isenberg 2011; Vogel 2013; Mason and
Brown 2014; Stam 2015). Many of the models are similar in nature and
can be broadly divided into two groups. Isenberg’s (2011) model repre-
sents the first type: a flat structure with various domains and actors. The
six domains include finance, policy, market, human capital, supports and
culture. Actors within the ecosystem are not isolated but integrated into
a long sustainable development goal. In contrast, Stam (2015) emphasises
the importance of reflecting on the casual relations within the ecosystem
and includes entrepreneurial activities and value creation in the model.
While the model recognises the importance of different actors and their
interactions within the ecosystem, it also draws attention on how these

conditions support the entrepreneurial activities and value creation,
which can then be fed back to the system.
Though the models draw a picture of how a successful entrepreneurial
ecosystem should look, it is equally important to understand how those
ecosystems evolved over time. A dynamic and self-sustainable ecosystem
does not appear overnight. In fact, it often involves decades of continu-
ous collected effort (Neck et al. 2004; Mason and Brown 2014; Mack
and Mayer 2016). For example, Silicon Valley’s history can be traced back
to as early as the 1970s. The development of Zhong Guan Cun (China’s
Silicon Valley) started in the early 1980s. The early government’s effort in
shifting Taiwan’s low-cost manufacturing driven industry in the 1980s
led to today’s technology-inspired ecosystem. This does mean that every
ecosystem needs to go through the same time duration, but it is essential
that stakeholders should have a long-term view on developing
ecosystems.
Some scholars divide the evolution process into several stages (Mack
and Mayer 2016), which broadly contains phases of birth, growth, sus-
tainment and decline. Every stage has different characteristics and sup-
port requirements. For example, the emergence of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem is often thought to be tightly linked to the location where tal-
ents are attracted to. During this stage, the region might expect to witness
a rapidly growing number of start-ups over a relatively short space of
time. Depending on the local condition, restraints that hinder businesses
development may come from an unfavourable entrepreneurial culture,
lack of start-up funding or talents, pressure from traditional policies that
impedes entrepreneurship or market condition. As the ecosystem devel-
ops, spin-offs and entrepreneurial recycling activities become increasingly
common (Mason and Brown 2014). Networks start to form, where peo-
ple within can enjoy the benefits (Mack and Mayer 2016). Support
required in this stage also evolves and often ranges from aspects such as
network development and scale-up funding to specialised talents.
Ineffective response to shocks from internal and external environments
such as technology, industry or market change, cut-down of support from
policy and finance may lead to a decline in entrepreneurial activities.
It is worth noting that each ecosystem (or potential ecosystem) is dif-

ferent and has its own characteristics. The needs required vary, which calls
for location-specific programmes and support being designed. Isenberg
(2010) agrees with the contextualisation of policies and urged govern-
ments to create ecosystems fit for their own circumstances.
Appropriate measurement frameworks can not only help determine
the strengths and weakness of an existing ecosystem but also provide
valuable information for practitioners in designing intervention strategies
(Vogel 2013; Mason and Brown 2014). However, there are challenges of
deriving such an appropriate framework, for example, the complexity of
the concept and difficulty in obtaining accurate data. A proxy measure-
ment method is commonly used to address the issue of information
shortage. The measurement metrics tend to be complex and often involve
dozens of specific indicators. Various frameworks have been proposed
over time (Ebdrup 2013; Vogel 2013; Stern 2014; Stam 2015; Stangler
and Bell-Masterson 2015) and normally address areas such as entrepre-
neurial performance, infrastructure, networks, market and demand, cul-
ture and community, talent, finance, knowledge and innovation. In
particular, the number of start-ups and high-growth firms is regarded as
a key indicator. Some researchers focus more narrowly on innovation and
therefore include metrics such as patents and research investment in the
framework.
2.3.2 Innovation Ecosystems
Discussions on innovation ecosystems are mostly centred on innovation

outputs. This approach is developed from answering questions such as:
Who, how and why innovation is produced and sustained? How is the inno-
vation being used? For example, Jackson (2011) defines the ecosystem as a
unified range of actors to enable technological development and innova-
tion. Oksanen and Hautamäki (2015) focus on the dynamic nature of an
interactive network that breeds innovation. The contexts where the
innovation ecosystem concept has been employed range from company
level, regional level and national level to international level. From a broad
perspective, enablers include funding, infrastructure, talents, which may
come from participating in a range of organisations, and aspects such as

culture and regulation. All these actors contribute to the innovation out-
puts. However, it should also be highlighted that the successful commer-
cialisation of innovation outputs is vital to build a successful innovation
ecosystem (Smith 2006; Oh et al. 2016).
Similar to an entrepreneurial ecosystem, an innovation ecosystem also
needs to go through its own stages of development (Moore 1993). The four
stages of the business ecosystem evolution process proposed by Moore
(1993) consist of birth, expansion, leadership and self-renewal (or death).
This method has since then been discussed and used by various scholars
such as Dedehayir et al. (2016), who had applied this framework into inno-
vation ecosystems. More recently, Rabelo and Bernus (2015) have attempted
to capture the innovation ecosystem life cycle by dividing it into six phases:
analysis, project, deployment, execution, conclusion and sustenance.
Strategic decisions are made in the analysis phase and often involve contri-
butions from governments or universities and employ various analysis tools
(e.g. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis,
business canvas) and project designs to prepare and build the innovation
ecosystem (Rabelo and Bernus 2015). The deployment phase starts with
the formal process of building the ecosystem (which includes actions such
as attracting actors and marketing, recruiting actors, building constructions
and ecosystem foundations) and is followed by the execution phase (which
manages the ecosystem operations) (Rabelo and Bernus 2015). Finally, the,
conclusion phase focuses on resolving issues that could hinder the ecosys-
tem’s sustainability, whereas the sustenance phase looks at ‘future evolution
and viability of the ecosystem’ (Rabelo and Bernus 2015: 2256).
As Jackson (2011) argues, a successful innovation ecosystem needs to
effectively balance out and communicate the requirements from two dis-
tinct economies: the research economy and the commercial economy.
This leads to two important features of an innovation ecosystem. Firstly,
the commercial success of the innovation outputs is vital and needs to
outweigh the research expenses for the ecosystem to be self-sustainable in
long term. Secondly, universities or other research institutions often play
a key role in the ecosystem as the main source of research outputs.
Similar to the entrepreneurship concept, innovation itself is also a com-
plex concept and hard to measure (Traitler et al. 2011). The parameter of
the conversation on innovation ecosystem measurement frameworks is

still diversified. Doss (2013) identified seven fundamentals for consider-
ation when developing measurement frameworks of an innovation eco-
system, namely, leadership diversity; effective lines of communication
between stakeholders; diverse, broad range of skill sets in the workforce;
high levels of engagement between diverse workforce groups; activities
that encompass technical domains and foster collaboration; trust within
the organisation; and supportive team members with no expectation of
immediate return. It is worth noting that the conversation was focused on
organisation, therefore the dominance of organisational factors.
However, Wallner and Menrad (2011) point out that a rather linear
approach is often adopted in discussing innovation ecosystem models,
which may lead to ‘absurd results’ and inappropriate benchmarking. Indeed,
Graham (2013: i) has also expressed concerns that ‘many experts regarded
commonly used research commercialization metrics (number of spin-offs, licens-
ing revenue) as unreliable indicators of a university’s long-term capability to
support or develop a vibrant ecosystem’. This argument is supported by Oh
et al. (2016) for three main reasons. Firstly, various groups of players within
an innovation ecosystem hold different opinions on the value and impor-
tance of different system outputs such as employment, well-being and sup-
port. Secondly, the success of the performance of an innovation ecosystem
depends largely on the ability of consistently recognising and breaking
through bottlenecks, and less about how fast people can work or trade capi-
tal for labour. Lastly, the success of an ecosystem derives from the combined
efforts of emerging leadership, the development of human resources, and
authorities’ level of tolerance towards innovative strategies (Oh et al. 2016).
2.3.3 Commonalities and Differences

Between Innovation and Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems
Although the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems are closely asso-

ciated with each other, the two concepts are different in various aspects.
According to Jackson (2011), the context of the innovation ecosystem
ranges from a firm to a nation. By contrast, the entrepreneurial ecosystem
is often situated at regional or national level. Moreover, proximity of all

actors is essential in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, this becomes
more flexible in an innovation ecosystem. This leads to the difference on
the emergence of the two ecosystems. As Isenberg (2011) suggests, to
nurture a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem, a region needs to show
visible signs of potential first rather than government or other powerful
players design it from scratch. By contrast, the innovation ecosystem
often originates from universities’ or research institutes’ research outputs,
which makes it theoretically possible to design the programme through
investment in R&D.
In addition, although both ecosystems have an evolutionary nature,
they are classified very differently (Jackson 2011; Stangler and Bell-
Masterson 2015). For an entrepreneurial ecosystem, classifications are
based on the overall performance of the businesses in the region and the
evolution of their requirements. However, research tends to structure the
innovation ecosystem evolution process based on the needs, development
and commercialisation of innovation and research outputs. This can be
further distinguished through investigating the different success measure-
ment frameworks employed. Although related, the focus of the two eco-
systems is different, which can be reflected on the measurements chosen
for evaluating the performances. For instance, both require commercial
benefits, but such benefit is mainly measured in terms of financial return
at innovation ecosystems, whereas indicators such as number of HGFs,
spin-off rates and employment are also commonly used in entrepreneur-
ship ecosystems (Jackson 2011; Stangler and Bell-Masterson 2015). For
government leaders, these differences can result in variations in policy
intervention strategies.
2.4 ey Principles for Building Sound

K
Ecosystems
As discussed in previous sections, though with many similarities, entrepre-
neurial and innovation ecosystems are different in many ways. In particu-
lar, entrepreneurs and the ventures are at the core of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Although successful commercialisation is key to an innovation
ecosystem, it is normally built upon a particular technological or scientific

output. In fostering a network-enabled second-order business model inno-
vation and supporting transformational ventures, key lessons are drawn
from both the innovation and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Therefore,
this section focuses on discussing important principles for building a
sound ecosystem that nurtures transformational entrepreneurship.
2.4.1 Listen to the Local Needs
Each context is unique and therefore every ecosystem should be different.

To build an environment that supports transformational entrepreneur-
ship, influential players such as the government need to carefully study
the local condition and create a demand-driven ecosystem. Trying to imi-
tate an existing successful ecosystem and impose assumed policy has little
use in reality and sometimes may hinder the development of the local
ecosystem (Isenberg 2010; Mason and Brown 2014). The differences in
culture, political system, financing options, talent pool or even transpor-
tation means need to be taken into consideration when designing a local
ecosystem. Merely copying best practices is likely to fail. For example,
seeing the start-up co-working space work well in cities like London and
San Francisco, the same concept was implemented in many Chinese cit-
ies, including many third-tier and fourth-tier cities. However, with not
much more than merely a space to work, the majority of those co-working
spaces has a very low occupation rate (Kbgok 2018). The reasons are
complex. However, in essence, often those co-working spaces were not
developed in response to local needs but because of the mind-set of copy-
ing best practices and assuming they would work.
2.4.2 Long-Term Vision
The development of an ecosystem takes time. As Feld (2012) argued, the

time required to develop a successful ecosystem normally is a minimum of
20 years. In order to ensure the evolution occurs correctly and supports
transformational entrepreneurship, the right culture needs to be nurtured,
appropriate infrastructure needs to be build and effective networks and
communities need to be formed, if not already in existence (Isenberg

2010; Vogel 2013; Mason and Brown 2014). For an ecosystem to be self-
sustainable, the outputs need to outweigh the investments in the long
term. For example, the number of start-ups created can be a temporary
measure of success at an early stage of ecosystem development. However,
over the long term, it is also important to measure how many of them
have survived and grown or contributed to the ecosystem in other forms
over the course of the decades of development (Isenberg 2010; Vogel
2013; Mason and Brown 2014).
2.4.3 Work Collectively
A successful ecosystem is developed through collective efforts from a range

of actors (Mason and Brown 2014; Erina et al. 2017; Roundy et al. 2018).
Different groups within the ecosystem, including both private and public
sectors, need to understand their roles within the ecosystem and work
together towards a common goal that subsequently encourages transforma-
tional entrepreneurship endeavours. These have several implications. Firstly,
it is important to build an environment with the right mix of people in it
that generally involves entrepreneurs, investors, mentors, service providers
and government. Universities and large companies can also become key
players in some ecosystems (Mason and Brown 2014). In addition, in order
for the ecosystem to function well, it is essential to gather talents with
diverse backgrounds and skills rather than focusing only on one particular
type (Roundy et al. 2017). Similar to an ecology ecosystem, limiting the
options in the talent pool does not help with long-term stability. Last but
not the least, the ecosystem does not belong to any one particular person,
but grown and benefited by this collective group. Therefore, it’s important
to be inclusive and have an open and collaborative culture.
2.4.4 Act Responsively
An ecosystem evolves over time which requires actors within the ecosystem to
act responsively to the changing needs and opportunities (Mack and Mayer
2016). For instance, emphasis may be put on encouraging and supporting
start-ups when ecosystems first emerge through interventions such as start-up

programmes and reduced administrative burdens. As the ecosystem evolves
and more and more companies start to grow, increased demand may be on
areas such as management, internationalisation or scale-up funding. Changes
may also come from external environment such as shifts in the market trend.
However, it is also important to not over-engineer the process but focus on
fostering organic growth (Isenberg 2010). Government needs to be particu-
larly careful and resist from enforcing new initiatives without engaging the
entrepreneurs. Both private and public sectors need to be vigilant and respond
appropriately to the changing needs so that transformational entrepreneur-
ship can be supported in a sustainable way. Otherwise, the ecosystem may
face the risk of declining.
2.4.5 Share Motivational Stories and Milestones
While it is important to understand that building an ecosystem takes time,

people require motivations and assurances along the way. The entrepreneur
community can be surprisingly motivated by a breakthrough success that
happens in the same community (Isenberg 2010; Cohen et al. 2015).
Uncovering and sharing such a story is important in building the ecosys-
tem and maintaining a self-motivated community. Moreover, success sto-
ries can also play a key role in sustaining the ecosystem in the post-growth
phase when firm death rates start rising (Mack and Mayer 2016). Setting
milestones and having some kind of success at different stages give confi-
dence to stakeholders such as government and investors. Those milestones
and metrics need to be regularly revisited and assessed to be best tailored to
the local conditions and needs of the ecosystem so that transformational
entrepreneurial activities can be continuously supported.
2.5 Conclusion
Second-order innovation leads to high-impact, disruptive outcomes,
which can potentially contribute to transformational entrepreneurship
and bring about social-economic development. Both entrepreneurial and
innovation ecosystems have the potential to act as an effective way to

nurture such innovation activities. While successful commercialisation is
key to innovation ecosystems, it also emphasises on technological and
scientific outputs. This emphasis implies a lesser degree of inclusiveness
compared with an entrepreneurial ecosystem, which is entrepreneur
driven and more inclusive and open to various types of innovation. In
order to build an environment that supports transformational entrepre-
neurship, lessons are drawn from both innovation and entrepreneurial
ecosystems.
However, to build a successful ecosystem that supports transforma-
tional entrepreneurship takes time and effort. In order to do so, several
principles need to be considered, particularly for powerful stakeholders
such as government. It needs to be understood that each ecosystem is dif-
ferent and that it takes time to build a successful and self-sustainable
ecosystem. This implies that stakeholders need to have a long-term vision
and listen to the local needs. In this long development journey, it is essen-
tial for all participants to work collectively and act responsively. As a good
practice, it is very helpful for an ecosystem to share motivational stories
originated from the place and milestones achieved to maintain or increase
stakeholders’, especially investors’, confidence level.
References
Adner, R. (2006). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation
Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98–107.
Atkinson, R. (2014). Understanding the U.S. National Innovation System.
Retrieved December 11, 2016, from https://itif.org/publications/2014/06/30/
understanding-us-national-innovation-system.
Burns, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship and Small Business (2nd ed.). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Clinton, B., & Gore, A. (1994). Science in the National Interest (1st ed.).
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Cohen, Y., Adelman, R., & Drabble, S. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: The
Importance of Success Stories. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a0898340f0b64974000108/
P002-Entrepreneurial-ecosystems-success-stories.pdf.
Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S., & Roland Ortt, J. (2016). Roles During Innovation
Ecosystem Genesis: A Literature Review. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.
Dodd, S. D., & Anderson, A. R. (2007). Mumpsimus and the Mything of the
Individualistic Entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25,
341–360.
Doss, H. (2013). Innovation Ecosystem Measurement: The Holy Grail.
Retrieved February 7, 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/henry-
doss/2013/07/15/innovation-ecosystem-measurement-the-holy-
grail/#3887c3785b29.
Ebdrup, T. (2013). Understanding Business Ecosystems. FORA Group. Retrieved
December 28, 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/OECDLEED/4-
ebdrup-understanding-and-benchmarking-ecosystems.
Erina, I., Shatrevich, V., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017). Impact of Stakeholder
Groups on Development of a Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. European
Planning Studies, 25(5), 755–771.
Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in
Your City. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan.
London: Printer.
Frenkel, A., & Maital, S. (2014). Mapping National Innovation Ecosystems (1st
ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Frosch, R. A., & Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing.
Scientific American, 261(3), 144–152.
Fukuda, K., & Watanabe, C. (2008). Japanese and US Perspectives on the
National Innovation Ecosystem. Technology in Society, 30(1), 49–63.
Fukuda, K., & Watanabe, C. (2012). Innovation Ecosystem for Sustainable
Development. In C. Ghenai (Ed.), Sustainable Development in Policy and
Urban Development – Tourism, Life Science, Management and Environment
(pp. 389–404). Rijeka and Shanghai: InTech.
Gomes, L., Facin, A., Salerno, M., & Ikenami, R. (2016). Unpacking the
Innovation Ecosystem Construct: Evolution, Gaps and Trends. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009.
Graham, R. (2013). Technology Innovation Ecosystem Benchmarking Study:
Key Findings from Phase 1. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://rhgraham.
org/RHG/Recent_publications_files/Benchamrking%20study%20-%20
Phase%201%20summary%20_1.pdf.
Isenberg, D. (2010). How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard
Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Isenberg, D. (2011). The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm
for Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Presentation at
the Institute of International European Affairs.
Jackson, D. J. (2011). What Is an Innovation Ecosystem? Retrieved May 26,
2016, from http://erc-assoc.org/content/what-innovation-ecosystem.
Kbgok. (2018). Challenges of Running Co-Working Spaces in Third and Fourth
Tier Cities. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://www.kbgok.com/
news/82.
Kirby, D. A. (2003). Entrepreneurship. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J. (2009). Towards a Better
Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural
Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(2), 131–146.
Korhonen, J., Wihersaari, M., & Savolainen, I. (2001). Industrial Ecosystem in
the Finnish Forest Industry: Using the Material and Energy Flow Model of a
Forest Ecosystem in a Forest Industry System. Ecological Economics, 39(1),
145–161.
Lee, C. M. (2000). The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levie, J., Autio, E., Reeves, J., Chisholm, D., Harris, J., Grey, S., et al. (2013,
June 19–21). Assessing Regional Innovative Entrepreneurship Ecosystems with
the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index: The Case of Scotland
Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Research Conference on Entrepreneurship and Economic Development held
at Barcelona, Spain.
Lundvall, B. Å. (1985). Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction.
Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The Evolutionary Dynamics of Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118–2133.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurship Ecosystems and Growth
Oriented Entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD, Paris. Retrieved May 26,
2016, from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-ecosystems.pdf.
Mazzucato, M., & Parris, S. (2013, December). High Growth Firms, Innovation
and Competition: The Case of the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Working Paper
Series.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: The New Ecology of Competition.

Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age
of Business Ecosystems (1st ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
National Research Council. (2009). 21st Century Innovation Systems for Japan
and the United States: Lessons from a Decade of Change. Report of a Symposium.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Neck, H., Meyer, D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. (2004). An Entrepreneurial
System View of New Venture Creation. Journal of Small Business Management,
42(2), 190–208.
OECD. (1997). National Innovation System. Retrieved December 2, 2016,
from https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf.
Oh, D., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation Ecosystems: A
Critical Examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.
Oksanen, K., & Hautamäki, A. (2015). Sustainable Innovation: A Competitive
Advantage for Innovation Ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 5(10), 24–30.
Peltoniemi, M. (2005). Business Ecosystem: A Conceptual Model of an Organisation
Population from the Perspectives of Complexity and Evolution. E-Business
Research Centre. Research Reports 18. Tampere: Tampere University of
Technology and University of Tampere.
Pilinkienė, V., & Mačiulis, P. (2014, April 23–25). Comparison of Different
Ecosystem Analogies: The Main Economic Determinants and Levels of
Impact. In E. Gimžauskienė (Ed.), Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.
‘19th International Scientific Conference “Economics and Management
2014, ICEM 2014”’ held at Riga, Latvia. Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd 6,
365–370.
Rabelo, R., & Bernus, P. (2015). A Holistic Model of Building Innovation
Ecosystems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(3), 2250–2257.
Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. (2017). The Resilience of
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 99–104.
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. (2018). The Emergence of
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach. Journal
of Business Research, 86, 1–10.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Competitive Advantage: Culture and Competition
in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sharif, N. (2005, June 27–29). History and Development of the National
Innovation Systems (NIS) Conceptual Approach. Working Paper presented at
the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference held at Copenhagen,

Denmark.
Smith, K. R. (2006). Building an Innovation Ecosystem: Process, Culture and
Competencies. Industry and Higher Education, 20(4), 219–224.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a Process Theory of Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151–168.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic
Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.
Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem. Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Stern, S. (2014). MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Program.
Retrieved February 5, 2017, from https://innovationpolicyplatform.org/
sites/default/files/rdf_imported_documents/Stern_IP%20Course_Day3_
REAP.pdf.
Traitler, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an Open
Innovation Ecosystem. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R62–R68.
Umemura, M. (2013). Crisis and Change in the System of Innovation: The
Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry During the Lost Decades, 1990–2010.
Business History, 56(5), 816–844.
Van der Sijde, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Van Benthem, J. (2004). Academisch
Ondernemen aan de Universiteit Twente [Academic Entrepreneurship at the
University of Twente]. In W. Hulsink, D. Manuel, & E. Stam (Eds.),
Ondernemen in netwerken (pp. 161–176). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Vogel, P. (2013, April 17–21). The Employment Outlook for Youth: Building
Entrepreneurship Ecosystems as a Way Forward. Conference Proceedings of the
G20 Youth Forum Held at St. Petersburg, Russia. Retrieved January 20,
2017, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2357856.
Wallner, T., & Menrad, M. (2011). Extending the Innovation Ecosystem
Framework. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/2b2c/9911cea2259692286c178a9fbc5d8d550157.pdf.
Willis, A. J. (1994). Arthur Roy Clapham, 1904–90. Biographical Memoirs of
Fellows of the Royal Society, 39, 73–90.
Willis, A. J. (1997). The Ecosystem: An Evolving Concept Viewed Historically.
Functional Ecology, 11(2), 268–271.
Yoshino, N., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2015). Japan’s Lost Decade: Lessons for
Other Economies. ADBI Working Paper Series 521. Tokyo: Asian Development
Bank Institute. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from https://www.adb.org/
sites/default/files/publication/159841/adbi-wp521.pdf.
3
Case Study: Transformational
Entrepreneurship in the UK—“From UK
Bread Waste to Global Beer Brand”
Rebecca Connolly
Abstract Society is suffering from inequality, division and a rapidly

changing environment. Though seemingly positive, economic growth
and adopting an “onwards and upwards” mind-set have not resulted in
the amelioration of such socio-economic challenges. Social entrepreneur-
ship combines both economic and social goals, thus offering a sustainable
approach to creating transformation. However, it is argued that social
entrepreneurship has not fulfilled expectations that it will solve signifi-
cant social problems. Nonetheless, there are still cases of social enterprises
that have managed to address a societal problem and ethically expand
their operations. This chapter will present a case of a social enterprise
which is working towards solving the problem of food waste in the United
Kingdom. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the socially transfor-
mative strategies and outcomes of a social enterprise, and consider the
potential and future of the sector.
R. Connolly (*)
e-mail: ac3048@coventry.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_3
34 R. Connolly
Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Social enterprise • Transformation •

Sustainability • Environment • Food waste
3.1 Introduction
Society is currently facing unprecedented urgent challenges. The global
financial crisis of 2007–2008 resulted in austerity measures and public
spending cuts in many economies (Krugman 2015) and created wide-
spread distrust in corporations which were seen to prioritise profit over
public spending (Stankorb 2012). Moreover, global inequality continues
to grow: the development charity Oxfam reports that 82 per cent of the
global income produced in 2017 went to the wealthiest 1 per cent (Elliott
2018). In addition to economic instability, humanity’s environment is
under threat, as continually rising temperatures are set to result in unpar-
alleled rises in sea levels, floods, droughts and turbulent weather (Climate
Action Tracker 2018). Furthermore, such global issues are exacerbated by
high levels of unemployment, disease, poverty and conflict in many soci-
eties (Rwigema and Venter 2004). As a result of such threats to humanity
and the planet, there have been calls for new approaches to create wide-
spread change (Caulkin 2017; Raworth 2017), though governments and
non-governmental organisations have not yet succeeded in their attempts
to ameliorate such escalating socio-economic crises (Arogyaswamy 2017).
Entrepreneurship is recognised as a crucial component of many
nations’ development strategies (Bosma et al. 2007; Gibb and Hannon
2006; Pretorius et al. 2005). Nonetheless, despite the plenitude of such
strategies and support for entrepreneurship, the global economy contin-
ues to struggle to recover from the 2009 recession, whilst inequality and
exclusion deepen (Caulkin 2017). For Maas et al. (2016) a transforma-
tional approach is essential for the evolution of sustainable entrepreneur-
ship. Though progress is required to address existing failures and injustice
within society, the meaning and approaches taken to achieve this have
come under scrutiny (Raworth 2017). Raworth argues that the notion of
“onwards and upwards” is deeply rooted within common discourse and
viewed as the key to progress, whereas “slowing down” or “being low” are
Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship… 35
considered states that should be avoided. Furthermore, Raworth (2017:

39) surmises that if economic success were to be drawn, it would be an
“ever-rising line of GDP,” though this unquestioned path has not resulted
in society thriving. Nevertheless, Martin and Osberg (2015) assert that
on occasion a society takes a revolutionary leap towards a different equi-
librium. Social change is viewed as a process of gradual incremental
developments over time, much like the growth curve typically advocated
in economics. Conversely, social transformation entails an integral shift
in society (Khondker and Schuerkens 2014); this shift has been described
as a “step change” (Martin and Osberg 2015: 37–38). Thus, it is argued
that societies need to venture beyond typical progress, and instead aim
for socially transformative solutions (Martin and Osberg 2015).
As social entrepreneurship occupies both the economic and social sec-
tors (Hockerts 2006), it holds the potential to create ethical and balanced
transformation. Innovation is one of the key components of social entre-
preneurship, and it is argued that what sets social enterprises apart from
other businesses and traditional social service providers is the unconven-
tional, disruptive path it adopts towards progress (Nicholls and Cho
2006). Nonetheless, setting up financially sustainable businesses, in addi-
tion to contending with often-challenging social and environmental
problems, can lead to many social entrepreneurs failing to scale impact,
create transformation or indeed continue operations (Alvord et al. 2004;
Austin et al. 2006; Weerawardena and Mort 2006). It is argued that with
few exceptions, social entrepreneurship has not fulfilled expectations that
it will fundamentally, and on a great scale, solve significant social prob-
lems in order for a substantial number of people to benefit (World
Economic Forum 2015). Nonetheless, there is still evidence of cases of
social enterprises that have actively addressed a problem, created benefi-
cial outcomes and effectively scaled operations. This chapter will present
such a case. Through analysis of a social enterprise which is working
towards solving the problem of food waste in the United Kingdom (UK),
this chapter will evaluate its socially transformative strategies and out-
comes, consider how such an example could influence other social enter-
prises, and contemplate the future of the sector.
36 R. Connolly
3.2 Background Information on Case

Approximately one-third of the food produced for human consumption
globally is lost or wasted each year (Kirk and Scott 2018). Food waste
charity, WRAP, estimates that in the UK alone 1.9 million tonnes of food
is wasted by the food industry each year. In addition, 44 per cent of the
bread produced in the UK is never consumed (Toast Ale 2018). This
chapter will explore the case of Toast Ale, a craft beer which is brewed
using fresh surplus bread. Toast Ale was established in the UK in January
2016 and launched in the United States (US), South Africa, Brazil and
Iceland in 2017. As of March 2018, Toast Ale has upcycled 15 tonnes of
surplus bread, brewing 178,000 litres of beer, which is sold in varying
contexts globally. For this case study, interviews were conducted with two
of the social enterprise’s key team members in the UK and South Africa.
This chapter will assess information gathered from these interviews as
well as analyse Toast Ale’s business model to draw conclusions on how an
environmental mission in the UK expanded to reduce bread waste on a
global scale.
3.3 Background on Company

Toast Ale was founded in January 2016 by Tristram Stuart, an author and
campaigner on the environmental and social impacts of food production.
His book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal (2009), revealed
that Western countries waste up to half of their food, and that tackling
this problem is one of the simplest ways of reducing pressure on the envi-
ronment and on global food supplies. Stuart founded the environmental
charity Feedback and set up Feeding the 5000 (www.feeding5k.org), the
flagship event of a global food waste campaign, whereby 5000 members
of the public are given a free lunch using only ingredients that otherwise
would have been wasted. Almost half of the bread produced in the UK is
wasted, though this overproduction is built into the business model of
most bakeries and supermarkets (Zimberoff 2017), as consumers expect
to be able to purchase fresh bread at any time of the day. However, Stuart
uncovered a way to turn this unused commodity into a lucrative product

with a longer shelf life: through the production of craft ale (Zimberoff
2017).
Toast Ale was launched with endorsement from British chef and res-
tauranteur Jamie Oliver and has been championed by author and cam-
paigner Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Toast Ale sources surplus bread
from bakeries and sandwich makers, using it to replace one-third of the
virgin grain, adding only malted barley, hops, yeast and water. Toast Ale
has contracts with established brewers, leveraging their expertise to create
unique beers. Its core range of beers is brewed by Wold Top Brewery in
Yorkshire, one of the UK’s most environmentally friendly breweries, with
surplus bread from Adelie Foods (Beeler 2018). Toast Ale’s mission is to
end food waste through their
four founding principles: to produce great craft beer that consumers love; to
eliminate bread waste directly through brewing; to raise awareness of the prob-
lems of, and solutions to, food waste; to maximise profits to donate to the charity
Feedback and other international food waste organisations. (Toast Ale 2018)
In 2017, Toast Ale launched with brewing partners in the US (New

York), South Africa (Cape Town), Brazil (Rio de Janeiro) and Iceland
(Reykjavik). It has also published a homebrew recipe to encourage people
not to waste purchased bread in their homes. All profits generated by
Toast Ale in the UK and the US go to Tristram Stuart’s environmental
charity, Feedback. Profits produced by international partners support
local charities.
3.4 UK Context and Social Entrepreneurship

The UK, an innovation-driven economy (Schwab and Porter 2008),
comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has a popu-
lation of 62.8 million, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of
$2.861 trillion (World Bank 2015). The state is characterised as the
birthplace of contemporary parliamentary democracy and the Industrial
Revolution (BBC News 2017). However, the UK’s position in the world
38 R. Connolly
weakened in the twentieth century, following two world wars and the
end of the empire (BBC News 2017). Though the state still remains
an influential economic and military power, the 2016 vote to leave
the European Union (EU) has raised further concerns over the UK’s
role internationally. The standard measure of income inequality, the
Gini coefficient, presents Britain’s post-tax inequality greatly increas-
ing in the 1980s, from 28 per cent in 1978 to 41 per cent in 1990
(Cable 2017). Following the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the UK
experienced its first recession in almost 30 years and public spending
cuts were inevitable (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2016). Furthermore, it has
been argued that Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 highlighted a
divided nation: it is believed that the vote for Brexit represents the
discontent of many people in the UK, who feel excluded and want
change (Mckenzie 2016). A key argument in support of inequality is
that it acts as an incentive to work, save, invest and innovate (Cable
2017). However, in 2016, the UK’s productivity was rated signifi-
cantly below the other major economies in Europe, measured as GDP
per hour worked (Sherry 2017). Furthermore, counter to the argu-
ment that inequality drives innovation, high-profile business figures,
such as Bill Gates, argue for bold taxation of inheritance and entre-
preneur Luke Johnson argues for taxing property more and income
less (Cable 2017).
Social entrepreneurship as a field is attracting increased consideration
from academics, practitioners and the business world (Mueller et al.
2015), as it offers the hope that individuals will employ their localised
knowledge to identify new innovations to fill the gaps in social delivery
left by governmental and institutional failures (Dees 1998; Barendsen
and Gardner 2004; Harding 2004; Doane 2014). Though social entre-
preneurship began to gain recognition in the 1990s (Hinchion 2017),
entrepreneurs with a social purpose have always existed (Dees 1998;
Barendsen and Gardner 2004; Boddice 2009; Bornstein and Davis 2010)
in the UK, for example, Robert Owen, Joseph Rowntree, William
Cadbury and Michael Young. Following a history of social innovators,
social entrepreneurship experienced a revival in the UK in the 1990s; this
was due to the fusion of various organisations, including co-operatives,
charities, not-for-profits and social businesses, with a shared goal of
creating social change: this union led to the formation of the term the
Third Sector (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2016). With the promise of solving
large-scale social problems for many whilst simultaneously stimulating
the economy, attention has turned to social enterprises among govern-
ments, policy makers and sector leaders as a potential fourth way (Burrows
2003; Stankorb 2012).
Social Enterprise UK (SEUK) (2017) reports that 28 per cent of social
enterprises are based in the most deprived communities in the
UK. Furthermore, the number of social enterprises introducing a new
product or service in the previous year was said to be 50 per cent, whereas
among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the number has
fallen to 33 per cent. In addition, the report details how the leadership
teams of social enterprises reflect the communities where they are based
and operate. With austerity, persistent inequalities and the uncertainty
that accompanies leaving the EU, it could be argued that all businesses in
the UK will need to employ the skills associated with social enterprises:
“making the most of the resources we have, creating opportunities for all,
and demonstrating how we can all do business more equitably” (SEUK
2017: 6). However, the public sector remains a key source of income for
social enterprises, particularly the largest: it is the main source of income
for 59 per cent of those turning over more than £5 million (SEUK 2017).
Furthermore, one in eight of those with public sector income is receiving
it via European programmes (SEUK 2017); thus the fate of such enter-
prises is unknown as we approach Brexit in 2019. Hence, in this context,
it is imperative that businesses solidify strategies not only for creating
social transformation but also for the development of sustainable entre-
preneurship (Maas et al. 2016).
3.5 Case Study

3.5.1 Networks to Scale
In an attempt to create greater change and impact globally, social enter-

prises are encouraged to build sustainable scalable ventures (Dees and
40 R. Connolly
Battle Anderson 2004; Howard 2014). However, balancing a social goal

with economic scalability can be arduous, especially when attempting to
compete with conventional for-profit businesses (Vickers 2010). When it
comes to production, Toast Ale rely on partners and contracts to turn
surplus bread into beer. Toast Ale in the UK currently works predomi-
nantly with a brewer called Wold Top Brewery in Yorkshire. One of Toast
Ale’s key team members in the UK (Participant 1) explains how contract-
ing was crucial to the establishment of the business:
We didn’t need to invest upfront in a brewery … which means we can be quite

flexible so we can scale up pretty easily and we have done hence moving the
brewery twice as we’ve taken on bigger clients. … Also not having that capital
cost means that we can get profit quicker.
Nonetheless, scaling is not the only objective when selecting partners

for Toast Ale, they must also be creating impact which compliments the
company’s mission. In this case, sustainability and waste reduction are
key to Toast Ale’s aims. When describing Wold Top Brewery, Participant
1 asserts that
they’re one of the most sustainable breweries in the UK … they have two wind
turbines on site that power the brewery, they use water from a borehole on site,
all of their ingredients are locally sourced. … And then all of the surplus is sent
for animal feed. So they’re a really perfect partner for us.
As well as scale its production across the UK, Toast Ale also has two
franchises, based in South Africa and Iceland. It has also launched a
subsidiary company in New York from which it will expand across the
US. However, Toast Ale’s most recent and preferred way of growing
internationally is through licensing, due to the ease of starting up
when production and distribution are already established. The busi-
ness has partnered with a licensed brewer in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil
and is having conversations with a number of different breweries to
license in further contexts. Participant 1 describes how setting up
Toast Ale in the US as a subsidiary was important because it is a key
market for the business and they “wanted to be involved in that as
Toast Ale.” However, participant 1 explains how this was a lengthy

and costly process. In the case of South Africa and Iceland, franchis-
ing was a way to set up “Toast businesses in different regions.” Though,
this is also described as a complex process:
It takes time to find all the partners to be involved … there’s usually somebody
that’s running it, an entrepreneur or some social enterprise. And then they need
to find the brewer, the bread supplier. Also on a global basis we work with local
charities. So in the UK all of our profits go to Feedback and in the US. But at
the global level we want the local charities to benefit. In Iceland and South
Africa they then partner with a charity and everything takes quite a long time.
Hayek (1945) presents the importance of local contextual knowledge

in the entrepreneurial process, surmising that identifying far-reaching
opportunities is futile, as the knowledge which an entrepreneur possesses
is not relevant outside of their context. Pless (2012) posits that social
projects established within an environment of poverty often involve mar-
ginalised members of the community more inclusively as a way to more
fully understand their needs. Profits generated by Toast Ale’s franchise in
South Africa are donated to Soil for Life, a non-profit organisation that
trains local unemployed people to grow their own food for their families
and communities. Toast Ale’s franchise in South Africa is being driven by
two individuals. In an interview, one of these individuals (Participant 2)
in Cape Town in November 2017 discusses the meaning of social enter-
prise in the context of their home country of South Africa:
I do think well actually there’s so many social enterprises in South Africa that
nobody’s heard of and I think that’s generally for all small businesses because
there’s so many problems in South Africa I think the majority of businesses that
start up now it’s because they want to solve something some form of not only
financial problem but a social problem. … So your agricultural sector it’s not a
social enterprise it’s literally survival so you have to do something innovative to
be able to survive the drought or something like that.
Though Toast Ale acknowledges the importance of generating a profit,

as any money it raises is then donated to its global charities, the business
42 R. Connolly
also realises the importance of having both direct and indirect social
impact, particularly in contexts where poverty is commonplace. In
considering the philosophy of impact, Participant 2 recalls an account
from a farmer supported by Soil for Life:
[O]ne home gardener spoke at our launch event. So he lives in a shack … some
of his produce just gets stolen because it’s in front of his shack, not that there is
really a front but on the roadside so some of his produce does get stolen so in
effect that still makes a social impact then at this stage … definitely makes an
impact and the nice thing about food sustainability or by training people to
grow food, food becomes a major multiplier for indirect beneficiaries.
Embeddedness in one’s culture is also said to be important in the for-

mation of an enterprise, as it enables the entrepreneur to identify and
gain the resources required for the establishment of their venture (Hansen
1995) and identify and operate the mechanisms for change (Martin and
Osberg 2015). Thus, franchising seems an ideal approach to adopt in an
attempt to scale, as it simultaneously upholds the mission and brand
whilst leveraging local expertise. However, the relationship between fran-
chisor and franchisee has often been described as being potentially con-
flicted, as the franchisor strives for standardisation to ensure brand
consistency, whilst franchisees can seek autonomy to drive their enter-
prise (Kidwell et al. 2007). Participant 2 (2017) comments on Toast Ale’s
franchise relationship:
[S]o technically we’re very kind of independent, certain contractual agreements

are in place. … normal franchise model but we can do, we don’t have to pro-
duce a beer exactly the same as in the UK … we can amend the labelling but
we can generally piggy back on their marketing as well but yes its very
independent.
Participant 2 goes on to explain how they have experienced swift suc-

cess since their establishment in November 2017:
South Africa’s first brew is bigger than Toast Ale UK’s last brew over two years…
we’re very commercial very quickly.
It has been suggested that in a franchise relationship, there is a danger

that franchises can behave in ways that have the potential to deteriorate
brand image (Kidwell et al. 2007). In the case of a social business, where
the social mission and values are central to operations, then such an out-
come is not only an inconvenience but has the potential to erode con-
sumer and shareholder trust.
Furthermore, it has been argued that embeddedness can work as both
a catalyst and an inhibitor for social entrepreneurial activities within
communities. The concept of embeddedness implies that it is insur-
mountable to disconnect agent (the entrepreneur) and structure (the
context) (Mair and Marti 2006). High levels of embeddedness within a
context may hinder the development of projects focused at creating social
change, specifically when such interventions involve “changing the rules
of the game” (Mair and Marti 2006: 42). Similarly, when analysing entre-
preneurs embedded in their local context, Jack and Anderson (2002) sur-
mise that neglecting to abide by rules and conform to expectation could
result in the disintegration of relationships, which could impede business
activities.
Thus, a systemic approach has been described as essential in the cre-
ation of transformation, which would result in moving the responsibility
to create change away from the individual leading the enterprise and
towards the context (Maas et al. 2016). An example of influencing many
actors within a system is crowdfunding (Josefy et al. 2016). In 2017,
Toast Ale launched a crowdfunding campaign in order to brew two new
beer styles and it “hit 140 per cent of (its) target” (Participant 1 2017).
Harms (2007), Stiver et al. (2015) and Josefy et al. (2016) discuss the
unique role the community plays in the success of a crowdfunding ven-
ture. The community, which provides the funding for an enterprise
through a crowdfunding campaign, has a vested interest in the venture,
as its members subsequently play a fundamental role in its success, as
beneficiaries (Harms 2007; Josefy et al. 2016). Consequently, crowd-
funding has the potential to be transformational, as it provides entrepre-
neurs with the chance to gain funding from a sphere of anticipated
advocates (Maas and Jones 2015; Josefy et al. 2016). Thus, an approach
44 R. Connolly
to systemic change like crowdfunding not only achieves its economic

