Transformative Leadership for Sustainable Communities and Cities: Empowering Entrepreneurs as Change Agents

Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability Citation Choi, H. (2025). Transformative Leadership for Sustainable Communities and Cities: Empowering Entrepreneurs as Change Agents. Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability, 2(3), 9. doi: 10.56237/jhes24ichspd07 Corresponding Author Heejin Choi Email [email protected] Academic Editor Casper B. Agaton Received: 7 August 2024 Revised: 25 September 2025 Accepted: 25 October 2025 Published: 28 October 2025 ©The Author(s) 2025. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Review Transformative Leadership for Sustainable Communities and Cities: Empowering Entrepreneurs as Change Agents Heejin Choi School of Mission and Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, United States Abstract This literature review examines the role of transformative leadership in empowering entrepreneurs as change agents for sustainable communities and cities. Drawing on Urban Regime Theory, Transition Management Theory, the Quintuple Helix Model, and Leverage Points Theory, the analysis reveals two essential pathways through which entrepreneurial leadership contributes to sustainability transformation: direct problem-solving and systemic institutional change. Through systematic analysis of 87 publications, a framework has been developed categorizing entrepreneurial interventions as resource-based, transactive, organizational, and valuebased—targeting leverage points of increasing transformative potential. Organizational interventions create new governance structures and hybrid organizational forms that challenge conventional boundaries between sectors, while value interventions address the deepest leverage points by redefining the fundamental goals and paradigms guiding development. This study highlights the importance of sustainability intent, inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems, and multi-stakeholder collaboration in fostering transformative leadership. The findings suggest that entrepreneurship education should integrate systems thinking with practical business knowledge, preparing leaders who can transcend apparent trade-offs between economic and environmental goals through creativity and innovation. Keywords— transformative leadership, entrepreneurship, sustainable cities and communities, organizational innovation, value systems, urban transformation, systems change, multi-stakeholder collaboration, transition management, quintuple helix model 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Today’s global landscape demands a new kind of leadership—one that can navigate complex sustainability challenges while still achieving organizational success. This leadership imperative becomes even more critical in urban environments, where rapid urbanization presents both significant challenges and unique opportunities for sustainable development. By 2050, approximately 70% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas [1]. Despite occupying merely 2% of Earth’s surface, urban centers consume roughly 78% of global energy resources and generate over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. This pattern underscores the urgent need for transformative leadership approaches that balance innovation, economic vitality, environmental stewardship, and social inclusion. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 11 aims to "make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable" [1]. Achieving this requires fundamental shifts in leadership paradigms and governance structures. Wolfram [3] conceptualizes this as urban transformative capacity: "the collective ability of the stakeholders involved in urban development to conceive of, prepare for, initiate and perform path-deviant change towards sustainability within and across multiple complex systems." Entrepreneurial leaders emerge as potential catalysts for urban transformation. Their capabilities for innovation and disruptive thinking position them to develop creative solutions to complex sustainability challenges [4,5]. As York and Venkataraman [6] proposed, entrepreneurial leaders can address environmental degradation through their ability to discover new opportunities while operating under market constraints, potentially transcending apparent trade-offs between economic and environmental goals. However, the specific mechanisms through which transformative leadership contributes to urban sustainability, and the approaches required to develop such leadership, remain inadequately examined in current literature, particularly regarding the integration of entrepreneurial leadership with broader governance frameworks and sustainability transition processes. 1.2 Research Objectives and Questions This literature review examines the role of transformative leadership in fostering a sustainable urban environment, with a particular focus on entrepreneurial leaders as change agents. The study addresses three interconnected research objectives: • To identify and analyze the key attributes, competencies, and contextual factors that foster transformative leadership capable of integrating sustainability imperatives with economic objectives in urban environments; • To develop a nuanced framework for understanding how transformative leadership contributes to urban sustainability through different types of interventions and at various leverage points within complex urban systems; • To assess existing approaches for developing, measuring, and enhancing the impact of transformative leadership on urban sustainability transformations. The investigation is structured around these central research questions: • What leadership attributes, competencies, and supportive conditions enable entrepreneurial leaders to effectively integrate sustainability imperatives with economic objectives in urban contexts? • Through what specific mechanisms and strategic approaches do transformative leaders contribute to building urban capacity for sustainability transformation? • What educational approaches and assessment frameworks have been proposed to develop, measure, and enhance transformative leadership for urban sustainability? Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 2 By addressing these questions, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how transformative leadership can drive sustainability, providing insights for urban policymakers, leadership educators, and aspiring change agents seeking to create more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive urban futures. 1.3 Theoretical Framework This review integrates four complementary theoretical frameworks to analyze the relationship between entrepreneurship and urban transformative capacity: • Urban Regime Theory: Developed by Stone [7] and further refined by Stoker (1995), Urban Regime Theory examines how informal coalitions of public and private actors collaborate to achievecommongoalsinurbangovernance. This frameworkhelpsexplainhowentrepreneurscan become integral parts of urban governance coalitions, influencing policies and practices toward sustainability [8]. Urban regimes represent "informal arrangements by which public bodies and private interests function together to make and carry out governing decisions" [7], providing a valuable lens for understanding how entrepreneurs interact with other urban stakeholders to influence sustainable development pathways. • Transition Management Theory: Pioneered by Rotmans et al. [9] and expanded by Geels [10], Transition Management Theory offers insights into how societies guide long-term, fundamental changes in complex systems toward sustainability. This theory is particularly relevant for understanding how entrepreneurial innovations can catalyze broader systemic changes in urban environments. The multilevel perspective on sustainability transitions proposed by Geels [10] distinguishes between the niche level (where innovations emerge), the regime level (established practices and rules), and the landscape level (broader context), providing a framework for analyzing how entrepreneurial activities at the niche level can influence regime shifts toward sustainability [11]. • Quintuple Helix Model: