Motivations of Ecopreneurs: The New Entrepreneurial Paradigm

Patrick Harte
Senior Lecturer, Business School of Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Great Britain; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: p.harte@napier.ac.uk

Thomas Peisl
Professor, Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany. E-mail: tpeisl@hm.edu

Katharina Kammers
Research Assistant, University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany. E-mail: kkammers@web.de

The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations of ecological entrepreneurs, 'ecopreneurs', to engage in green innovation, i.e., ecopreneurial ventures for wider gain than solely financial, and to introduce the ecopreneur to mainstream entrepreneurial research and study. The study is an exploratory one utilizing organization-based research. It includes collection and analysis of qualitative data involving 16 semi-structured interviews with ecopreneurs from Germany and Scotland. Three new motivational dimensions are identified and presented: to inspire others, achievement, and economic success. Additional findings include the importance of green values and economic success can change over time, e.g., ecopreneurs start their businesses with high focus on green values, but later put higher focus on economic success. Others start with their primary focus on making profits, and as their companies prove to be successful, a switch to more green values is made. The study identifies six key drivers emerging from the investigation into the motivations of German and Scottish ecopreneurs. The extended model on ecopreneurial motivation adds to existing research and opens a path to more environmentally-conscious entrepreneurship education, the ecopreneurial paradigm. This may lead to an ecological startup environment, as the attention of potential ecopreneurs is drawn to the need for creating more businesses with green focus.

Introduction
Entrepreneurship is a broad field of research, which is both complex and heterogeneous, and has developed in various directions (Bruyat and Julien, 2001). One sub-category is ecopreneurship, a neologism created out of the words 'ecological' and 'entrepreneurship' (Schaltegger, 2002). First research in the field of this environmental entrepreneurship path was conducted by Blue (1989), Bennett (1991), and Berle (1993), but ecopreneurship is still not fully defined. Kirkwood and Walton (2010) published a paper investigating the motivational drivers of entrepreneurs in New Zealand where they investigated the motivations of entrepreneurs to engage in environmental innovations in an international context. This comparative study explores such differences between Scottish and German ecopreneurs using Kirkwood and Walton (2010) generic framework and serves to confirm and extend their findings.

The aim of this study is to investigate what motivates people to start companies that engage in ecological innovations and which motivators are of primary importance? Based on a literature review of entrepreneurial ecopreneurship (Schaltegger, 2002; Drucker, 1985; Binks and Vale, 1990; Pastakia, 1998; Isaak, 2002; Walley and Taylor, 2002; and Hebert and Link, 2009) and recent research on motivational aspects on ecopreneurship, (Kirkwood and Walton, 2010; Petersen and Schaper, 2005; Schlange, 2006; and Dean and McMullen, 2007), we investigate motivational factors influencing German and Scottish environmental entrepreneurs through semi-structured interviews. The analysis of the ecopreneurs' responses is compared to extant literature generating a new model to understand ecopreneurs and to give recommendations guiding future research.

Literature Review
While there is extensive broad entrepreneurship research, the work on ecopreneurship is only partly developed and lacks empirical foundation (Farinelli et al., 2011). At first glance, the neologism 'ecopreneurship' seems odd, as the two areas of environmentalism (a more collectivistic approach) and entrepreneurship (as an individualist component) might present as contradictory (Thompson and Scott, 2010). Anderson, (1998) even suggested that they seem to be "intrinsically hostile" to one another. But, as (Kirkwood and Walton, 2010) posited, they share certain characteristics because both potentially incorporate the values of individuals and entrepreneurship which can help to sustain environmentalism. Other words used analogously when describing ecopreneurs are environmental entrepreneur (Thompson and Scott, 2010; and Parrish and Foxon, 2006), sustainable entrepreneur (Schlange, 2006; and Young and Tilley, 2006), or green entrepreneur (Walley and Taylor, 2002). It is hard to clearly define the term ecopreneurship, as boundaries to general entrepreneurship are fuzzy (Pastakia, 1998). Nevertheless, this study aims to explain what motivates the ecopreneur.

Isaak (2002) argued that "the ideal type of ecopreneur is defined as one who creates green-green businesses". He separates sustainable entrepreneurs into two different categories: the green entrepreneur and the green-green entrepreneur. Green entrepreneurs are those who started their company without focusing on sustainable aspects and then discovered environmental advantages and so adapt a greener strategy. Green-green businesses, however, were founded "completely green" and their main purpose lies in following sustainable practices, producing green products and/or providing green services.

Looking at (Isaak, 2002) typology, it is possible to compare the green-green entrepreneurs with his ethical maverick and visionary champion while the ad hoc enviropreneur and the innovative opportunist directly reflect green entrepreneurs. This does not mean that the more sustainability-oriented type of ecopreneur is oblivious to financial considerations; these are vital to running a business. The focus on sustainability can be of higher importance and making profit is not seen as simply a means to an end (Jolink and Niesten, 2013). More probable is that ecopreneurs, like entrepreneurs, aim to exploit economic opportunities while at the same time, contrary to entrepreneurs, try to solve environmental problems (Shane, 2000). This segmentation of environmental entrepreneurs based on social versus commercial reasons was supported by Pastakia, 1998, Further, Linnanen (2002) argues that an ecopreneur's main objective is to improve the world, thus emphasizing the sustainability oriented ecopreneurs and ranking them "higher" than the economically focused ecopreneur.