goals but also engages those within the system in its new innovation.
3.5.2 Commercial and Social Worlds
Setting up financially sustainable businesses in addition to contending

with often-challenging objectives can lead to many social entrepreneurs
failing to continue operations, scale impact and create transformation
(Alvord et al. 2004; Austin et al. 2006; Weerawardena and Mort 2006).
To achieve scalability, social entrepreneurs can adopt a commercial
approach, seeking corporate consultation or mentorship, as well as pursu-
ing social investment opportunities. In an attempt to establish themselves
as legitimate entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs can also angle towards
conformance, which may result in institutional isomorphism (Nicholls
and Cho 2006): the homogenisation of organisations within a field
(DiMaggio and Powell 1991). As Nega and Schneider (2014) posit:
To scale up, a social entrepreneur must invariably secure the support of the very
institutions—NGOs, the private sector, and the state—that have failed to solve
the problems he/she is trying to address.
When discussing Toast Ale’s preferred model for scaling internation-

ally, Participant 1 (2017) explains:
With licensing we are licensing to a brewery. Obviously it already exists. It has

production already set up. It has distribution already set up because they’ve been
brewing over the years and then Toast becomes one beer in their range … Quite
often we do that by either licensing directly to the brewery, but quite often it
comes about through having a relationship with a social enterprise or a non-
profit that’s working on food issues in that country. And the only other thing is
to find the bread source, but that then is the responsibility of the brewer. It just
is a much simpler way of growing quickly.
Not only is Toast Ale a business with a social mission, it is also a craft
ale company. Participant 1 (2017) explains how
craft beer is quite a crowded market, and lots of companies and people that
really like craft beer also tend to try lots of different beers so a little bit less
loyal.
Similarly, Participant 2 (2017) explains how
in the States craft beer companies make a new beer each week because people
who drink artisanal beer want to taste something different every time, they’re
not as brand loyal…
Therefore, how does Toast Ale manage to compete within this highly
competitive market whilst maintaining its core values and objectives that
set it apart from regular beer businesses? Participant 1 (2017) explains
how in the early days there were challenges around people’s misconcep-
tions of the beer:
Some people thought it was kind of a novelty value because it was a charity
beer, and a few people, we also had to be very clear about the bread source, it’s
not stale bread. It’s definitely not moldy bread.
However, Toast Ale has now won awards for its taste and
people try it and they say okay wow it is actually really good beer and we’ve been
quite quickly able to get past that idea that it’s a novelty product. (Participant
1, 2017)
Participant 1 also credits Toast Ale’s story for giving them an advantage
in the market, “it’s an amazing story and you can really want to be part of
it.” Similarly, Participant 2 reiterates the importance of the story as Toast
Ale expands to new contexts. He explains that where Toast Ale is sold in
restaurants,
the story can be told with your table talkers … instead of just putting it on a
shelf next to other craft beer where the story is not going to get told because if
we’re just simply going to have to compete with other craft breweries it’s point-
less, we wouldn’t have entered into this business at all.
46 R. Connolly
Furthermore, not only is Toast Ale occupying both the social enter-
prise and craft ale markets, but there is now a growing market of busi-
nesses also making beer out of bread. Nonetheless, Toast Ale showcases
these competing brands on its website, on a page entitled “Rev-ale-ution.”
It has been argued that what sets social entrepreneurs apart from tradi-
tional business owners is that they welcome competition (Santos 2012),
for if more businesses work on a particular problem, then the problem is
resolved sooner, generating greater social impact. Toast Ale’s innovative
story also gained prime time exposure on UK television programmes like
Jamie & Jimmy’s Friday Night Feast and Food Unwrapped. Venturing into
more contexts globally means that this story will continue to lengthen,
though will it be a tale of significant social transformation or that of a
successful product?
3.6 Transformational Entrepreneurship

For Maas et al. (2016) a transformational approach to entrepreneurship
involves a systemic process that is increasingly heuristic and holistic in
character. Systemic entrepreneurship emphasises the need for a consider-
ation of the whole of society, shifting the concept of the entrepreneur
from the individual to the context (Maas et al. 2016). Through its fran-
chise and licence models, Toast Ale is expanding its operations to new
contexts whilst involving the actors within those contexts. The idea of
using surplus bread to make beer that was born in the UK is applicable in
any context where bread is sold commercially. Through a franchising and
licensing approach Toast Ale UK is essentially selling its idea and allow-
ing it to be executed in a contextually appropriate manner, by those who
understand the environment, and to benefit local causes. Thus, Toast
Ale’s impact is two-fold: it makes use of a resource that would otherwise
be wasted and adds value to economies.
Furthermore, Toast Ale considers the whole system in terms of not
only its own expansion but also the network of food waste champions.
Unlike traditional businesses, Toast Ale adopts a holistic standpoint and
celebrates its competitors by advertising their businesses through its web-
site. In addition, Toast Ale heuristically encourages people to brew with
surplus bread at home with its homebrew recipe, which can also be found
on its website. Such actions of course could result in the need for a busi-
ness like Toast Ale to descend, thus implying a temporary nature of social
entrepreneurship (McMullen and Bergman McMullen and Bergman
2017). Furthermore, as supermarkets and bakeries start to increasingly pay
attention to their own overproduction and waste as a result of the awareness
raised by such organisations, there may no longer be surplus bread to uti-
lise. This would indeed prove that enterprises such as Toast Ale are capable
of creating large-scale transformation, though this (transformation) eradi-
cates the need for sustainable entrepreneurship in this sector.
3.7 Conclusion
In just over two years, Toast Ale UK has upcycled 15 tonnes of surplus
bread, brewing 178,000 litres of beer; it is stocked nationwide in main-
stream stores such as Tesco and Waitrose as well as independent shops,
restaurants and bars, and is brewing its beer across three continents. Toast
Ale is transforming not only what happens to leftover bread, but also the
purchasing choices made by consumers: instead of merely selecting a beer
because of its taste or image, individuals are empowered to make a differ-
ence through their buying selections. From brewing at home to raising
funds for the production of Toast Ale’s next beer, actors within the system
are involved throughout the journey towards reducing food waste. This
systemic approach has been said to be necessary for sustainable transfor-
mation (Maas et al. 2016).
Nonetheless, the brand is expanding into new economies at pace,
adopting a fast implementation strategy through licensing, though, as has
been evidenced through analysis of this case, a key component to its suc-
cess is its story and values. As is the case in certain franchise relationships,
the need for independence and the actions of the franchisee can have a
detrimental effect on brand image (Kidwell et al. 2007). Therefore, Toast
Ale will need to ensure that the relationships built with brewers and dis-
tributors globally are based on more than business: encompassing mis-
sion and values.
Participant 1 (2017) explains that
48 R. Connolly
part of our mission is about raising awareness of food waste, and the simplicity
of solving that problem by enjoying a product and we think that taste is really
the perfect way to do that.
Thus, it seems that people are paying attention, with 12 other busi-
nesses turning bread into beer and supermarkets like Tesco implementing
rigorous strategies to tackle food waste (https://www.tescoplc.com/little-
helps-plan/products-food-waste/). Though the scale of food waste glob-
ally is colossal (Kirk and Scott 2018), the ultimate aim of Toast Ale is to
eradicate it completely. Yet what implications does this have for the sus-
tainability element of transformational social enterprises? Santos (2012:
345) asserts that social entrepreneurs are concerned with attaining “sus-
tainable solutions” rather than “sustainable advantage.” If this notion of
social entrepreneurship is accurate, then success for social enterprises is
achieved when the social enterprise is no longer needed. McMullen and
Bergman Jr (McMullen and Bergman 2017) analyse this point further
when they consider that it is possible to create transformation even if an
organisation has operationally failed, if an element of society has been
transformed. Nevertheless, accepting that a mission has been accom-
plished and moving on from their organisation is not easy for all social
entrepreneurs, who can become emotionally attached to the social enter-
prise they have built (Santos 2012). This attachment can lead to social
entrepreneurs safeguarding against competitors, thus adopting similar
operational approaches as conventional organisations (McMullen and
Bergman McMullen and Bergman 2017) and, therefore, inhibiting inno-
vative forms of action and transformation. It seems that Toast Ale has not
fallen victim to such fears and champions all actors within society, driv-
ing change when it comes to food waste, and it will indeed be interesting
to watch this business as it expands into diverse contexts. Though setting
out to transform the plight of economies and communities globally can
be a serious undertaking, Toast Ale is showcasing how “Actually, we can
correct this problem by having a massive celebration” (Kronsberg 2017).
3.8 Conclusion
Disembedding the economy from society as a whole has not resulted in
humanity thriving (Castles 2010; Raworth 2017); the world is thus
searching for a new model for economic growth (Marmer 2012). With
the social mission at the heart of its business operations (Dees 1998),
social entrepreneurship provides a promising model for socio-economic
growth. Nonetheless, as evidenced in this chapter, there are issues to con-
sider when balancing both economic and social goals. One challenge
social enterprises can face lies in maintaining their dynamic nature whilst
competing in the marketplace with commercial businesses. Ensuring that
the mission remains at the forefront and avoiding conformance, whilst
generating profits, is what allows social enterprises to achieve transforma-
tional status. Furthermore, in order to accomplish transformation on a
large scale, it is key that expansion is coupled with contextual knowledge,
though, as this chapter considers, contextual embeddedness can also act
as an inhibitor to transformation. In addition, a key differentiator of
transformational social enterprises is that if they are to succeed in eradi-
cating the problem they set out to tackle, the enterprise could cease to
exist. Thus, transformational social entrepreneurs must not only accept
but advocate the diminishing need for their business. In achieving trans-
formational status, it seems that social enterprises must compete within a
commercial market whilst retaining their unique characteristics and
modes of delivery. This chapter has revealed that an effective way of
achieving this is through a systemic approach: moving away from the
individual or the business and towards the involvement of the entire sys-
tem. Toast Ale involves individuals in its work through its inspirational
story, its ethically and contextually considered partnerships, its crowd-
funding campaigns, and through welcoming competition. Social entre-
preneurship will succeed in achieving true transformation when it not
only avoids “business as usual” strategies but also manages to convert the
way business is done in all sectors.
50 R. Connolly
References
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship
and Societal Transformation an Exploratory Study. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.
Arogyaswamy, B. (2017). Social Entrepreneurship Performance Measurement:
A Time-Based Organizing Framework. Business Horizons, 60(5), 603–611.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial
Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Barendsen, L., & Gardner, H. (2004). Is the Social Entrepreneur a New Type of
Leader? Leader to Leader, 34, 43–50.
BBC News. (2017). United Kingdom Country Profile. BBC News. Retrieved
June 7, 2017, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18023389.
Beeler, C. (2018). This British Company Is Turning Wasted Bread into Beer.
Business Insider. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from http://www.businessinsider.
com/uk-beer-company-uses-food-waste-to-make-beer-2018-5?international
=true&r=US&IR=T.
Boddice, R. (2009). Forgotten Antecedents: Entrepreneurship, Ideology and
History. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs
to Know? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bosma, N., Jones, K., Autio, K., & Levie, J. (2007). Global Entrepreneurship
Report: 2007 Executive Report. Babson Park, MA and London: Babson and
London Business School.
Burrows, G. (2003). Social Enterprise – Third Sector, Fourth Way. New
Statesman. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://www.newstatesman.
com/node/194811.
Cable, V. (2017). Widening Inequality Is Largely a US and UK Phenomenon –
Why? Independent. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from https://www.independent.
co.uk/voices/vince-cable-inequality-wealth-distribution-housing-ladder-
how-to-fix-a7930536.html.
Castles, S. (2010). Understanding Global Migration: A Social Transformation
Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1565–1586.
Caulkin, S. (2017, June 21). Inclusive Growth and Prosperity – For Whom?
Global Focus, 11(2).
Climate Action Tracker. (2018). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from http://cli-
mateactiontracker.org/.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved August 1, 2016,

from http://www.redalmarza.cl/ing/pdf/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.
pdf.
Dees, J. G., & Battle Anderson, B. (2004). Scaling Social Impact. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from https://ssir.org/arti-
cles/entry/scaling_social_impact.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Doane, D. (2014). Social Enterprise: Can It Succeed Where Traditional
Development Has Failed? The Guardian. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/
feb/25/social-enterprise-succeed-traditional-development-failed.
Elliott, L. (2018). Inequality Gap Widens as 42 People Hold Same Wealth as
3.7bn Poorest. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved January
27, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/22/
inequality-gap-widens-as-42-people-hold-same-wealth-as-37bn-poorest.
Gibb, A., & Hannon, P. (2006). Towards the Entrepreneurial University?
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 73–110.
Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial Networks and New Organization
Growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 7–20.
Harding, R. (2004). Social Enterprise: The New Economic Engine? Business
Strategy Review, 15(4), 39–43.
Harms, M. (2007, July 13). What Drives Motivation to Participate Financially
in a Crowdfunding Community? Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2269242 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2269242.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic
Review, 35(4), 519–530.
Hinchion, P. (2017). Social Investment and Social Entrepreneurship in the
UK – A Leading or Misleading Track? In Finanzwirtschaft in Ethischer
Verantwortung (pp. 39–54). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden.
Hockerts, K. (2006). Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Social Purpose Business
Ventures. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship
(pp. 142–154). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howard, E. (2014). 10 Things We Learned About Scaling Global Social
Enterprise. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved December
13, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/
nov/20/10-things-we-learned-about-scaling-global-social-enterprise.
52 R. Connolly
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The Effects of Embeddedness on the

Entrepreneurial Process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487.
Josefy, M., Dean, T. J., Albert, L. S., & Fitza, M. A. (2016). The Role of
Community in Crowdfunding Success: Evidence on Cultural Attributes in
Funding Campaigns to ‘Save the Local Theater’. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(2), 161–182.
Khondker, H. H., & Schuerkens, U. (2014). Social Transformation,
Development and Globalization. Sociopedia.isa. Retrieved December 10,
2016, from http://www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/SocialTransformation.
pdf.
Kidwell, R. E., Nygaard, A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). Antecedents and Effects of
Free Riding in the Franchisor–Franchisee Relationship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(4), 522–544.
Kirk, A., & Scott, P. (2018). No Time for Leftovers: The Astonishing Scale of
Food Waste in the UK and Around the World. The Telegraph. Retrieved June
2, 2018, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/no-time-left-
overs-astonishing-scale-food-waste-uk-around-world/.
Kronsberg, M. (2017). If You’re Concerned About Food Waste, Try This Beer.
Bloomberg. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2017-10-10/toast-ale-a-uk-beer-that-turns-surplus-bread-into-
heady-brews.
Krugman, P. (2015). The Case for Cuts Was a Lie. Why Does Britain Still
Believe It? The Austerity Delusion. The Guardian. Guardian News and
Media. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/
business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion.
Maas, G., & Jones, P. (Eds.). (2015). Systemic Entrepreneurship: Contemporary
Issues and Case Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maas, G., Jones, P., & Lockyer, J. (2016). Position Paper: International Centre
for Transformational Entrepreneurship, Coventry University. Retrieved from
www.coventry.ac.uk/icte. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32904.42246.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of
Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1),
36–44.
Marmer, M. (2012). Transformational Entrepreneurship: Where Technology
Meets Societal Impact. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved September 28,
2016, from https://hbr.org/2012/04/transformational-entrepreneurs.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2015). Getting Beyond Better: How Social
Entrepreneurship Works. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Mckenzie, L. (2016). Brexit Is the Only Way the Working Class Can Change
Anything. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved January 27,
2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/
brexit-working-class-sick-racist-eu-referendum.
McMullen, J. S., & Bergman, B. J. (2017). Social Entrepreneurship and the
Development Paradox of Prosocial Motivation: A Cautionary Tale. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 243–270.
Mueller, S., D’Intino, R. S., Walske, J., Ehrenhard, M. L., Newbert, S. L.,
Robinson, J. A., et al. (2015). What’s Holding Back Social Entrepreneurship?
Removing the Impediments to Theoretical Advancement. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 245–256.
Nega, B., & Schneider, G. (2014). NGOs, the State, and Development in
Africa. Review of Social Economy, 72(4), 485–503.
Nicholls, A., & Cho, A. H. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration
of a Field. In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change
(pp. 99–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pless, N. M. (2012). Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice – An
Introduction. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–4. Retrieved from https://books.
google.co.in/books?isbn=3319153145.
Pretorius, M., Nieman, G., & Van Vuuren, J. (2005). Critical Evaluation of Two
Models for Entrepreneurial Education – An Improved Model Through
Integration. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(5),
413–427.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-
Century Economist. Chelsea: Green Publishing.
Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2016). Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and
Practice. London: Sage.
Rwigema, H., & Venter, R. (2004). Advanced Entrepreneurship. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.
Schwab, K., & Porter, M. E. (2008). The Global Competitiveness Report 2008–
2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Sherry, D. (2017). In Britain, the Productivity Problem Has a Clear Solution.
Politico. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-
content/in-britain-the-productivity-problem-has-a-clear-solution/.
Social Enterprise UK (SEUK). (2017). The Future of Business – State of
Social Enterprise Survey 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2018, from https://
54 R. Connolly
www.socialenterprise.org.uk/the-future-of-business-state-of-social-enter-
prise-survey-2017.
Stankorb, S. (2012). Where Did Social Enterprise Come From, Anyway? Good.
Retrieved October 19, 2016, from https://www.good.is/articles/where-did-
social-enterprise-come-from-anyway.
Stiver, A., Barroca, L., Minocha, S., Richards, M., & Roberts, D. (2015). Civic
Crowdfunding Research: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Agenda.
New Media & Society, 17(2), 249–271.
Toast Ale. (2018). About. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from https://www.toastale.
com/#.
Vickers, I. (2010). Social Enterprise and the Environment: A Review of the
Literature. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 22. Universities of
Birmingham and Southampton Birmingham, England.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating Social Entrepreneurship:
A Multidimensional Model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.
World Bank. (2015). United Kingdom. The World Bank. Retrieved June 7,
2017, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/unitedkingdom.
World Economic Forum. (2015). Can Social Enterprise Aim Higher? Retrieved
January 27, 2018, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/how-
social-enterprise-can-aim-higher/.
Zimberoff, L. (2017, May 31). Toast Ale, From Recycled Bread, Is Now Brewed
in New York. The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/dining/toast-ale-bread-bronx.html.
4
Case Study: Gender and Enterprise
Development in Africa
Keren Naa Abeka Arthur
Abstract This chapter explores the question of how female micro entre-
preneurs can transition into transformational entrepreneurs. Using case
studies, the chapter draws on the experiences of successful women entre-
preneurs who have succeeded in growing their businesses from micro
enterprises into impactful ones. In addition, the chapter conducts a cross-
case analysis and highlights lessons learnt for policy making.
Keywords Female entrepreneurs • Micro entrepreneurs • Gender
4.1 Introduction
Gender and enterprise development is a growing field of study among
practitioners and academics globally. In academia, researchers continue
to investigate the topic, with major journals introducing special issues on
the topic. Actors interested in gender and enterprise development studies
K. N. A. Arthur (*)
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana
e-mail: keren.arthur@ucc.edu.gh

