Classroom to Catalyst: Reimagining Higher Education as a Driver of New Market Creation

NABRAJ LAMA[1]

Abstract:
In an era where many globally influential entrepreneurs and leaders lack the highest levels of formal education, higher education faces a pivotal reckoning: Why are the world’s game-changers often those who step outside conventional academia? This research challenges the prevailing notion that higher education should merely respond to existing labor market demands. Instead, it proposes a radical shift toward empowering graduates to create entirely new markets that address societal needs for sustainability, inclusivity, and ethical innovation. By examining a diverse set of entrepreneurial success stories—ranging from undereducated founders of global enterprises to highly educated professionals serving as corporate technocrats—this study highlights a critical gap in current academic frameworks.

Drawing on extensive secondary research and case studies of high-impact startups, this study identifies critical gaps in current educational frameworks. Findings reveal that existing curricula frequently emphasize specialized skills for immediate employability at the expense of creative problem-solving and social innovation. By contrast, high-profile disruptors, many without advanced degrees, leverage real-world experiences and agile networks to tackle pressing societal needs and environmental challenges.

To bridge this divide, the paper proposes a forward-thinking education model that integrates entrepreneurial skill-building, sustainability, and inclusive strategies as foundational elements of degree programs. Through project-based learning, community-centered collaborations, and cross-disciplinary research, universities can empower students to conceive transformative ventures that uplift marginalized communities, champion environmental stewardship, and drive equitable growth. Recasting the role of higher education in this way ensures that graduates are not merely technocratic supporters in established industries but visionary architects of sustainable markets that align with societal progress in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Keywords: Market Creation, Entrepreneurial Education, Sustainability, Inclusive Growth, Fourth Industrial Revolution

1. INTRODUCTION

Higher education has long been regarded as the cornerstone of professional development and societal progress. Yet, in recent years, a paradox has emerged: many of the world’s most influential innovators, entrepreneurs, and leaders neither completed nor heavily relied on formal higher education to achieve monumental success (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). This paradox has raised fundamental questions about the structure, purpose, and outputs of the modern university system. How can it be that institutions designed to cultivate intellectual talent appear, in some cases, to inhibit the type of radical creativity and disruptive thinking that define our most groundbreaking enterprises (Drucker, 1985)? The impetus for this research is the observation that higher education, despite its longstanding emphasis on forming highly skilled labor to meet existing market needs, is ill-equipped to foster the creation of entirely new markets that address grand societal challenges such as sustainability, inclusivity, and ethical innovation (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

This study seeks to bridge the chasm between academia and the real-world demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, an era characterized by rapid technological advancements, increasing global interconnectivity, and significant environmental and social dilemmas (Schwab, 2017). While the prevailing logic in higher education often orbits around equipping graduates with specialized, immediately employable skills, this paper argues for a radical reimagining of university curricula. Instead of passively adapting to labor markets, higher education should actively shape them, empowering students not merely to seek roles within established industries but to forge new sectors and domains that champion sustainability, inclusivity, and social well-being (Delanty, 2001).

1.1 Background and Context

The role of universities has historically been multidimensional, including knowledge generation through research, knowledge dissemination via teaching, and service to society (Altbach, 2016). Over the centuries, the balance among these roles has shifted according to cultural, economic, and political factors. With the advent of mass education in the twentieth century, universities expanded from elite institutions serving a privileged few to broader-based systems aimed at producing a skilled workforce for national economies (Trow, 1973). This “democratization” of higher education was lauded as a vehicle for social mobility and economic development, echoing the premise that advanced degrees correlate positively with higher earnings and social status (OECD, 2019).

However, a contrary trend has gained public attention: a notable number of today’s leading entrepreneurs, including iconic figures like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and others, famously did not complete their higher education (Isaacson, 2011). Their companies—Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and more—revolutionized industries and created entirely new markets. The success of these mavericks underscores the possibility that the most fertile environments for disruptive innovation may lie outside traditional academic pathways. Moreover, as global challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and resource scarcity intensify, a new generation of socially conscious startups has emerged. Many founders leverage direct experience or alternative education models—accelerators, online platforms, industry mentorship—over formal university degrees (Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014). This phenomenon calls into question the relevancy of traditional curricula and pedagogical approaches that are primarily designed for “job readiness” rather than “market creation” (Leon, 2017).

