# Sustainability orientation in business Incubators:
Empirical Evidence from France

Sofia Lamperti, Jean-Marie Courrent, Sylvie Sammut

► To cite this version:

Sofia Lamperti, Jean-Marie Courrent, Sylvie Sammut. Sustainability orientation in business Incubators: Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Research, 2025, 194, pp.115377. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115377. hal-05101546

HAL Id: hal-05101546

https://hal.science/hal-05101546v1

Submitted on 6 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Sustainability orientation in business Incubators: Empirical Evidence from France

Sofia Lamperti<sup>a,∗</sup> <sup>†</sup>, Jean-Marie Courrent<sup>b,‡</sup>, Sylvie Sammut<sup>b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

* Business incubators
* Sustainability orientation
* Institutional theory
* Sustainable entrepreneurship
* Case study methodology

## ABSTRACT

A growing number of business incubation programs are showing interest in supporting sustainable entrepreneurship in response to pressing social and environmental challenges. However, while the need for a sustainability orientation is widely acknowledged, it remains unclear how and to what extent business incubators are translating this interest into concrete actions. The risk that the focus of business incubators on sustainability may remain largely symbolic—expressing a commitment without meaningful change—rather than substantive, with a real impact on their structures and programs, exists. Drawing on the distinction in institutional theory between symbolic and substantive actions, this study presents a comparative case analysis of three French business incubators to explore how they operationalize their missions to foster sustainable new ventures. The findings provide both research and practical insights on understanding and implementing sustainability orientation within business support structures.

## 1. Introduction

In the face of current climate and social crises, policymakers and customers are pressuring companies to balance economic performance with social and environmental practices. In response, a growing number of business support programs are promoting sustainability-related initiatives (Karahan et al., 2022; Van Rijnsoever, 2022) and developing sustainability orientations (Khizar et al., 2022; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).

This trend has particularly impacted incubators—organizations that provide resources, knowledge, and opportunities to new ventures for a flexible period (Aernoudt, 2004; Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016; Hausberg & Korreck, 2020). A recent central discussion by the European Business and Innovation Centre Network (EBN)<fnref n="1" /> has focused on rethinking support systems to promote sustainable entrepreneurship—the recognition, development and exploitation of opportunities by individuals to bring into existence future goods and services with economic, social and ecological gains (Belz & Binder, 2017; Cohen & Winn, 2007). In line with this approach, some incubators are narrowing their focus by introducing selection criteria for program access (Bank & Kanda, 2016; Klofsten et al., 2016) or adopting broader “greening”

missions, such as improving environmental performance (Fichter & Hurrelmann, 2021; Fonseca & Chiappetta Jabbour, 2012; Horne & Fichter, 2022) and transferring knowledge to positively affect sustainability (Lamperti et al., 2023).

Despite this attention to sustainability, few studies have explored and classified different ways in which incubators integrate sustainability and support sustainable entrepreneurship. This lack of research risks reinforcing stereotypes, reducing all such structures to mere “do-gooders” focused solely on societal impacts, as recently discussed in the *Journal of Business Research* by Halberstadt et al. (2024).

Similarly, in their systematic review of sustainability orientation, Khizar et al. (2022) call for more research on the similarities and differences in how sustainability is operationalized and advocate for more exploratory research.

Understanding how sustainability orientation is operationalized in incubators is essential because it directly impacts the effectiveness of these organizations in supporting sustainable entrepreneurship (Ahmed et al., 2022). If sustainability remains a superficial or symbolic commitment—used primarily to enhance legitimacy or differentiate from competitors (Granados et al., 2024; Netto et al., 2020), without any actual depth—then incubators risk promoting misleading practices,

<footnote><sup>a</sup> University of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble INP, CERAG, Grenoble, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> University of Montpellier, Montpellier Research in Management (MRM), Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: CERAG, 150 Rue de la Chimie, 38400, Saint-Martin-d'Hères, Grenoble, France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: sofia.lamperti@grenoble-inp.fr (S. Lamperti), jean-marie.courrent@umontpellier.fr (J.-M. Courrent), sylvie.sammut@umontpellier.fr (S. Sammut).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ https://ebn.eu/.</footnote>
which could lead to a situation in which the proclaimed sustainability goals do not translate into meaningful actions or impacts, thus under-mining trust in these support systems and potentially discouraging genuinely sustainable entrepreneurial efforts (Dahlmann et al., 2019).

In light of these gaps in the literature and the pressing societal need to address sustainability challenges, this study proposes an empirical comparative case study that investigates the following:

> *"How do sustainability-oriented business incubators behave in terms of their mission to support new ventures?"*

By employing a qualitative methodology, this research aims to contribute to the growing call for exploratory studies that deepen our understanding of how sustainability orientation is operationalized (Khizar et al., 2022). Furthermore, the comparative case study approach enables the identification of different patterns of sustainable entrepreneurship (Halberstadt et al., 2024). We draw on institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) to explore the symbolic and substantive actions of three French incubators that are eligible for this study. Specifically, we define the difference between symbolic and substantive actions on the basis of the following two commonly agreed-upon features: the degree of implementation (the extent to which the announced sustainability interest is integrated into the incubator's daily activities) and goal alignment (the extent to which the incubator's institutional framework and program design reflect its sustainability orientation) (Granados et al., 2024; Iatridis & Kesidou, 2018; Truong et al., 2021).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section provides an overview of business incubators and their sustainability orientations, followed by a theoretical framework for analysing symbolic and substantive actions in sustainability-oriented business incubators. We then outline the research methods and present the cases, concluding with a discussion of the results and their implications for research and practice.

## 2. Theoretical background

### 2.1. Sustainability orientation in business incubators

Business incubators are recognized as catalysts for regional development (Rosado-Cubero et al., 2024; Wagner et al., 2019), as they are important components of the innovation process (Wang et al., 2020) because they provide access to knowledge, networks, and resources for a flexible period (Di Vaio et al., 2021).

Recent studies have emphasized the importance of integrating sustainability into business incubation, highlighting the need for incubators to align their frameworks, processes, and services with sustainability goals. Research by Fichter and Hurrelmann (2021) stresses that the institutional framework of an incubator—its vision, mission, goals, and strategy—strongly influences its ability to support sustainable entrepreneurship and the diffusion of sustainable solutions. The extent to which sustainability is embedded within an incubator's framework directly impacts its activities (Di Vaio et al., 2022).