Kirkwood and Walton (2010) also suggested this socially hierarchical extension: "ecopreneurs [...] have significantly wider motivations than merely exploiting a niche market". So, if companies wish to act in consensus with societal values in order to attain higher market share, a social focus seems inevitable (Schaltegger, 2002). Hence, as Anderson (1998) argues, the development of environmental concerns can be based on social change. This new phenomenon presents as sustainable entrepreneurship, a combination of entrepreneurship with both environmental and social focus and emphasizes being financially successful (Schaltegger, 2002). According to Holt (2010), most leaders of these sustainable enterprises are sustainable both socially and environmentally, yet it is possible that one of the values is more important and is being followed to a greater extent. Contrary to this, Hockerts et al. (2008) supported the view that ecopreneurship may be confused with a facet of social entrepreneurship, even though those are two complete separate concepts. He argued that as ecopreneurship has a connection to terms such as 'capitalism' and 'market success', it cannot be seen as comparable to social entrepreneurship. For him, they are solely related (he calls them "entrepreneurial cousins", p. 211), not intertwined.

Another important topic to investigate before coming to our final definition is company size. Research has found that ecopreneurship can be best followed by the SME. They are more flexible and can more easily create a sustainable surrounding (Randjelovic et al., 2003). Schaltegger (2002) continues that startups are also more open to green business ideas, as they do not have an existing 'old values' organizational culture. Holt (2010), further posits that companies are called ecopreneurial whose main aim it is to protect the environment and follow green convictions. Ecopreneurs "by accident" are, thus, completely excluded from his definition which marks a further contradiction in the ecopreneur literature. We do not differentiate between accidental and strategically created ecopreneurial companies as our aim is to investigate what led to the creation of a green business even if the reasons are solely commercial. Another reason why start-ups represent such a high number of ecopreneurial companies lies within their individual nature. Environmental concerns are personal beliefs and start-ups are generally highly influenced by the values of their founding leaders (Schaltegger, 2002). The founder transfers his beliefs of proenvironmental behavior onto the company and shapes it fundamentally (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011). "Where owner-managers have strong ethical and environmental convictions, small businesses-rather than being reticent and reactive in their environmental engagement-may be pioneers of sustainability" (Williams and Schaefer, 2012).

As a synthesis of the foregoing review, we propose the following definition of ecopreneurs: Ecopreneurs are (start-up) entrepreneurs who focus on an environmental or green aspect in their product or service innovations.

Motivational Theories
The current motivational theory literature is broadly affiliated to its research from the middle of the 20th century such as the seminal literature around motivation and needs by Maslow (1943); Herzberg (1968); and McGregor (1960). These theorists all present that individuals have different needs and by extension they are motivated by different factors. However, Mitchell (1982) criticizes their one-sidedness. He argued there is too much focus on the fulfilment of lower level needs in these theories whilst upper level needs like autonomy and recognition are relatively neglected.

Exploiting the opportunities when starting a business can simply bring monetary rewards, but can also lead to employment and other advantages (Kuckertz and Wagner, 2010). One major benefit that comes with founding a business is that instead of working for others, entrepreneurs choose to work for themselves (Hebert and Link, 2009). This autonomy is mentioned in literature and seems to be one of the most important factors influencing the decision to start a company (Kolvereid, 1996; Carter et al., 2003; and Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006).

Further to independence from an employer, other reasons that motivate entrepreneurs to follow their own business ideas include pull and push factors. Push factors are external like job dissatisfaction, pull factors are those that attract individuals to establish a new business, e.g., seeing a gap in the market (Hakim, 1988; Segal et al., 2005; Hessels et al., 2008; and Marques et al., 2012). Segal et al. (2005) contend that pull factors are more prevalent for starting a new business than push factors.

Similar ways to classify motivations of entrepreneurs are intrinsic versus extrinsic characteristics (Carsrud and Brannback, 2010), while Kuratko et al. (1997) suggest that all entrepreneurs pursue personally relevant goals and are motivated through the achievement of their goals. Their study reveals that intrinsic rewards (related to pull factors) can be personal growth and proving abilities to others, while extrinsic motivations (related to push factors) are personal income and wealth.

Hessels et al. (2008) also argue that there is a temporal nature to motivation, e.g. a shift may occur from independence from an employer to more profit-driven motives with burgeoning business success. For that reason, it is even more important to understand this topic in as much depth as possible in order to understand how to create a more entrepreneurial economic climate (Shane et al., 2003). Thus, we will explore the question of whether ecopreneurs are motivated by the same intrinsic and extrinsic factors as general entrepreneurs.

Motivations of Ecopreneurs
Motivations common to general entrepreneurs and ecopreneurs include identifying a market-gap, generating income and making profit or self-realization. Linnanen (2002) supports these assumptions and categorizes ecopreneurs into four different types, depending on their two main motivations, the commercial orientation and the ambition to change the world. The highly commercially-driven ecopreneurs are the 'successful idealist' (high desire to change the world) and the 'opportunist' (low desire to change the world), whereas the less commercially motivated ecopreneurs are the 'non-profit business' (high desire to change the world) and the 'self-employer' (low desire to change the world). When considering that two of Linnanen (2002) types are commercially motivated, a link to general entrepreneurship becomes apparent as making profit is one of their main drivers. In his typology, it is the desire to change the world which differentiates some ecopreneurs from the entrepreneur. Schlange (2006) and Young and Tilley (2006) refine this view, arguing that motives of sustainable entrepreneurs are different as they use innovation to change the economy sustainably.

However, a sustainable orientation is not the only motive of ecopreneurs for starting a business. Other reasons could be that market imperfections lead to environmental degradation (Dean and McMullen, 2007), and ecopreneurs seek to fill this gap (Cohen and Winn, 2007). Dean and McMullen (2007) also argue that the recent shift in societal beliefs to greener values leads to five different types of market failure: public goods, externalities, monopoly power, inappropriate government intervention and imperfect information.