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_4
56 K. N. A. Arthur
have questioned whether significant differences exist in the characteristics

of male and female entrepreneurs, their organizations and the challenges
they face, among others. To this end, findings show that differences exist
in women and men entrepreneurship, female and male entrepreneurs
vary in characteristics and some challenges in enterprise development are
unique to women entrepreneurs when compared with their male coun-
terparts (Minniti 2009). While studies on gender and entrepreneurship
abound globally, there are still lapses in the understanding of the inter-
relationship between gender and enterprise development in Africa. Henry
et al. (2015), after reviewing the literature, suggest that current studies
for the past 30 years have focused only on specific topics such as male/
female comparisons, are quantitative in nature and center on practices in
the west (e.g. North America, United Kingdom and Australia); hence the
need to explore new areas of interest and provide more depth to issues
identified using qualitative approaches.
In Africa, an understanding of the dynamics between gender and
enterprise development is important considering the role of women in
society. Women play a significant role in the nurturing of children, and
their ability to gain independence through meaningful jobs would go a
long way in benefiting their families and the economy as a whole.
Research shows that in Africa, a large portion of entrepreneurs fall within
the micro and small enterprise (MSE) category, which is dominated by
women. MSEs constitute one of the types of entrepreneurial businesses
that exist which contributes the least to economic impact and long-term
societal impact (Marmer 2012). Therefore, though high in number,
women entrepreneurs collectively may not be making much of an impact
to socio-economic development. To this end scholars (Schoar 2010; Maas
et al. 2016) argue in favor of encouraging another type of entrepreneurial
business referred to as transformational enterprises (TEs), found to con-
tribute mostly to both economic and long-term societal impact.
What can be done with the large numbers of women MSEs that exist in
African societies? They may not contribute much collectively to the overall
development of the economy at a fast pace, but they provide subsistence for
many individuals and families in our communities. Should policy makers
ignore them and invest in new start-ups that focus on establishing them-
selves as TEs right from the start? Or can they be helped to transition into
Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa 57
TEs? (Schoar 2010) argues that the move from MSE to TE is difficult, as
entrepreneurs within these institutions vary in personal characteristics such
as objectives, skills and roles in economic development; in developing econ-
omies this is even more difficult due to regulatory and capital constraints.
Therefore, the notion that MSEs evolve into TEs or that MSEs are a first
step to building TEs could be flawed; despite this, there are a very small
number of subsistence entrepreneurs who manage to transition to transfor-
mational entrepreneurs (Schoar 2010). For Africa to reap the benefits of
entrepreneurship in the next decade, there is a need not only to create new
enterprises but also to develop existing ones and help them have the right
outlook for growth. Using the case study approach and data from primary
and secondary sources, this chapter explores the stories of women entrepre-
neurs who have managed to grow their organizations from MSEs. The chap-
ter seeks to bring to the fore factors that have catalyzed the growth of these
entrepreneurs and the strategies they have used to overcome the unique
challenges that characterize women transformational entrepreneurs.
4.2 Case Studies

4.2.1 Amalena Children’s Haven1
Located in the middle of the famous Makola Market in Accra Central,

Ghana, Amalena Children’s Haven prides itself with a 40-year history in
the baby and children clothes and accessories business. The organization is
a family business owned and managed by a mother and her children, two
of which are women. As far back as 1978, the young mother started the
journey to what now stands for the business when she decided to start a
small table-top shop selling baby clothes in Kumasi, as a way of making
ends meet. In those days, she usually traveled to Accra to buy items to
stock her shop in Kumasi, but noticed that by the time she moved from
her point of purchase to the transport yard to board a vehicle to Kumasi,
all the items she had in her shopping basket had been bought by onlookers
within the Central locality. This led to an awakening on the opportunities
1
This case was written using primary data collected through an interview with Anita Osei-Assibey.
58 K. N. A. Arthur
available in Accra and her subsequent decision to do business there. Today,

Amalena Children’s Haven has grown from a table-top shop to a multi-
million cedi business comprising 14 outlets (11 in Accra and 3 in Kumasi),
100-plus employees and a recently launched online platform to enable
customers to shop for quality products remotely. In addition, the portfolio
of businesses for the owners of this organization has been diversified for
the past four years to include a pre-school with 21 employees.
To some extent, the progress chalked so far has become possible not
only through hard work and sacrifice by all involved, but also through
some brilliant decisions made by Anita Osei-Assibey, youngest daughter
of the original owner of this organization. On graduating from the uni-
versity with a degree in Business Administration, Anita joined the orga-
nization full-time 12 years ago. Prior to this, she had been helping on
weekends and during school breaks. Anita constantly makes reference to
the term “Makola business” to suggest some preconceived notion of a
level of informality with the kind of business environment in which she
finds herself. Nevertheless, she has been instrumental in making their
organization standout by introducing formal mechanisms and controls.
She says, “mum thinks the whole business revolves around Sylvia and I”,
but now she is beginning to see that with the formalized systems I have
put in place, things can go on in our absence. These mechanisms include
proper financial-record-keeping systems, inventory labeling and manage-
ment databases, automated business processes, efficient shop setup
designs, new product development and employee monitoring systems,
among others.
When asked about the challenges faced as an entrepreneur, Anita
reports not having an issue with access to finance. She argues that the
organization has no history of borrowing from banks but believes in rein-
vesting profits for success. What frustrates her most is resistance from
co-owners and the industry to innovation. She is faced with the challenge
of convincing her mum to change the status quo and some ideas have not
been pursued as a result. In her opinion, the key factor that has enabled
her to transform her mum’s business over the past years is education.
With this education, she believes she is well informed and able to take
risks. This is her motivation for currently pursuing an early childhood
development education to help her manage and grow the school business
too. Anita’s plans are to innovate vertically and add on supply-side
activities such as a production unit moving forward. She believes this
would not be easy and is bracing herself to deal with the negative cus-
tomer reactions, to own company-branded products that currently exist
in the market.
4.2.2 Bimbeads Concept Designs2
Among the celebrated women entrepreneurs in Nigeria is Mrs. Bimbo

Balogun, owner of Bimbeads Concept Designs. Her story is fascinating
and causes one to wonder whether her success is one of luck or something
else. This is because she is described in news headlines as “the entrepre-
neur who sold two necklaces and never looked back” because she made a
fortune. She holds a degree in Petroleum Marketing and studied
Entrepreneurial Management as one of the scholars on the Goldman
Sachs 10,000 Women initiative; these show that there is much more than
fate to growing her business. Established in 2006, Bimbeads is primarily
involved with the production of beaded jewelry using rare gems. Over its
12 years of existence, the organization has grown from an initial invest-
ment of 400 naira to a net worth of 5 million naira following reinvest-
ment of the about 1000 percent profit she made on her initial production
at start-up. The business emerged from a desire to keep busy following
failure by the owner to find a job in her area of specialization. To date, the
organization has five employees, two outlets in Lagos, Nigeria, and
includes not only a production line but also a magazine business and a
training institute.
Bimbo believes in empowering others to take their destiny into their
hands like she did. Through her magazine, she shares excerpts of her
2
This case was written using data from secondary sources. Below is a list of sources referred to:
Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013a. Bimbeads Concept: How a bead jewelry making hobby became a mil-
lion naira business. 14 March 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/bimbeads-concept/
(Accessed 30 August 2018); https://bimbeads.com (Accessed 30 August 2018); BBC, British
Broadcasting Corporation. 2012. The Nigerian woman who sold two necklaces and never looked
back. 22 June 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-18535002 (Accessed 30 August
2018).
60 K. N. A. Arthur
entrepreneurial journey and tips on how one can succeed in her industry.
Market positioning, specifically breaking into the top tier of the market,
constituted one of the major challenges she faced as a start-up entrepreneur,
but this did not deter her. She exhibited traits of consistency, passion and
hard work, which she reports, in an interview with the British Broadcasting
Corporation, contributed to her success. Bimbo adopted a myriad of strat-
egies to overcome her frustrations. The first focused on building her per-
sonal brand by enlisting to host a talk show, which enhanced her popularity
and impacted the business positively. Secondly, her active involvement in
networks served her well. She reports that her engagements with the Nigeria
Network of Entrepreneurial Women (NNEW) “helped her take a bold step
to get an outlet for her training business and overcome her fears”. Further,
Bimbo pursued education as a strategy to managing her concerns. She
understood that for her to succeed, she needed to produce quality; hence,
she engaged herself in formal and informal education on the technicalities
of making beaded jewelry and managing a business. According to her, she
did not have bead-making skills on entering the business, but she learnt on
the job and consistently researched on designer websites for ideas. Her
business thrives on the development of an innovative differentiation strat-
egy that allows her to sell at a premium to high-end clients. Moving for-
ward she hopes to expand her outlets locally and internationally.
4.2.3 Cassava Processing in Ghana3
In rural Ghana, Cassava farmer and processor Faustina Sakyi made

great strides for herself, her family and society. She has been recognized
by many, including the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, which gave her the award of Best Cassava Farmer in
Ghana in 2008. Before her big break, Faustina was not new to the food
processing industry. Her desire to pursue a career in this industry stemmed
3
Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013b. Faustina Sakyi – The Ghanaian cassava farmer who turned her world
around. 14 March 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/faustina-sakyi/ (Accessed 30
August 2018); Samil, Roxanna. 2010. Ghana has another Yaa Asantewaa: A powerful lady cassava
producer and community leader sets up shop in rural Ghana. 9 November 2010. ifad-un.blogspot.
com/2010/11/ghana-has-another-yaa-asantewaa.html (Accessed 30 August 2018).
from her perceptions of desirability and feasibility for the industry as

she worked with her mum at the early age of eight. At the time, they
processed cassava by hand and she learnt not only the skill but also
developed the passion to change things in the future. In 1998, she
started her business with the desire to grow it and earn enough to take
care of her children. Faustina understood how to mobilize different
types of resources to her benefit. With an initial capital investment of
250 Ghanaian cedis which she invested in machinery and 36 women
cassava farmers in her locality who already owned lands for farming,
Faustina was able to create an innovative win-win business model for
the industry. By collaborating with her competitors, Faustina was able
to secure both employment for the women she worked with and a con-
stant supply of processed cassava for her clients.
It is obvious from secondary data sources that Faustina’s challenges
included access to finance. She managed to overcome this concern by
securing a loan from a rural bank in her community and reaching out to
IFAD for support with machinery. It is possible that her “excellent book-
keeping skills” and her experience working with other women in the
industry gave her credibility for success with her loan application. She
used the loan received to secure her raw materials. Faustina now sits on
steering committees for IFAD’s Root and Tuber Improvement Programme
and has certification for her products after receiving the award of Good
Practice Centre for her factory. These put her in a good position for busi-
ness, thus leading to an annual yield of GHC 187,200. In the near future,
she hopes to become “the big and best cassava processor” in Ghana.
4.2.4 Dreamland Piggery4
Known as the celebrity pig farmer, Anna Phosa is one of the few black
female commercial pig farmers in South Africa. Her entrepreneurship
4
Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013c. Pigfarming. How this business is changing lives in Africa and every-
thing you need to start your own. 23 August 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/how-
to-start-pig-farming-in-africa/ (Accessed 30 August 2018); Gospel, Emeka. 2018. How Anna
Phosa Became one of Africa’s Biggest Pig Farmer. February 26, 2018. https://myafribusiness.com/
anna-phosa-became-one-africas-biggest-pig-farmers/ (Accessed 31 August 2018).
62 K. N. A. Arthur
story emphasizes the need to take advantage of opportunities that come

our way for success. Following a difficult life as a child and her desire to
make life better for herself and her family, Anna established Dreamland
Piggery in 2004. Her business involves the rearing and dressing of pigs
for sale, a venture she invested in following earlier entrepreneurial efforts
in vegetable farming and chicken rearing with her husband. Like many
others, funding was a problem. Nevertheless, her personal saving ability
enabled her to raise 1000 South African Rand as start-up capital. Through
persistence, Anna actively sought opportunities to do business with orga-
nizations within her community. Soon after business started, her organi-
zation landed a contract to supply ten pigs per week to a major supermarket
chain in South Africa. Within the space of six years, the size of this con-
tract grew, as Anna demonstrated excellence in her dealings with this
organization. By 2010 she had secured a five-year contract to supply 100
pigs per week, totaling a value of 25 million Rand—an amount she rein-
vested and supported with loans to grow her business.
In interview reports on Anna and her organization, it is obvious that
finance was not the only problem faced as a woman entrepreneur. At the
early stages of her business, she highlights lacking skills in her chosen
field of business and the effort she had to put into teaching herself. She
read a lot of books and benefited from the support of experienced farmers
within her network of friends. In 2006, she was awarded best female
farmer of the year in her province. In the years following, she received
several recognitions for her hard work in growing her organization into
something remarkable. Today, Dreamland Piggery supplies more than
300 pigs per week, bred internally and bought from other pig farmers, to
varied organizations. Its stock has grown from a small number of 4 pigs
at start-up to 4000 pigs catered for on a 778-acre farm that employs at
least 20 people locally. It is Anna’s hope that soon she can expand to other
parts of Africa and build a brand that can stand the test of time.
4.2.5 Pauline Cosmetics5
“I’m proud of having built a local cosmetic brand that is competing neck
to neck with international companies in the market” (biznakenya.com),
says Nelly Tuikong, owner of Pauline Cosmetics. Her organization
focuses on the production and sale of cosmetics tailored to the African
skin. To date, she has grown her organization through product, service
and process innovations, which enable her to satisfy multiple clients in
urban and remote parts of Kenya. Having specialized in critical care nurs-
ing, Nelly worked full-time for others in the past. She decided to pursue
entrepreneurship in Kenya solely because she saw a gap in the cosmetics
market through her personal experiences that needed to be filled.
However, she lacked skills in make-up artistry and the cosmetology
industry at start-up. Therefore, she recalls having to read a lot from ency-
clopedias in order to understand cosmetic ingredients and receive cus-
tomized training from a celebrated make-up artist, whom she confidently
engaged without fear. These personal efforts were supported with exten-
sive market research conducted over years involving experimenting in her
kitchen, talking to people, creating and testing samples, and taking advice
from chemical engineers before opening the company’s doors to the mar-
ket in 2013.
Nelly reports that some of her major challenges faced include dealing
with mishaps in the Kenyan regulatory environment such as those associ-
ated with clearing imported goods and services at the port, creating
demand for her products, finding avenues to stock her products and
finance. Despite these challenges, she has managed to transform her busi-
ness, learning on the job and using bootstrapping strategies like limiting
product range and using mainly word-of-mouth marketing at start-up.
Major contracts like a consignment of 50,000 pieces of Pauline Cosmetics
won in 2013 and others of 20,000 pieces and 35,000 pieces won in the
5
http://paulinecosmetics.com (Accessed 31 August 2018); Genga, Shirley. 2013. Homegrown
Beauty. http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/ssrticle/2000093551/homegrown-beauty
(Accessed 31 August 2018); Bizna. 2017. My Entrepreneurial story as The Founder and CEO
of Pauline Cosmetics. 31 October 2017. https://biznakenya.com/entrepreneurial-story-founder-
ceo-pauline-cosmetics/ (Accessed 31 August 2018).
64 K. N. A. Arthur
next two years following have catalyzed her ability to grow exponentially
from an initial investment of just $400. She is bent on growing her orga-
nization from a presence in 25 stores locally and a workforce of nine
employees to something bigger that will generate at least $500,000 in
sales moving forward. Her focus for the future is to make cosmetics more
of an experience than just a product line. This is likely to earn her more
awards in addition to the recently won Youth Entrepreneur of the Year
award in Kenya in 2017. In the near future, Nelly sees herself and her
organization venturing into skin care and consulting.
4.3 Lessons Learnt

4.3.1 Impact
Per the definition of Schoar (2010), three out of five of the entrepreneurs
studied could be considered business owners rather than self-employed
individual because they employed more than 10 people (e.g. Amalena
employs 121, while Faustina and Nelly employ 36 and 20, respectively).
Similarly, although the other two had only five and nine employees, they
had consistently showed that they were able to add paid employees to
their organization and expand their business—characteristics that Schoar
(2010) argues are crucial in identifying transformational entrepreneurs.
Therefore, entrepreneurs within the studied cases did not necessarily do
the jobs themselves but played a managerial role, which freed up time for
them to do other things. This may be a reason why work-life balance did
not feature as a major challenge for them despite its importance in the
literature on women entrepreneurship.
Comparing the five case studies, it can be identified that all studied
entrepreneurs possessed qualities of high willingness to take risks and
high managerial and financial literacy in line with findings from the base-
line survey by de Mel et al. (2005) on transformational entrepreneurs.
The studied entrepreneurs were also willing to put themselves in unfamil-
iar situations, a characteristic suggested by Schoar (2010) to be possessed
by transformational entrepreneurs. Of the five entrepreneurs, three were
willing to start businesses in a field completely new to them. Among the

two who stayed in their comfort zone when it came to the choice of
industry, there was evidence of innovation and willingness to challenge
the status quo despite opposition. Further, results from this cross-case
analysis showed higher returns to capital in line with the study by de Mel
et al. (2005) on the potential that self-employed individuals with charac-
teristics similar to transformational entrepreneurs have in growing their
capital. It is interesting to note that entrepreneurs like Bimbo did not
question the ethics of making a 1000 percent profit on her product, but
instead took advantage of the opportunity to grow her business. Assertions
made by Ardagna and Lusardi (2010) in their study on the characteristics
of transformational entrepreneurs using data from the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is validated in this study as all five
entrepreneurs are found to have good literacy levels and no fear of failure.
This was evidenced in their ability to participate in leadership positions,
keep records or possess university degrees.
4.3.2 Entrepreneurial Challenges
It was observed that access to capital was an issue of concern to most of

the entrepreneurs at start-up. This is in line with arguments by Schoar
(2010) on capital constraints being a major challenge facing transforma-
tional entrepreneurs in developing countries. It is also noted that only in
two cases were bank loans used in venture financing, with no use of
microfinance for funding their organizations. But this should not be a
cause for concern, since Banerjee et al. (2009) found no impact of micro
credit on firm growth in the India case. Despite this, the entrepreneurs
were resourceful in mobilizing a variety of resources and strategies to help
them succeed. To secure financial resources, the studied entrepreneurs
limited themselves to personal savings or support from family and friends,
no matter how small it was. They understood the principle of starting
small, but were not opposed to growth—working consistently to achieve
it through reinvestment of profits. This was not a bad strategy per se;
however, it seems that it had an implication on the time it took them to
grow, with findings showing that these entrepreneurs collectively grew
66 K. N. A. Arthur
within an average time period of 13 years. Amalena had a 40-year period

to grow, but it was for only 12 of those years that Anita took over the
business to kick start the exponential progress. On the other hand, Nelly
made much progress in five years, with an additional time period of about
four years spent in research and relocation. These lead to questions of
whether the transition time could have been shorter should financial sup-
port have been provided earlier, whether the entrepreneurs would have
been prepared to know how to utilize it judiciously and when in the life
cycle of a new venture should such financial support be given. Answers to
these questions would be beneficial for policy making. Concerning the
second challenge of regulatory constraint, there is limited data available
to enable an accurate analysis. Nevertheless, two of the entrepreneurs
suggested that regulation was a problem when they made reference to the
revenue authority and the customs division. What stood out in all five
cases was the existence of self-regulatory mechanisms from the industry
and clients that fostered or hindered growth. In the Amalena case, for
example, the association of traders in the children clothes and accessories
business as well as the clients created resistance to own-branded products
as an expansion strategy. In the Bimbeads case, engagements with NNEW
encouraged risk-taking behaviors associated with growth, like getting an
outlet to operate in.
4.4 Conclusion
The above cases are just a few of the many stories of female entrepreneurs
who have successfully grown their businesses from MEs into giants that
rub shoulders with international organizations. There is a need to study
more of these—those documented in secondary literature and those
located in remote areas in African communities—before generalizations
can be made. Despite this, there are themes that emerge which could
provide useful lessons or trigger further research in the quest to help grow
MEs. First, it is evident from the cases that female entrepreneurs can play
a role in the transformation of Africa through entrepreneurship. Increased
levels of sales, profitability, internationalization and job creation demon-
strated in this study indicate the potential female entrepreneurs have to
contribute to economic development. However, it is clear that the female

entrepreneurs studied here are not interested in the western construct of
economic development (e.g. contribution to gross domestic product,
GDP), but rather in real qualitative impacts that will lift themselves, their
families and individuals in their immediate communities from poverty.
To this end, women, when compared to men, may have a higher ten-
dency to champion the transformational entrepreneurship agenda of
establishing businesses with both economic and social motives (Meyskens
et al. 2011).
Secondly, it appeared in all five cases that initial business success
spurred the desire to grow and reinvest profits to support this. This, to a
large extent, depended on getting the opportunity right and the ability of
the entrepreneur to market it in a way that created demand for success.
Social networks, involving predominantly family, friends and other entre-
preneurs, provided synergy for growth and created some form of reputa-
tional resource for entrepreneurs to tap into in an attempt to overcome
the challenge of creating demand for their products. Nevertheless, it
seemed that entrepreneurs in the study did not fully capitalize on the
benefits of social networks for entrepreneurial success. Actors like suppli-
ers, buyers, government, incubators, entrepreneurship education and
training providers, financial institutions and financial intermediaries, per
the information available, were not actively engaged before or during the
entrepreneurial process (Jenssen 2001). Within the family, friend and
other entrepreneur network used, emphasis was placed on acquisition of
technical and entrepreneurial knowledge, marketing and publicity. It is
recommended that entrepreneurs strengthen their relationships with
actors not fully engaged and explore ways they can capitalize on the social
capital (e.g. access to additional sources of financing, strategic alliances,
access to knowledge and innovation capabilities, etc.) embedded in these
networks. Further, entrepreneurs in this study and their businesses could
benefit immensely (e.g. gain access to new skills, markets and technolo-
gies) from digitalization and the uptake of information and communica-
tion technologies in their activities.
68 K. N. A. Arthur
References
Ardagna, S., & Lusardi, A. (2010). Explaining International Differences in
Entrepreneurship: The Role of Individual Characteristics and Regulatory
Constraints. In J. Lerner & A. Schoar (Eds.), International Differences in
Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (for NBER).
Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2009). The Miracle of
Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation. Working Paper.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2005). Returns to Capital in
Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 123(4), 1329–1372.
Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2015). Gender and Entrepreneurship Research:
A Review of Methodological Approaches. International Small Business Journal,
34(3), 1–25.
Jenssen, J. I. (2001). Social Networks, Resources and Entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2, 103–109.
Maas, G., Jones, P., & Lockyer, J. (2016). Position Paper: International Centre for
Transformational Entrepreneurship. Working Paper. Coventry: Coventry
University.
Meets Social Impact. Harvard Business Review.
Meyskens, M. I., Elaine, A., & Brush, C. G. (2011). Human Capital and Hybrid
Ventures. In G. T. Lumpkin & J. A. Katz (Eds.), Social and Sustainable
Entrepreneurship (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth,
Volume 13) (pp. 51–72). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Minniti, M. (2009). Gender Issues in Entrepreneurship. Foundation and Trends
in Entrepreneurship, 5(7–8), 497–621.
Entrepreneurship. National Bureau of Economic Research. Chapter URL:
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11765, pp. 57–81.
5
Entrepreneurship in Australia
CyRise: A University and an IT Service
Provider Join Forces to Tackle Cybercrime
Heather Round
Abstract This chapter provides a case study of a cybersecurity accelera-

tor, recently established in Australia, in response to the growing threat of
cybercrime. The accelerator has been launched as a joint venture between
an IT service provider and a university, with the backing of the regional
government. In setting up and differentiating the accelerator particular
attention has been paid to the deal flow quality, selective engagement of
a broad range of mentors with deep skills and the establishment of an
environment conducive to innovation. As will be discussed in this chap-
ter, these factors increase the likelihood of success based on developing
strong and dynamic networks, building founders’ skills and increasing
collaboration within the ecosystem. This chapter demonstrates how the
principles of transformational entrepreneurship are being utilised within
this context to build a successful accelerator to tackle a challenging
situation.
H. Round (*)
Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: heather.round@deakin.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_5
70 H. Round
Keywords Transformational entrepreneurship • Accelerator •