Developed by Carayannis and Campbell [12], this model extends the Triple Helix model [13] of university-industry-government relations by incorporating civil society and the natural environment as additional helices. It outlines how entrepreneurs can strategically collaborate with research institutions such as universities, government organizations, civil society groups, and environmental stakeholders to develop and scale sustainable solutions for cities. The Quintuple Helix model emphasizes knowledge production and innovation as outcomes of these multi-stakeholder interactions, offering insights into how entrepreneurs can navigate complex networks to advance urban sustainability [12]. • Leverage Points Theory: Introduced by Meadows [14], this systems thinking approach identifies places to intervene in complex systems where relatively minor changes can lead to significant transformations. Meadows identifies twelve leverage points, ranging from shallow (e.g., changing parameters or buffers) to deep (e.g., changing goals or paradigms). This theory helps explain how specific entrepreneurial interventions can disproportionately affect urban systems and provides a basis for categorizing different entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity [15]. Together, these four theories provide a robust framework for analyzing how entrepreneurs contributetourbantransformative capacityacross multipledimensions—fromtheir participation in governancenetworks(UrbanRegimeTheory)totheirroleintriggeringsystemtransitions(Transition Management Theory), their engagement with diverse stakeholders (Quintuple Helix Model), and the varying depths of their systemic interventions (Leverage Points Theory). Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 3 1.4 Research Significance and Contribution This review makes several significant contributions to the literature at the intersection of entrepreneurship, leadership, and urban sustainability. First, it directly addresses a persistent knowledge gap concerning the specific mechanisms through which entrepreneurial leadership impacts urban transformative capacity. While scholars like Wolfram [3] have provided robust frameworks for urban transformative capacity, its direct connection to entrepreneurial action remains underexplored. This paper bridges that gap by systematically synthesizing findings from 87 publications to build a coherent conceptual model. Second, this review proposes a novel integrated framework for understanding and categorizing entrepreneurial contributions to urban sustainability. By uniquely synthesizing four distinct theoretical lenses, such as Urban Regime Theory, Transition Management Theory, the Quintuple Helix Model, and Leverage Points Theory, this paper moves beyond descriptive accounts of sustainable ventures. It offers a structured analytical tool that categorizes entrepreneurial actions into a typology of interventions (resource-based, transactive, organizational, and value-based) mapped to dual pathways of impact (direct problem-solving and systemic institutional change). This framework provides a more nuanced understanding of how entrepreneurs function as change agents at varying depths within complex urban systems. Practically, this research offers actionable insights for multiple stakeholders. For policymakers, it provides a basis for designing ecosystems that support ventures aiming for systemic impact, not just superficial fixes. For entrepreneurs, it offers a strategic map for aligning their business models with deeper leverage points for transformation. Finally, for educators, it reinforces the need for integrated curricula that cultivate systems thinking alongside entrepreneurial skills, preparing a new generation of leaders capable of navigating the complex challenges of urban sustainability. Ultimately, by identifying these key leverage points and dual pathways of entrepreneurial impact, this work supports broader efforts to build the more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive cities envisioned by Sustainable Development Goal 11. 2 Methodology 2.1 Search Strategy and Selection Criteria The literature search employs five major academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, Urban Studies Abstracts, and Google Scholar. These databases offer business, management, urban studies, and sustainability research coverage. The search strategy uses the following keyword combinations: ["entrepreneur" OR "startup" OR "small business" OR "SME”] AND ["urban transform" OR "urban transition" OR "urban sustainable" OR "sustainable city"] AND [“transformative leadership” OR "transformative capacity" OR "system change" OR "system innovation" OR "socio-technical transition”]. The search focuses on peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters published in English between 2000 and 2023. This timeframe captures contemporary developments while including seminal foundational works. The initial search yields 842 potentially relevant publications. The following inclusion criteria guided study selection: (1) Research on entrepreneurial activities in urban settings, (2) Studies examining sustainability transitions or transformations, and (3) Work investigating mechanisms, impacts, or frameworks of entrepreneurial contributions to urban change. On the other hand, exclusion criteria included: (1) Studies exclusively on rural entrepreneurship, (2) Research on entrepreneurship unrelated to sustainability or urban development, and (3) Publications without empirical evidence or a theoretical contribution. Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 4 Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram of the Literature Selection Process 2.2 Screening and Analysis Process The initial search yielded 842 records, which were reduced to 682 after the removal of duplicates. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, 235 publications remained for full-text review. Following a detailed examination for relevance, theoretical contribution, and empirical grounding, 87 publications were selected for the final synthesis. Figure 1illustrates the PRISMA flow diagram outlining this literature selection process. A thematic analysis was conducted on the selected literature using a structured coding framework organized by the research questions. This systematic synthesis, facilitated by NVivo 12 software, enabled the identification of patterns, themes, and conceptual relationships across a diverse body of research. Coding categories included factors promoting sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship, mechanisms of entrepreneurial contribution, and impact assessment frameworks, alongside the theoretical perspectives and contexts of the studies. The analysis proceeded iteratively, allowing for emergent themes to be integrated as the review progressed, ensuring a comprehensive synthesis of the current state of knowledge. 2.3 Limitations This systematic literature review has several limitations inherent to its methodology. First, the focus on peer-reviewed publications may exclude valuable insights from gray literature, practitioner reports, and emerging entrepreneurial practices not yet documented in academic research. Second, as a review that synthesizes existing findings, this paper relies on the illustrative examples and data presented in the source publications. It does not generate new primary empirical data, and therefore, its conclusions are synthetic and theoretical rather than causal. The aim is to provide a comprehensive framework, not to test causal hypotheses. And third, the review is limited to publications in English, which excludes a potentially rich body of research published in other languages. These limitations highlight valuable opportunities for future research, particularly the use of primary data collection methods (e.g., case studies, surveys) to empirically test and extend the framework developed in this review. Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 5 3 Literature Review Findings 3.1 Entrepreneurship and Urban Economic Development The relationship between entrepreneurship and urban economic development establishes the foundation for understanding entrepreneurs’ broader role in urban sustainability transformations. Audretsch and Keilbach [16] introduce the concept of "entrepreneurship capital," demonstrating its positive influence on regional economic performance through innovation and knowledge spillovers. Their empirical analysis of German regions reveals that areas with higher entrepreneurship capital experience greater economic output, highlighting entrepreneurs’ role as catalysts for urban economic growth. Building on this foundation, Acs et al. [17] proposed the concept of "entrepreneurial ecosystems,"emphasizing theimportanceof supportivecontextual factors—including institutions, culture, networks, and infrastructure—in fostering productive entrepreneurship. Spigel and Harrison [18] further developed this concept, explaining how resources flow through these systems and how entrepreneurs both benefit from and contribute to ecosystem development. In urban sustainability contexts, Boons et al. [19] examined how sustainable business models create multiple forms of value in urban settings. Their work demonstrates that entrepreneurs can simultaneously address market opportunities and sustainability challenges. Similarly, Cohen and Winn [4] analyzed how market imperfections create opportunities for sustainable entrepreneurship. The literature reveals a significant gap in understanding how entrepreneurial activities contribute to urban transformative capacity beyond economic growth. While studies establish entrepreneurship’s importance for urban economic development, fewer examine how this function intersects with broader sustainability transformations in cities [20]. This gap underscores the need for integrated frameworks connecting entrepreneurial activities with urban sustainability transitions. 3.2 Sustainability Intent and Legitimization in Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs’ sustainable intentions mark a shift in how business impact is evaluated. When entrepreneurs commit to environmental and social benefits alongside profits, they approach their ventures differently. This sustainability mindset helps explain how entrepreneurs can play a meaningful role in creating more livable cities - something researchers are increasingly recognizing as they study urban transformation. Schaltegger and Wagner [21] develop a typology of sustainable entrepreneurship, distinguishing between different sustainability-oriented entrepreneurs based on their market effect and sustainability goals. Their framework helps explain how entrepreneurs with varying degrees of sustainability intent contribute differently to urban sustainability transformations. Reynolds et al. [22] find that explicit sustainability intent provides stronger legitimization benefits than prior knowledge or orientation. Entrepreneurs with clear sustainability goals better navigate stakeholder expectations and regulations, enhancing their urban transformation potential. Krauset al. [23] identify key factors enabling responsible entrepreneurial practices, emphasizing sustainability integration into core business models rather than treating it as secondary. This connection between business success and sustainability impact strengthens urban transformative capacity. York and Venkataraman[6]argue thatentrepreneursareuniquelypositioned toaddress environmental degradation through their ability to identify opportunities while working within market constraints. Their research shows entrepreneurial innovation can overcome economic-environmental conflicts in urban development. The existing research reveals a significant gap in understanding how sustainability intentions lead to transformative urban impacts. While studies establish that sustainability goals help legitChoi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 6 imize responsible business practices, there remains surprisingly little research examining how these intentions materialize into tangible entrepreneurial contributions that enhance urban transformative capacity. Addressing this shortcoming requires a more sophisticated framework for understanding the journey from initial sustainability ambitions to measurable urban impacts in the entrepreneurial context. 3.3 Urban Transformative Capacity and Sustainability Transitions The concept of urban transformative capacity, introduced by Wolfram [3], provides a comprehensive framework for understanding cities’ collective ability to conceive, prepare for, initiate, and implement path-deviant change toward a more sustainable society. Wolfram’s framework identifies key components of urban transformative capacity, including: Inclusive and multiform governance arrangements, Transformative leadership, Empowered communities, System awareness, Practical experimentation, Diverse learning processes, Working across agency levels, Reflexivity, and Resource availability. This multidimensional understanding provides a valuable lens for analyzing entrepreneurial contributions beyond isolated innovations. Building on this foundation, Frantzeskaki et al. [24] examine the role of urban experimentation in sustainability transitions, highlighting how urban living labs and innovation hubs serve as protected spaces for testing and scaling sustainable solutions. Their work demonstrates how entrepreneurs can use these experimental spaces to developinnovationsthatchallengeestablishedurbanregimesand catalyzebroadersystemchanges. The concept of urban experimentation connects entrepreneurial activities with urban governance processes and provides a mechanism for translating innovative ideas into systemic impacts. From a transitions perspective, Geels [25] examines the politics of sustainability transitions, highlighting the role of power dynamics and vested interests in resisting or enabling system change. His work helps explain why some entrepreneurial innovations successfully challenge urban regimes while others remain marginalized, emphasizing the importance of strategic niche management and political engagement for entrepreneurs seeking transformative impact. Loorbach et al. [26] further develop thisperspective, proposing transition management asan approach for deliberately steering sustainability transitions through the strategic activities of niche actors, including entrepreneurs. Luederitz et al. [27] provide an integrated framework for understanding urban sustainability transformations, categorizing interventions into resource, transactive, organizational, and value interventions. Based on Meadows’ [14] leverage points theory, this typology offers a valuable tool for analyzing the systemic impact of entrepreneurial activities on urban sustainability from a systems perspective. It helps distinguish between entrepreneurial interventions that optimize existing systems and those that fundamentally transform system structures or goals. The literature reveals a gap in understanding the specific role of entrepreneurs in building urban transformative capacity. While frameworks exist for broadly analyzing urban transformative capacity and sustainability transitions, fewer studies examine how entrepreneurs specifically contribute to different dimensions of transformative capacity. This gap underscores the need for research that connects entrepreneurial activities explicitly to the components of urban transformative capacity identified by scholars like Wolfram [3]. 