Therefore, the literature review indicates that theory is lacking currency, as much of the research body on typologies or motivation of ecopreneurs dates back to the early 2000s (Linnanen, 2002; Schaltegger, 2002; Walley and Taylor, 2002; and Petersen and Schaper, 2005). Thus, this topic requires new perspectives (Santini, 2017). Another disadvantage of the early research on ecopreneurship is its mostly theoretical approach, so more empirical work is needed (Isaak, 1998; Pastakia, 1998; Isaak, 2002; Schaltegger, 2002; and Walley and Taylor, 2002).

Further, most research findings are limited to one country, excluding potential cultural differences in ecopreneurial behavior (Germany: Freimann et al. (2010); Switzerland: Schlange, 2006; Wales: Cato et al., 2008; and New Zealand: Kirkwood and Walton, 2010. Cato et al. (2008) explicitly state that Scotland represents a country lacking analysis.

Kirkwood and Walton (2010) identify five motivators by interviewing 14 ecopreneurs in New Zealand. They conclude that environmental values, seeing a gap in the market and running a business in order to make a living are the three main motivational factors apparent in half of their sample size, and being their own boss and passion being two more motivators present in six of the interviews. These five key motivators represent a mix of some of the entrepreneurial motivators (make a living, being their own boss and passion) and specifically ecopreneurial motivators (environmental values, market gap). Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude if green beliefs or commercial goals prevail as motivators. They suggest a list of nine questions emerging as relevant during their research and propose that these should be answered in future research.

Fong et al. (2014) add job dissatisfaction and explain the inclusion of this important motivator in ecopreneurial research must be viewed through the positive mindset of ecopreneurs who want to make a difference and are therefore motivated mainly by pull factors not push factors (Mallon and Cohen, 2001; and Hessels et al., 2008). The study analyzes ecopreneurs in different green industries as well as in two different cultural settings, hence adding two dimensions not previously addressed.

This extends and updates the theme developed by Kirkwood and Walton (2010) for the contemporary German and Scottish SME environment.

Data and Methodology
The exploratory nature of this study utilizes organization-based research within German and Scottish participant SMEs. Organization-based research offers a useful approach, as it provides a deep insight into the behavior of individuals acting in the organizational environment (Edmondson and Mcmanus, 2007; and Fitzgerald et al., 2010) and the exploratory studies answer the 'how' and 'why' questions and help in theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989; and Ravenswood, 2011). Indeed, qualitative comparative analysis helps to reveal contrasts of specific characteristics, through "examination of patterns of similarities and differences" (Schwandt and Gates, 2017).

This study is based on 15 SMEs with 16 participants, 10 respondents in Germany and six in Scotland. In one German SME, both founders were interviewed. All interviewees were selected based on a set of criteria for ecological organizations in the Munich/Edinburgh start-up network and approached to engage in semi-structured interview. All participants are entrepreneurs whose environmentally-focused companies are at various stages within an SME 'lifecycle'. The semi-structured interviews, including a mix of open, yes/no and Likert-scale questions, were conducted to allow the interviewer to take on important aspects arising throughout the interview (Brinkmann, 2007). However, the validity of the interviewees' statements represents a hurdle in analysis (Brinkmann, 2017). This potential hurdle was addressed through the use of thematic analytic techniques engaging a vertical (single interview analysis to determine integrated themes) and horizontal (multiple interview analysis to identify themed patterns) perspective (Eisenhardt, 1989; Braun and Clarke, 2006; and Ravenswood, 2011). Nine interviews were face-to-face meetings and seven were conducted on Skype/online due to geographical constraints.

The interviews followed six sub-themes as interview questions:

1. How important is achievement and/or previous job dissatisfaction as a motivator (Achievement)?
2. What is the impact of the ecopreneurs' green belief on starting a business (Green belief)?
3. In what ways does the wish to be independent motivate ecopreneurs to start a new venture (Being your own boss)?
4. How does inspiring others and passion drive ecopreneurs as a motivator (Inspire others)?
5. What are the different motivators for an ecopreneur to make a living (Economic success)?
6. Is perceived market gaps an additional motivator influencing the decision to launch a company (Market gaps)?

Two research themes are separated in the analysis but integrated in the interview questions. This provides for the emergence of new motivational dimensions within the interviews.

Results
The data collected was coded following Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis framework, supplemented by use of NVIVO software. Statements that were repeatedly found in different interviews and seemed to stand out were collated, allowing new themes to emerge. 11 of the businesses were founded within the last five years. A majority (12) of the ecopreneurs were male, six were between the age group of 20 and 29 and seven between 30 and 39. Eight of the companies were already profitable, the remaining seven operationally break-even. 14 cases are small or medium sized companies with one to 26 employees. A majority of the companies put their environmental focus on organic sourcing and products or waste reduction. Financing options ranged from own savings, to friends and family, crowd funding, and loans. The case companies are being referred to with their numbers only and being tagged with one or two keywords. A more detailed fact sheet on the case companies is provided in the Appendix.

The German Ecopreneurs' Perspective
During the interviews with the German ecopreneurs, a variety of different motivators influencing the decision to start a green company became apparent. In the following analysis, we provide the key statements of the participating ecopreneurs.

Q1: Achievement
Whereas economic success was a strictly monetary measure, this motivational factor tries to represent the personal success the ecopreneurs are hoping to reach. Even though it seems challenging to separate those two definitions of success clearly from one another, the aim is to keep the monetary aspects out of this factor. Five out of the 10 ecopreneurs state that wanting 'to achieve something' was what motivated them personally to start their businesses. As P9 articulates: "I also wanted to have the opportunity to grow personally."

Most of the ecopreneurs (four out of five) who state achievement as a motivational factor are in the age group of 20-29 years. This connection to the younger age group stems from most of them founding their businesses straight after university and are hence looking for an opportunity to "realize own ideals" (P5).