Bergek and Norrman (2008) emphasize that while many incubators share common infrastructure and graduation policies, they differ significantly in terms of their selection strategies, business support services, and mediation offerings—three areas that provide ample opportunities to integrate sustainability considerations. For sustainability-oriented incubators, maintaining a steady influx of high-quality proposals is essential for upholding rigorous selection criteria for sustainable businesses (Bank & Kanda, 2016; Di Vaio et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the design of incubation programs is a key factor influencing the integration of sustainability into business support services and mediation offerings. The effective incorporation of sustainability can be achieved by systematically embedding sustainability-related topics into various incubation activities, such as idea generation, business model development, stakeholder management, and impact assessment (Fichter et al., 2023). In addition, mediation

offerings, such as networking events and cooperation, play a critical role in fostering partnerships that align with sustainability goals (Potts, 2010; Tiba et al., 2020).

Bank and Kanda (2016) and Klofsten et al. (2016) illustrate the varying levels of sustainability integration across European incubators, revealing gaps in how sustainability is applied in tenant selection and support activities. Recent frameworks, such as those proposed by Millette et al. (2020) for circular economy incubators and Karahan et al. (2022) for structuring sustainability-oriented incubators, underscore the complexity of achieving sustainability objectives and the need for a broad range of tailored support services. However, although sustainability has garnered considerable attention, there is a lack of clarity on how the interest in sustainability is operationalized within these services (Khizar et al., 2022) and how business incubators behave differently to meet their tenants' sustainability-specific needs (Lamperti et al., 2023).

In this paper, we build on this growing body of literature by examining how incubators integrate sustainability differently into their frameworks, programs, and services. Specifically, we explore the nature of the actions undertaken by incubators to address sustainability objectives—distinguishing between symbolic and substantive actions—and how these actions influence their overall success in fostering sustainable entrepreneurship.

### 2.2. Sustainable symbolic and substantive actions: A theoretical framework for business incubators

Institutional studies, which are central to the behavioural theory of organizations (Greve & Argote, 2015), suggest that firms respond to external pressures for positive social evaluations through either symbolic or substantive actions (Ashforth & Barrie, 1990; Oliver, 1991).

In the literature, symbolic and substantive actions differ in terms of two interrelated characteristics, namely, the degree of implementation and goal alignment (Iatridis & Kesidou, 2018; Truong et al., 2021). Symbolic actions are designed to shape stakeholder perceptions with minimal actual implementation, meaning that they often leave organizational routines and strategic goals unchanged. These actions are typically rhetorical, aiming to demonstrate compliance (Li et al., 2024) or alignment with societal expectations without substantial changes in practices (Granados et al., 2024; Walker & Wan, 2012). In contrast, substantive actions involve significant organizational changes and resource investments and realign daily activities and strategic goals to genuinely address sustainability concerns, thereby minimizing negative impacts and maximizing positive contributions (Iatridis & Kesidou, 2018; Liu et al., 2023; Truong et al., 2021).

In the context of sustainability-oriented incubators, alignment with sustainability goals depends on how effectively the declared commitment is integrated across all phases of the incubation process. The level of implementation, in turn, reflects the extent to which the incubator's strategy and program design are truly driven by sustainability. Symbolic actions, in this context, are marked by overarching commitments to sustainability that do not translate into core operational practices (Granados et al., 2024). For example, an incubator may publicly emphasize its sustainability goals while failing to offer concrete programmatic support or enact meaningful changes in its operations. Substantive actions, such as applying sustainability criteria in tenant selection, providing training focused on environmental and social impacts, and developing performance metrics to assess incubator effectiveness in promoting sustainable development, however, are deeply embedded in incubator operations.

Fig. 1 below illustrates the theoretical framework adopted in this study, which considers a sustainability-oriented business incubator a support structure composed of activities and frameworks designed to meet social and environmental expectations. On the basis of Fichter and Hurrelmann (2021), the framework emphasizes the following key areas where sustainability interest can be integrated: the institutional framework, the research and selection of sustainable solutions and
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Theoretical framework for analysing the sustainability orientation of business incubators (based on Fichter & Hurrelmann, 2021).</figcaption></figure>

entrepreneurs, and the activities in the support program that support the development of sustainable businesses. The vertical axis represents the alignment of sustainability goals, indicating how well the incubator's stated sustainability objectives are incorporated into these areas. The horizontal axis reflects the level of sustainability implementation, showing the extent to which sustainability practices are embedded in the incubator's operations. This framework helps differentiate between symbolic actions—where there is high sustainability interest but a low degree of implementation—and substantive actions—where both alignment and implementation are robustly integrated.

### 3. Materials and methods

To investigate how sustainability-oriented business incubators behave in their mission to support new ventures, our research uses a qualitative comparative case study design (Gustafsson, 2017; Rashid et al., 2019). By choosing a qualitative methodology, this study aims to contribute to the call for more exploratory research to clarify the concept of sustainability orientation, which has recently been highlighted by Khizar et al. (2022). Moreover, the case study allows for the observation of multiple facets of the phenomenon and the consideration of the natural context in which it occurs by mobilizing different sources of data and a variety of lenses (Baxter & Jack, 2015). This approach is

proven relevant, as we are able to collect a significant amount of secondary data to describe the various incubation processes.

To enrich this approach, we adopt an abductive logic (Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013; Peirce, 1974) through systematic combination (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Systematic combination is a nonlinear research logic that aims to reconnect, confront, and thus broaden the understanding of theoretical models and empirical materials throughout the research process.

#### 3.1. Case selection

Fig. 2 shows the case selection process leading to the comparative case study.

First, for the sake of comparability, we select incubators operating in the same institutional context. Therefore, we first select France because of its lack of empirical studies on business incubators and sustainability orientation (Lamperti et al., 2023) and because of the large investments in entrepreneurship support systems in the country (Theodoraki et al., 2020).

To further increase comparability, we select incubators operating in the same region to ensure consistency in terms of access to resources and opportunities. We therefore choose a region in southern France both because researchers have very good access to data on the region (Yin,

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Case selection process: Criteria and resulting case selection.</figcaption></figure>
2003), which allows us to participate in moments of observation, and because this region hosts one of the most important French entrepreneurial ecosystems (Theodoraki et al., 2022). Additionally, we select business incubators with a similar business model and that are operating at the same stages of the entrepreneurial life cycle. These restrictive criteria lead us to select ten incubators.

For our research objective, we then select incubators that discuss sustainable development or sustainability-related topics on their websites to compare how these actors integrate this concept into the incubation process.

This process allows us to identify three sustainability-oriented business incubators.

These incubators have a long history, as they have been in existence for at least 10 years and have been publicly recognized as successful (e. g., by receiving awards or high levels of funding).

Table 1 summarizes the case characteristics of the three incubators, which, for confidentiality reasons, are referred to as Incubators X, Y and Z.