3.4 SMEs and Sustainability Transitions in Urban Contexts Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are vital to urban economies and sustainability transitions, though their contributions to urban transformative capacity receive less scholarly focus than larger corporations or public entities. Burch et al. [28] study SMEs in sustainability transitions, highlighting their advantages—flexibility, community connections, and innovation potential—in advancing urban sustainability. They identify key challenges, including resource limitations, knowlChoi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 7 edge gaps, and insufficient policy support. Klewitz and Hansen [29] review sustainability innovation in SMEs, cataloging practices addressing sustainability challenges. Their typology of innovation approaches—from reactive to proactive—explains varying SME contributions to urban sustainability transitions. This research emphasizes the importance of recognizing different entrepreneurial strategies when assessing urban transformative capacity contributions. The role of social entrepreneurship in urban sustainability transitions is examined by Hockerts and Wüstenhagen [30], who propose that interactions between "Emerging Davids" (small, missiondriven ventures) and "Greening Goliaths" (established firms adopting sustainability practices) drive sustainable industry transformations. This perspective helps explain how entrepreneurial ventures influence broader urban systems through both direct innovation and indirect pressure on incumbent actors. It also highlights entrepreneurs’ potential to catalyze changes beyond their immediate operations or market segment. Hansen and Schaltegger’s [31] work on sustainability-oriented business model archetypes reveals the diverse ways SMEs create and capture value while advancing sustainability goals. Their research shows entrepreneurs can pursue various paths to sustainability impact based on their specific context, capabilities, and objectives. This variety of approaches is especially relevant for understanding how entrepreneurs contribute to urban transformative capacity, which can occur through multiple pathways and at different leverage points within urban systems. The literature reveals a gap in understanding the unique challenges and opportunities SMEs face in contributing to urban transformative capacity. While studies broadly examine sustainabilityoriented innovation in SMEs, few explicitly focus on the urban context and the mechanisms through whichsmall entrepreneurial ventures influence urbantransformationprocesses. Thisgaphighlights the need for research that accounts for the specific dynamics of urban entrepreneurship concerning sustainability transitions. 3.5 Technology-Driven Urban Innovation Technological innovations, including AI, drive entrepreneurial contributions to urban sustainability. Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman [32] examine "smart cities" and their urban sustainability potential, highlighting technology-driven entrepreneurs’ role in creating innovative urban solutions. Their research shows the connections between entrepreneurship, technology, and urban development while cautioning against technocratic approaches that overlook social and environmental sustainability dimensions. Bibri and Krogstie [33] study big data analytics applications for urban sustainability, reviewing emerging data-driven approaches to smart, sustainable urbanism. Their research highlights how data-driven entrepreneurship can tackle urban challenges from traffic management to energy efficiency while raising critical concerns about data governance, inclusivity, and privacy. Their findings emphasize the importance of responsible data use in entrepreneurial innovations for urban sustainability. Nambisan [34] explores how digital technologies reshape entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. His work highlights how digital ventures’ increased flexibility, accessibility, and scalability enable entrepreneurs to tackle urban sustainability challenges innovatively. This framework offers insights into how urban entrepreneurs can use digital tools to create scalable, sustainable solutions that strengthen transformative capacity. The circular economy concept has become increasingly central to technology-driven urban sustainability approaches. Geissdoerfer et al. [35] analyze the connections between circular economy principles and broader sustainability goals, identifying key entrepreneurial opportunities in waste reduction, resource efficiency, and product-service systems. Their research shows how entrepreneurs can apply circular principles and technologies to develop business models that Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 8 tackle several urban sustainability challenges simultaneously. The literature shows a knowledge gap in how technology-driven entrepreneurship enhances urban transformative capacity. While research documents many technological innovations for urban sustainability, few studies explore how these innovations interact with broader urban systems to create transformative change. This gap underscores the need for research that positions technological entrepreneurship within the larger context of urban transformation processes. 3.6 Collaborative Approaches and Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Collaborative approaches are vital for building urban sustainability and transformative capacity. Carayannis and Campbell’s [12] Quintuple Helix model emphasizes key partnerships between universities, industry, government, civil society, and environment for sustainable innovation. This framework shows how entrepreneurs can effectively partner with diverse stakeholders to develop lasting urban sustainability solutions. Miller et al. [36] study cross-sector partnerships in sustainability transitions, demonstrating how entrepreneurs leverage these diverse relationships to overcome resource constraints, build legitimacy, and enhance impact. Their work shows that collaboration helps entrepreneurs address complex urban sustainability challenges beyond any single organization’s capabilities. Lang et al. [37] examine transdisciplinary collaboration in urban sustainability transitions and propose a conceptual model for transdisciplinary research processes involving academic and nonacademic stakeholders. Their work focuses on knowledge co-production among entrepreneurs, researchers, policymakers, and community members as crucial for addressing complex urban challenges. This view suggests that transformative entrepreneurship demands technical and social innovation in knowledge creation and application. Boons and Lüdeke-Freund [38] examine collaborative business models for sustainable innovation, highlighting value networks that distribute economic, social, and environmental benefits across stakeholders. Their findings show how entrepreneurs can craft business models that enable collaboration while generating value for diverse urban stakeholders—a particularly relevant approach for those aiming to enhance urban transformative capacity through systemic interventions. The literature reveals a notable gap in understanding the specific dynamics of entrepreneurial collaboration within urban sustainability transitions. While collaborative approaches receive broad endorsement across the field, relatively few studies examine how entrepreneurs navigate inherent tensions in multi-stakeholder partnerships or the mechanisms through which collaborative processes enhance contributions to urban transformative capacity. This knowledge gap underscores the necessary for focused research investigating both the practical challenges entrepreneurs encounter and the enabling conditions necessary for effective entrepreneurial collaboration in urban contexts. 3.7 Entrepreneurship Education for Urban Sustainability Education is vital in cultivating entrepreneurs who can contribute meaningfully to urban transformative capacity. Lans and colleagues [39] investigate how sustainability competencies might be woven into entrepreneurship education, suggesting that effective approaches must blend practical business acumen with sustainability knowledge and values. Their research underscores the need to develop entrepreneurs with the technical know-how to build viable businesses and the ethical framework to prioritize sustainability objectives. Zahrani [40] examines how entrepreneurship education impacts higher education institutions, identifying sustainable entrepreneurial culture, sustainability training programs, and comprehensive sustainability education as key factors. This research highlights educational institutions’ significant role in nurturing sustainability-minded entrepreneurs who can drive urban transformaChoi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 9 Similar lock-in effects are documented in other urban systems, including transportation [66], water management [67], and waste management [68]. 