On the institutional level, the dilemma is multifaceted. Universities are often evaluated by metrics such as graduate employability, research funding, and rankings (Hazelkorn, 2015). These metrics can inadvertently stifle the innovative capacity of higher education by restricting faculty and student exploration of unorthodox ideas in favor of conventional research agendas that promise predictable outcomes or immediate returns on investment (Clark, 1998). Meanwhile, entrepreneurial initiatives on campuses—such as startup incubators, pitch competitions, and experiential learning courses—remain siloed or treated as extracurricular. Their limited scope reduces the impact of innovation beyond the confines of business schools, precluding a holistic, cross-disciplinary approach that integrates sustainability, ethics, and inclusivity (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

All of these factors crystallize into a central question: Is higher education genuinely equipping students to pioneer new solutions that address urgent societal needs, or is it predominantly training them to slot into existing corporate and government structures? In an era where entire industries can be disrupted by a single, bold innovation, universities must revisit their core mission. If they fail to adapt, they risk obsolescence in a world where agile, cross-sectoral collaborations and resource-light digital enterprises increasingly dominate (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001).

1.2 Problem Statement

Despite growing interest in fostering entrepreneurial thinking within academic settings, mainstream higher education has yet to embrace a broader vision of market creation, sustainability, and inclusivity as fundamental learning outcomes (Chang & Rieple, 2013). Current curricula often perpetuate discipline-specific silos, emphasize employability over long-term societal impact, and limit opportunities for hands-on, interdisciplinary problem-solving. Consequently, universities are producing graduates well-versed in existing knowledge paradigms but less prepared to challenge these paradigms or to introduce entirely new market spaces.

Recent research points to the need for systemic reforms. A study by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) suggests that although entrepreneurial intentions among students are rising, structural constraints within universities—lack of funding, bureaucratic hurdles, insufficient mentorship—hinder the conversion of ideas into viable ventures (GEM, 2020). Moreover, corporate partnerships and research grants often channel academic efforts into projects aligned with the near-term interests of established industries, leaving riskier but potentially transformative ideas unexplored (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006).

Beyond employability and technological innovation, there is an ethical dimension. As the global community grapples with climate change, social inequities, and the broader impacts of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on labor markets, higher education must foreground questions of sustainability and inclusion in its curricula (Rockström et al., 2009). Failing to do so risks perpetuating a system in which graduates and faculty primarily optimize for economic gains within the status quo rather than envisioning, designing, and implementing new paradigms for sustainable development and equitable growth (Mulgan, 2010).

In sum, the problem can be succinctly stated as: Higher education institutions, as currently structured, are insufficiently enabling students to become market creators focused on solving pressing societal and environmental issues. This shortcoming not only diminishes the potential for innovation but also undermines academia’s broader role as a catalyst for positive social transformation.

1.3 Research Questions and Objectives

To address the challenges highlighted in the problem statement, this study is guided by three primary research questions:

1. What are the critical gaps in current higher education frameworks that hinder the development of market-creating graduates?
2. How do successful market creators, particularly those who did not follow traditional academic trajectories, acquire the skills, knowledge, and networks necessary for disruptive innovation?
3. What pedagogical and institutional reforms can best prepare graduates to create new markets that address societal challenges, particularly in the realms of sustainability and inclusivity?

Objectives

• Conduct a comprehensive review of existing literature on entrepreneurial education, market creation, and sustainability-oriented innovation in academic contexts.
• Examine case studies of high-impact startups and entrepreneurial leaders to understand alternative pathways to success and identify commonalities in skill acquisition, mindset, and resource mobilization.
• Propose a theoretical and practical framework for reimagining higher education, focusing on curricular design, community engagement, and cross-disciplinary collaboration aimed at market creation.
• Provide actionable recommendations for policymakers, university administrators, faculty, and industry stakeholders seeking to implement this framework.

1.4 Significance of the Study

The significance of this study extends beyond academia, resonating with policymakers, industry leaders, and society at large. At its core, this research addresses an existential question for universities: Can higher education reclaim its role as a transformative agent in society, guiding the next generation not just to adapt to the world but to remake it for the better (Marginson, 2016)? The urgency of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, coupled with pressing global challenges such as climate change and social inequity, calls for robust leadership from higher education institutions (Schwab, 2017). By examining how non-traditional entrepreneurs successfully identified and capitalized on emerging opportunities, the study sheds light on the lived realities of market creation. These insights can inform sweeping reforms in teaching methods, learning objectives, and evaluation criteria, thereby cultivating graduates who are equipped to tackle the grand challenges of our time (Kiron, Kruschwitz, Reeves, & Goh, 2013).