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Case characteristics and sustainability interest.</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>Start</th><th>Program structure</th><th>Incubation period</th><th>No. of projects per program</th><th>Sustainability interest</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Incubator X</td><td>1987</td><td>Pre-incubation + incubation</td><td>4 months + 20 months</td><td>50</td><td>"Incubator X's approach is fully in line with a dynamic that respects people and the environment. The social and environmental commitment of innovative business projects is important to us".<br>(Incubator X's website)</td></tr><tr><td>Incubator Y</td><td>2012</td><td>Incubation</td><td>12 months</td><td>30</td><td>"Incubator Y is an entrepreneurial organization that supports and accommodates new impact businesses in their creation and sustainable establishment in the region".<br>(Incubator Y's website)</td></tr><tr><td>Incubator Z</td><td>2007</td><td>Pre-incubation + incubation</td><td>6 months + 12 months</td><td>20</td><td>"Incubator Z supports projects whose innovation serves the collective interest by responding to social and/or environmental needs that are poorly met or unmet".<br>(Incubator Z's website)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.2. Data collection

Data collection is carried out using both primary data (in the form of interviews and notes from moments of observation) and secondary data (in the form of external documents and resources), as shown in Table 2.

For the primary data, semi-structured interviews are conducted. We interview the incubator management team and external collaborators who play a role in organizing workshops and training activities related to sustainable business development (Bocken et al., 2019).

We start with an understanding of the institutional framework, namely, the incubator structure, strategic vision, mission, and culture of each incubator. We also ask incubator management teams about their definitions of sustainability, impact, and sustainable business models and how they think that the incubator supports sustainable entrepreneurship. Later, we ask about the selection process, mentorship programs, training activities, networking events, the participation of external collaborators, etc.

For external collaborators, we ask about their roles and goals and the training or mentoring activities that they have undertaken at the incubator. Twelve interviews are conducted, mostly online (via Zoom) and face to face, and are recorded in full for a total of 390 min; notes are taken manually during the interviews, and then, all the notes are transcribed. We are also able to observe the incubation activities at three time points to gain a deeper understanding of the analysed phenomena.

Secondary data are obtained from various sources, including the internal documents that each incubator shares with us and external documents such as news articles and regional reports.

The internal documents are the presentations and reports that the incubators send to their tenants during the incubation period (approximately 600 pages), including the frameworks and tools used by internal and external trainers during their activities (such as the Guide to help reflect on its sustainability impact, Incubator Y).

The combination of primary and secondary data allows for the triangulation of information by cross-checking the data and avoiding

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Data collection.</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>Primary data</th><th>Secondary data</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Incubator X</td><td><ul><li>Two interviews with the incubator director</li><li>One interview with the program manager</li><li>One interview with an external sustainability expert</li><li>Participation in a workshop on sustainability impact</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Data from the official website of the incubator</li><li>Support material of the workshops and training activities on business creation</li><li>Support material of the workshops on sustainability issues</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Incubator Y</td><td><ul><li>One interview with the program manager</li><li>One interview with the innovation manager</li><li>Two interviews with external sustainability experts</li><li>Attendance at a program presentation</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Data from the official website of the incubator</li><li>Support material of the workshops and training activities on business creation</li><li>Presentations of external experts and support material for their intervention</li><li>Support material of the workshops on sustainability-related topics</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Incubator Z</td><td><ul><li>Two interviews with the incubator director</li><li>Two interviews with the innovation manager</li><li>One interview with the program manager</li><li>One interview with an external sustainability expert</li><li>Attendance at a sustainability innovation workshop</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Data from the official website of the incubator</li><li>Support material of the business incubation workshops and training activities</li><li>Presentation of the external experts and support material for their intervention</li><li>Support material of the workshops on sustainability-related topics</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
potential interpretation bias. All case study data are stored in a case study database in line with (Yin, 2012).

### 3.3. Data analysis

Each incubator is treated as an independent dataset. By following the line of the interviews and collecting relevant secondary data, we accumulate insights and data after each meeting and enrich the findings. Following Eisenhardt's (1989) recommendation, we first carry out within-case data analysis.

To analyse the data, we create a coding scheme based on concepts in the literature to develop the initial coding categories. The categories related to the integration of sustainability considerations into the support system are derived mainly from two recent papers by Chan et al. (2022) and Fichter and Hurrelmann (2021). We also identify coding categories to outline whether the actions taken by the incubators are more symbolic or substantive in nature, building on Truong et al. (2021); Iatridis and Kesidou (2018); and Walker and Wan (2012). An example of the data structure is shown in Fig. 3.

At a later stage, we conduct a comparative analysis between the narratives of the cases (Langley, 1999). This final step enables us to synthesize how sustainability-oriented incubators incorporate sustainability elements into their systems, revealing three distinct patterns of behaviour.

## 4. Results

This section examines the cases of the three French business incubators and details how each implements sustainability-oriented

practices. Each case is analysed by identifying both symbolic and substantive actions within the institutional framework, selection process, and incubation activities related to sustainability.

### 4.1. Case of incubator X

As cited by the director and as reported on the incubator website,

The social and environmental commitment of entrepreneurial projects is important in our mission to support new ventures. We accept projects from a variety of sectors, but sustainability is the common theme of all projects incubated over the last three years.

Incubator X defines sustainability as making a positive contribution to society and the environment, broadening the perspective beyond profits and economic results. This vision has been part of Incubator X's mission for several years. The director emphasizes the multifaceted importance of sustainability by stating the following:

> Sustainable development has to be considered for many reasons. Because it's important for the planet and for the community and because it's important for recruiting talent today, isn't it? It's also because, more and more often, today, funding is subject to sustainable development conditions. So, all of this together has made it a prerequisite. It has become a standard. We can't do it otherwise.

Despite this declaration of sustainability as a strategic priority, there is a noticeable misalignment between these strategic objectives and the incubator's operational practices.

In the selection process, sustainability is only one of fifteen criteria used to evaluate applicants. The majority of the criteria focus on

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Example of the data structure.</figcaption></figure>
entrepreneurial characteristics, product-market fit, innovation potential, and financing prospects. The criterion assessing the impact on sustainability is neither decisive nor mandatory for entry into the program. As the director explained, "Today, sustainability is not a strict criterion, but it is part of our mission to make entrepreneurs aware of these issues. Our job is to get them moving in that direction."

This statement highlights a tension between Incubator X's stated values and the operationalization of these values within its incubation process. Although the intention is to encourage a shift towards sustainability, the lack of mandatory criteria suggests a more symbolic approach. This symbolic commitment, however, falls short of translating into tangible actions that drive meaningful change within the incubated startups.

The incubation program itself is focused primarily on enhancing tenants' economic feasibility, growth strategies, and financial value, indicating that these aspects remain the program's core focus. Only four workshops aim at helping tenants assess the impact generated using a framework developed by an external partner. This framework provides a basic overview of sustainability impact assessment. However, the depth required for tenants to integrate these concepts into their business models in practice is lacking. For example, while the framework covers key impact areas, it does not delve into specific strategies for implementation, leaving tenants without a clear roadmap for action. This superficial engagement reflects a broader pattern of symbolic adherence to sustainability ideals.