4.4.3 Knowledge and Capacity Barriers The literature identifies significant knowledge and capacity barriers facing urban sustainability entrepreneurs. Klewitz and Hansen [29] find that many small enterprises lack the technical knowledge and organizational capacity to develop sophisticated sustainability innovations. Bos-Brouwers [69] echoes this finding, documenting how resource constraints in SMEs limit their ability to engage in the research and development necessary for addressing complex sustainability challenges. The literature also highlights knowledge asymmetries between entrepreneurs and other urban stakeholders as barriers to effective collaboration. Boon et al. [19] analyze how differences in knowledge systems, terminology, and problem-framing between entrepreneurs, city officials, researchers, and community members create obstacles to productive engagement. These knowledge barriers are particularly challenging for entrepreneurs seeking to influence deeper leverage points, which require collaboration across diverse stakeholder groups. 4.4.4 Market and Social Acceptance Barriers The literature identifies market and social acceptance barriers as significant obstacles. Bohnsack et al. [70]documenthowsustainability innovationsoftenfacechallengesin gainingmarketacceptance due to higher initial costs, unfamiliar features, or requirements for behavior change. This finding is echoed by Keskin et al. [71], who find that sustainable product-service systems often struggle to compete with established alternatives due to consumer habits, existing infrastructure, or dominant cultural norms. The literature highlights the "liability of newness" as particularly challenging for urban sustainability entrepreneurs. Stinchcombe [72] describes how new organizations face greater obstacles than established ones due to a lack of legitimacy, established routines, and stable relationships. Lavie et al. [73] expand this concept, showing how new ventures proposing radical innovations face greater scrutiny and legitimacy challenges than established firms offering incremental improvements. This dynamic often disadvantages entrepreneurs pursuing transformative urban sustainability approaches, which involve significant departures from conventional practices and business models. These obstacles present critical challenges for entrepreneurs aiming to enhance urban transformative capacity. Burch et al. [28] examine that such barriers are typically systemic rather than isolated, requiring coordinated interventions across multiple domains to create favorable conditions for urban sustainability entrepreneurship. This insight underscores the need for comprehensive approaches that tackle financial, regulatory, knowledge, and market barriers rather than addressing each separately. 5 Discussion and Implications 5.1 Theoretical Integration The findings of this review can be integrated with the four theoretical frameworks introduced earlier to develop a more comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity for sustainability. 5.1.1 Integration with Urban Regime Theory The dual impact pathways identified in this review—direct problem-solving and systemic institutional change—align with Urban Regime Theory’s focus on informal governance coalitions shaping urban development. Entrepreneurs engaged in direct problem-solving typically operate within Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 16 existing urban regimes, offering innovative solutions to specific challenges without fundamentally challenging power structures. In contrast, entrepreneurs pursuing systemic institutional change often seek to alter urban regimes by forming new coalitions, challenging established power dynamics, or introducing alternative governance arrangements. This integration highlights the political dimension of entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity. As Stone [7] emphasizes, urban regimes represent power arrangements that determine "who gets what, when, and how" in urban development. Entrepreneurs seeking transformative impact must navigate these power dynamics effectively, which may require strategic coalition building, political entrepreneurship skills, and engagement with diverse stakeholders beyond traditional business networks. The findings regarding obstacles to urban sustainability entrepreneurship—particularly regulatory and institutional barriers—reflect entrepreneurs’ challenges when their innovations threaten established urban regimes or require regime transformation to achieve scale. 5.1.2 Integration with Transition Management Theory The four types of entrepreneurial interventions identified in this review—resource, transactive, organizational, and value interventions—can be mapped onto the multilevel perspective on transitions developed by Geels [10]. Resource and transactive interventions typically operate at the niche level, where protected spaces allow experimentation with novel technologies, business models, and social practices. Organizational interventions often target the regime level, seeking to change established rules, structures, and networks that maintain the status quo. Value interventions may influence regime dynamics and broader landscape trends, challenging fundamental assumptions and priorities shaping urban development trajectories. This integration enhances understanding of how entrepreneurial activities contribute to sustainability transitions in urban contexts. As Markard et al. [11] emphasize, transitions require changes at multiple levels and often evolve through distinct phases—from experimentation and emergence to acceleration and stabilization. The findings regarding factors fostering visionary entrepreneurship highlight conditions that enable entrepreneurs to operate effectively at different transition stages and levels. For example, supportive ecosystem conditions like innovation hubs and regulatory sandboxes create protected spaces for niche experimentation, while education programs developing systems thinking and anticipatory competence prepare entrepreneurs to engage with regime-level changes. 5.1.3 Integration with Quintuple Helix Model The importance of collaborative approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement highlighted in this review aligns with the Quintuple Helix model’s emphasis on interactions among universities, industry, government, civil society, and the environment. The findings suggest entrepreneurs contribute most effectively to urban transformative capacity when embedded in productive relationships across these five helices, leveraging diverse knowledge, resources, and legitimacy sources. This integration illuminates how entrepreneurs can function as boundary-spanning actors within the Quintuple Helix. As Carayannis et al. [12] note, innovation increasingly emerges from dynamic interfaces between different helices rather than within single organizations or sectors. Entrepreneurs who navigate these interfaces effectively—translating between knowledge systems, building cross-sector trust, and aligning diverse interests—are especially well-positioned to enhance urban transformative capacity. Findings about obstacles to urban sustainability entrepreneurship highlight the challenges entrepreneurs face in spanning these boundaries, particularly knowledge gaps and institutional fragmentation. Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 17 5.1.4 Integration with Leverage Points Theory The spectrum of entrepreneurial interventions identified in this review—from resource interventionstargeting shallowleveragepointstovalueinterventions targetingdeepleveragepoints—aligns with Meadows’ [14] hierarchy of places to intervene in a system. This integration enhances understanding of why some entrepreneurial activities may have greater transformative potential than others despite similar innovation or market success levels. As Abson et al. [15] note, interventions targeting deeper leverage points may have greater transformative potential but typically face stronger resistance and require longer timeframes to achieve impact. This insight helps explain why many entrepreneurs focus on resource interventions that yield more immediate, measurable results despite the greater transformative potential of organizational and value interventions. The findings regarding factors fostering visionary entrepreneurship highlight conditions enabling entrepreneurs to effectively target deeper leverage points, including supportive ecosystems that provide patient capital, accommodate longer development timeframes, and legitimize approaches challenging fundamental paradigms and values. 