Literature has not previously differentiated economic success from personal success as desired in this study. Schaltegger (2002) research is closest to results of our interviews: he states that ecopreneurs not only target a niche market but want to exploit a mass market and reach a high range of customers.

Q2: Green Belief
Personal green conviction is the most frequent motivator named by the German ecopreneurs. This means that most of the companies are primarily founded on the ecological belief of the ecopreneurs. This is exemplified through P3 stating: "I want to do something for the people, the planet. Soon we want to become a global player in the area of sustainability. And then, for the far future, our plan is to become 100% sustainable."

Whilst this shows that green values are a part of what influenced the founding of the business, even though it is not yet fully implemented, the goal to become 100% sustainable is still something that is an aspiration for the future, as presented by P4: "We want to offer the most sustainable [product] on the market."

It also becomes apparent that green values can change over time, as P8 states: "I started off wanting to be fully green but then began to realize that commercial goals have to come first if you want to survive in the market. If your company is too focussed on green aspects, you cannot make money."

Further, this can be seen happening in reverse to other ecopreneurs. P6.1 states that while not always having been interested in ecological issues, when it came to starting the business, green values were one of the main motivators.

Overall, these results are akin to previous research findings concerning green businesses, as the green aspect seems to be the core value around which the ecopreneurs and their businesses coalesce (Walley and Taylor, 2002). However, some findings are contradictory. While Isaak (2002) states, that green businesses are those starting with less focus on sustainable practices and then changed to a greener strategy, this research shows that the complete opposite can also be the case and they had to adapt a more commercially focused strategy in order to keep their business running. Previous research concerning ecopreneurial motivation has not covered this aspect of green companies turning "less green"

Q3: Being Your Own Boss
Six of the 10 ecopreneurs stated that wanting to be their own boss was one of the reasons for starting their businesses. The following statement shows P8's wish for independence: "I wanted to be self-employed and wanted to do something very quickly. It was also very diverse as you do everything yourself when you own your own business."

So, the reason for wanting to be independent is that some interviewees felt that things were more efficient when doing them personally. Moreover, this main motivator of being independent not only emerged with their career pathway choice, but all had the pre-existing wish to own their own businesses. Being independent from others has always been a main motivator for business founders, which cannot only be found in general entrepreneurship literature (Kolvereid, 1996; Carter et al., 2003; and Hebert and Link, 2009), but also in ecopreneurship literature (Cato et al., 2008; and Kirkwood and Walton, 2010).

Q4: Inspire Others
Being an inspiration for other people seems to be an important motivator for only one of the participants of the case study in Germany. It is directly connected to the green beliefs of the ecopreneur, but goes even a step further than simply living his green values, as P2 illustrates: "We want to [...] motivate people for purposeful issues and leave a mark."

His own inspiration is not only to start a green business himself and work in this area, but also transfer his passion onto other people. Being a role model has not been mentioned as a motivator in previous research. Even though Kirkwood and Walton (2010) mentioned that ecopreneurs are "motivated by spreading their green values to others", this seems mainly to mean promoting their product or service and not to motivate people to live a greener life, as is the case for P2.

Q5: Economic Success
Eight of the participants state that having economic success is one of their main drivers for starting a business, as P3 states: "I think first of all it is important to make money, so we can support and pay our employees. You know they always get their money first and then it's us. But we need very good employees in order to have a successful product. So yes, we are definitely mostly commercial at this point."

This rather modest declaration points out the fundamental necessity to make money in order to make a living for their employees and themselves. But most of the ecopreneurs point out that they do not solely want to make enough money to live but would much rather prefer to be highly commercially successful (P2, P5, P8). This stands in contrast to past research, where making profit was mostly seen as a means but not an end (Jolink and Niesten, 2013). Kirkwood and Walton (2010) mentioned that the ecopreneurs they interviewed seemed to be apologetic for making money with their green businesses.

Several ecopreneurs in this study though prioritize economic success while putting a high focus on doing something for the planet as well, as exemplified by P6.1: "We want to do a meaningful job and being economically successful."

Yet, despite economic success being such an important factor for most of the participants, two ecopreneurs decided not to be money-driven, as P7 states: "We cannot live from our business yet. But we hope to get to the point soon where we can actually generate a profit and live from this business only."

Overall, these findings compare to previous research by Pastakia (1998), Isaak (2002) and Walley and Taylor (2002). P1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 9 fully support the higher economic orientation of ecopreneurs.

Q6: Market Gaps
Seven of the 10 German ecopreneurs identify seeing a gap in the market as a motivational factor influencing the decision to start a business. For some, this started while still being in university and related to their studies (P1, P6.2): for others, working in different companies helped ecopreneurs to identify market gaps. As P9 explains: "I had this idea while I worked at a company that manufactured a standard product. I saw that I could gain a profit from adding essential new functions and features and also have the opportunity to grow personally."

These findings confirm research by Cohen and Winn (2007), who stated that market imperfections such as externalities and information asymmetries lead to environmental degradation, and so provide significant opportunities for innovative sustainable business models. Another term often mentioned in combination with identification of a market gap is "change". Three ecopreneurs in total use this word in order to describe the gap they found and the business idea that followed (P2, P3, P4).

As an extension, all participants were asked if they thought younger generations (e.g. generation Y/Z) are more environmentally conscious than the older ones. This question was answered by eight out of the 10 ecopreneurs with yes. "I am part of the generation Y and I feel that we are more environmentally focused than the generation of our parents" (P2). These changes in consumer attitudes confirm the shift in society that create a greener consumer group, new markets, and hence new business opportunities for green entrepreneurs (Dean and McMullen, 2007). Table 1 provides an overview of the frequencies of occurrence of the different motivators.