Furthermore, the proposed framework for integration of entrepreneurship, sustainability, and inclusivity within degree programs aims to enhance not only employability but also long-term societal impact. By aligning higher education with the pursuit of new, ethically grounded market spaces, universities can revitalize their mission and remain vital social institutions in an era of rapid technological and economic transformation (Etzkowitz, 2008). The potential ripple effects include the creation of job markets that do not yet exist, fostering economic development in underserved regions, and accelerating the transition to circular and socially responsible business models (Leal, Freitas, & Fontenele, 2015).

From a policy perspective, insights from this research can guide resource allocation, funding priorities, and accreditation standards. Governments worldwide have begun to emphasize innovation and entrepreneurship as keys to national competitiveness (World Economic Forum, 2020). However, policy often lags behind practice, especially in rapidly evolving fields such as sustainability-driven innovation. By providing empirical evidence and conceptual frameworks, this study can inform policies that incentivize universities to invest in cross-disciplinary entrepreneurship programs, sustainability initiatives, and inclusive educational practices.

Finally, this study bears importance for private sector stakeholders, particularly corporations that rely on highly skilled graduates to fill roles in R&D, management, and strategic growth. Partnering with universities that are actively promoting disruptive innovation—rather than incremental improvements—can yield new ventures, technologies, and partnerships that benefit both the private sector and society (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Through joint initiatives, corporations can also contribute expertise, mentorship, and funding, thereby reinforcing a mutually beneficial ecosystem that accelerates the transition from classroom concepts to transformative market realities.

• LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review critically examines the key theoretical frameworks, empirical studies, and scholarly debates that situate higher education within a rapidly shifting global context. Specifically, it delves into (1) the evolving role of universities, (2) the rise of entrepreneurial education, (3) theories of market creation, and (4) the emerging emphasis on sustainability and inclusivity. Together, these strands of research underscore the gaps and opportunities for reimagining higher education as a catalyst for new market creation.

2.1 The Evolving Role of Universities

2.1.1 Historical Perspectives

The modern university has undergone multiple transformations in line with social, economic, and technological changes. Initially, medieval universities in Europe focused on theology, law, and medicine, reflecting societal needs of the time (Rüegg, 2011). Post-Enlightenment universities emphasized research-based education, exemplified by the Humboldtian model, which integrated teaching and scientific inquiry (Altbach, 2016). From the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, institutions gradually expanded to serve broader publics, culminating in what Trow (1974) calls the shift from “elite” to “mass” higher education.

During this expansion, universities assumed a dual role: serving as the gatekeepers of advanced knowledge and functioning as primary conduits for social mobility (Marginson, 2016). This broader participation was linked to economic growth, as newly trained professionals flowed into burgeoning industries. Over time, the mission of universities further evolved to include engagement in “nation-building” and regional development (Delanty, 2001). This shift was particularly pronounced in the United States after World War II, where the GI Bill accelerated mass college enrollment, and research universities contributed significantly to technological advancement (Geiger, 2019).

2.1.2 Contemporary Challenges

In the current era, often termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution, universities grapple with unprecedented complexity (Schwab, 2017). Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital platforms challenge not only the content of academic programs but also the mode of knowledge delivery (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Online education and alternative credentialing systems have disrupted traditional degree models, leading to questions about the long-term viability of the “brick-and-mortar” campus (Craig, 2015).

Moreover, metrics used to evaluate universities—such as rankings, grant funding, and graduate employability—can exert a conservative influence, channeling resources toward established disciplines and partnerships rather than speculative, cross-cutting initiatives (Hazelkorn, 2015). In parallel, economic disparities and the surging cost of education have raised concerns about access and equity (Leach, 2013). As a result, scholars argue that universities must embrace new paradigms of knowledge creation and dissemination that prioritize ethical, sustainable, and inclusive outcomes over narrow measures of success (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017; Mulgan, 2010).

2.2 Entrepreneurial Education in Higher Education

2.2.1 Defining Entrepreneurial Education

Entrepreneurial education has been defined as “the process of providing individuals with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem, knowledge, and skills to act on them” (Jones & English, 2004, p. 416). Traditionally housed within business schools, entrepreneurial education has gained momentum throughout various academic fields, from engineering to social sciences, reflecting a broader acceptance of entrepreneurship as a key driver of economic development (Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014).

This approach typically involves courses on business planning, venture finance, innovation management, and lean startup methodologies (Ries, 2011). Practitioners of entrepreneurial pedagogy frequently advocate for experiential learning models, such as simulations, internships, hackathons, and project-based collaborations (Mwasalwiba, 2010). These methods aim to blend theoretical knowledge with practical skill sets, enabling students to move beyond classroom exercises into the realm of real-world venture creation (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008).