Entrepreneurship • Innovation
5.1 Introduction
Against the backdrop of increasing international terrorism events, very
public security breaches and an increasingly sophisticated cyber hacker
network, the emphasis on cybersecurity is on the rise. Compounding the
situation is the ongoing shortage of skilled resources to tackle cybersecu-
rity issues, with the National Audit Office (NAO) stating in 2013 that it
could take up to twenty years to address the skills gap, leaving organisa-
tions and government institutions vulnerable (Cardwell 2013). Given
that information security and in particular cybersecurity are relatively
new industries, finding experienced, professional and diverse resources
continues to be a challenge (Furnell et al. 2017).
The International Organization for Standardization (2012, p. 4)
describes cyberspace as a “complex environment resulting from the inter-
action of people, software and services on the Internet by means of tech-
nology devices and networks connected to it, which does not exist in any
physical form”, while cybersecurity can be defined as information secu-
rity applied specifically to cyberspace (Sutton 2017).
With skills in short supply and the definition of cyberspace and cyber-
security illuminating the complexity involved in responding to these
threats, tackling cybersecurity may be considered a classic example of a
“wicked problem”. A wicked problem is one that has “innumerable
causes, is tough to describe, and doesn’t have a right answer” (Camillus
2008, p. 100). In order to respond to this wicked problem, transforma-
tional entrepreneurial thinking is required. An initiative recently estab-
lished in Melbourne, Australia, aims to engender exactly that type
thinking.
This chapter is structured around the way in which a cybersecurity
accelerator—CyRise—has been set up for innovation, creativity and
transformational entrepreneurship. In particular the chapter looks at how
dynamic networks are built, new skills are developed and active
Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in Australia 71
c ollaboration among components of the system is fostered, which have

been shown to be essential to entrepreneurial outcomes (Kitson et al.
2009). Amongst others, this chapter will have relevance for government
bodies interested in promoting entrepreneurship within their jurisdic-
tion, universities struggling with industry engagement and commerciali-
sation challenges, and organisations that are looking for a depth of
research and development skills but are struggling to attract and retain
this specialised talent.
5.2 The Australian Context

In the past Australia has relied heavily on the resources boom to underpin
economic growth, but as the international demand for commodities has
softened, the focus has slowly begun to shift to other areas such as services
(Australian Industry Report 2016). Evidence of the shift away from
resources can be seen in recent government reports of services accounting
for 60% of gross domestic product (GDP) and employing 9.4 million
people in 2015–2016 (Australian Industry Report 2016). Policy makers
and strategists understand the imperative for Australia to move away
from a resource-based economy more quickly than has been done to date,
in order to compete internationally in future. Outlined in the government-
backed plan for future development—Australia 2030: Prosperity through
Innovation (Innovation and Science Australia 2017)—are thirty recom-
mendations to capitalise on innovation in order to scale up more high-
growth industries, commercialise more high-value products and services,
develop great talent and tackle global challenges. In order to achieve this,
Australia needs to transform itself into a digital economy, sometimes
called a third-generation economy. A digital economy may be described
as a platform, based on the internet, mobile networks, sensor networks
and e-commerce, which enables a global network of economic and social
activities (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015). Inherent in embracing
the concepts of the digital economy is innovative disruption as well as
increased vulnerabilities and threats to individuals, communities and ser-
vices within Australia—in particular, the increased potential for
72 H. Round
compromise by cybercriminals and cyberterrorism within the increas-

ingly complex, integrated, distributed digital world.
According to the World Economic Forum (2018), cybercrime was pre-
dicted to cost the global economy US$445 billion in 2017, a figure which
is set to rise going forward (Hui et al. 2017). Over the past few years
cyberattacks have been increasing in Australia, and according to the
Australian Cyber Security Centre, between 2011 and 2014, attacks on
the Australian government alone have risen by more than 260%
(Australian Cyber Security Centre 2015).
In addition, the situation is compounded by the increasing skills short-
age being experienced in the area of information technology and in par-
ticular cybersecurity (Furnell et al. 2017). So in many ways, within
Australia, there are the conditions for a “perfect storm”, with a strong
push to innovate and transform to a digital-based services economy,
which brings with it the concomitant increased cybersecurity threats and
a lack of depth of skills to draw upon to address the situation.
This chapter will focus on one initiative which encompasses the prin-
ciples of transformational entrepreneurship in order to respond to the
challenge which has been outlined above. CyRise, a cybersecurity accel-
erator, established in partnership between industry and academia, will be
discussed next, but prior to this a short overview of the start-up space in
Australia will be provided.
5.3 Entrepreneurship in Australia

Within Australia the driving need for entrepreneurship and innovation
and the support for start-ups can be explained based on an economic
view. This view encompasses the fact that there are fewer government
levers for stimulus, growing national debt, interest rates approaching zero
(monetary policy can no longer dial up the growth needed), declining
manufacturing and increasing underemployment, which all point to the
need for innovation and entrepreneurship.
An important component to consider in increasing entrepreneurship
and innovation within Australia is the role of the education sector. In
particular the higher education sector has been called on to support a
positive vision for Australia by focusing on entrepreneurship and innova-

tion in order to prepare students for jobs of the future. According to the
GUESSS report (Sieger et al. 2016) 32.8% of Australian students want
to start a business within five years, which indicates a strong demand
from students for entrepreneurship skills, and thus in order to ensure that
students are job ready, universities need to ensure not only that they are
developing students’ capacity for innovation but also that they are equip-
ping students with the entrepreneurial skills required in order to be part
of the innovation economy.
A report commissioned by the chief scientist of Australia provides a
good way of explaining the role of universities in the area of innovation
and entrepreneurship within Australia (Kinner 2015). The report views
the student entrepreneurial experience as a funnel, with the level of expo-
sure to entrepreneurship correlating to the potential entrepreneurial out-
comes. At the most generic level providing students with an awareness
increases their ability to participate in the technology-driven, increasingly
complex business environment. At the higher levels universities can equip
students with the skills to innovate within organisations or initiate new,
innovative undertakings themselves. In order to do this, universities need
to provide exposure to the start-up world through, for example, becom-
ing involved in incubation or acceleration of start-ups.
In addition, universities need to consider the integration of activities
to support entrepreneurship across the entire university in order to
amplify the impact they can have in the start-up space. The chief scien-
tist’s report (Kinner 2015) provides a way of measuring (based on six
stages) the maturity of entrepreneurship education. The six stages can be
represented as follows:
• Stage one: a single course is offered to students

• Stage two: an incubator or similar events are supported
• Stage three: curriculum is expanded, with entrepreneurship at the
centre
• Stage four: broad curriculum is developed with the engagement of the
local start-up community
• Stage five: campus-wide infusion of entrepreneurship is evident
74 H. Round
• Stage six: there is integration across faculties and entrepreneurship is

seen as part of the institutional identity
While some Australian universities are already approaching the later

stages, it could be argued that many Australian universities are still at
Stage two or three.
The initiatives of the higher education sector in terms of stimulating
the start-up sector need to be contextualised within the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Education may be seen as one of the stages (or zones) of entre-
preneurship, with incubation and growth being others. Working together,
these stages/zones provide the foundation for entrepreneurship and inno-
vation to flourish within a region.
There has been an escalation of activity in the start-up space in Australia
over the past few years, with an increase in the number of accelerators
and incubators emerging within each of the major centres across the
country (Seet et al. 2018). Most of these have a broad innovation agenda
and attract founders from a wide range of disciplines. Some of the earliest
pioneers in this space include Startmate, Angel Cube (now owned by
Slingshot), Ignition Labs and BlueChilli, to name but a few (for a more
comprehensive list see https://blog.thefetch.com/start-up-incubators-
and-accelerators-in-australia/).
5.4 About CyRise

CyRise, established in mid-2017 as a joint venture between Deakin
University and Dimension Data, aims to be the number one cybersecurity
accelerator in Australia. The initiative brings together the diverse skills and
resources of both partners in order to achieve innovative and creative out-
comes. Dimension Data, a member of the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
(NTT) group, has a depth of knowledge and experience in digital infra-
structure and hybrid cloud technologies and a strong commercialisation
focus (www.dimensiondata.com). Deakin University, which is ranked in the
top 2% of the world’s universities (according to Ranking of World
Universities, Times Higher Education, QS World University Rankings), has
significant expertise in the area of cybersecurity research and education.
Rather than just providing funding for the establishment of CyRise,

the two partner organisations, Deakin University and Dimension Data,
are embedded in the operation and jointly accountable for the success of
the accelerator. This three-way partnership provides a unique structure
which holds in creative tension the goals and aspirations of the venture
with the commercial realties and the market demands in order to achieve
positive outcomes. The partners aim to achieve both social and economic
impact through launching a successful cybersecurity accelerator.
Underpinning the venture is government support in the form of a
grant from LaunchVic (https://launchvic.org/), an independent agency
established by the Victorian government in March 2016 and tasked with
developing a start-up ecosystem within the Victorian region of Australia.
The start-up ecosystem is made up of founders, investors, start-up teams,
community organisations, corporate partners and government (Feld
2012). LaunchVic is based on the strong Australian government commit-
ment to entrepreneurship and the assumption that amplifying the start-
up ecosystem by collectively creating a pipeline of successful start-ups
will have a positive impact on jobs and gross domestic product in Australia
in the long term. LauchVic’s aspirations align strongly with the CyRise
aim of having social and economic impact through skills creation, prod-
uct development and the establishment of an ecosystem to tackle cyber-
security challenges in the region.
As part of establishing a viable accelerator and focusing on success, a
CEO was sought with specific start-up skills. Scott Handsaker was
appointed as CEO in 2017 and given responsibility for the establishment
of the acceleration programme. Handsaker not only comes with strong
entrepreneurial skills, but is also deeply connected with the local start-up
community, having co-founded Start-up Victoria (a not-for-profit
focused on helping Melbourne become a world-class start-up ecosystem).
Kirstin McIntosh joined Handsaker as part of the CyRise team early on
in the first programme. McIntosh is the programme manager and has
start-up experience herself as well as having facilitated in building entre-
preneurial ecosystems in various global regions.
76 H. Round
5.5 he CyRise Difference: Transformational

T
Entrepreneurship
Research suggests that the success rate of start-ups is limited, with,
depending on the industry, up to 70% of start-ups failing within the first
five years (Gruber and Henkel 2006). In reviewing CyRise a number of
key differentiating factors emerge which together make the accelerator
more likely to achieve success. In particular, this section looks at the
aspects of CyRise which facilitate the building of dynamic networks,
development of new skills and foster collaboration among components of
the system, all three of which have been shown to be essential to entrepre-
neurial outcomes (Kitson et al. 2009).
5.5.1 The CyRise Culture and Ethos
CyRise differentiates themselves from other accelerators not only in their

vertical focus but also in the way in which the accelerator has been set up
and is managed on an ongoing basis. The three key aspect of differentia-
tion can be described as utilising similar content but focusing on differ-
ent outcomes, the individuals who are selected to participate and the
individuals involved in the running of the programmes. One tangible
difference with CyRise is the length of the accelerator programme.
Whereas most programmes are based on a three-month cycle (Radojevich-
Kelley and Hoffman 2012), CyRise has elected to have a six-month pro-
gramme. This extension of the programme was justified based on the
embryonic stage of the specific cybersecurity ecosystem in Melbourne
currently. Taking this into account a conscious decision was made to
accept individuals into the programme who are still very much in the
ideation phases, rather than only those who have more developed ideas
and are ready to scale, and to work with them for longer in order to grow
their ideas. In this sense the organisations supporting CyRise and the
team running the acceleration programmes understand that what they
are doing is also contributing to building a cybersecurity ecosystem which
can provide the foundations for economic, innovative and technological
advancement in the region. As the ecosystem develops and grows more
sophisticated, there may be an opportunity to review the timeframes of

the accelerator but, based on the current climate, six months appear to be
a reasonable timeframe. One of the challenges with having a longer accel-
eration programme is to ensure that the founders do not become compla-
cent and that the time is well spent. In order to focus on different
outcomes and drive success, Handsaker instils a sense of urgency in each
of the start-ups throughout the programme, maintaining their focus and
keeping them to an agenda.
As part of developing an environment within which innovation and
entrepreneurship can flourish, Handsaker deliberately developed the fol-
lowing four values within CyRise to act as cultural pillars:
• Raise your standards—CyRise founders are capable of world-class

entrepreneurship and need to understand what world class looks like
in order to aim for this
• Radical transparency—this incorporates the way in which individuals
interact and includes candour, direct feedback and empathy
• Give before you get—in order to develop an ecosystem and a commu-
nity, individuals need to be generous in giving to others
• Seek truth—as part of ongoing innovation and entrepreneurship,
question existing assumptions and overturn entrenched thinking in
order to find the truth
The ethos and culture being actively developed within CyRise promote
collaboration through the longer time that the founders spend together
and the values which encompass cooperation. In addition the longer time
scale of the accelerator means that there is more time for developing criti-
cal skills, which founders will require once they exit the programme.
5.5.2 Strategic Mentorship and Networking
Recruiting mentors is a key part of setting up an accelerator programme;

however, many of these are fairly loosely managed and mentors are not
rigorously vetted for their suitability. From the start CyRise has set high
standards for mentorship as one of the key aspects of differentiation.
78 H. Round
Being selective when mentors are volunteers could be a challenging pros-

pect, as some of the best placed mentors are most likely to be the busiest
and most in demand too.
Recruiting mentors for CyRise was facilitated by Handsaker’s deep
network and credentials in the start-up and entrepreneurial community.
In particular, mentors within CyRise are sought who not only have exist-
ing skills relevant to the cybersecurity sector but also encapsulate four
characteristics which are consistent with the ethos of the accelerator.
These mentors need (1) to be deeply credible in the cybersecurity start-up
space, (2) to have a “give before you get” philosophy, in other words, to
be in it for the right reasons, (3) to be high performers and (4) to have a
depth of experience and the “scars” to prove it. Thus mentors within
CyRise are very much selected based on both fit with the values of the
accelerator and their specific set of skills.
While CyRise mentors have a common ethos around giving back,
growing talent and establishing the ecosystem, they contribute in a num-
ber of different ways based on their own constraints and availability.
Those who are particularly time poor may run one-off workshops with all
the accelerator participants. Others may be involved in what are called
“mentor whiplash”, that is, short informal meetings which are arranged
for the founders with a number of mentors back to back. Finally there are
the one-on-one mentors who are allocated to a particular team within the
accelerator (two mentors per team) and who make themselves available to
the team on an ongoing basis throughout the programme. There are
expectations set with the start-up teams in terms of how to engage their
mentors and this includes providing a weekly update on their progress,
which also assists in creating the sense of urgency and focus which was
previously discussed.
Understanding what mentors are getting from the experience is a key
part of developing the mentorship model on an ongoing basis and, in
order to do this, the CyRise team have been interviewing individuals who
mentored the first cohort. Emerging from these discussions are themes
around the personal gratification of being involved in developing talent
and contributing to building the ecosystem. Mentors are energised by
interacting with individuals who are talented, inspired and innovative.
While the cohort are highly positive about the role of mentorship, most
mentors are consistently modest about their contribution and see them-
selves as mostly responsible for stimulating thought-provoking conversa-
tions. As part of ramping up for the next cohort the CyRise team will be
adding to the existing base of mentors, continuing to recruit based on fit
with the values of the accelerator and the specific skill set of the individ-
ual. An activity which is likely to be facilitated by the increasing profile of
CyRise and the team’s growing knowledge of the cybersecurity sector.
Recognising the importance of embedding the founders in not only
the local ecosystem but also a global network of innovative thinkers, the
six-month programme is structured around two international trips. The
first of these is to Israel, which is seen as a cybersecurity powerhouse at
the centre of an $82 billion industry (Press 2017). This trip gives CyRise
founders access to deep thinking about cybersecurity, technology, as well
as the opportunity to develop networks and connections. The second trip
is to the USA, which is has a distinct concentration of fast-growing, suc-
cessful start-ups (Cohan 2017) and provides the perfect opportunity for
founders to refine the commercialisation aspects of their product.
Being strategic about selecting mentors is a large component of facili-
tating a strong network, and continually reviewing and refreshing the
mentor base ensures that the network remains dynamic and relevant.
Mentors come with existing networks, and by connecting founders with
a range of mentors, CyRise is inserting the start-ups into a reputable and
useful network. By extending the connections to key international
regions, the network is enhanced. In addition, given the emphasis on the
skills of the mentors and the extended timeframe of the programme,
mentors are able to spend more time with founders, building their entre-
preneurial skills during the programme.
5.5.3 D
eal Flow Quality as a Basis for a Strong
Programme
In addition to being keenly focused on recruiting the best fit of mentors,

the CyRise team are also very careful about who is accepted into the pro-
gramme. Underpinning this is the assumption that a high standard
within the cohort will translate to stronger long-term outcomes from the
80 H. Round
acceleration programme. Advertising for the accelerator programme is

done through the Melbourne-based start-up communities, meetups,
hackathons, conferences and other general entrepreneurial-based events.
Handsaker also believes that a deeper understanding of the cybersecurity
ecosystem will assist in developing the diversity of the accelerator “deal
flow”, which will have positive benefits for the cohort in terms of innova-
tion. Apart from events, the network based on partners and mentors is a
key focus as part of the recruitment campaign. The CyRise team also
actively follow up with any individuals who have expressed interest
through the various channels in the past to see if they are in the position
to apply for the next programme.
The deal flow sourcing activities happen over a two-month period and
predominantly focus on identifying potential applicants and selling the
programme to them. Handsaker is pivotal in this process, making his
calendar available publicly to anyone who would like to discuss their idea
with him. For those individuals who he identifies as being high potential,
Handsaker aims to demonstrate the value of the accelerator long before
the individual applies. In identifying potential applicants, similar to the
mentors, there is a focus on the individual’s skills and their fit with the
values of the accelerator. Successful applicants need to be technically
competent and be able to build the technology within the accelerator
rather than having to rely on others to do this. In addition, successful
applicants need to have a depth of knowledge of cybersecurity and a pas-
sion for solving problems in this sector.
Once accepted onto the programme founders are required to be located
at the accelerator in downtown Melbourne for the full extent of the pro-
gramme. The philosophy is that, through co-location, comradery is built,
networks are developed and collaboration is encouraged. During the pro-
gramme Handsaker acts as an “entrepreneur in residence” for the whole
cohort. This includes individual meetings at the start of each week where
the founders are required to set out their plans, activities and challenges.
This is part of the progress of structured accountability within the accel-
erator and also assists in keeping the cohort focused and maintaining the
ongoing sense of urgency. Weeks are bookend with meetings—the one-
on-one meetings at the beginning of the week and a “team huddle” at the
end of the week. Social events throughout the programme act to bind the
team together and develop the team spirit; this is an important aspect of
balancing workload pressures which may be experienced by the cohort,
especially as the end of the programme starts drawing nearer. The inter-
national trips, taken during the program, also play an important role in
binding the team and developing the social capital within the cohort.
This not only is important for the duration of the programme but is par-
ticularly relevant for expanding the cybersecurity ecosystem.
Being surrounded by a cohort who have deep technical skills, together
with the collaborative environment, facilitates skills transfer and allows
founders to extend themselves technically while in the programme. In
addition, having an experienced, accessible entrepreneur in residence
allows founders to identify areas for skill development and focus on
building these during the programme.
5.6 The Next Steps for CyRise