The Scottish Ecopreneurs' Perspective Q1: Achievement
Three of the participants speak of the things they want to achieve from starting their businesses. P11 articulates, that "one goal is for example to make it a green emporium". This gives evidence of the big dreams those ecopreneurs have and want to reach. For P12 the factor of achievement seems to be especially important, as a lot of his statements during the interview reveal it as a prevailing motivational factor: "I always wanted [...] to say that I have achieved something [...]. I wanted to say that I made it myself and wanted to achieve goals."

A strong belief in their own products and company shows a connection to the ecopreneurs green values, as they act in their markets out of a firm belief of doing the right thing for not only them, but also the environment. Previous research in the field of ecopreneurship indicates that aspiring for market success while trying to be pro-environmental may be incompatible goals (Anderson, 1998; and Beveridge and Guy, 2005). However, this research suggests that there has been a shift in ecopreneurial thinking and that green entrepreneurs nowadays combine these goals of being green and personal achievement.

Q2: Green Belief
A majority of the Scottish ecopreneurs name green values to be one of the most important motivators when founding their businesses. Five out of the six participants mention that their ecological mindset is a driver influencing them to starting a company as can be seen from P10: "The green side of it is fundamentally there. That won't change. I want us to grow as a brand but with that green aspect of it."

One aspect that became noticeable during the interviews is that the reduction of waste is an important matter to the ecopreneurs. P14 mentions that not only the reduction of waste but that increasingly social issues are connected to green belief: "I realized that I might be able to create a business that [...] could help cut down on environmental pollution, and that could potentially create jobs in our community in addition to supporting good standards of living in the global community, particularly for women and children."

This supports a connection of green and social values as possible or even desirable (Pastakia, 1998; Schaltegger, 2002; and Holt, 2010). Apart from green values being a motivator in the process of starting their company most ecopreneurs mention that their aim is to become even greener in the future revealing how fundamental and sustaining their green beliefs remain (P12, P13).

For P15 green values have now become an important aspect of the business: "Our aim was to create a place where people could come together and feel part of a community through (P 15's service offer). But now I want (case 15) to become more and more sustainable but also I want the business to organically grow and have fun along the way."

This again supports Isaak (2002) suggestion about the green entrepreneur vs. the green-green entrepreneur who realizes that including green values into the business model could make the business more successful while at the same time tackling an important problem that needs solving.

Q3: Being Your Own Boss
Independence was mentioned by all participants. According to P12, "We always wanted to run [our] own business" and that it now gives them "a sense of freedom to do whatever I and my staff put our mind to" (P15). This is not necessarily connected to being dissatisfied in positions they held prior to founding their own businesses, as P15 states: "I liked my prior job, but always wanted to do my own thing."

This contradicts the findings of (Hessels et al., 2008), who cited job dissatisfaction as one major motivator for entrepreneurs to start businesses. No participant in our study states dissatisfaction with the job they held prior to opening their own business, merely the wish to be independent from an/any employer. Being independent from others is deeply rooted in the ecopreneurs minds as P10 explains: "I've never wanted a boss. You know I have always wanted to be my own boss." P11 adds "you have less time" but "you can have an idea and take it and make it".

Q4: Inspire Others
The motivation to inspire others is mostly due to two different reasons. One is the lack of awareness for ecological thinking (P10, P11) which has motivated the participants to finally act as a role-model and inspire others with their green beliefs. They see it as "important to [...] encourage uptake and awareness in this sector" (P14). So, like the findings of market imperfections by Dean and McMullen (2007) who named "imperfect information" as one of their five types of market failures-as a business opportunity they suggest creating environmentally-friendly products and further enhancing customer information regarding green products.

The second reason leading to the wish to inspire others was the lack of existing role models in the market. P12 explains: "Because Costa, Starbucks you know they should have put in fully compostable cups years ago."

This is supported by P11 and indicates that the participants are blaming big companies in the same markets as too profit-driven and not standing out as good examples, good citizens. Because of this market failure they see it as their personal responsibility to "encourage people [...] so they don't create that waste at all".

P12 uses an example of how to transfer personal green beliefs to the employees and gets them to 'think green' as well: "The staff here brought up the agenda to cut out waste. So [...] thinking of ways where we're reducing the wastage and one was the receipts [...]. Just little things like this that will help."

This supports research by Schaltegger (2002), Holt (2010), and Schaltegger and Wagner (2011) who analyzed sustainable entrepreneurs, suggesting that especially in small companies the founders can transfer their green beliefs onto and into the company and the employees.

Q5: Economic Success
Five out of the six ecopreneurs declared that 'making a living' motivated them to start the business. While three ecopreneurs state that it was enough for them to make some money in order to live and keep their business running, two of the ecopreneurs mention that they were profit-driven from inception. P12 explains: "Because, if you want to be green, you have to make a profit. And to run a business you have to make profit."

This motivator has been transferred to ecopreneurial research (Linnanen, 2002; and Freimann et al., 2010), which not only focuses on sustainable ecopreneurs, but also on commercial start-ups.

P11 states "we didn't have any other way to support ourselves than to make money", showing that he sees making money as indispensable to successfully run a business. P14 continues, having "a family to support and (needing) to be commercially viable to be sustainable" makes economic success necessary.

This compares to the results of Kirkwood and Walton (2010) and Jolink and Niesten (2013), whose researches both stress the importance of ecopreneurs being able to make a living from their businesses, but at the same time not being too focused on making a profit.