2.2.2 Critiques of Current Entrepreneurial Education

While entrepreneurial education has grown in prominence, critics argue that it often remains confined to teaching specific business or technological competencies without sufficiently addressing the wider societal impact of new ventures (Hindle, 2007). Many programs measure success in terms of student startups launched, venture capital funding raised, or patent applications filed (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014). Although these metrics can indicate the vibrancy of a startup culture, they do not necessarily capture outcomes related to sustainability, equity, or ethical innovation.

Another limitation is the tendency to focus on technology-driven entrepreneurship, overshadowing social entrepreneurship and inclusive development models (Volkmann, Tokarski, & Ernst, 2012). This bias can sideline ventures aimed at addressing local or global social issues, which may not promise immediate profitability or fit the high-growth venture capital model (Santos, 2012). Additionally, existing entrepreneurial curricula may overemphasize individualistic narratives—celebrating the “lone genius” entrepreneur—thereby neglecting collective, community-based, or cooperative modes of innovation (Blenker, Dreisler, & Kjeldsen, 2006).

2.2.3 Shifts Toward an Integrative Approach

Recent scholarly work advocates for a more integrative model of entrepreneurial education—one that merges business acumen with ethical, social, and environmental considerations (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). In this paradigm, educators draw on interdisciplinary collaborations, involving fields such as design thinking, sustainability science, public policy, and social psychology. By embedding these perspectives into core curricula, universities can help students develop a more holistic view of entrepreneurship, extending beyond profit motives to include societal impact (Kickul & Lyons, 2012).

An increasing number of institutions have launched programs that explicitly address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of entrepreneurship training (Mokski et al., 2022). For example, courses in social entrepreneurship challenge students to design business models that solve problems related to poverty, health, and environmental degradation (Moingeon, Yunus, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). This approach is consistent with the notion that entrepreneurs are uniquely positioned to tackle systemic challenges, precisely because they can create new markets aligned with social and environmental imperatives (Siegner, Pinkse, & Panwar, 2018).

2.3 Market Creation Theories

2.3.1 From Schumpeter to Disruptive Innovation

The concept of market creation is deeply rooted in the work of Joseph Schumpeter (1934), who argued that entrepreneurship drives economic development through a cycle of “creative destruction.” According to Schumpeter, new ventures disrupt existing market structures by introducing innovations that redefine consumer needs, business processes, and competitive landscapes. Decades later, Clayton Christensen and colleagues refined the concept with the theory of disruptive innovation, illustrating how new entrants could initially target niche segments, eventually reshaping entire markets (Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015).

These frameworks emphasize the catalytic role of entrepreneurs in altering economic trajectories. However, Schumpeterian and Christensenian models generally adopt a firm-centric perspective, focusing on how competitive forces shift within existing market structures (Garud & Giuliani, 2013). While they acknowledge that new markets can emerge from disruptive innovations, neither theory fully addresses the broader societal and environmental contexts in which such disruptions occur (Markman, Russo, Lumpkin, Jennings, & Mair, 2016).

2.3.2 Blue Ocean Strategy and Beyond

W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne’s (2005) “blue ocean strategy” popularized the notion of creating uncontested market spaces rather than fighting for dominance in existing “red oceans” of competition. By identifying latent consumer needs and novel value propositions, ventures can theoretically bypass direct competition. This perspective expands on Schumpeter by emphasizing the strategic processes through which organizations can uncover or invent entirely new demand segments.

However, critics note that blue ocean strategy tends to focus on commercial gains and often lacks explicit guidance on social or environmental dimensions (O’Cass & Sok, 2014). A newer wave of scholarship extends the market-creation framework to encompass sustainability and social objectives. For instance, Santos (2012) introduces the concept of social value creation as a parallel process that may or may not align with profit-oriented strategies. Similarly, Porter and Kramer (2011) advocate for “shared value” approaches that systematically integrate social responsibility into core business models.

2.3.3 Linking Market Creation to Social Innovation

Social innovation literature further expands the conversation by highlighting how novel solutions emerge in response to pressing societal challenges (Mulgan, 2010). While traditional entrepreneurship frameworks often assume that market demand already exists, social innovation can spur the creation of markets where demand is latent or unrecognized (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010). For example, microfinance institutions effectively created a market for financial services among previously unbanked populations (Armendáriz & Morduch, 2010). Similarly, off-grid solar companies in developing regions have catalyzed local energy markets while addressing energy poverty and reducing carbon emissions (Bensch, Peters, & Schmidt, 2015).