5.2 Policy Implications The findings of this review have significant implications for policymakers seeking to enhance entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity. These implications span multiple policy domains, including economic development, innovation policy, education, and urban planning. 5.2.1 Creating Supportive Ecosystems The findings highlight the importance of comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystems supporting sustainability-oriented ventures. Policymakers can enhance these ecosystems through several mechanisms: • Targeted Financial Support: Forming sustainability-focused investment funds, providing loan guarantees for sustainability ventures, and developing public procurement policies that prioritize sustainable solutions can help address the financial barriers identified in the review. These mechanisms should recognize the longer development timeframes and different risk profiles of ventures targeting transformative impact. • Innovation Infrastructure: Creating urban living labs and demonstration sites where entrepreneurs cantest andrefinesustainability solutionsin real-worldsettings canfacilitatethe experimentation necessary to address complex urban challenges. These spaces should be designed to encourage collaboration across sectors and disciplines. • Regulatory Flexibility: Developing regulatory sandboxes, innovation waivers, and adaptive governance mechanisms that allow for controlled experimentation with novel approaches can help overcome the regulatory barriers identified in the review. These mechanisms should balance the need for innovation with appropriate safeguards for public interests. 5.2.2 Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education The findings highlight how crucial education is in developing entrepreneurs who can strengthen urban transformative capacity. Policymakers and educational institutions can implement several strategies to amplify this impact: • Integrated Curricula: Developing entrepreneurship curricula incorporating sustainability principles, systems thinking, and ethical considerations alongside traditional business skills can prepare entrepreneurs to address complex urban challenges more effectively. These curricula should emphasize problem-based learning focused on real urban sustainability challenges. • Cross-Disciplinary Programs: Creating programs that bring together students and faculty from diverse disciplines—including business, design, engineering, environmental science, and urban Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 18 planning—can foster the transdisciplinary thinking necessary for addressing complex urban sustainability challenges. • Community Engagement: Developing entrepreneurship education models that involve community partners and real-world urban challenges can enhance students’ contextual understanding and prepare them to navigate the complex stakeholder landscapes of urban sustainability transformations. 5.2.3 Fostering Cross-Sector Collaboration The findings highlight the positive outcomes of collaborative approaches to urban sustainability. Policymakers can foster these collaborations through several mechanisms: • Innovation Networks: Establishing and supporting networks that connect entrepreneurs with researchers, policymakers, investors, and community organizations can facilitate knowledge exchange and resource sharing across sectors. These networks should be designed to connect institutions and promote mutual learning and education. • Collaborative Governance: Developing creative and collaborative governance mechanisms that involve entrepreneurs in urban planning and policy development can ensure that entrepreneurial perspectives inform broader urban strategies. These mechanisms should provide opportunities for entrepreneur input while maintaining democratic accountability. • Data Commons: Creating urban data commons that make public data accessible to entrepreneurs while protecting privacy and equity can facilitate data-driven innovation addressing urban challenges. These commons should be designed with appropriate governance mechanisms to ensure responsible data use. These policy implications suggest the need for integrated approaches that simultaneously address multidimensional ecosystems for urban entrepreneurs. As Burch et al. [28] emphasize, isolated interventions are unlikely to enhance entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity significantly; instead, coordinated efforts across policy domains are needed to create enabling conditions for transformative entrepreneurship. 5.3 Implications for Entrepreneurs The findings have important implications for entrepreneurs seeking to contribute to urban transformative capacity and extend through strategic positioning, organizational design, and approaches to stakeholder engagement. 5.3.1 Strategic Intervention Points The typology of entrepreneurial interventions provides a strategic framework for entrepreneurs to consider how they might maximize their transformative impact. Rather than focusing exclusively on resource interventions that optimize existing systems, entrepreneurs might consider complementary approaches that target deeper leverage points through transactive, organizational, or value interventions, which might involve: • Developing business models that reconfigure relationships among urban system components rather than merely optimizing resource flows within existing arrangements; • Creating organizational forms that institutionalize alternative values and governance approaches rather than merely implementing sustainable practices within conventional structures • Articulating and demonstrating alternative paradigms that challenge fundamental assumptions about urban development, rather than working entirely within established paradigms. 5.3.2 Hybrid Approaches The findings regarding dual pathways of entrepreneurial impact suggest value in hybrid approaches that combine direct problem-solving with systemic change efforts. Entrepreneurs might consider Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 19 how their ventures can deliver immediate sustainability benefits while working toward a more profound system transformation, which might involve: • Developing products or services that address immediate urban challenges while also collecting data and building evidence that informs policy advocacy; • Creating business models that generate revenue through current market opportunities while also demonstrating alternative economic logics that challenge dominant paradigms; • Building ventures that succeed within existing institutional frameworks while simultaneously working to transform those frameworks through coalition building and advocacy. 5.3.3 Strategic Collaboration The importance of collaborative approaches in this literature review highlights the value of strategic partnerships among various stakeholders. Entrepreneurs must consider how strategic collaborations can enable their ventures to leverage complementary capabilities and resources. These may include: • Establishing partnerships with research institutions that can support the knowledge base and evidence for continuous innovation in urban sustainability; • Collaborating with established organizations that can provide legitimacy, access to markets, and scaling capabilities that complement entrepreneurial innovation capabilities; • Engaging with community organizations and civil society groups that can provide contextual knowledge, social capital, and legitimacy in diverse urban communities These implications highlight the importance of strategic thinking beyond conventional business planning to consider how entrepreneurial ventures can most effectively contribute to urban transformative capacity. As Schaltegger and Wagner [21] argue, entrepreneurs aiming to maximize their sustainability impact must consider not only their direct operations but also their broader long-term influence on markets, institutions, and societal values. 