These workshops aim to raise awareness rather than to engage in a thorough practical assessment of the impact of sustainability. As stated by the impact expert, "Our main objective is to make them aware of their impact. We show them how to assess this impact through some management frameworks and tools, but it is the entrepreneurs who decide whether or not to do it." The interviewees frequently mention that the sustainability workshops feel more like "check-box exercises" than like genuine efforts to instil sustainable practices. As one tenant noted, "The workshop on impact scoring was informative, but there wasn't much follow-up on how to actually implement these practices into our business." This statement indicates a gap between awareness-raising and actionable support.

Furthermore, the incubator's approach to sustainability includes facilitating networking between tenants and successfully impactful enterprises. These sessions provide opportunities for enterprises to share their experiences in becoming impactful enterprises. Additionally, Incubator X encourages tenants to join a national community focused on social and environmental impacts. While these activities promote the concept of sustainability, they risk favouring a culture of symbolic actions over substantive practices, given the lack of deeper investment in practical assessment and implementation.

Finally, Incubator X measures its performance using standard measures such as the number of jobs created, the amount of funds raised and the survival rate, which is the only indicator that measures sustainability integration by distinguishing the percentage of impactful enterprises that survive. This situation, again, indicates a lack of integration of sustainability considerations throughout the incubation process.

From an institutional theory perspective, Incubator X's actions can be seen as a form of symbolic compliance, where organizations adopt certain practices or language to appear aligned with societal norms, without implementing substantive changes. This situation is evident in the selection process, where sustainability is present as a criterion but is not central to the evaluation process, reflecting a decoupling of sustainability ideals from core operational practices.

## 4.2. Case of incubator Y

Incubator Y has shown a clear interest in sustainability by focusing on businesses that are both economically profitable and socially responsible. As the director explains, "We are a generalist incubator in the sense that the companies we support are in all sectors of activity. Our specificity is the social, societal or environmental impact of the projects." This

vision is incorporated into the program during the selection phase.

To qualify for the support program, Incubator Y first evaluates whether applicants incorporate sustainability objectives into their core businesses. This assessment includes examining the societal purpose, governance, and potential social and environmental impacts of the business, alongside traditional economic criteria such as market knowledge and business model viability. As noted by the Incubator Y director, "Sustainability interest appears through these criteria. [...] We are not here to support individual projects. [...] We are here to support projects that will have an impact, at least in terms of employment in the region." This approach establishes a barrier to entry for projects that overlook sustainability, compelling participants to consider and evaluate their triple-bottom-line impacts, which drives a shift towards a sustainability orientation.

The support program includes various training sessions, such as "Measuring Social, Societal, and Environmental Impacts," which introduces tenants to tools such as the "Guide to Reflect on Sustainability Impact" and stakeholder cartography. These tools are designed to help tenants identify their positive and negative contributions. However, the program reveals an imbalance. Despite extensive economic training on financial strategy and fundraising, only one of the ten mandatory training days is devoted to managing and assessing sustainability performance. This session, conducted by external sustainability consultants, focuses on raising awareness rather than on providing a comprehensive practical assessment of sustainability impacts. According to the sustainability expert,

The main aim of the workshop is to raise awareness. It is more of a question of raising the awareness of impacts. The time allocated to this training in the program is rather limited. We do not expect an impact study to be produced in half a day. The intention is to give them the tools to do the study themselves.

As a result, tenants receive minimal support from Incubator Y in managing and assessing their impact, potentially limiting the integration of sustainability practices into their operations and affecting the creation of truly sustainable businesses. Despite the introduction of the workshop, Incubator Y's actions remain largely symbolic, focusing more on generating positive economic returns rather than balanced social and environmental contributions. This focus is evident in the director's statement as follows:

> The objective is to achieve an economic balance that generates employment and allows project leaders to earn income from this activity. Otherwise, they will burn out. There will be no impact if there is no economic model.

The imbalance between economic and sustainability training underscores the following critical issue: while the incubator emphasizes the importance of social and environmental impacts in its selection process, it ultimately provides a limited amount of resources to help businesses deepen their sustainability practices. This disconnect between intent and implementation suggests that sustainability is still perceived as secondary to economic performance, a view reinforced by the director's focus on financial viability as a prerequisite for any impact.

The performance metrics for Incubator Y include the amount of funds raised, the number of jobs created, and survival rates, but these indicators do not consistently evaluate the incubator's contribution to sustainable development. The director notes the difficulty in measuring overall performance as follows:

> A global performance measure for the incubator would be complicated. However, we could try to reflect on measuring the impact of the companies we support. [...] From the beginning, we have been doing an evaluation as part of the network of incubators and entrepreneurial support systems in the region.

This situation suggests that current evaluations focus more on
traditional metrics than on a comprehensive assessment of the impact of
sustainability.

Despite these limitations, there is an acknowledgement within the incubator of the need to evolve its practices. The director's personal commitment to advancing impact support is as follows: "I am deeply convinced that we need to go further on this issue. [...] I am currently going through training on impact support, and I think that I will participate to push this forward within my company." This statement indicates a willingness to enhance the incubator's approach to sustainability. This openness to improvement may lead to more substantive sustainability actions in the future.

From an institutional theory perspective, Incubator Y's approach illustrates a form of symbolic compliance. The incubator adopts certain sustainability practices to align with societal norms and gain legitimacy, as seen in its emphasis on sustainability during the selection phase versus the limited depth of sustainability support in the training program. This case highlights the challenge of balancing economic viability with a genuine commitment to sustainability.

4.3. Case of incubator Z

Incubator Z's commitment to sustainability is reflected in its strategic mission, as stated on its website as follows: "to support social innovation projects as a lever to promote sustainable entrepreneurship" (Incubator Z's website).

Social innovation is framed as "innovation that serves the collective interest and whose economic success benefits society while preserving the environment" (workshop on social innovation). This concept emphasizes a creative and inclusive process aimed at addressing unmet social needs through sustainable, scalable, and measurable solutions while fostering collaboration and embracing risk-taking.

To evaluate the presence of social innovation in entrepreneurial projects, applicants are required to complete an application form divided into three sections. The first section focuses on the team and the entrepreneurs, the second focuses on the project and its market, and the third focuses on justifying the type of innovation by explaining why it qualifies as social innovation. The application is assessed using the following twenty criteria: twelve indicators centred on the financial, entrepreneurial, and economic aspects of the project and business model; three indicators measuring the alignment between the incubator and the project; and five indicators assessing the sustainability of the innovation. Examples include "The project addresses a verified social need" and "The proposed solution will have a real social impact," reflecting the incubator's dedication to fostering innovations that benefit society. Additionally, criteria related to coconstruction with stakeholders and the project's social orientation emphasize the integration of social responsibility into the business model. While fewer criteria are dedicated to assessing sustainability, applicants are required to pass all sections to gain entry into the program. This thorough approach demonstrates that Incubator Z deeply embeds its sustainability orientation into the selection process, creating a substantive barrier for companies that do not prioritize sustainability in their operations.