These examples illustrate how market creation intersects with sustainability and inclusivity goals. Entrepreneurs do not merely discover existing inefficiencies; they proactively shape consumer behavior, regulatory environments, and cultural norms. Consequently, the ability to envision “something from nothing” becomes a core entrepreneurial skill—one that current higher education structures may not consistently foster (Spinosa, Flores, & Dreyfus, 1999).

2.4 Sustainability, Inclusivity, and Higher Education

2.4.1 Rising Importance of Sustainability

Sustainability, once a peripheral concern, has moved to the forefront of educational and corporate agendas due to escalating threats like climate change, resource depletion, and social inequalities (Rockström et al., 2009). In response, universities worldwide have introduced or expanded programs in sustainability science, environmental management, and climate policy (Clark & Harley, 2020). Some institutions have gone further, embedding sustainability across a range of disciplines, from business to engineering (Lozano, 2011).

However, the integration of sustainability into higher education remains uneven (Leal Filho et al., 2018). Many programs address sustainability as an add-on or elective course rather than a pervasive lens through which all subjects are taught (Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007). As a result, students may graduate with compartmentalized knowledge of environmental issues, lacking the transdisciplinary skills necessary to tackle complex, interdependent global challenges (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011).

2.4.2 The Imperative of Inclusivity

Inclusivity, particularly regarding marginalized and underserved communities, is another pillar gaining urgency in discussions of educational reform. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Rieckmann, Mindt, & Gardiner, 2017) underscores the role of higher education in promoting equitable access to learning opportunities. Nonetheless, socioeconomic barriers, racial and gender disparities, and systemic biases persist, limiting the diversity of both student populations and faculty representation (Marginson, 2016).

Inclusivity extends beyond admissions policies. It also pertains to curricular content, pedagogical approaches, and the types of innovation that universities prioritize (Giroux, 2010). For example, community-based participatory research (CBPR) integrates local stakeholders directly into the research and development process, ensuring that the outputs reflect community needs (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003). When effectively implemented, inclusivity can spur innovations that address unmet needs in areas such as affordable housing, accessible healthcare, and culturally relevant education, thereby co-creating markets that serve disadvantaged groups (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012).

2.4.3 Synthesizing Sustainability and Inclusivity: The Triple Bottom Line

The concept of the “triple bottom line”—encompassing economic, social, and environmental performance—aligns with both sustainability and inclusivity goals (Elkington, 1998). Within this framework, market creation is not solely about identifying profitable opportunities but also about generating beneficial social and environmental outcomes. Scholars like Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) posit that entrepreneurial ventures structured around the triple bottom line are more likely to incorporate long-term stakeholder value, thereby reducing the risk of exploitative or environmentally destructive practices.

Higher education institutions can promote triple bottom line thinking by offering interdisciplinary courses, integrating sustainability case studies into business curricula, and partnering with local and international organizations focused on social innovation (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). Such initiatives can, in turn, catalyze the development of student-led projects that envision new market spaces grounded in ethical and inclusive principles.

2.5 Gaps in the Literature and Implications for Higher Education

2.5.1 Insufficient Focus on Market Creation

A recurring theme is that the vast majority of entrepreneurship education research centers on improving student competencies for establishing ventures in existing markets (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Neck & Corbett, 2018). Relatively less attention is paid to how universities can directly support market creation, especially in contexts where the market does not yet exist or where pressing social and environmental issues remain unaddressed by traditional business models (Santos, 2012). This gap is critical because, as the abstract underscores, many high-profile disruptors who shape new sectors—whether in technology, green energy, or social enterprise—often operate outside the confines of traditional academic structures (Isaacson, 2011).

2.5.2 Limited Integration of Sustainability and Inclusivity in Entrepreneurial Education

While sustainability and social impact are increasingly recognized as important, most programs treat them as specialized niches, separate from mainstream entrepreneurship courses (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). The few integrated programs that do exist often lack institutional support or remain limited to pilot initiatives without sufficient scalability or resources (Rey-Garcia & Mato-Santiso, 2019). As a result, students eager to tackle climate change, social justice, or other systemic challenges may find minimal opportunities within formal curricula. They may turn to student clubs, hackathons, or extracurricular incubators, but these are often peripheral to their academic progression and degree requirements (GEM, 2020).