5.4 Limitations and Future Research Suggestions This literature review presents several limitations that suggest important directions for future research. First, the reliance on academic literature may not fully capture emerging entrepreneurial leadership practices and impacts not yet documented in scholarly publications. Future research could complement literature reviews with empirical studies involving interviews, surveys, or case studies of transformative leaders in urban sustainability contexts. Second, the broad focus on urban contexts without detailed differentiation among cities with varying characteristics—such as size, economic structure, governance arrangements, or development status—limits contextual understanding. Future research could examine how leadership approaches and entrepreneurial contributions to urban transformative capacity vary across different urban contexts, particularly in the Global South, where unique challenges and opportunities exist. Third, the review identifies a gap in longitudinal studies tracking the evolution and impact of transformative leadership in urban sustainability over time. As Geels [10] notes in his multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions, transformative processes often unfold over decades rather than years. Longitudinal methods could examine how leadership interventions at different leverage points contribute to urban transformation processes over extended periods. Fourth, the review reveals limited research on leadership development and educational approaches. Future research could investigate the effectiveness of different educational models in developing transformative leaders capable of contributing to urban sustainability. Particularly valuable would be studies assessing educational methodologies that integrate systems thinking with practical business knowledge, as suggested by Shepherd and Patzelt [54] in their work on sustainable entrepreneurship. Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 20 6 Conclusion This systematic literature review examines transformative leadership in sustainable community and city development, integrating insights from Urban Regime Theory, Transition Management Theory, the QuintupleHelix Model, and LeveragePoints Theory. The analysis revealstwo essentialpathways through which leadership contributes to sustainability transformation: direct problem-solving and systemic institutional change. Systematic analysis of 87 publications led to the development of a framework categorizing leadership interventions as resource-based, transactive, organizational, and value-based—targeting leverage points of increasing transformative potential. Organizational interventions create new governance structures and hybrid organizational forms that challenge conventional boundaries betweensectors, asdemonstratedby Haigh et al. [56]in theirwork onhybrid organizations. Valueinterventionsaddressthedeepestleveragepointsbyredefiningthefundamentalgoalsandparadigms guiding development, aligning with what Schaltegger and Wagner [21] termed "transformative sustainable entrepreneurship." The findings highlight the importance of sustainability intent, inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems, and multi-stakeholder collaboration in fostering transformative leadership. As Spigel [59] and Spigel and Harrison [18] demonstrate in their work on entrepreneurial ecosystems, supportive environments that connect diverse actors and resources are essential for enabling transformative leadership to emerge and thrive. The research suggests that leadership education should integrate systems thinking with practical business knowledge, preparing leaders who can transcend apparent trade-offs between economic and environmental goals through creativity and innovation. This aligns with Hockerts and Wüstenhagen’s [30] findings on the complementary roles of new entrants and incumbents in sustainable entrepreneurship. Transformative leaders represent powerful change agents in urban sustainability transformations, but their effectiveness depends on supportive environments, strategic approaches, and collaborative engagement with diverse stakeholders. While this review provides a theoretical framework for understanding these relationships, future empirical research is needed to validate the proposed pathways and intervention typologies in diverse urban contexts. This article belongs to JHES Special Issue "ICHSPD 2024: Advancing Sustainable Cities and Communities through Science, Technology, and Innovation" presented at the International Conference on Human Settlements Planning and Development (ICHSPD) 2024, SM Aura, BGC, Manila [74]. Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 21 Statements and Declarations Acknowledgment The author wishes to express profound gratitude to the global community of scholars and practitioners whose work forms the foundation of this review. In an era of profound change, special thanks are extended to the scientists, technologists, and social scientists dedicated to solving humanity’s complex challenges; to the educators on the front lines preparing the next generation of leaders; and to the entrepreneurs who bravely pioneer new markets with practical services and unwavering vision. This work stands on the shoulders of all who strive to build more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive futures. Funding Information This research received no funding. Conflict of Interest The authors declares no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Not Applicable. References [1] UN-DESA. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic; Social Affairs. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda [2] UN-Habitat. (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report2020 - the-value-of-sustainable-urbanization [3] Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities,51, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011 [4] Cohen,B.,&Winn,M.I.(2007).Marketimperfections,opportunityandsustainableentrepreneurship. Journal of business venturing,22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.jbusvent. 2004 . 12 . 001 [5] Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2016). The making of the urban entrepreneur. California Management Review,59(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125616683953 [6] York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of business Venturing,25(5), 449–463. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.007 [7] Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing atlanta, 1946-1988. University press of Kansas. [8] Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. (2001). The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban affairs review,36(6), 810–835. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 / 10780870122185109 [9] Rotmans,J.,Kemp,R., &VanAsselt,M. (2001). Moreevolutionthanrevolution:Transitionmanagement in public policy. foresight,3(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1108 / 14636680110803003 [10] Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental innovation and societal transitions,1(1), 24–40. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 [11] Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research policy,41(6), 955–967. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.respol. 2012.02.013 Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 22 [12] Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship,1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 [13] Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD),1(1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2010010105 [14] Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute. https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-ina-system/ [15] Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., et al. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio,46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y [16] Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional studies,38(8), 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280956 [17] Acs, Z. J., Stam, E.,Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics,49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1007 /s 11187 - 017-9864-8 [18] Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic entrepreneurship journal,12(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268 [19] Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of cleaner production,45, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013 [20] Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technological forecasting and social change,125, 21–37. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035 [21] Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business strategy and the environment,20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682 [22] Reynolds, O., Sheehan, M., & Hilliard, R. (2018). Exploring strategic agency in sustainabilityoriented entrepreneur legitimation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,24(2), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2016-0100 [23] Kraus, S., Burtscher, J., Vallaster, C., & Angerer, M. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship orientation: Reflection on status-quo research on factors facilitating responsible managerial practices. In Sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 75–98). Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10 . 3390 / su10020444 [24] Frantzeskaki, N., Van Steenbergen, F., & Stedman, R. C. (2018). Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The resilience lab in carnisse, rotterdam, the netherlands. Sustainability science,13(4), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1007 /s 11625 - 018 - 0562-5 [25] Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multilevel perspective. Research policy,39(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.respol. 2010 . 01 . 022 [26] Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual review of environment and resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 [27] Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., Burch, S., Davies, A., Evans, J., König, A., et al. (2017). Learning through evaluation–a tentative evaluative Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 23 scheme for sustainability transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production,169, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005 [28] Burch, S., Andrachuk, M., Carey, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Schroeder, H., Mischkowski, N., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: Exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current opinion in environmental sustainability,22, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002 [29] Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of smes: A systematic review. Journal of cleaner production,65, 57–75. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.jclepro. 2013 . 07 . 017 [30] Hockerts,K., &Wüstenhagen,R. (2010).Greeninggoliathsversus emerging davids—theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of business venturing,25(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005 [31] G. Hansen, E., & Schaltegger, S. (2013). 100 per cent organic? a sustainable entrepreneurship perspective on the diffusion of organic clothing. Corporate Governance,13(5), 583–598. https: //doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0074 [32] Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land use policy,73, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.034 [33] Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable cities and society,31, 183–212. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016/j.scs.2017.02.016 [34] Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/etap.12254 [35] Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of cleaner production,143, 757–768. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 [36] Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability science,9(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 [37] Lang,D.J.,Wiek, A., Bergmann,M., Stauffacher,M., Martens,P., Moll,P.,Swilling, M.,&Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability science,7(Suppl 1), 25–43. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1007 /s 11625 - 011 - 0149-x [38] Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: Stateof-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner production,45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007 [39] Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of cleaner production,62, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036 [40] Zahrani, A. A. (2022). Promoting sustainable entrepreneurship in training and education: The role of entrepreneurial culture. Frontiers in Environmental Science,10, 963549. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.963549 [41] O’Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of business venturing,28(4), 546–563. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.07.003 [42] Hörisch,J.,Kollat,J.,&Brieger,S.A.(2017).Whatinfluencesenvironmentalentrepreneurship? a multilevel analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurs’ environmental orientation. Small business economics,48(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9765-2 Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 24 [43] Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production,65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 [44] Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organization & environment,27(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199 [45] Ackerman, K., Conard, M., Culligan, P., Plunz, R., Sutto, M. - P., & Whittinghill, L. (2014). Sustainable food systems for future cities: The potential of urban agriculture. The economic and social review,45(2, Summer), 189–206. https://www.esr.ie/article/view/136 [46] Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The academy of management annals,3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598 [47] Brown,H. S., Vergragt, P., Green,K., &Berchicci,L. (2003).Learningforsustainabilitytransition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,15(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320310001601496 [48] Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2016). What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? investigating community currency niches. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,28(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1063603 [49] Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals,8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19416520.2014.893615 [50] Loorbach, D., & Wijsman, K. (2013). Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of cleaner production,45, 20–28. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.002 [51] Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & environment,29(1), 3–10. https: //doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806 [52] Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., & Dentoni, D. (2015). Individual competencies for managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of cleaner production,106, 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.034 [53] Parrish,B.D.(2010). Sustainability-drivenentrepreneurship:Principles oforganizationdesign. Journal of business Venturing,25(5), 510–523. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1016 /j.jbusvent. 2009 . 05 . 005 [54] Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,35(1), 137–163. https://doi.org / 10 . 1111 /j. 1540 - 6520.2010.00426.x [55] Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2018). Toward a validated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship. Organization & environment,31(2), 113–132. https://doi. org/10.1177/1086026617697039 [56] Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts, and implications. California management review,57(3), 5–12. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1525/cmr.2015.57.3.5 [57] Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. (2011). Distinctions not dichotomies: Exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. In Social and sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 201–229). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/ 10 . 1108 /S 1074 - 7540 ( 2011 ) 0000013012 [58] Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business strategy and the Environment,15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428 [59] Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167 Choi (2025) |Journal of Human Ecology and Sustainability 2(3), 9 25