Once in the program, tenants are required to attend twelve days of training on financial development and sustainable digital marketing, delivered by in-house trainers and external collaborators. These workshops aim to develop the economic side of the projects. More importantly, tenants are also required to attend five training sessions on how to develop a sustainable business model and how to assess its impact. According to the program manager, "We offer specific training on social innovation, social impact, and the social needs being addressed, helping entrepreneurs refine and formalize their approach." With expertise in social innovation, the program manager leads sessions on defining social and environmental innovation, sustainability impact assessment, stakeholder management, and building sustainable business models. During these training sessions, sustainability concepts are defined, and tenants are asked to answer specific questions about their impact, identify

stakeholders and assess any positive and unintended negative contributions to society and the environment. From the words of a tenant during the sustainability innovation workshop, "*The experience we had at Incubator Z was very positive and very enriching. They showed us how we could have governance principles that are relatively simple... while keeping humans and the ecological impact at the centre of the discussion.*"

This statement illustrates the incubator's tailored support, providing specific training and tools to help entrepreneurs develop a strong social impact case for their projects.

Incubator Z thus demonstrates that it incorporates several substantial measures into its support program to promote the sustainable development of its tenants.

However, despite the interest shown and the organizational change, these workshops are a minor part of Incubator Z's activities and objectives. Indeed, as stated by the Program Manager,

> We help them think about their impact, but we don't go far beyond that because their main focus quickly becomes how to make money. We cannot spend much of our time measuring our social and environmental impact. Our priority and goal are to enable tenants to earn a salary for themselves and their employees; otherwise, there is no impact.

Finally, Incubator Z tracks its performance through the accounting measures required by the region (number of jobs created, amount of funds raised, and survival rate) but does not address sustainability indicators in a structured way. In fact, as the director reports,

> We don't have sustainability indicators, but we have created a virtuous behaviour as a company—waste sorting, staff coming by bike, and gender equality in the workplace—and we have installed water dispensers to avoid plastic bottles... We don't have an obligation; it's in our values.

Despite these promising sustainable actions, Incubator Z runs the risk of not supporting the concretization of the strategic objectives and the culture of sustainability, which can be seen as a symbolic action, by not assessing the impact in a structured way.

From an institutional theory perspective, Incubator Z's approach demonstrates a blend of symbolic and substantive actions. The incubator embeds sustainability into its selection process, creating a substantial barrier to entry for businesses that do not prioritize sustainability. The requirement for applicants to justify their social innovation and attend workshops on sustainability and impact assessment reflects a substantive integration of sustainability goals. Through tailored support and training on social innovation, impact measurement, and sustainable business model construction, Incubator Z provides meaningful resources to its tenants, promoting the development of socially and environmentally conscious businesses. However, despite these efforts, a degree of symbolic compliance remains. While present, sustainability workshops constitute a minor portion of the overall program, and as the program manager admits, the incubator's primary focus quickly shifts to ensuring economic viability. The limited time dedicated to assessing sustainability impacts, coupled with the absence of structured sustainability performance indicators, signals a potential disconnect between the incubator's strategic objectives and its operational practices. As the director notes, the incubator fosters *virtuous behaviour* through practices such as waste sorting and gender equality, but without a formal system for tracking sustainability outcomes, these actions risk being seen as symbolic gestures rather than as comprehensive efforts to embed sustainability into its core activities. Thus, while Incubator Z has made strides towards supporting sustainability, the lack of structured sustainability metrics and the prioritization of financial outcomes suggest that its commitment to sustainability, though genuine, is not fully realized.

In conclusion, Table 3 summarizes what we have outlined above and shows what types of actions are implemented by the three incubators at the institutional level, in the selection phase and in the support program.
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Summary of the sustainability-oriented actions implemented by the incubators.</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>Sustainability-oriented actions</th><th>Type of actions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Incubator X</strong><br>Institutional level</td><td><ul><li>The vision and mission of the incubator not clearly defining sustainability objectives, only an interest.</li><li>No tracking and evaluation of sustainability performance indicators.</li></ul></td><td>Symbolic</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Selection phase</strong></td><td><ul><li>Sustainability being only one of fifteen criteria used to evaluate applicants.</li><li>No restrictions on sustainability-oriented business projects.</li></ul></td><td>Symbolic</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Support program</strong></td><td><ul><li>Four nonmandatory workshops on sustainability impact awareness tools.</li><li>Promotion of an impact network without common objectives.</li></ul></td><td>Rather symbolic</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Incubator Y</strong><br>Institutional level</td><td><ul><li>Vision and mission of the incubator including sustainability objectives.</li><li>No tracking and evaluation of sustainability performance indicators.</li></ul></td><td>Rather symbolic</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Selection phase</strong></td><td><ul><li>Half of the criteria considering the sustainability performance and focus of the applicant's business project.</li><li>Creation of a barrier to entry for businesses that do not consider their sustainability performance.</li></ul></td><td>Substantive</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Support program</strong></td><td><ul><li>Only one mandatory theoretical workshop on sustainability impact awareness and stakeholder identification.</li></ul></td><td>Symbolic</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Incubator Z</strong><br>Institutional level</td><td><ul><li>Vision and mission of the incubator being to integrate sustainability objectives.</li><li>Culture of the incubator being sensitive to environmental issues.</li><li>Unstructured tracking and assessment of sustainability performance indicators.</li></ul></td><td>Rather substantive</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Selection phase</strong></td><td><ul><li>One-third of the criteria being based on the sustainability performance and orientation of the applicant's business project.</li><li>Creation of a barrier to entry for companies that do not consider their sustainability performance.</li></ul></td><td>Substantive</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Support program</strong></td><td><ul><li>Workshops on integrating sustainability considerations into business model development.</li><li>Workshops on the awareness and assessment of sustainability impacts.</li><li>Social and environmental innovation workshop.</li></ul></td><td>Rather substantive</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5. Discussion of results

This study explores how sustainability-oriented business incubators implement their missions to support new ventures and sustainable development. By examining three incubators within the same regional ecosystem, we identify variations in their alignment with sustainability goals and their operational practices. Our findings indicate diverse approaches to integrating sustainability into strategic and operational frameworks.