2.5.3 Overemphasis on Individualism and Technological Disruption

Current academic literature and practice in entrepreneurship education frequently romanticize the “lone hero” founder narrative or the concept of “technological solutionism” (Moroz & Hindle, 2012). This approach can overshadow collective action, community-based entrepreneurship, and policy engagement, all of which are vital for addressing complex social and environmental challenges (Westley, Antadze, Riddell, Robinson, & Geobey, 2014). Consequently, many entrepreneurship programs fail to convey the importance of ecosystems, partnerships, and multi-stakeholder collaborations in launching ventures that create value for marginalized communities or that aim to solve global-scale problems (World Economic Forum [WEF], 2020).

2.5.4 Need for Structural and Pedagogical Transformations

The literature makes a compelling case for rethinking the structural and pedagogical underpinnings of higher education (Mulgan, 2010; Schwab, 2017). Universities can no longer rely on narrowly defined learning outcomes focused primarily on technical competencies. Instead, they must foster a combination of imaginative thinking, ethical judgment, resilience, and collaborative problem-solving (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Yet, the review also reveals a lack of cohesive frameworks guiding such transformations. Most discussions remain fragmented, focusing on either curriculum reform, entrepreneurial ecosystems, or sustainability initiatives in isolation (Lozano, 2011).

• METHODOLOGY

This section details the methodological framework underpinning this study’s secondary research and case-based examination of high-impact startups. The research design is tailored to identify critical gaps in the current higher education system and explore how successful entrepreneurs address societal and environmental challenges—often without extensive reliance on traditional academic pathways. By focusing on publicly available documents, archival materials, and established case studies of market-creating ventures, this approach provides a structured yet flexible method to analyze the interplay between higher education and disruptive entrepreneurship.

3.1 Overall Research Strategy

3.1.1 Rationale for a Secondary Research Approach

Secondary research is particularly suited for this investigation because it enables the aggregation of diverse data sources related to both higher education models and entrepreneurial success stories (Bryman, 2016). Given that many high-impact startups and their founders are extensively covered in business media, academic publications, and policy reports, secondary research offers a rich repository of information without necessitating primary data collection. Moreover, the breadth of existing documentation—ranging from peer-reviewed journal articles to corporate websites—allows for a comprehensive understanding of how new markets emerge and the role (or absence) of higher education in that process (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

3.1.2 Integration of Case Studies

Within the broader secondary research framework, a multiple case study design offers in-depth exploration of how specific startups break away from conventional educational paths to create new market spaces (Yin, 2018). Drawing on rich descriptions from secondary data, each case illuminates the strategies, resource mobilization techniques, and entrepreneurial mindsets driving market disruption. By comparing and contrasting these cases, the research uncovers patterns that may inform how universities can better support or emulate such innovative trajectories (Stake, 2005).

3.2 Case Selection

3.2.1 Selection Criteria

To ensure relevance and analytical depth, the study employs a purposive sampling strategy (Patton, 2015). High-impact startups were chosen based on three primary criteria:

1. Documented Market Creation: Evidence that the startup introduced a product or service that significantly altered consumer behavior, addressed an unmet social/environmental need, or led to the formation of an entirely new market segment (Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015).
2. Societal and Environmental Significance: Startups that explicitly integrate sustainability, inclusivity, or ethical considerations into their business models, thus aligning with the study’s focus on transformative, socially oriented entrepreneurship (Elkington, 1998).
3. Robust Secondary Data Availability: Publicly accessible and credible sources (e.g., journal articles, media profiles, company reports, interviews published in reputable outlets) sufficient to construct a detailed account of the venture’s origins, growth, and strategic direction (Bryman, 2016).

3.2.2 Rationale for Global Coverage

Market creation and higher education reforms are global phenomena (Marginson, 2016). To account for possible regional and cultural variations, the sample includes startups headquartered in different parts of the world. This global approach offers a more comprehensive view of how contextual factors—regulatory environments, resource availability, and local educational systems—intersect with entrepreneurial innovation (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008). Nonetheless, the underlying focus remains on extracting lessons that can inform higher education reforms, regardless of geographic location.

3.3 Data Sources and Collection

3.3.1 Types of Secondary Sources

Drawing on a breadth of existing documentation, the study utilizes:

1. Academic Literature: Peer-reviewed articles examining entrepreneurial education, sustainability-driven ventures, inclusive growth, and the broader role of universities in societal transformation (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014).
2. Company and Organizational Websites: Startups’ official portals, which offer mission statements, sustainability reports, product roadmaps, and milestone announcements (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008).
3. Business and Policy Reports: Analyses from global organizations (e.g., World Economic Forum, OECD, World Bank) that detail market trends, innovation ecosystems, and the evolving demands placed on higher education (World Economic Forum, 2020).
4. Media Coverage: Articles and profiles from reputable business outlets (e.g., Bloomberg, Forbes, The Economist) that provide third-party insights into startup trajectories, founder backgrounds, funding rounds, and market impact (Isaacson, 2011).
5. Publicly Available Interviews and Speeches: Statements from founders, investors, and industry experts shared through conferences, podcasts, online video platforms, and corporate press releases (Johnston, 2014).