The CyRise team encompass the four key values themselves and, in the
spirit of continually raising standards, continually review, reflect and con-
sider how the programme may be modified in order to achieve the CyRise
vision. In particular the specific vertical focus raises some distinctive chal-
lenges, while the organisations involved in the partnership offer some
unique opportunities for CyRise.
5.6.1 Amplifying R&D Capability
Start-ups founded by CyRise have the benefit of being nimble and are
able to respond quickly to feedback or new sources of information in
order to change their products or offerings. This provides them with a
unique competitive advantage. However, as argued by Weiblen and
Chesbrough (2015), this agility is offset against a constraint in terms of
accessing resources. In particular many start-ups struggle to invest in
research and development (R&D) (de Jong and Freel 2010), which is
crucial to their success. Having an association with a university provides
the opportunity for CyRise participants to access research and
82 H. Round
evelopment capacity far in excess of what their own limited resources

d
would allow for.
Key to achieving this is the establishment of “academic engagement”,
which is defined as “knowledge-related collaboration by academic
researchers with non-academic organisations” (Perkmann et al. 2012,
p. 424). Research on academic collaboration shows that achieving benefi-
cial outcomes requires a complex range of factors to be in alignment. This
includes individual factors such as demographics (Giuliani et al. 2010;
Goktepe-Hulten 2009) and networks (Haeussler and Colyvas 2011), as
well as organisational factors such as the existence of a mechanism for
technology transfer (Markman et al. 2005). Overarching these factors is
the prevalent instructional environment, which has also been shown to
have an impact, including areas such as access to funding (Haeussler and
Colyvas 2011) and the level of competition (Goldfarb and Henrekson
2003).
In other parts of Deakin University’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, for
example, in a high-tech advanced manufacturing hub, academic engage-
ment and industry alignment is achieved by having students do internships
with the start-ups and also by having PhD students working on some of the
challenges encountered by the start-ups. This has a twofold advantage in
that not only the start-up is able to access the advanced research capability
of the university but also the students are exposed to real-life scenarios and
are able to develop relevant workplace skills. The success of this collabora-
tive model is evident in the positive outcomes within the start-ups and also
in the number of students who are employed by the start-ups once they
complete their studies. Achieving greater integration between the university
and the accelerator programme is one of the key opportunities for CyRise
to continue to develop and differentiate themselves on an ongoing basis.
5.6.2 Increasing Open Innovation
A key aspect of start-up success is in opening the individuals who have

founded the enterprise to external sources of knowledge. Researchers
(Carlsson and Corvello 2011; Eftekhari and Bogers 2015; Kask and
Linton 2013) have found that openness to external knowledge sources
and the creation of business innovation networks are two of the most
critical factors in the success of enterprises in the start-up phase. This is a
good example of the open innovation paradigm which Chesbrough
(2006) theorised, which allows organisations to open up their innovation
processes in order to leverage both internal and external sources of knowl-
edge. As do other accelerators, CyRise employs the commonly accepted
means of engendering open innovation within the accelerator such as
having demo days in order to gain feedback from a wide audience.
CyRise has a unique challenge in terms of being specifically focused on
cybersecurity and this necessitates a degree of secrecy in the development
of some of the products in order to maintain a strong defence against
potential hackers and cyberterrorism. This is where the unique partner-
ship with the founding organisations is particularly useful. Dimension
Data offers start-ups access to domain experts in the area of cybersecurity
as well as more generally in the area of technology and infrastructure. A
strong indication of the commitment of the organisation to the success of
the accelerator is demonstrated by the involvement of senior leadership
in mentoring start-ups, including the chief technology officer and the
national security architect of Dimension Data. Having these individuals
as part of the team of mentors opens up the communication channels
within Dimension Data, facilitates the exchange of information and
allows for an open innovation paradigm to be established with a trusted
partner.
Building on the strong foundation which has already been established
between Dimension Data and CyRise, there is an opportunity for greater
integration and collaboration across the two entities. In particular
Dimension Data may act as a value resource in terms of building com-
mercialisation skills in the founders such as sales and marketing skills.
5.7 Conclusion
CyRise represents an innovative approach to tackling the increasing
problem of cybercrime. The unique partnership model utilised in setting
up CyRise and the strategic and thoughtful way in which it has been
established provide insights into how collaboration acts as a catalyst for
84 H. Round
innovation and entrepreneurship. While it is early days for CyRise,

already the indicators are that the accelerator will have a profound and
positive impact on building the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the region.
This outcome will have significant benefits for not only the two founding
organisations and the accelerator cohort but also the broader region.
Transformational entrepreneurship is often thought of as a distinctly dif-
ferent type of entrepreneurial activity due to its interdisciplinary nature
and its foundations in challenge-based entrepreneurship (Ratten and
Jones 2018). In addition it is considered to have high economic impact
as well as long-term societal impact (Marmer 2012). This case study illus-
trates transformational entrepreneurship in the way in which interdisci-
plinary, cross-sector collaboration has enabled the emergence of a new
entity to tackle challenging problems around cybersecurity. In creating
CyRise, the partners aim to have significant social and economic impact
in the Australian region in order to develop skills, create new jobs and
accelerate the regional cybersecurity capacity. However, the aspirations of
impact extend beyond the region as this accelerator aims in the long term
to have a global presence. Thus this case study demonstrates how trans-
formational entrepreneurship underpins the development of a new entity
with significant potential. In the process of developing CyRise, the con-
ceptual foundations of transformational entrepreneurship have been
integrated into the fabric of the accelerator in the way it has been designed
and set up. This facilitates the ongoing assimilation of transformational
entrepreneurship into the ethos of the founders and start-ups which
emerges from the accelerator and thereby aims to increase this type of
high-impact entrepreneurship in the region on an ongoing basis.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Frameworks for Australian Social
Statistics – Information and Communication Technology. ABS Publication
Number 4160.0.55.001. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4160.0.55.001~Jun%202015~Main%20
Features~Information%20and%20communication%20technology~10018.
Australian Cyber Security Centre. (2015). 2015 Threat Report. Retrieved from
https://www.acsc.gov.au/publications/index.htm.
Australian Industry Report. (2016). Chapter 2: Economic Conditions. Retrieved
from https://www.industry.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx.
Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a Wicked Problem. Harvard Business Review,
86(5), 98–106.
Cardwell, T. (2013, July). Plugging the Cyber-Security Skills Gap. Computer
Fraud & Security, 7, 5–10.
Carlsson, S., & Corvello, V. (2011). Open Innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 14(4), 408–411.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating
and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Cohan, P. (2017). How Cambridge and Silicon Valley Became Startup Hubs.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco-
han/2017/07/18/how-cambridge-and-silicon-valley-became-startup-
hubs/#433bf6a237a7.
de Jong, J. P., & Freel, M. (2010). Absorptive Capacity and the Reach of
Collaboration in High Technology Small Firms. Research Policy, 39(1),
47–54.
Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for Entrepreneurship: How Open
Innovation Can Foster New Venture Creation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 24(4), 574–584.
Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in
Your City. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Furnell, S., Fischer, P., & Finch, A. (2017, February). Can’t Get the Staff? The
Growing Need for Cyber-Security Skills. Computer Fraud & Security, 2, 5–10.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who Are the
Researchers That Are Collaborating with Industry? An Analysis of the Wine
Sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39(6), 748–761.
Goktepe-Hulten, D. (2009). University-Industry Technology Transfer: Who
Needs TTOs? International Journal of Technology Transfer and
Commercialisation, 9(1–2), 40–52.
Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down Policies
Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property. Research
Policy, 32(4), 639–658.
Gruber, M., & Henkel, J. (2006). New Ventures Based on Open Innovation –
An Empirical Analysis of Start-Up Firms in Embedded Linux. International
Journal of Technology Management, 33(4), 356–372.
86 H. Round
Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic
Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy,
40(1), 41–54.
Hui, K., Kim, S. H., & Wang, Q. (2017). Cybercrime Deterrence and
International Legislation: Evidence from Distributed Denial of Service
Attacks. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), 497–523.
Innovation and Science Australia. (2017). Australia 2030: Prosperity Through
Innovation. Australian Government, Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.
industry.gov.au/Innovation-and-Science-Australia/Australia-2030/Pages/
default.aspx.
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Information Technology –
Security Techniques – Guidelines for Cybersecurity. ISO/IEC Publication
Number 27032:2012. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/44375.
html.
Kask, J., & Linton, G. (2013). Business Mating: When Start-Ups Get It Right.
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 511–536.
Kinner, C. (2015). Boosting High-Impact Entrepreneurship in Australia – A Role
for Universities. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2015/10/
media-release-building-a-culture-of-entrepreneurship/.
Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The Connected
University: Driving Recovery and Growth in the UK Economy. London:
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005).
Entrepreneurship and University-Based Technology Transfer. Journal of
Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.
Meets Societal Impact. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.
org/2012/04/transformational-entrepreneurs.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostrom, A., d’Este, P.,
et al. (2012). Academic Engagement vs. Commercialization: A Systematic
Review of Research on University Relations with Industry: Mimeo.
Press, G. (2017). 6 Reasons Israel Became a Cybersecurity Powerhouse Leading
the $82 Billion Industry. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/
sites/gilpress/2017/07/18/6-reasons-israel-became-a-cybersecuri-
ty-powerhouse-leading-the-82-billion-industry/#588faa3420aa.
Radojevich-Kelley, N., & Hoffman, D. L. (2012). Analysis of Accelerator
Companies: An Exploratory Case Study of Their Programs, Processes, and
Early Results. Small Business Institute Journal, 8(2), 54–70.
Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2018). Transformational Entrepreneurship: An Overview.

In Transformational Entrepreneurship (pp. 13–29). London: Routledge.
Seet, P., Jones, J., Oppelaar, L., & de Zubielqui, G. C. (2018). Beyond ‘Know-
What’ and ‘Know-How’ to ‘Know-Who’: Enhancing Human Capital with
Social Capital in an Australian Start-Up Accelerator. Asia Pacific Business
Review, 24(2), 233–260.
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Student Entrepreneurship
2016: Insights from 50 Countries. St. Gallen/Bern: KMU-HSG/
IMU. Retrieved from http://www.guesssurvey.org/publications/publica-
tions/international-reports.html.
Sutton, D. (2017, July 10). Cyber Security: A Practitioner’s Guide. Swindon, UK:
BCS Learning & Development. ISBN-13: 978-1-78017-340-5.
Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with Startups to Enhance
Corporate Innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66–90.
World Economic Forum. (2018). Cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.
weforum.org/projects/cybercrime.
6
Entrepreneurship in Malaysia—Dare to
Dream, Dare to Talk, Dare to Act(ion)
Sok Kwan Say and Kii Geat Johan Lim
Abstract This case study challenges readers to examine the role of self-
leadership in entrepreneurship. It is based on a real-life case of how an
individual self-influences himself to achieve strong self-direction and self-
motivation in pursuing his dream. The entrepreneur started his entrepre-
neurial journey with a big dream and some basic knowledge of what an
entrepreneur does. However, the strong self-leadership in him is the psy-
chological trait that has driven him to continuously seek new opportuni-
ties and scale greater heights. According to Neck et al. (Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 463–480, 2013), an individual who
constantly engages in positive self-talk, self-assessment of what he can
achieve and visualisation of success, and if this cycle repeats, will influ-
ence his way of thinking and self-motivate him to continuously align his
cognitions with what he desires. The outcome is more than just being an
entrepreneur, but an individual’s entrepreneurial journey in pursuit of an
ever-expanding dream. Is this the manifestation of strong self-leadership,
an essential personality trait of a transformational entrepreneur?
S. K. Say (*) • K. G. J. Lim

Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
e-mail: saysk@tarc.edu.my; kglim@tarc.edu.my

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_6
90 S. K. Say and K. G. J. Lim
Keywords Self-leadership • Dream • Transformation • Impact • Legacy
6.1 Introduction
When one ventures into something unknown, one has to constantly remind
oneself that the only option available is to move forward—Aaron Chan.
Dare to dream, Dare to talk, Dare to Act(ion)! These were the words
ingrained in the mind of 18-year-old Aaron Chan, an aspiring entrepre-
neur when he left his home in a small coastal village in Malaysia for the
capital city of Kuala Lumpur in pursuit of his dream. Jobs were scarce
and business opportunities were almost non-existent in the village with
more than 100 houses. That year was 1990.
Today, Aaron Chan has realised his dream of becoming a successful
entrepreneur. He is the founder of iRewards Bhd. (iRewards), a fast-
growing multimillion Malaysia home-grown technology and innovation
incubator. He is also the Managing Director of iRewards. The company
is expanding at unprecedented speed and set to become the largest incu-
bator in the Southeast Asia region. Plans are also in place for iRewards to
become a global player in the very near future.
Aaron’s humble entrepreneurial journey began in 1990 when he told
his father that he wanted to leave home in search of business opportuni-
ties in Kuala Lumpur. He had just completed his secondary school educa-
tion. His father gave him Malaysia Ringgit (MYR) 100 and Aaron left for
the city, carried with him great determination and big dreams of starting
his own business. From day one since his arrival, he began to look for
opportunities to start a business that will make a difference to his life. He
was confident that he is destined for something big and impactful. With
limited resources and no one to turn to for help and guidance, Aaron
soon settled himself for a job to support his own living, as a helper in
delivering a popular brand of bottled nutritious drink by van.
Life was mundane and tough but that did not deter Aaron. He worked
hard and diligently. He stayed on the job for about a year, thinking about
how he could expand the delivery business. However, as time passed by,
Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in Malaysia… 91
he began to realise that there were not much prospects in this kind of
business. So, he moved on, searching for opportunities that could better
help him realise his dream.
Harsh reality started to dawn on him. He soon realised that starting a
business from scratch is extremely tough and definitely not for everyone.
But still, it did not deter him from pursuing his dream. Among the chal-
lenges Aaron faced were lack of knowledge in preparing a financial road-
map for a business, a reliable and knowledgeable mentor, and availability
of cost-effective funding. He wished that someone out there could lend
him a helping hand. He was prepared to work hard to realise his dream.
He talked and shared his dreams and thoughts with family members,
relatives, friends and associates. He was confident that he has a good busi-
ness model that would generate good returns, more than enough to con-
vince prospective investors to invest in him, but who would believe him,
as he had no track records.
From a very young age, Aaron knew that he does not want to own and
run a business for the sole purpose of providing for his loved ones and
himself. He is never for subsistence entrepreneurship, which he thinks
will not take him far, let alone make him happy. He has always wanted
something that could help others to move together and forward with
him. He has always been a strong supporter and advocate of building alli-
ance with others in what he does, as he believes people need to leverage
on each other’s strength to create synergy, especially in running a busi-
ness. He is a firm believer that one cannot do everything alone, as there is
a limit to what one can do and achieve, no matter how much resources
are at one’s disposal. He also believes that the eventual rewards reaped
from any alliance should not be his only. All stakeholders should have a
share of the rewards. In a business alliance, this would include employees,
business partners, business associates and customers. Whenever and
wherever he sees an opportunity to talk about and share his business phi-
losophy with others, he will do so earnestly and passionately. This busi-
ness philosophy would in the later years become the hallmark of all the
businesses Aaron built and expanded over the years, including iRewards.
Aaron does not just dream and talk, he acts fast whenever he sees an
opportunity. Prior to establishing iRewards, Aaron had ventured into
running cafes, distributing a specific brand of water filters in a network
marketing business and also designing and producing water finishing for
a wide range of furniture.
In all of these business ventures, he had always applied what he talked
most—his business philosophy of building business alliance. His busi-
nesses had done extremely well, expanded and grown within a short time
span, and he made real good money. But more importantly, his superb
business acumen and people skills were put to good use as he met and
made friends with many people from diverse backgrounds, some who
would later become his participating merchants and business associates
in iRewards.
He is a strong believer in building and running his businesses based on
trust, fairness, openness, transparency and good governance and, more
importantly, he is a law-abiding citizen. He would not venture into busi-
nesses that have many grey areas where there is a blurring line between
legality and illegality. He also believes in honouring what he said and
delivering what he means. It is based on all these principles that Aaron
acted and built his businesses, including iRewards.
Aaron likes to share his vision and thoughts with others, as he believes
bouncing of ideas helps him to better understand his dream and make
better decisions. It also serves as a constant reminder to himself that he
has to honour what he said and promised rather than just empty talks.
He is a firm believer of “Do what you say, say what you do” principle. This
is Aaron’s core value that saw him continuously delivering what he prom-
ised to the stakeholders of his businesses. His business stakeholders, espe-
cially the investors who are looking for good returns, continue to have
confidence in him. Aaron never fails to deliver!
Aaron is extremely passionate and motivated in pursuing his dream.
His self-confidence is so strong that nothing could stop him from advanc-
ing once he has set his mind. His entrepreneurial journey had been rela-
tively smooth sailing in the initial years, building and expanding
businesses based on his business alliance philosophy.
But he encountered a serious challenge at the height of his network mar-
keting business. He had built up a successful distribution network of more
than 1000 active members within a year, invested substantially in training
and supporting the network, only to be informed later that the owner of the
business decided not to continue with the distribution business. That was
a blow to Aaron, as his dream of expanding the business had come to a dead
end so quickly, forcing him to abandon the business. Luck was also not on
his side, as he was facing some crisis in his personal life. He was really hitting
the rock bottom!
But, Aaron being Aaron, his fighting spirit and grit were so strong that
he would not let this setback pull him down and derail him from pursu-
ing his bigger dream. He left the capital city that had earlier given him
such high hopes of attaining his dreams and travelled north to rebuild
himself. Months passed by. His money was running low, and when he
eventually returned to the capital city again, he had only MYR 150 in his
pocket. With great determination, he persevered, picked himself up
quickly and ventured into a new business, designing and producing vari-
ous designs of water finishing for a wide range of furniture, which even-
tually saw him pulled through the difficult time.
His new business in producing water finishing for furniture flourished
very quickly and he made a name for the company and himself as a suc-
cessful entrepreneur. His network had also expanded tremendously, as he
was proactively participating and engaging with other businesses, trade
associations and related government agencies. He was extremely innova-
tive in product development, product packaging and marketing. Years
later, his company went on to become the number one manufacturer of
water finishing product for furniture in Malaysia. Aaron had delivered his
“Dare to dream, Dare to talk, Dare to Act(ion)” motto!
Aaron’s “Dare to dream, Dare to talk, Dare to Act(ion)” motto continues
to propel him forward, faster, further and bigger in building and expand-
ing his business. It is non-stoppable, advancing from one success to
another success in bigger and larger scales, but more importantly creating
wider and deeper impact on others.
Reaching the height of his water finishing business years later might
have satisfied many people but not Aaron. He yearned for more and new
challenges. His thirst for something big and different continues to bug
and unsettle him. He needed new challenges to satisfy the adrenalin rush
in him. So, he moved on to establish iRewards in 2005.
At the start of iRewards, Aaron brought together ten well-known
Malaysian brands from different industries, connecting them via a reward
system. Customers who purchased a certain value worth of products/
services from one participating merchant were rewarded with vouchers

issued by iRewards which allowed them to claim freebies from other par-
ticipating merchants. These vouchers were designed and issued by iRe-
wards, having agreed with the participating merchants the types of
freebies each could offer.
The participating merchants purchased the vouchers from iRewards
for a fee and awarded the vouchers to their customers. iRewards’ main
revenue stream was fees paid by the participating merchants. The value
worth of these freebies was much higher than the customers’ original
purchase cost, making it very attractive for customers to buy from the
participating merchants. For example, a customer who purchased
MYR400 worth of goods from a participating merchant might be given
vouchers that allowed him/her to claim freebies in the form of gift and
services amounting to MYR 10,000 from other participating merchants.
iRewards does not charge customers for the services rendered.
All participating merchants as well as iRewards operated separately and
did not have any business interest in one another. The participating mer-
chants who traditionally operated silos or within their industry, serving
the customer base they had created and expanded, found themselves con-
nected with other participating merchants that could complement and
supplement their business. iRewards facilitates the purchase of products/
services among them at more competitive business terms, making it more
attractive for the participating merchants to collaborate with one another
rather than with external parties. More importantly, their customer base
expanded significantly, as they had access to each other’s customers in
addition to new customers brought in by iRewards. iRewards was
extremely successful in their marketing strategy and business develop-
ment, bringing on board more established brands from different indus-
tries and driving more consumers on board as time passed by.
Over the next few years, iRewards continued to fill the gaps in the
business alliance by bringing in more merchants that it believed could
further add value to the existing merchants and better serve customers.
Networking was vastly expanded, opening up many business opportuni-
ties, as the merchants not only traded with one another but also saw their
customer base vastly expanded. Participating merchants began to reap the
benefits of joining the business alliance and they too encouraged others
to join iRewards. Soon, the number of participating merchants grew