**Incubator X: sustainability blabber.**

Incubator X exemplifies an incubator at the initial stages of integrating sustainability into its incubation processes. Despite publicly endorsing sustainability as part of its mission, the incubator does not impose stringent sustainability requirements in the selection process. Sustainability is merely one of fifteen evaluation criteria and is not a mandatory component for entry into the program. This lack of emphasis on sustainability is further reflected in incubation activities, where only a few workshops address sustainability topics. These workshops are aimed mainly at raising awareness rather than at providing comprehensive support or tools for practical implementation. As a result,

Incubator X's sustainability initiatives remain largely symbolic, aimed more at meeting societal expectations than at genuinely embedding sustainability into its core operations. We term this approach a "sustainability blabber," characterized by the public proclamation of sustainability values without their substantive integration into the incubation process. This behaviour suggests a risk of using sustainability as a marketing tool rather than as a core operational value, which may be typical for incubators at the beginning of their journey towards integrating sustainability into their mission and operations.

**Incubator Y: sustainability motivator.**

In contrast, Incubator Y demonstrates a more integrated approach by incorporating sustainability criteria at the strategic level and during the selection process. This inclusion creates barriers to entry, ensuring that only projects with some degree of sustainability consideration are accepted. However, while the selection process is more aligned with sustainability goals, the support program remains limited in terms of practical sustainability guidance. The workshops and training sessions provided are focused primarily on raising awareness and introducing basic sustainability management tools, without in-depth support for practical application or ongoing implementation. This approach reflects a partial alignment between the incubator's strategic sustainability goals and its operational practices. We define this behaviour as a "sustainability motivator," where the incubator implements both symbolic and substantive actions but with a predominant focus on raising awareness rather than on embedding sustainability into the entire incubation process. This approach is beneficial for promoting sustainable thinking, yet it lacks the depth needed to fully support sustainable business practices.

**Incubator Z: sustainability supporter.**

Among the three cases, Incubator Z represents the most advanced integration of sustainability, as it rigorously embeds sustainability criteria into the selection process, requiring applicants to justify their social innovation and demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. Furthermore, its support program includes dedicated workshops that go beyond raising awareness to offer substantive support for developing sustainable business models and assessing social and environmental impact. These workshops provide tenants with practical tools and knowledge to integrate sustainability into their business strategies effectively. However, despite this strong alignment, the incubator still faces limitations. Sustainability workshops constitute a smaller portion of the overall program, and the primary focus remains on achieving economic viability. As the director notes, the incubator prioritizes financial success to ensure the longevity of the impact initiatives. We classify this behaviour as that of a "sustainability supporter," characterized by substantial actions towards sustainability, albeit with ongoing challenges in balancing economic and sustainability goals. This case highlights the inherent tension in supporting both profitability and sustainability within the limited timeframe and resources available to incubators.

In conclusion, Fig. 4 provides a visual representation of the outlined behaviours that answer the research question of this study.

While this figure presents distinct categories—sustainability blabber, sustainability motivator, and sustainability supporter—importantly, these divisions are conceptual and do not fully capture the complexity of real-world practices. In reality, sustainability behaviours often exist along a spectrum, with organizations frequently transitioning between symbolic and substantive practices over time. For example, an incubator initially classified as a "sustainability blabber" may, through targeted strategies and stakeholder engagement, evolve into a "sustainability motivator" or even a "sustainability supporter". Similarly, contextual factors such as resource constraints, market pressures, or shifts in leadership can cause regressions or inconsistencies in the sustainability alignment or implementation of incubators. This framework also acknowledges the potential for misalignment between sustainability goal alignment and implementation levels. Such misalignment may occur when organizations adopt ambitious, substantively aligned
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Different sustainability orientation behaviours resulting from the comparative case study.</figcaption></figure>

sustainability goals but face barriers to meaningful implementation or, conversely, when strong operational practices drive substantial implementation outcomes despite vague or symbolic goals. These dynamics emphasize the importance of examining goal alignment and implementation as interconnected but distinct dimensions of sustainability. These categories form a useful framework for evaluating the maturity of sustainability practices within business incubators. By identifying where an incubator currently stands, this framework can guide both researchers and practitioners in understanding areas for improvement. For example, incubators in the “sustainability blabber” category may benefit from targeted interventions aimed at aligning goals with substantive sustainability principles, whereas those categorized as “sustainability motivators” may focus on closing gaps between their goals and actual implementation practices.

# 6. Theoretical contributions

The first key contribution of this research lies in its exploration of different behaviours of sustainability-oriented business incubators (Halberstadt et al., 2024). By connecting various critical actors, incubators, as central players in the entrepreneurial ecosystems, are uniquely positioned to facilitate this shift. Their role in supporting sustainability-oriented ventures can accelerate the transition towards sustainability, as they provide essential resources and knowledge that empower entrepreneurs to innovate (Di Vaio et al., 2021) and embed sustainability into their business models. The findings from this research suggest that sustainability-oriented business incubators are currently in a transformative phase, where different experiments with a sustainability orientation exist, reflecting the ongoing exploration of this paradigm. This study highlights variations in incubator behaviours, specifically in terms of the following two critical dimensions: the degree of implementation and goal alignment. These two dimensions lead to the categorization of an incubator as sustainability “blabber,” “motivator,” or “supporter.” Despite the efforts of incubators to adopt sustainability principles, this study reveals that none of the incubators fully leverage their potential to drive sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship. This gap suggests that while sustainability is becoming more central to the mission of many incubators, there is still significant room for improvement in terms of the depth and consistency of its integration into

incubation practices. Many incubators are still navigating the complexities of embedding sustainability into their incubation models, experimenting with different strategies to balance traditional economic goals with the emerging imperative for environmental and social responsibility.

The second significant contribution of this study relates to the analysis of the similarities and differences in how business incubators conceptualize and operationalize sustainability orientation (Khizar et al., 2022; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). The symbolic and substantive sustainability actions of three sustainability-oriented incubators are compared, offering valuable insights into the diverse ways in which incubators implement sustainability in their operations. By drawing comparisons among these incubators, this study enhances our understanding of the varying degrees to which incubators align their sustainability rhetoric with their actual practices. Incubators often engage in symbolic sustainability practices to meet external expectations or enhance legitimacy (Granados et al., 2024), as seen through their focus on sustainability during the selection phase. However, these actions may lack depth regarding providing in-depth sustainability support during the incubation process.

Third, despite the focus on sustainability, the findings reveal that incubators face sustainability-related tensions in two key ways. First, these tensions arise from the challenge of balancing economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Smith et al., 2013; Van der Byl & Slatwinski, 2015). In an effort to resolve these tensions, incubators tend to prioritize the economic dimension, likely because of time and resource constraints. As their primary mission is to foster new businesses, incubators must develop profitable business models while incorporating sustainability elements. Second, incubators struggle to offer meaningful support for sustainable business development, with sustainability considerations largely limited to the selection process, which may be attributed to the fact that many incubators are still in an experimental phase, adhering to the traditional support frameworks that continue to dominate.