3.3.2 Data Organization

All collected materials were cataloged using a reference management system to maintain organized, easily searchable records (Gibson & Brown, 2009). Documents were tagged by startup name, publication year, and thematic relevance—such as “educational gap,” “market disruption,” “sustainability orientation,” and “scaling strategy.” This systematic indexing facilitated subsequent coding and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

3.4 Analytical Framework

3.4.1 Thematic Analysis

Since the study aims to illuminate complex phenomena—namely, the interplay between higher education and disruptive market creation—a thematic analysis approach was adopted (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This involved iterating through the following steps:

1. Familiarization with the Data: Each documents were reviewed in its entirety, annotating key passages related to entrepreneurial innovation, educational experiences, and the societal or environmental goals of the startup.
2. Initial Coding: Relevant segments were coded using labels that captured core concepts, such as “lack of formal education,” “founding motivation,” “university incubator experience,” “sustainability metrics,” or “community engagement” (Gibson & Brown, 2009).
3. Theme Identification and Review: Codes were clustered into potential themes—e.g., “Agile Skill Acquisition,” “Institutional Barriers,” “Socio-Environmental Impact,” and “Alternate Learning Networks.” These themes were refined through iterative comparisons, ensuring they accurately represented the data.
4. Cross-Case Synthesis: Once themes were established within individual case narratives, a cross-case analysis was conducted to determine which patterns recurred across multiple startups and which were unique to specific contexts (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2019).
5. Interpretation: The resulting insights were linked back to the research questions, highlighting how current academic structures might support or impede market creation, what non-traditional educational pathways high-impact founders pursued, and how potential reforms could align entrepreneurial skill-building with sustainability and inclusivity (Neuman, 2014).

3.4.2 Conceptual Framework Integration

Throughout the analysis, concepts from the literature review—such as Schumpeterian disruption, social innovation, and triple bottom line entrepreneurship—served as analytical lenses (Croitoru, 2012; Mulgan, 2010; Elkington, 1998). This approach ensured that empirical findings were contextualized within established theoretical debates while allowing for the identification of emergent constructs not fully captured by existing models (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

3.5 Reliability and Validity

3.5.1 Triangulation

Triangulation in this study involved the cross-verification of information from multiple secondary sources, reducing the likelihood of selective reporting or biased interpretations (Yin, 2018). For instance, if a media profile claimed that a startup founder left university to focus on disruptive technology, the researcher cross-checked this claim with founder interviews published elsewhere, official company statements, and, when available, investor or partner testimonies.

3.5.2 Transparency and Auditability

A transparent audit trail was maintained by systematically documenting each step of the data collection and analysis process (Bryman, 2016). Every sourced article, corporate report, or public interview was cataloged, annotated, and linked to specific themes. This level of documentation enables other researchers or stakeholders to trace the logic behind the study’s coding and thematic development (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Although this research relies exclusively on publicly available secondary data, ethical considerations still apply in terms of accurately representing sources and respecting intellectual property (Johnston, 2014). Because no direct human subjects were interviewed or surveyed, formal institutional review board (IRB) approval was not required. Nonetheless, standard best practices for ethical research—including respect for copyright, accurate citation, and faithful representation of reported events—were rigorously followed (Orb, Eisenhauer, & Wynaden, 2001).

3.7 Methodological Limitations

As with any research design, certain limitations shape the scope and conclusions of this study:

1. Dependence on Public Narratives: High-impact startups, especially those in the media spotlight, often have well-crafted public relations materials that may obscure negative aspects or failures (Isaacson, 2011). By triangulating multiple sources, the study attempts to mitigate this issue, but residual bias cannot be entirely ruled out (Bryman, 2016).
2. Focus on Success Stories: Case studies primarily highlight ventures that achieved substantial market creation. This focus may overlook equally instructive lessons from failed startups or those that have not gained media attention (Sull, 2004).
3. Lack of Primary Data: Relying solely on secondary information means the research is unable to probe deeper into founders’ motivations or institutional decision-making processes in real-time. Direct interviews could have added richer context, but were beyond the scope of this study.
4. Contextual Nuances: Each startup operates within unique regulatory, economic, and cultural environments. Comparisons across regions or industries must be approached with caution, as contextual factors could influence both entrepreneurial strategy and the role of formal education (Bruton et al., 2008).