from an initial 10 to 2000, bringing in more brands and variety to con-
sumers. Revenue for iRewards in the form of fees payable by the partici-
pating merchants had also increased in tandem with the volume of
vouchers issued and sold.
Aaron, the brainchild behind this reward architectural framework,
attributed his success to the people who built the business with him.
He said, “I always uphold a positive mindset. I motivate my team to
achieve greater heights. It is my passion to create synergy and teamwork
among participating businesses. I believe in long-term partnership with them
on a single platform.” To better support the participating merchants and
to provide more value-added services to customers, Aaron knew that he
had to transform the way iRewards operates its business. He was fully
aware that digitalisation is the way forward for iRewards to expand
further.
iRewards envisions to be the largest Big Data analytics company in
the ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations). It wants to be
the ambassador of promoting green and environment-friendly Internet
of Things (IoT). iRewards wants to constantly deliver better value by
improving business efficiency and effectiveness, enabling participating
merchants to enjoy improved life quality and balanced lifestyle within
the community.
A digital e-commerce platform would provide many new business
opportunities for iRewards. It could leverage on Big Data technology and
local knowledge about consumer behaviour and preference; cultures, cus-
toms and traditions; and the geopolitics of this heavily populated and one
of the fastest growing emerging regional economies.
One of Aaron’s earnest aspirations is to reach out to the aspiring and
established entrepreneurs in this region, whom, he believes, collectively
will create a more powerful impact on the region’s economy and in turn
help to uplift the well-being of the people in the region.
He also wanted iRewards to inspire and educate the small- and
medium-sized businesses in this region to transform their current
approaches in doing business from the conventional approach—plagued
by unfair competition created by commercial juggernauts owned by
cronies of the ruling local governments, non-availability and restrictions
of micro financing, lacking in technical and business know-how and so

on—to a digital platform that provides limitless and borderless opportu-
nities. He strongly believes that the local small- and medium-sized busi-
nesses can be elevated to a fairer playing ground if they are equipped with
the right knowledge. For that, iRewards has an important role to play
and, if successful, iRewards can make a difference and impactful contri-
bution to the economy and society in the region.
Aaron also believes in providing a learning platform for the aspiring
entrepreneurs and inspiring many more people, especially the youths, to
be entrepreneurs. He is a strong advocate of youth empowerment. He
believes that iRewards would make a greater impact on the economy and
society if it could reach out to the youths who made up a large percentage
of the population in the region. If they can be trained and groomed to be
entrepreneurs, they will be able to take charge of their lives. More impor-
tantly, they can contribute significantly to the well-being of their loved
ones. That would really make a difference to their lives.
Aaron did not want the participating merchants to be just plain mer-
chants earning a decent living. He wants them to have dreams of their
own and iRewards will help them realise their dreams. To achieve this
mission, Aaron believes the time is ripe for iRewards to migrate to a fully
digitalised e-commerce platform.
Digital technology and e-commerce had already set foot in Malaysia
for years and there were increasing intense competitions coming from all
angles, from the well-established global and regional e-commerce giants
that were relentlessly penetrating the Malaysia market and also markets
in the ASEAN, reaching out to local merchants and customers, to the
newbies that were entering the markets in an unprecedented speed and
agility, promoting niche services. Aaron and team began to ponder in
search of gaps in this increasingly crowded and borderless market in
which iRewards could create a competitive edge, earn good returns and,
in turn, increase the value of iRewards to the stakeholders.
By then, Aaron had built a team of experts in various disciplines who
were ready to venture with him into the new frontier, a new business
model leveraging on business alliance, latest digital technology and
e-commerce. He had also restructured iRewards to support all these
impending changes. Aaron and team were fully aware that the timing of
entry into the digital market was critical and they had to get it right from
the beginning, as there was no turning back.
In his own words, Aaron said “when one ventures into something
unknown, one has to constantly remind oneself that the only option available
is to move forward.”
He believes that if one keeps thinking that there are other options
available, that would greatly reduce his/her chance of success. Under the
leadership of Aaron, iRewards eventually transformed from a loosely con-
nected business alliance supported by a reward-based system to a well-
connected business alliance operating on an integrated digital e-commerce
platform in 2014.
The transformation was a mammoth task, as it not only involved the
migration of the participating merchants into a fully digitalised
e-commerce platform but also meant that iRewards now operates very
differently in all aspects of its business. Existing staff needed to upskill
themselves to better handle the transformation and the participating
merchants needed to be trained as well and to be convinced as to what is
in store for them and their future prospects.
The plus point then was that iRewards had built a large base of about
2000 participating merchants, which was a readily available source of
participants for the digital e-commerce platform. Compared to the
reward-based system, the digital e-commerce platform was a totally new
ball game for the participating merchants and also iRewards.
The platform is powered by an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
system that provides customisable mobile shopping sites and social media
marketing, where consumers could access, evaluate, review and purchase
goods/services from a wide range of participating merchants at competi-
tive prices and terms. The platform also enables iRewards to provide Big
Data analytics services to participating merchants, helping them to boost
their efficiency in running their business and, more importantly, uncover
untapped opportunities that could add value to their business.
The platform was designed and developed in house and has undergone
many rounds of enhancement to be able to better manage the increasing
volume and velocity of data passing through its system and the applica-
tions of business analytics for business intelligence purposes. Through
this platform, iRewards could provide a myriad of technical and business
expertise services to the participating merchants that the latter could not
do so on their own, as they might not possess the required expertise and
also it would not be cost-effective for them to do so anyway. This has
attracted many merchants, both existing to migrate and new merchants,
to come on board the digital e-commerce platform, creating an even big-
ger marketplace digitally, with more choices of goods and services offered
at attractive business terms to provide shoppers better shopping
experiences.
Like the business-voucher-based reward system, iRewards does not
charge the participating merchants and customers any fee for the use of
the digital e-commerce platform. However, participating merchants pay
iRewards a percentage of their turnover. The rapid increase in the sales of
the participating merchants and hence the turnover also saw the revenue
of iRewards soaring to unprecedented heights. By 2016, the number of
participating merchants had risen fivefold, from 2000 to 10,000.
But Aaron knew that he could do much more with his business alliance
philosophy. iRewards has expanded its outreach, transcending geographi-
cal boundaries through its fully digitalised e-commerce platform. It is
leveraging on Big Data technology and local knowledge to give itself the
competitive edge over other similar operators of e-commerce platform
from overseas. It is well set and placed in an expansion mode, but Aaron
yearned for a more solid and meaningful business alliance where iRewards
could expand even more rapidly into a wide range of industries with good
potentials and, in return, increase the value of its investments and itself.
In 2016, Aaron restructured iRewards and registered it as a public
company, laying the foundation for the planned initial public offering
(IPO) with NASDAQ in 2021. The restructured iRewards comprises
four key infrastructures, namely, financial, commercial, trading and
media. This restructuring also transformed iRewards into a technol-
ogy and innovation incubator. iRewards started to embark on an
investment mode, the capital mechanism where it invested in new
companies that have great potentials under each of the four infra-
structures through special purpose vehicles (SPVs) created to serve the
intended purposes. The expansion led to iRewards owning numerous
subsidiaries and associate companies. The digital e-commerce plat-
form which it set up in 2014 now operates as a subsidiary of iRewards.
iRewards has evolved into an investment holding company, focusing on

nurturing and growing its suite of companies which it has invested in. It
continues on the lookout for investment potentials in other companies.
The restructuring has also seen iRewards expanding its pool of talents
both locally and abroad to better support its expanded range of services,
which includes pitching for funds, upscaling/accelerating business and
preparing business for IPO locally and/or abroad. iRewards also estab-
lished alliances overseas.
The creation and expansion of the SPVs help iRewards to expand rap-
idly into other industries and increase the company’s worth. But more
importantly, the huge and rapid increase in data captured in its integrated
computing system in terms of volume, variety and velocity provides
ample opportunities for robust analytics. In this increasingly digitalised
world, Big Data is the key to a company’s success and value, as iRewards
could leverage on the many data science tools to analyse the data for a
wide range of value-added services.
This rapid transformation which enables iRewards to provide both
commercial and financial infrastructure saw the company’s worth soaring
to an unprecedented height, as investors are more confident and excited
of the business model and iRewards’ potentials. More investors, locally
and abroad, including those with very deep pockets, began to invest in
iRewards. iRewards has built a name synonymous to the business of cre-
ating and increasing the value of its suite of companies and itself. iRe-
wards is inching closer and closer to Aaron’s ever-expanding dreams
supported by his talks and cemented by his actions based on his motto,
“Dare to dream, Dare to talk, Dare to Act(ion).”
To further enhance the provision of its suite of services, iRewards
constructed a one-stop physical platform to bring together members
of its incubation ecosystem for common activities. It launched its
very own Techno Campus in 2018. This modern, spacious and well-
equipped campus operates as an incubation centre and is located in a
sprawling shopping complex in the city centre of Kuala Lumpur. It is
tastefully decorated and provides an exuberant ambience where members
of the ecosystem gather to share, brainstorm and implement their busi-
ness ideas. This is where aspiring entrepreneurs incubate their business
and learn the ropes of running and managing it. The centre is complete
with investors; funders; business support services such as accounting,

legal, taxation, merger and acquisition and IPO; mentors; trainers,
technical and non-technical; and business tools, especially latest digital
tools, to cater to its current and future needs.
iRewards arranges inspiring sharing sessions by successful entrepre-
neurs and important discussions with potential collaborators and inves-
tors. Behind the scenes, iRewards’ founder, co-founders and staff continue
to work tirelessly planning, managing and driving the company to next
greater heights in their offices, which are located inside the campus itself.
Aaron believes iRewards will continue to soar to greater heights. He
has plans to turn iRewards into the largest incubator in this region in the
very near future. He is confident that his highly motivated team mem-
bers, which comprise experts from different disciplines, are well placed
locally and abroad to take whatever challenges that come along as they
assist him in moving seamlessly into the future.
Aaron is a strong believer in cultivating and retaining talents. iRewards
has a highly competitive remuneration package and staff training and
development programmes that appeal to Gen Y and the millennials. The
company collaborates with institutions of higher learning and youth
organisations to recruit young talents who aspire to be part of its dynamic
and vibrant team. iRewards believes employees are its greatest asset and
reward them generously. According to Aaron, iRewards will only thrive if
its employees are aligned to the company’s goals and vision. He is all for
meritocracy when asked who would eventually succeed him as the
Managing Director of iRewards. He believes in leaving behind his legacy
to the person most capable of adding more value to iRewards in years to
come. His successor would have some big shoes to fill, taking over the
reins from Aaron when the day comes!
Aaron has again proven that his business alliance philosophy is the way
forward in building and expanding a business. Irrespective of the industry
his business operates in, he stayed true and firm to his philosophy of
forming alliance with others. He has shown that it worked in running
cafes, in the network marketing business, in the manufacturing sector and
now in running, managing and expanding iRewards. He has also demon-
strated that the alliances formed are not cast in stone but agile to adapt to
the changing needs as the business evolves. This is critical especially for
iRewards, as it undergoes one transformation after another in such a short

time span.
But building a successful alliance is not an easy feat. It takes a charis-
matic and visionary leader like Aaron to bring together the best of all
related parties, continuously motivating and aligning them into a com-
mon direction and goal, commanding their confidence and trust as the
alliance is built and strengthened. This helps the alliance to move seam-
lessly into the future, achieving its objectives and common goals. The
alliance must also be well supported along the way by well-designed but
agile infrastructure, both hard and soft, to adapt to changing business
operations and environment. All these fundamentals need to be built,
strengthened and enhanced if a large business alliance such as iRewards is
to continue its quest to scale greater heights and to explore and chart new
horizons to build its mark locally, regionally and globally. Aaron is fully
aware of these as he navigates iRewards towards a better future, further
expanding the value of the company until he hands over the reins to his
successor one day.
Meanwhile, Aaron continues to build his legacy through iRewards. He
is a strong believer in giving back to society. He believes that whatever
deeds one has done in the past, they will eventually find their own way
back to the doer/giver. This is how he lives his life and iRewards is the
manifestation of his beliefs and values.
Aaron has utmost confidence that iRewards will continue to impact
favourably more and more people as it expands to ASEAN and other
parts of the world. iRewards is also confident of continually earning good
returns for its investors. With the strong commercial and financial infra-
structure in place, iRewards is poised to expand rapidly into many other
industries through business alliance. It currently has shareholding in 20
companies, ranging from e-commerce, e-payment, entertainment and
hotels to aquaculture. It is always scouting for more companies with great
potentials to join its stable of investments.
In a nutshell, iRewards is being aligned and integrated into a solid
purpose to develop the best platform for shareholders, business partners,
consumers and employees to create wealth together. These ingredients are
essential to iRewards to allow the company to be agile, flexible and
responsive to change and adapt to the dynamic business environment.
Aaron takes pride that he has finally realised his dream of building the
real business alliance. In his own words, he said owning equity, working
on nurturing, growing and expanding this fast-growing suite of compa-
nies in a diverse range of industries and geographical locations, and tak-
ing them to greater heights is the epitome of a successful business alliance.
Still, he yearns for more.
Aaron has even greater plans for iRewards ahead. He aims to expand
iRewards’ suite of companies to 30 by the end of 2018 and is working
towards achieving 150 companies across the different sectors and differ-
ent continents within the next five years.
Aaron is confident that iRewards will one day transform into a regional
and also global integrated technology and innovation incubator, as it is
always positioning itself at the forefront in whatever it ventures into. This
is his dream for iRewards, and he will lead and guide iRewards towards
achieving this goal during his tenure as the Managing Director.
In the midst of turning his dream into reality, there are also some per-
sonal aspirations that he holds close to his heart. One of these is inspiring
and building more entrepreneurs who can create jobs for themselves and
others. His fervent wish is to inspire and guide these young aspiring
entrepreneurs to realise their dream, like what he started almost three
decades ago.
He aspires to provide them an easier pathway to pursue and attain
their dream. He believes iRewards’ techno campus can do this role. He
aspires to help aspiring entrepreneurs allay their fear of venturing into
starting their own business, equip them with the knowledge and, most
importantly, continue inspiring them to pursue their dream of becoming
successful entrepreneurs in their own right. He believes young people
should be educated, inspired and guided from early on to have their own
dreams and be steadfast in pursuing them to make this world a better
living place for themselves and everyone.
Aaron has had a tough and long winding entrepreneurial journey to be
what he is today, and he thinks he is in a good position to lend a helping
hand to make a difference in the lives of others. For that, he is prepared
to collaborate with all relevant parties to go the extra mile of pursuing
and realising this personal aspiration of his.
6.2 Aaron as Transformational Entrepreneur

Aaron’s pursuit of an ever-expanding dream has seen the transformation
of iRewards from a typical e-commerce company into a regional technol-
ogy and innovation incubator in a short time span of five years. The speed
and scale of the transformation is probably the first of its kind in Malaysia
and one of the few in ASEAN.
iRewards’ rapid expansion in outreach to businesses and consumers in
this region is unprecedented. The ecosystem is expanding fast, attracting
established institutional investors in ASEAN and beyond, including
some foreign country leaders. A juggernaut incubator is in the making
and will soon earn its reputation as the largest technology and innovation
incubator in the region and probably beyond ASEAN in the next
5–10 years.
6.3 Conclusion
Aaron’s advice to aspiring entrepreneurs is best summed up as follows:
Funding is not the key ingredient in a business and should not be used as
a lame excuse for not being able to pursue one’s dream of becoming an
entrepreneur. One must always remember that the core of a business is
the entrepreneur himself or herself. People invest in the entrepreneur, not
in his business. This is a very crucial element, as when the business grows,
it requires a strong and determined personality rather than just a good
business model. As such, if one aspires to be a successful entrepreneur,
one must be prepared to face whatever challenges that come along and
have the perseverance and determination to overcome them. A good
mentor and a realistic financial roadmap are invaluable assets to the
entrepreneur. These are the must-haves to build a successful business.
Meanwhile, Aaron’s “Dare to dream, Dare to talk, Dare to Act(ion)”
motto will continue to live on and will be his greatest legacy for iRewards
as the company embarks into the future. iRewards will continue to
impact many others along its journey, favourably and deeply, changing
their lives and their loved ones’ and of people surrounding them.
References
Anon. (2018a, January). iRewards Weekly Newsletter. Retrieved from https://
www.irewards.my/newsletter/january-week-1/.
Anon. (2018b, June). beeZmall. Retrieved from https://www.beezmall.com/ire-
wards.
Anon. (2018c, July). iRewards Berhad. Retrieved from https://www.irewards.my/.
Chan, A. (2018, August). Personal Interview.
Neck, C. P., Houghton, J. D., Sardeshmukh, S. R., Goldsby, M., & Godwin,
J. L. (2013). Self-Leadership: A Cognitive Resource for Entrepreneurs.
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 463–480. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08276331.2013.876762.
7
Conclusions on Transformational
Entrepreneurship
Paul Jones and Gideon Maas
Abstract This book offers further insightful evidence regarding the

emergent phenomenon that is transformational entrepreneurship.
Transformational entrepreneurship is a relatively nascent concept that
has emerged due to the need to achieve effective and efficient entrepre-
neurial behaviours that address global challenges, including unemploy-
ment, economic underperformance and societal evolution. Entrepreneurial
activity continues to evolve due to technological enhancement, societal
evolution and globalisation. Moreover, the nature of entrepreneurial
behaviour continues to evolve with social enterprise becoming globally
important to sustain and support communities and the requirement for
environmentally and economically sustainable business behaviour. This
chapter evaluates and concludes on the evidence presented in this
P. Jones (*)
Swansea University, Swansea, UK
e-mail: w.p.jones@swansea.ac.uk
G. Maas
e-mail: aa4122@coventry.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_7
106 P. Jones and G. Maas
textbook and offers conclusions on the opportunities and further chal-

lenges ahead.
Keywords Transformational entrepreneurship • Entrepreneurship
7.1 Introduction
This book offers further evidence regarding the emergent phenomenon of
transformational entrepreneurship. In Chap. 1, we presented the work-
ing definition of this concept as:
Transformational entrepreneurship is to promote enterprise and entrepreneur-

ship through a systemic approach, bringing about transformation in socio-
economic development.
Transformational entrepreneurship is considered an alternate type of

entrepreneurial activity because of its interdisciplinary nature and its
focus on challenge-based entrepreneurship (Ratten and Jones 2018). The
term transformational entrepreneurship has gained popularity within the
academic community (Ratten and Jones 2018) to describe major changes
in society influenced by entrepreneurial activity to enable enhanced
competitiveness and market performance (Moscardo 2014). Marmer
(2012) suggests that transformational entrepreneurship offers significant
economic impact and long-term societal impact. Anggadwita et al. (2017)
adds that transformational entrepreneurship is important and that a
socially significant form of entrepreneurship will transcend cultural bar-
riers. The following section will consider the implications of this text for
transformational entrepreneurship.
7.2 Findings
The limited research in this field tells us that for transformational entre-
preneurial to provide a lasting legacy and positive economic impact, it
must adopt a systematic approach, be socially productive and go beyond
Conclusions on Transformational Entrepreneurship 107
the local level to provide benefits for wider society (Sautet 2013). Marmer
(2012) suggests that transformational entrepreneurship requires a combi-
nation of technology and social entrepreneurship to drive socio-economic
growth. Turner (2018) and Rugeruza (2017) identify that the traits com-
monly associated with transformational entrepreneurship are possessing a
futuristic and disruptive dream, and building a strong team, whilst Roth
and DiBella (2015) suggest that the five competencies required to enable
transformational change are enterprise awareness (e.g. industry knowl-
edge), innovation, balancing management and employee interrelation-
ships of organisation change, and seeking growth and leadership.
Transformational entrepreneurship remains a nascent concept that has
emerged due to the need to implement effective and efficient entrepre-
neurial behaviours that address ongoing global challenges, including
unemployment, economic underperformance and societal evolution
(Maas and Jones 2015). Entrepreneurial activity and behaviours continue
to evolve due to technological enhancement, societal evolution and glo-
balisation (Vahlne and Johanson 2017). However, the academic literature
has long recognised that country-level economies include both effective
(e.g. innovation focused and growth orientated) and ineffective entrepre-
neurial behaviour (e.g. necessity/subsistence focused) (Bruton et al.
2015). Identifying strategies to enable positive change on such countries
can require significant investment and experimentation to identify prac-
tices that can transfer to a specific local context. Schoar (2010) notes the
importance of effectively identifying transformational entrepreneurs who
create growth-orientated businesses that provides both employment and
income. Ratten and Jones (2018) suggest that transformational entrepre-
neurship offers a way of integrating sustainability practices whilst focus-
ing on sustainable future trends. They suggest transformational
entrepreneurship uses novel business practices to reduce inequality in the
marketplace and can transform society through creative solutions that
enable change. Moreover, the nature of entrepreneurial behaviour con-
tinues to evolve with social enterprise becoming globally important to
sustain and support communities and the requirement for environmen-
tally and economically sustainable business behaviour.
In recent years, there has been a global drive within individual coun-
tries to enable entrepreneurial activity through encouraging business
start-ups (Kolvereid 2016). Thus, there has been a significant growth