Q6: Market Gaps
Even though the participants identified a gap in the market, most of their industries are highly competitive. P11 states, that "if we're not on top of our game we will just lose all of our customers overnight". On the product offering P12 adds: "I wanted to [...] improve and adapt an existing product in Scotland basically [...]. This will revolutionize our industry towards sustainability."

Only P14 mentions that the market in which their business was operating is not competitive: "It's obvious in many cases that what is available is not being produced with workers' rights or economic stability in mind. The more I started researching and supporting [...] zero waste, the more I realized that I might be able to create a business."

These examples confirm both how green and social values are connected as previously argued by Pastakia (1998), and how market opportunities have not been exploited in the ecopreneurs' communities. Thus, not only a prevailing market gap but also a change over the years in what consumer expectations of businesses has opened the market for new ideas and opportunities. When being asked about the green mindset of younger generations P12 says: "Obviously green issues (are) much more pressing now."

Discussion
This study supports both research themes. The findings support three motivators initially identified by Kirkwood and Walton (2010), two motivators were adapted and enforced, and a new motivator was added to the existing framework. Comparing the different cultural settings, it can be noted that the analysis of German ecopreneurs share some similarities to that of Scottish ecopreneurs. Green belief and economic success are the two most important motivators in both cases. However, two important differences become apparent: 'market gap' and 'inspire others'.

While several German ecopreneurs started their businesses because they saw a market gap this motivator does not present as being so prevalent in Scotland which is also connected to the ecopreneurs' views of a change in Generation Y. While most of the German ecopreneurs think that Generation Y acts in a more environmentally responsible manner than previous, a contrary view is expressed for Scotland. This potentially explains why German ecopreneurs see more market gaps than Scottish ecopreneurs.

Our research on the motivation to inspire others shows a different perspective. Only one of the German ecopreneurs considers this being a motivator, whereas two thirds of the Scottish ecopreneurs mention this motivator having influenced them to start their own green business. This again is potentially connected to the different perceptions of Generation Y, where Scottish entrepreneurs possibly feel the need to raise the awareness of environmental issues towards the younger generations, therefore becoming a role model themselves.

Scottish and German ecopreneurs are motivated by six different motivators. Achievement was found as a motivator, but no evidence was found to include previous job dissatisfaction (Q1). The impact of an ecopreneurs' green belief is supported (Q2), as well as the intention to be independent, i.e., being their own boss (Q3). Also, perceived market gaps an additional motivator influencing the decision to launch an ecopreneurial venture was positively reported (Q6). Neither passion nor job dissatisfaction were stated as main motivators. For Q4 passion had to be adapted to inspiring others, partially in line with findings from Kirkwood and Walton (2010). The outlook to make a living was confirmed by participants but was enforced to economic success (Q5).

Comparing this to Kirkwood and Walton (2010) framework, some similarities and differences can be identified. The strong focus on economic success is explained by the fact that all cases are commercially-driven companies focused on profits rather than non-profit companies (Linnanen, 2002; and Freimann et al., 2010). 'Achievement' in this research was clearly separated from monetary success. For that reason, it could not be integrated into economic success but was added as a new emerging dimension. 'Inspire others' can be similarly found in (Kirkwood and Walton, 2010) framework, though not as an independent motivator. The rationale to add this additional emerging theme is that Scottish ecopreneurs in Scotland state how important it is for them to inspire others with their businesses. It is clearly demonstrated in several statements mentioned during the interviews and it therefore seems appropriate to create a new category separately from green values to emphasize its importance. Moreover, this category not only relates to green values, but it also relates to inspiring other people to start a business in general and to act as a role model for future generations. Thus, a clear separation from green values is necessary.

Passion, introduced by Kirkwood and Walton (2010) as one of the five motivators in their research, could not be confirmed. We did not find this dimension mentioned once. This suggests that the passion that the participating ecopreneurs felt was either expressed as a passion for environmental issues (thus, green values), a passion for non-material success (achievement) or material success (economic success). This ambiguity led to the decision to drop passion as a separate motivator.

The analysis clearly indicates that job dissatisfaction was not a motivating factor, akin to the findings of Kirkwood and Walton (2010) and Santini (2017). In entrepreneurship research on the other hand, job dissatisfaction is named as one motivator to startup businesses (Hessels et al., 2008). Fong et al. (2014) confirm our findings stating that ecopreneurs want to make a difference and are therefore motivated mainly by pull factors and not this particular push factor.

The purpose of this research is to explore what motivates entrepreneurs from Germany and Scotland to start environmentally-focused businesses. Two main conclusions emerge. Firstly, six motivators are the main forces influencing ecopreneurs to found green businesses. These are green values, market gap, independence, economic success, achievement and inspire others. Even though some of the motivators are of different importance in the two comparison countries, Germany and Scotland, the overall result with these six factors motivating the ecopreneurs is the same. Secondly, the study highlights the influence of temporal aspects on ecopreneurial motivations. The investigation of the motivators reveals that they are not static but can change over time. Based on our findings, the authors extend existing research and propose a model on ecopreneurial motivators in Figure 2. The confirmed motivators complemented by three new motivational dimensions jointly drive the decision to start an ecopreneurial venture, depending on the propensity of the ecopreneur at a given point in time.

Conclusion
Some ecopreneurs, who originally started out with a high focus on green business practices, had to adapt over time to a higher economic focus in order to keep the business alive. This shows that "green sustainable" practices are not enough in order to run a green company, but "financial sustainability" must also be considered by the ecopreneur. The same was experienced in reverse, when ecopreneurs managed to adapt greener practices after a period of running their business successfully without concentrating on sustainable practices.

The investigation of ecopreneurial motivation clearly reveals that the temporal aspect of the motivators is of high importance. The study showed that some ecopreneurs had to shift from an originally green focus to a more commercial focus in order to keep their business running. Businesses have to make sure they are aware of the possibility that they have to adapt their business models, as solely making a living does not seem to be enough anymore.