## 6.1. Practical implications

This study reveals that while incubators incorporate a sustainability orientation, they often struggle to fully align their goals with sustainable practices. Owing to time and resource constraints, incubators tend to prioritize helping businesses achieve positive financial returns over focusing on fostering social and environmental contributions. As a result, incubators face performance tensions similar to those faced by their tenants, limiting their ability to help entrepreneurs manage these challenges effectively. This finding has significant practical implications for incubator managers. Indeed, incubator managers who wish to support sustainable entrepreneurs and create meaningful impact must move beyond rhetoric and implement a coherent set of practices, from the selection process to the end of the program. The findings of the study can guide these managers in distinguishing between symbolic and substantive actions, encouraging them to adopt more substantive support practices. This would help to reduce instances of behaviour such as ‘sustainability blabber’, where sustainability is addressed superficially without meaningful integration into the incubation process.

In addition, the study provides valuable guidance for sustainable entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs focused on sustainability should carefully assess incubator programs, selecting those that not only promote sustainability but also actively support the creation of environmental and social impacts. Choosing the right incubator is critical for entrepreneurs who are committed to achieving their mission of generating positive environmental and social outcomes alongside financial returns.

## 6.2. Policy recommendations

Finally, this study is important for policymakers. Indeed, the declared interest of incubators in sustainability issues is not always
supported by the integration of sustainability aspects into their activities, which limits their mission to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the sustainability orientation of entrepreneurship support structures to achieve real results in terms of sustainable development and to avoid supporting potential greenwashing activities (Netto et al., 2020). To this end, policymakers should evaluate incubators in terms of their substantive contributions and provide incentives for them to adopt more virtuous behaviours.

## 7. Study limitations

While our study offers several important contributions, it is not without limitations. The primary theoretical limitation lies in the need for the further theorization and conceptualization of the phenomena studied, such as sustainability and sustainable development (Autio et al., 2014). To address this limitation, we situate the cases within the literature on sustainability orientation in business incubators and institutional theory. Additionally, from a practical perspective, this study focuses only on three business incubators. This narrow scope hinders the generalizability of the findings when examining the conceptualization and operationalization of sustainability-oriented practices in organizations (Khizar et al., 2022). Moreover, the emphasis on business incubators limits the applicability of the results to other organizational contexts.

Finally, from a methodological perspective, the use of a qualitative case study approach may constrain the generalizability and relevance of the findings.

## 8. Conclusions and directions for future research

In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of how business incubators operate and orient themselves towards sustainability, revealing diverse forms of sustainable entrepreneurial activity. These findings contribute to a broader comprehension of sustainability orientation within entrepreneurship and suggest multiple avenues for further research.

With respect to the contributions of this study, several potential avenues for future research exist that can address the limitations discussed.

As highlighted, there is a need for the further theorization and conceptualization of sustainability and sustainable development. Future research should explore more nuanced theoretical frameworks, beyond institutional theory, to enrich the understanding of sustainability orientation in business incubators. Additionally, longitudinal studies may provide a better understanding of how sustainability evolves within incubation ecosystems over time.

Given the practical limitation of focusing on only three business incubators, future research should extend the empirical scope by examining a more diverse set of incubators, including those in different geographical regions, industry sectors, and organizational structures. This approach would enhance the generalizability of the findings and provide a more comprehensive picture of how sustainability-oriented practices manifest across various incubation contexts. Comparative studies between incubators and other types of entrepreneurial support organizations (e.g., accelerators and coworking spaces) could also illustrate the differences in sustainability practices across organizational forms.

This study's focus on business incubators limits the applicability of its results to other organizational contexts. Future research should explore how sustainability is operationalized in different types of organizations.

Finally, future research should explore the integration of sustainability from a multistakeholder perspective. Studies could investigate how incubators collaborate with educational institutions, government agencies, and private investors to foster a holistic approach to sustainability. Research in this area could uncover strategies for effectively

embedding sustainability into incubator operations, improving alignment among stakeholders, and ensuring long-term sustainable development.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Sofia Lamperti:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Visualization. **Jean-Marie Courrent:** Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration. **Sylvie Sammut:** Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.

## Funding

This research received financial support from the French National Research Agency through the program "Investments for the Future" under reference number ANR-10-LabX-11-01.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the anonymous referees and the editors for their constructive comments and insightful suggestions on our manuscript.

## References

* Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? *Small Business Economics*, **23**(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000027665.54173.23

* Ahmed, N., Li, C., Qalati, S. A., Rehman, H. U., Khan, H. U., & Rana, F. (2022). Impact of business incubators on sustainable entrepreneurship growth with mediation effect. *Entrepreneurship Research Journal*, **12**(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2019-0116

* Albort-Morant, G., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators. *Journal of Business Research*, **69**(5), 1775–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.054

* Ashforth, B., & Barrie, W. G. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. *Organization Science*, **1**, 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177

* Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. *Research Policy*, **43**(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015

* Bank, N., & Kanda, W. (2016). Tenant recruitment and support processes in sustainability-profiled business incubators. *Industry and Higher Education*, **30**(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216659567

* Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2015). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. *The Qualitative Report*, **13**(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573.

* Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, **26**(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1887

* Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. *Technovation*, **28**(1–2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.008

* Bocken, N., Boons, F., & Baldassarre, B. (2019). Sustainable business model experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **208**, 1498–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.159

* Chan, Y. E., Krishnamurthy, R., & Sadreddin, A. (2022). Technovation Digitally-enabled university incubation processes. *Technovation, March*, Article 102560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102560

* Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. *Journal of Business Venturing*, **22**(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001

* Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2019). Managing carbon aspirations: The influence of corporate climate change targets on environmental performance. *Journal of Business Ethics*, **158**(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3731-z

* Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R., Chhabra, M., Arrigo, E., & Palladino, R. (2022). Sustainable entrepreneurship impact and entrepreneurial venture life cycle: A systematic literature review. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, **378**, Article 134469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134469

* Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Hassan, R., & Alvino, F. (2020). Human resources disclosure in the EU Directive 2014/95/EU perspective: A systematic literature review. *Journal of*
Cleaner Production, 257, Article 120509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120509

Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Pezzi, A., & Kalisz, D. E. (2021). The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A systematic literature review. *Journal of Business Research, 123*, 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.042

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. *Journal of Business Research, 55*(7), 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. *The Academy of Management Review*, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Fichter, K., & Hurrelmann, K. (2021). "Chapter 28: Sustainability-oriented business incubation: framing and supporting sustainable entrepreneurship". In Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved Jan 20, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974783.00038.