in the provision of entrepreneurship education and the development of
ecosystems to support business start-ups and growth in specific industrial
sectors (Stam 2015; Spigel 2017). This has included the provision of
entrepreneurship education across the educational curriculum, including
within further and higher education curriculums (Jones et al. 2015). At
higher education level, this has included focus on graduate start-ups, ven-
ture creation degrees, cross-disciplinary curriculum provision of entre-
preneurial curriculum, pre-incubators and seed corn funding (Jones et al.
2017). However, further and ongoing evidence is required to evaluate the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship education practice (Maas and Jones
2017). In addition, within the UK and Europe, educational policy has
developed through QAA guidelines and EntreComp sufficiently to dis-
cern the differences between enterprising behaviour and entrepreneurial
activity (business start-up) in terms of policy guidelines for curriculum
development and best practice (QAA 2018; Bacigalupo et al. 2016). Thus
effective entrepreneurship education provision should produce future
transformational entrepreneurs with the required knowledge and skills to
create economically viable and environmentally sustainable businesses to
benefit their communities.
In terms of the evidence presented in this book, what conclusions can
we draw regarding the evolution of the concept of transformational
entrepreneurship? The chapter by Xu and Maas discerns the key differ-
ences and similarities between entrepreneurial and innovation-driven
ecosystems. The chapter notes the importance of discerning that differ-
ences exist in the construction of these ecosystem models (driven by
different academic communities) and identifies best practice. That chap-
ter concludes that key stakeholders such as government must appreciate
that it takes time to build a successful and self-sustainable ecosystem.
Thus, government stakeholders should acquire a long-term vision, work
collectively and service the requirements of their communities.
The chapter by Connolly considers the perspective of social enterprise
and transformational entrepreneurship, suggesting that social entrepre-
neurship offers a promising model for achieving socio-economic growth
given the inequality in society (Dees 1998). This study answers the call of
Marmer (2012) for further research in this context. Connolly recognises
that the complex challenges within a social enterprise include the need to
balance both economic and social goals whilst competing with commer-
cial enterprises. Moreover, the need to retain focus on the mission of the
social enterprise whilst achieving economic sustainability offers the
opportunity to embrace transformational concepts. Thus, business expan-
sion should be coupled with the ongoing mission of effectively serving a
particular community. However, Connolly notes that the eradication of
the societal problem might result in the long-term closure of the business.
Thus, transformational social entrepreneurs must not only accept but
also advocate the diminishing requirement for their services. The chapter
suggests this is achieved through adopting a systemic approach: moving
away from the individual or the business, and towards the integration of
the entire system. The case study presented highlights the importance of
ethically and contextually considered partnerships, crowdfunding cam-
paigns and encouraging competition.
The chapter by Arthur explored how female micro entrepreneurs can
transition into transformational entrepreneurs using a case-study
approach. Arthur noted that the female entrepreneurs evaluated pos-
sessed risk-taking characteristics, managerial competencies and financial
literacy, as previously suggested by de Mel et al. (2005) on transforma-
tional entrepreneurs. In addition, the respondents were also willing to
operate in unfamiliar situations, a characteristic proposed by Schoar
(2010) as possessed by transformational entrepreneurs.
The chapter by Round shows how the principles of transformational
entrepreneurship are being utilised within a collaborative accelerator to
tackle the emergent issue of cybercrime. The accelerator demonstrates
how this collaboration acts as a catalyst for developing an effective
regional innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem by developing skills,
creating employment and enhancing the cybersecurity capabilities for
the region in question. The chapter by Kwan and Geat considers the fac-
tors underpinning the success of Kwan as a successful entrepreneur.
Kwan notes the importance of ethical behaviour within the business and
all its functions. Kwan highlights the importance of the vision of the
entrepreneur whereby the entrepreneur must be determined to succeed
regardless of the challenge and demonstrate perseverance and determina
tion throughout. The authors also note the importance of financial
anagement and mentoring to encourage success. In conclusion this

m
chapter provides a personal insight into effective transformational behav-
iour exhibited by an entrepreneur to demonstrate a transformational
impact on their community.
7.3 Conclusions
The academic community must avoid reinventing and relabelling exist-
ing behaviours in an attempt to create novel contributions for personal
gain. Transformational entrepreneurship has developed due to the recog-
nition that entrepreneurial behaviour is an emergent and evolving phe-
nomenon due to societal, economic and situational change (Marmer
2012; Sautet 2013). Thus, it does represent a valid approach to offer
novel and best practice approaches to create more efficient and sustain-
able entrepreneurial behaviours.
This book offers further evidence regarding the emerging concept of
transformational entrepreneurship. The chapters reflect the evolving
nature of entrepreneurial behaviour, in that they are drawn from several
global perspectives, including Europe, Africa and Asia, and differing
aspects of entrepreneurial activity, including female entrepreneurship,
social enterprise and specific industrial sector activity, and enterprise
sizes. Several chapters discuss the importance of effective ecosystems
supporting transformational entrepreneurial activity.
The emergence of effective ecosystems is key to enabling major societal
and economic transformational change within a region. A salient exam-
ple would be the emergence of the major information technology cluster
in the Bangalore region of India due to the significant and systematic
investment in business infrastructure, incubation facilities and educa-
tional provision (Van Dijk 2003; Sonderegger and Täube 2010). This has
transformed the entrepreneurial activity within this region to a knowl-
edge-based regional economy focused on innovation, with significant
societal impacts on economic growth, employment and wealth creation.
The chapters by Xu and Maas and Round make several suggestions
regarding effective ecosystem development, including the need for a
long-term regional vision, a collective and collaborative mind-set between
g overnment decision makers and businesses, and the time taken to realise
this vision. Similarly, the chapter by Connolly recommends developing a
systematic approach to develop scalable transformational social enter-
prises that contribute significantly to their communities.
Several of the chapters (Arthur; Kwan and Geat) discuss the impor-
tance of the transformational entrepreneur and the characteristics they
require. These include both business skills and knowledge such as mana-
gerial competencies, financial numeracy, ethical beliefs and strategic
vision. In addition, entrepreneurial characteristics such as risk taking, the
ability to cope with changing and unfamiliar circumstances, and demon-
strating perseverance and determination were judged as important
(Schoar 2010). This suggests the importance of effective entrepreneurial
behaviour to achieve transformational entrepreneurship. Thus, it is key
that regions seek to develop entrepreneurial individuals who have the
requisite knowledge, skills and characteristics to grow a transformational
enterprise. Such a process might relate to the provision of focused entre-
preneurial education directed at the development of entrepreneurial
activity in certain industrial sectors. So in conclusion, this book adds
further evidence to the literature on transformational entrepreneurship,
supplementing Ratten and Jones’ (2018) recent publication.
Further research is required in the transformational entrepreneurship
domain to explore transformational entrepreneurship in specific contexts
like social enterprise, female entrepreneurship and technological entre-
preneurship. In addition, further research needs to be undertaken explor-
ing ecosystem development through a transformational entrepreneurship
perspective. The contextual differences in transformational entrepreneur-
ship between the developed and the developing world also need to be
undertaken. There is also the need for longitudinal case studies to high-
light best practice for enabling transformational entrepreneurship (Ratten
and Jones 2018).
References
Anggadwita, G., Luturlean, B. S., Ramadani, V., & Ratten, V. (2017). Socio-
Cultural Environments and Emerging Economy Entrepreneurship: Women
Entrepreneurs in Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, 9(1), 85–96.
Bacigalupo, M., Punie, P., & Van den Brande, Y. (2016). EntreComp: The
Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. EUR 27939 EN. Luxembourg:
Publication Office of the European Union.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship, Poverty, and
Asia: Moving Beyond Subsistence Entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 32(1), 1–22.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. [Online]. Retrieved
August 1, 2016, from http://www.redalmarza.cl/ing/pdf/TheMeaningofsocial
Entrepreneurship.pdf.
de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2005). Returns to Capital in
Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 123(4), 1329–1372.
Jones, P., Forbes-Simpson, K., Maas, G., & Newbery, R. (2015). Beta: An
Experiment in Funded Undergraduate Start-Up. Industry and Higher
Education, 29(5), 405–418.
Jones, P., Maas, G., & Pittaway, L. (2017). Entrepreneurship Education: New
Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education. Contemporary Issues in
Entrepreneurship Research, Volume 7. Bingley: Emerald Ltd.
Kolvereid, L. (2016). Preference for Self-Employment Prediction of New
Business Start-Up Intentions and Efforts. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(2), 100–109.
Maas, G., & Jones, P. (2015). Systemic Entrepreneurship: Contemporary Issues and
Case Studies. London: Palgrave Publishing.
Maas, G., & Jones, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship Centres: Global Perspectives on
Their Contributions to Higher Education Institutions. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Meets Societal Impact. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved November 10,
2018, from https://hbr.org/2012/04/transformational-entrepreneurs.
Moscardo, G. (2014). Tourism and Community Leadership in Rural Regions:
Linking Mobility, Entrepreneurship, Tourism Development and Community
Well-Being. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(3), 354–370.
QAA. (2018, January). Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance

for UK Higher Education Providers.
Roth, G. L., & DiBella, A. J. (2015). Systemic Change Management – The Five
Capabilities for Improving Enterprises. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2018). Transformational Entrepreneurship. Routledge
Frontiers of Business Management. London: Routledge.
Rugeruza, A. (2017). 4 Distinct Traits of Transformational Entrepreneurs.
Retrieved November 22, 2018, from http://iroikos.co.uk/4-distinct-traits-
transformational-entrepreneurs/.
Sautet, F. (2013). Local and Systemic Entrepreneurship: Solving the Puzzle of
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 37(2), 387–402.
Entrepreneurship. National Bureau of Economic Research, 57–81. Retrieved
November 22, 2018, from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11765.
Sonderegger, P., & Täube, F. (2010). Cluster Life Cycle and Diaspora Effects:
Evidence from the Indian IT Cluster in Bangalore. Journal of International
Management, 16(4), 383–397.
Spigel, B. (2017). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic
Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.
Turner, S. (2018). 5 Traits of Transformational Entrepreneurs. Retrieved November
10, 2018, from http://www.cose.org.
Vahlne, J. E., & Johanson, J. (2017). From Internationalization to Evolution:
The Uppsala Model at 40 Years. Journal of International Business Studies,
48(9), 1087–1102.
Van Dijk, M. P. (2003). Government Policies with Respect to an Information
Technology Cluster in Bangalore, India. European Journal of Development
Research, 15(2), 93–108.
Index1
A Cassava processing, 60–61

Accelerator, 74–80, 82–84, 109 Sakyi, Faustina, 60, 60n3
Accra, 57, 58 Chan, Aaron, 90
Ács, Z. J., 5 Chinese, 25
Africa, v, vi, 55–67, 110 Complex system, 6
Amalena Children’s Haven, 57–59 Madelin and Ringrose definition,
Australia, vi, 56, 69–84 6
Crowdfunding, 12, 43, 44, 49,
109
B Cybersecurity accelerator, 70, 72, 74,
Bimbeads Concept Designs, 59–60 75
Bimbo Balogun, 59, 60 CyRise, 69–84
Brazil, 36, 37, 40
Brewery, 40
Brexit, 38, 39 D
Deakin University, 74, 75, 82
Dimension Data, 74, 75, 83
C Dreamland Piggery,
Cadbury, William, 38 61–62
1
Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1
116 Index
E Globalisation, 107
Ecosystem Government, 7, 20–22, 24–28, 34,
collectively, 28, 75 39, 67, 70–72, 75, 93, 95,
entrepreneurial 108, 111
Isenberg, D., 19, 24 Gross domestic product (GDP), 37,
innovation 38, 67, 71, 75
Bernus, P., 16, 22
Rabelo, R., 16, 22
England, 37 H
Entrepreneurship, v, vi, 1–13, 16, Heuristic, 2, 4, 7, 9, 46
17, 19, 20, 22, 24–28, Higher education (HE), v, 72, 74,
33–49, 56, 57, 61, 63, 66, 108
67, 69–84, 89–103, Holistic, 2, 4–7, 46
105–111
Entrepreneurship education, 7, 8,
11, 67, 73, 108 I
Environment, 2–4, 7–10, 12, 17, 20, Iceland, 36, 37, 40, 41
25–28, 34, 36, 41, 46, 58, Information and communication
63, 70, 73, 77, 81, 82, 101 technologies (ICT), 67
European Union (EU), 38, 39 Innovation
first- and second-order
innovation, 10, 11, 16, 25,
F 27
Female micro entrepreneurs, 109 Knickel, K., 10, 16
Food waste, 35–37, 46–48 International Centre for
Franchising Transformational
franchisee, 42 Entrepreneurship (ICTE),
franchisor, 42 11, 12
Funding, 17, 20, 21, 27, 43, 62, 65, Internationalisation/
75, 82, 91, 103, 108 Internationalization, 27, 66
iRewards, 90–103
Israel, 79
G
Gates, Bill, 38
Gender, 55–67 J
Ghana Japan, 18
Accra, 57 Johnson, Luke, 38
Kumasi, 57 Jones, P., 2, 43, 107, 108
Index 117
K R
Kenya, 63, 64 Rowntree, Joseph, 38
L S
LaunchVic, 75 Scotland, 37
Silicon Valley, 18, 20
Social enterprise, vi, 35, 36, 39, 41,
M 44, 46, 48, 49, 107–111
Maas, G., 2, 43, 107 Social entrepreneurship, 7, 35,
Management, 8, 18, 27, 58, 59, 107, 37–39, 48, 49, 107, 108
110 Societal evolution, 107
Micro and small enterprise (MSE), Socio-economic development/
56, 57 growth, v, 2–7, 9–12, 19,
Milestones, 27, 28 49, 56, 106–108
Start-ups, 20, 21, 25–27, 41, 56, 59,
60, 62, 63, 65, 72–84, 108
N Stuart, Tristram, 36, 37
Non-governmental organisations, 34 Sustainability, 22, 40, 42, 48, 107,
Northern Ireland, 37 109
Systemic change, 7, 44
DiBella, A. J., 7
O Roth, G. L., 7
Owen, Robert, 38 Systemic entrepreneurship, v, 4, 6,
Oxfam, 34 46
P T
Pauline Cosmetics, 63–64 Taiwan, 20
Tuikong, Nelly, 63 Technological enhancement, 107
Private sector, 5, 44 Tesco, 47, 48
Public sector, 5, 26, 27, 39 Third Sector, 39
Toast Ale
craft beer, 36, 37, 45
Q Wold Top Brewery, 37, 40
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Transformational entrepreneurship
(2018) definitions Collier, E. W., 6
enterprise (definition), 3 Marmer, M., 6, 11, 49, 84,
entrepreneurship (definition), 3 106–108, 110
118 Index
Transformational entrepreneurship Universities, v, 7, 11, 22–24, 26, 58,

(cont.) 65, 69–84
Miller, R. A., 6
Sautet, F., 2, 4, 6, 107, 110
Schoar, A., 3, 57, 107, 109, 111 W
transformational enterprises, 111 Wales, 37
Women entrepreneurs, 56, 57, 59, 64
U
Unemployment, 5, 34, 107 Y
United Kingdom (UK), v, 34–49, 56 Yorkshire, 37, 40
United States (US), 36, 37, 40, 41, 79 Young, Michael, 38

2019 Edition - Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices_ Global Case Studies-Springer International Publishing_ Palgrave Pivot (2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Edition - Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices_ Global Case Studies-Springer International Publishing_ Palgrave Pivot (2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transformational

ISBN 978-3-030-11523-4 ISBN 978-3-030-11524-1 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019935189

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake

We set out to edit three books on the theme of transformational entrepre-

firstly provides an updated overview of transformational entrepreneur-

Coventry, UK Gideon Maas

1 The Journey to Transformational Entrepreneurship 1

2 Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as Important

3 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in the

4 Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa 55

5 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

6 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

7 Conclusions on Transformational Entrepreneurship105

Keren Naa Abeka Arthur is Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the Centre for

Paul Jones is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Swansea

Gideon Maas is Director of the International Centre for Transformational

Zimu Xu works as a research assistant at the International Centre for

Abstract A need exists for renewed thinking to stimulate entrepreneur-

Keywords Enterprise • Entrepreneurship • Transformational

G. Maas (*) • J. Lockyer

© The Author(s) 2019 1

development difficult? Do we have the right capability, capacity,

• Enterprise: The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA 2018: 7) defines

attributes and competencies into the creation of cultural, social or eco-

Based on the above definitions and discussions following this para-

• It represents a broad area of activity—the enterprising area, which

1.3 Transformational Entrepreneurship

There might be weaknesses in the system, which require specific attention

c­ ombination between technology entrepreneurship and social entrepre-

1.4 Encouraging Transformational

grow”. Linear models cannot provide optimal solutions anymore. In this

1.5 Applying Transformational

• Entrepreneurship education: Curriculum is adapted to address trans-

Fig. 1.1 Transformational entrepreneurship (Source: Adapted from Marmer 2012)

• Research: Doctorate and project research focuses on critical topics

Above is only one way that the implementation of transformational

An essential part of potential solutions is the part innovation is playing.

Abstract Transformational entrepreneurship enables social-economic

© The Author(s) 2019 15

Keywords Innovation • Ecosystem • Entrepreneurship • First-order

innovation and have much higher concentrations on nurturing high-­

2.2 Entrepreneurial and Innovation

In comparison, the emergence of the innovation ecosystem is thought

proposed by Moore (1996) in their publication and agree that innovation

2.3  onstruct, Evolutionary Nature

Academics have suggested a range of different models in studying entre-

interactions within the ecosystem, it also draws attention on how these

It is worth noting that each ecosystem (or potential ecosystem) is dif-

2.3.2 Innovation Ecosystems

Discussions on innovation ecosystems are mostly centred on innovation

come from participating in a range of organisations, and aspects such as

the conversation on innovation ecosystem measurement frameworks is

2.3.3 Commonalities and Differences

Although the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems are closely asso-

is often situated at regional or national level. Moreover, proximity of all

2.4  ey Principles for Building Sound

ecosystem, it is normally built upon a particular technological or scientific

2.4.1 Listen to the Local Needs

Each context is unique and therefore every ecosystem should be different.

2.4.2 Long-Term Vision

The development of an ecosystem takes time. As Feld (2012) argued, the

communities need to be formed, if not already in existence (Isenberg

1 The Journey to Transformational Entrepreneurship 1

2 Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as Important

3 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in the

4 Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa 55

5 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

6 Case Study: Transformational Entrepreneurship in

7 Conclusions on Transformational Entrepreneurship105

1.3 Transformational Entrepreneurship

c ombination between technology entrepreneurship and social entrepre-

1.4 Encouraging Transformational

1.5 Applying Transformational

innovation and have much higher concentrations on nurturing high-

2.2 Entrepreneurial and Innovation

2.3 onstruct, Evolutionary Nature

2.3.2 Innovation Ecosystems

2.3.3 Commonalities and Differences

2.4 ey Principles for Building Sound

2.4.1 Listen to the Local Needs

2.4.2 Long-Term Vision

2.4.3 Work Collectively

2.4.4 Act Responsively

2.4.5 Share Motivational Stories and Milestones

3.2 Background Information on Case

3.3 Background on Company

3.4 UK Context and Social Entrepreneurship

3.5 Case Study

3.5.2 Commercial and Social Worlds

3.6 Transformational Entrepreneurship

4.2 Case Studies

4.2.2 Bimbeads Concept Designs2

4.2.3 Cassava Processing in Ghana3

4.2.4 Dreamland Piggery4

4.2.5 Pauline Cosmetics5

4.3 Lessons Learnt

4.3.2 Entrepreneurial Challenges

c ollaboration among components of the system is fostered, which have

5.2 The Australian Context

compromise by cybercriminals and cyberterrorism within the increas-

5.3 Entrepreneurship in Australia