Moreover, it is important to be commercially successful in order to compete against other non-green businesses that operate in the same markets. This does not mean that green values should be sacrificed for the sake of money, but solely that a business first and foremost has to be financially sustainable in order to exist and to provide environmental solutions.

The overall contribution to knowledge achieved, including implications for theory that build on the existing research, includes an updated framework for understanding ecopreneurial motivation in Scotland and Germany. In particular, the similarities in prioritizing green drivers lead to transfer of the findings and the updated model to mainstream ecopreneurial education.

The implications for policy and practice include the potential to re-conceptualize ecopreneurial education within the broader entrepreneurial curriculum. This new approach will support future green ecopreneurs in their start-up as well as within the SME lifecycle. This new conceptual model supports and re-enforces the perspective that ecological and economic success are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory.

Limitations and Future Scope: The study's limitations include the number of participants and the bias towards Germany. While this study generates some answers concerning the motivational factors influencing ecopreneurs, further research is needed to provide a deeper insight into this important topic:

Change of motivation over time: Due to the novelty of this research field, studies over longer time periods have not been possible until now (Santini, 2017). However, these are very much needed, as this research shows. In certain dimensions a clear change over time became apparent, and further investigation could provide valuable explanations for ecopreneurial research.

Investigation into the new dimensions: We suggest that more investigation into the new and deviated dimensions is needed. The question that arises is, if inter-country differences and time lead to alteration and creation of new dimensions. Further research into the two new (achievement and inspire others) and the two deviated dimensions (passion and economic success) could provide explanations and deeper insights into this topic.