Fichter, K., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Schaltegger, S., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2023). Sustainability impact assessment of new ventures: An emerging field of research. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 384*, Article 135452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135452

Fonseca, S. A., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2012). Assessment of business incubators' green performance: A framework and its application to Brazilian cases. *Technovation, 32*(2), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.10.006

Granados, C., Ayala, Y., & Ramos-Mejia, M. (2024). Is it substantive or just symbolic? Understanding innovation theater in organisations: The case of technology-based innovation. *Technovation, 129*, Article 102880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102880

Greve, H. R., & Argote, L. (2015). Behavioral theories of organization. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), *International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences* (pp. 481-486). Elsevier.

Gustafsson, J. (2017). *Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study*. Academy of Business. Engineering and Science Halmstad University.

Halberstadt, J., Schwab, A.-K., & Kraus, S. (2024). Cleaning the window of opportunity: Towards a typology of sustainability entrepreneurs. *Journal of Business Research, 171*, Article 114386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114386

Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2020). Business incubators and accelerators: A co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. *Journal of Technology Transfer, 45*(1), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9651-y

Horne, J., & Fichter, K. (2022). Growing for sustainability: Enablers for the growth of impact startups-A conceptual framework, taxonomy, and systematic literature review. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 349*, Article 131163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131163

Iatridis, K., & Kesidou, E. (2018). What drives substantive versus symbolic implementation of ISO 14001 in a time of economic crisis? Insights from Greek manufacturing companies. *Journal of Business Ethics, 148*(4), 859-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3019-8

Karahan, M., Rashid, L., & Kratzer, J. (2022). Gearing-up for purpose: The relationship between entrepreneurs' usage of incubation support services and sustainable impacts. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 377*, Article 134315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134315

Khizar, H. M. U., Iqbal, M. J., Khalid, J., & Adomako, S. (2022). Addressing the conceptualization and measurement challenges of sustainability orientation: A systematic review and research agenda. *Journal of Business Research, 142*, 718-743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.029

Klofsten, M., Bank, N., & Bienkowska, D. (2016). The role of incubators in supporting sustainable entrepreneurship. https://www.borderstep.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SHIFT-WP3-in-Template-final.pdf.

Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business experience. *Journal of Business Venturing, 25*(5), 524-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001

Lamperti, S., Sammut, S., & Courrent, J.-M. (2023). From incubator's knowledge transfer to sustainability start-ups' impact: A case study in a French support program. *Journal of Knowledge Management, 27*(9), 2393-2413. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2022-0690

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. *Academy of Management Review, 24*(4), 691. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349

Li, W., Zhang, Y. A., & Li, X. (2024). Reducing symbolic compliance: The presence of multiple large shareholders as an internal monitoring mechanism. *Journal of Management Studies, 61*(5), 1946-1984. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12961

Liu, Z., Zhou, J., & Li, J. (2023). How do family firms respond strategically to the digital transformation trend: Disclosing symbolic cues or making substantive changes? *Journal of Business Research, 155*, Article 113395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113395

Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. *Academy of Management Review, 38*(1), 70-89. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0188

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Structure as myth and ceremony. *American Journal of Sociology, 83*(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

Millette, S., Hull, C. E., & Williams, E. (2020). Business incubators as effective tools for driving circular economy. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 266*, Article 121999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121999

Netto, S. V. D. F., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. D. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. *Environmental Sciences Europe, 32* (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. *Academy of Management Review, 16*(1), 145-179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002

Peirce, C. S. (1974). *Collected papers of charles sanders peirce*. Harvard University Press.

Potts, T. (2010). The natural advantage of regions: Linking sustainability, innovation, and regional development in Australia. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 18*(8), 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.008

Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18*, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424

Rosado-Cubero, A., Hernández, A., Blanco-Jiménez, F. J., & Freire-Rubio, T. (2024). Seeding young entrepreneurs: The role of business incubators. *Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9*(4), Article 100579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100579

Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. *Business Ethics Quarterly, 23*(3), 407-442. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323237

Theodoraki, C., Dana, L.-P., & Caputo, A. (2022). Building sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: A holistic approach. *Journal of Business Research, 140*, 346-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.005

Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). The effectiveness of incubators' co-opetition strategy in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: Empirical evidence from France. *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69*(4), 1781-1794. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2020.3034476

Tiba, S., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2020). The lighthouse effect: How successful entrepreneurs influence the sustainability-orientation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 264*, Article 121616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121616

Truong, Y., Mazloomi, H., & Berrone, P. (2021). Understanding the impact of symbolic and substantive environmental actions on organizational reputation. *Industrial Marketing Management, 92*, 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.006

Van der Byl, C. A., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. *Organization & Environment, 28*(1), 54-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575047

Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2022). Intermediaries for the greater good: How entrepreneurial support organizations can embed constrained sustainable development startups in entrepreneurial ecosystems. *Research Policy, 51*(2), Article 104438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104438

Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Fichter, K. (2019). University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: How and with what impact? *Small Business Economics, 56*(3), 1141-1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00280-4

Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. *Journal of Business Ethics, 109*(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4

Wang, Z., He, Q., Xia, S., Sarpong, D., Xiong, A., & Maas, G. (2020). Capacities of business incubator and regional innovation performance. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158*, Article 120125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120125

Yin, R. K. (2003). *Case study research: Design and methods*. Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), *APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological* (pp. 141-155). American Psychological Association.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Dr Sofia Lamperti is an Associate Professor at University of Grenoble, Grenoble INP, where she conducts research on sustainable entrepreneurship and management at laboratory CERAG. She received her MSc in Management Engineering from the Politecnico di Milano, Italy, and her PhD in Management Sciences from the University of Montpellier, France. Her research focuses on the integration of sustainability in business support systems, and organisational transformation for sustainable development. Dr Lamperti has published in prestigious journals such as IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management and the Journal of Knowledge Management.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Dr Jean-Marie Courrent** is Full Professor of Management Sciences at the University of Montpellier, specialising in entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). He was director of LabEx Entreprendre and he co-directs the Entrepreneurship and SMEs group at Montpellier Research in Management (MRM). Dr Courrent also holds the Chair of Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Management. His research focuses on social responsibility in SMEs and the integration of sustainable development issues in entrepreneurship. He has published in leading journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Dr Sylvie Sammut** is Full Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management at the Montpellier Management Institute of the University of Montpellier, where she is also Dean. She is the Academic Director of the Academy of Entrepreneurship and Innovation and Director of the research programmes of the Entrepreneurship Support Lab. Dr Sammut's research interests include entrepreneurial support systems, incubation processes and sustainable business models. She is the author of numerous books and articles in top international and national journals such as Journal of Small Business Management, M@n@gement or Babson Publication.