References

1. Anderson Alistair R (1998), "Cultivating the Garden of Eden: Environmental Entrepreneuring", J. Organ. Change Manag., Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 135-144, doi:10.1108/09534819810212124.
2. Bennett S J (1991), Ecopreneuring: The Complete Guide to Small Business: Opportunities from the Environmental Revolution, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York.
3. Berle G (1993), The Green Entrepreneur: Business Opportunities that Can Save the Earth Make You Money, United States.
4. Beveridge R and Guy S (2005), "The Rise of the Eco-preneur and the Messy World of Environmental Innovation", Local Environ., Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 665-676, doi:10.1080/13549830500321972.
5. Binks M and Vale P (1990), Entrepreneurship and Economic Change, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
6. Blue R J (1989), Ecopreneuring: Managing for Results, Scott Foresman Trade, London.
7. Braun V and Clarke V (2006), "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology", Qual. Res. Psychol., Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77-101.
8. Brinkmann S (2007), "The Good Qualitative Researcher", Qual. Res. Psychol., Vol. 4, No. 1-2, pp. 127-144, doi:10.1080/14780880701473516.
9. Brinkmann S (2017), "Humanism After Posthumanism: Or Qualitative Psychology After the 'Posts'", Qual. Res. Psychol., Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 109-130, doi:10.1080/14780887.2017.1282568.
10. Bruyat C and Julien P-A (2001), "Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 165-180, doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00043-9.
11. Carsrud A and Brannback M (2010), "Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do We Still Need to Know?", J. Small Bus. Manag., Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 9-26, doi:10.1111/j.1540-627x.2010.00312.x.
12. Carter N M, Gartner W B, Shaver K G, and Gatewood E J (2003), "The Career Reasons of Nascent Entrepreneurs", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 13-39, doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00078-2.
13. Cato M S, Arthur L, Keenoy T, et al. (2008), "Entrepreneurial Energy: Associative entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector in Wales", Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 313-329, doi:10.1108/13552550810897678.
14. Cohen B and Winn M I (2007), "Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 29-49, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001.
15. Dean T J and McMullen J S (2007), "Toward a Theory of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Reducing Environmental Degradation Through Entrepreneurial Action", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 50-76, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003.
16. Drucker P F (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, Harper & Row, New York.
17. Edmondson A C and Mcmanus S E (2007), "Methodological Fit in Management Field Research', Acad. Manage. Rev., Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1246-1264, doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586086.
18. Eisenhardt K M (1989), "Building Theories from Case Study Research", Acad. Manage. Rev., Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532-550, doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
19. Farinelli F, Bottini M, Akkoyunlu S and Aerni P (2011), "Green Entrepreneurship: The Missing Link Towards a Greener Economy", ATDF J., Vol. 8, No. 3/4, pp. 42-48.
20. Fitzgerald L, Dopson S, (ed) Buchanan D, and (ed) Bryman A (2010), "Comparative Case Study Designs: Their Utility and Development in Organizational Research", in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, 2010th ed., London: Sage Publications Ltd., pp. 465-483.
21. Fong N, Wolfgramm R and Shepherd D (2014), "Ecopreneurs as Change Agents; Opportunities, Innovations and Motivations", QJ Econ, Vol. 84, pp. 488-500.
22. Freimann J, Marxen S and Schick H (Ed) (2010), "Sustainability in the Start-up Process", in: Schaper M (Ed) (2010), "Making Ecopreneurs-Developing Sustainable Entrepreneurship", pp. 149-164.
23. Hakim C (1988), "Self-Employment in Britain: A Review of Recent Trends and Current Issues", Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 286-297.
24. Hebert R and Link A (2009), A History of Entrepreneurship, in Routledge Studies in the History of Economics, Vol. 104, Routledge, London.
25. Herzberg F (1968), "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?", Harvard Business Review, pp. 53-62.
26. Hessels J, van Gelderen M and Thurik R (2008), "Entrepreneurial Aspirations, Motivations, and Their Drivers", Small Bus. Econ., Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 323-339, doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9134-x.
27. Hockerts K (Ed), Robinson J (Ed) and Mair J (2008), "Introduction to Part IV - Ecopreneurship: Unique Research Field or Just 'More of the Same'?", in Social Entrepreneurship, 1st ed., Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209-213.
28. Holt D (2010), "Where Are They Now? Tracking the Longitudinal Evolution of Environmental Businesses from the 1990s", Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 238-250, doi:10.1002/bse.697.
29. Isaak R (1998), "Ecopreneurship, Theory and Ethics", in Green Logic: Ecopreneurship, Theory and Ethics, Saltaire: Taylor and Francis.
30. Isaak R (2002), "The Making of the Ecopreneur", Greener Manag. Int., No. 38, pp. 81-91, doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2002.su.00009.
31. Jolink A and Niesten E (2013), "Sustainable Development and Business Models of Entrepreneurs in the Organic Food Industry", Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 386-401, doi:10.1002/bse.1826.
32. Kirkwood J and Walton S (2010), "What Motivates Ecopreneurs to Start Businesses?", Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 204-288, doi:10.1108/13552551011042799.
33. Kolvereid L (1996), "Organizational Employment versus Self-Employment: Reasons for Career Choice Intentions", Entrep. Theory Pract., Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 22-31, doi:10.1177/104225879602000302.
34. Kolvereid L and Isaksen E (2006), "New Business Start-up and Subsequent Entry into Self-Employment", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 866-885, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.008.
35. Kuckertz A and Wagner M (2010), "The Influence of Sustainability Orientation on Entrepreneurial Intentions-Investigating the Role of Business Experience", J. Bus. Ventur., Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 524-539, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001.
36. Kuratko D F, Hornsby J S and Naffziger D W (1997), "An Examination of Owner's Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneurship', J. Small Bus. Manag., Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 24-33.
37. Linnanen L (2002), "An Insider's Experiences with Environmental Entrepreneurship", Greener Manag. Int., Vol. 2002, No. 38, pp. 71-80, doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2002.su.00008.
38. Mallon M and Cohen L (2001), "Time for a Change? Women's Accounts of the Move from Organizational Careers to Self-Employment", Br. J. Manag., Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 217-230, doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00195.
39. Marques C S E, Ferreira J J M, F A F Ferreira, and M F S Lages (2012), "Entrepreneurial Orientation and Motivation to Start Up a Business: Evidence from the Health Service Industry", Int. Entrep. Manag. J., Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 77-94, doi:10.1007/s11365-012-0243-2.
40. Maslow A H (1943), "A Theory of Human Motivation", Psychol. Rev., Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 370-396, doi:10.1037/h0054346.
41. McGregor D (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.
42. Mitchell T R (1982), "Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice", Acad. Manage. Rev., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 80-88, doi:10.5465/amr.1982.4285467.
43. Parrish B D and Foxon T J (2006), "Sustainability Entrepreneurship and Equitable Transitions to a Low-Carbon Economy", Greener Manag. Int., Vol. 2006, No. 55, pp. 47-62, doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2006.au.00006.
44. Pastakia A (1998), "Grassroots Ecopreneurs: Change Agents for a Sustainable Society", J. Organ. Change Manag., Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 157-173, doi:10.1108/09534819810212142.
45. Petersen H and Schaper (Ed) (2005), "The Competitive Strategies for Ecopreneurs: Striving for Market Leadership by Promoting Sustainability", in Making Ecopreneurs: Developing Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Second., Routledge, pp. 223-236.
46. Randjelovic J, O'Rourke A R and Orsato R J (2003), "The Emergence of Green Venture Capital', Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 240-253, doi:10.1002/bse.361.
47. Ravenswood K (2011), "Eisenhardt's Impact on Theory in Case Study Research", J. Bus. Res., Vol. 64, No. 7, pp. 680-686, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.08.014.
48. Shane S, Locke E A and Collins C J (2003), 'Entrepreneurial Motivation', Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev., Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 257-279, doi:10.1016/s1053-4822(03)00017-2.
49. Santini C (2017), "Ecopreneurship and Ecopreneurs: Limits, Trends and Characteristics", Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 492, doi:10.3390/su9040492.
50. Schaltegger S (2002), "A Framework for Ecopreneurship", Greener Manag. Int., Vol. 38, No. 38, pp. 45-58, doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2002.su.00006.
51. Schaltegger S and Wagner M (2011), "Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Innovation: Categories and Interactions", Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 222-237, doi:10.1002/bse.682.
52. Schlange L E (2006), "What Drives Sustainable Entrepreneurs?", presented at the Applied Business and Entrepreneurship Association International Conference, Kona, Hawaii.
53. Schwandt T A and Gates E F (2017), "Case Study Methodology", in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed., Sage Publications Ltd.
54. Segal G, Borgia D and Schoenfeld J (2005), "The Motivation to Become an Entrepreneur", Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 42-57, doi:10.1108/13552550510580834.
55. Shane S (2000), "Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities", Organ. Sci., Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 448-469, doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602.
56. Thompson J L and Scott J M (2010), "Environmental Entrepreneurship: The Sustainability Challenge", Presented at the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference (ISBE) London.
57. Walley E E and Taylor D W (2002), "Opportunists, Champions, Mavericks...?", Greener Manag. Int., available at doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2002.su.00005.
58. Williams S and Schaefer A (2012), "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Sustainability: Managers' Values and Engagement with Environmental and Climate Change Issues', Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 173-186, doi:10.1002/bse.1740.
59. Young W and Tilley F (2006), "Can Businesses Move Beyond Efficiency? The Shift Toward Effectiveness and Equity in the Corporate Sustainability Debate", Bus. Strategy Environ., Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 402-415, doi:10.1002/bse.510.