4. FINDINGS

Building on the secondary research design and multi-case analytical framework outlined in Section 3, this section presents key findings regarding how current higher education frameworks align—or fail to align—with the imperatives of market creation, sustainability, and inclusivity. The data originate from a synthesized review of existing scholarly work, organizational reports, and detailed case studies of high-impact startups. The findings are organized around three major themes corresponding to the study’s overarching research questions: (1) Critical gaps in current higher education structures (RQ1), (2) the pathways and practices of successful entrepreneurs who bypassed or minimized traditional academia (RQ2), and (3) insights that inform future curricular and institutional reforms (RQ3). While each theme is discussed separately, significant overlaps highlight the multifaceted and interdependent nature of university education and entrepreneurial innovation.

4.1 Overview of Cross-Case Observations

Across the sampled high-impact startups—ranging from renewable energy ventures to digital platforms serving marginalized communities—several recurring characteristics emerged. First, founders consistently reported (in interviews available through media outlets or company archives) that conventional academic programs did not provide the agility, interdisciplinary skill sets, or ethical frameworks needed to tackle emerging global challenges (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Second, many of these companies integrated sustainability and inclusivity goals into their core business models from the outset, rather than treating social and environmental impacts as peripheral concerns (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). Third, even where universities offered entrepreneurship support—such as incubators or pitch competitions—founders often found these resources too narrowly focused on tech-centric or profit-first metrics, neglecting systemic social or environmental issues (Mwasalwiba, 2010).

The data also reveal important regional nuances. For instance, startups from emerging economies were more likely to address unmet basic needs—like clean water or affordable financial services—reflecting market voids but also underscoring the role of social drivers in catalyzing entrepreneurial solutions (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). Conversely, ventures in more developed economies tended to focus on software-as-a-service (SaaS) or cutting-edge technologies, occasionally overlooking community engagement unless required for regulatory or public-relations purposes (Chang & Rieple, 2013). Despite such contextual differences, all cases exhibit a tension between the rapid, experimental ethos of disruptive entrepreneurship and the often rigid, siloed, and risk-averse structures of higher education (Neck & Corbett, 2018).

4.2 Gaps in Current Higher Education Frameworks (RQ1)

The first research question aims to identify critical gaps in current higher education frameworks that hinder the development of market-creating graduates. Three major gaps emerged from the cross-case analysis:

4.2.1 Overemphasis on Specialized, Technocratic Skills

Many universities heavily prioritize discipline-specific, technocratic competencies—e.g., programming, engineering design, or financial modeling—at the expense of broader, integrative thinking (Altbach, 2016). While these competencies are valuable, they often do not encourage the entrepreneurial mindset required for market creation, which demands creativity, adaptability, and systems-level problem-solving (Croitoru, 2012).

• Documented Cases: Founders from two digital health ventures in the study reported that their formal education offered robust medical and technical knowledge but did not teach them how to pivot quickly, engage with regulatory complexities, or develop low-cost solutions for underserved populations (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008). They learned these skills ad hoc or through post-graduation accelerators.
• Institutional Programs: A review of entrepreneurship curricula from major universities revealed that even flagship “innovation courses” were heavily oriented toward business planning and incremental process improvements, with minimal attention to the broader societal or ecosystem impacts of entrepreneurship (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008).

The lack of integrative, cross-disciplinary training restricts students’ ability to see beyond established market parameters. Graduates become adept at fitting into existing corporate structures, but less capable of envisioning or building entirely new market spaces—particularly those addressing “wicked” social or environmental problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

4.2.2 Marginalization of Sustainability and Inclusivity

Though many universities have sustainability initiatives and diversity offices, these agendas often remain peripheral to mainstream curricular activities (Leal Filho et al., 2018). As a result, the entrepreneurial pursuits of students or faculty rarely incorporate sustainable or inclusive objectives unless pursued in specialized programs such as social entrepreneurship electives (Mulgan, 2010).

• Startup Contrast: Several studied ventures—especially those in renewable energy—emphasized sustainability from day one. Founders lamented that their universities offered minimal formal support, providing instead a generic suite of resources for tech entrepreneurship without addressing the unique challenges of implementing environmentally viable supply chains or impact-measurement frameworks (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014).
• Curriculum Analysis: Course catalogs at sampled universities showed few required modules on sustainability science or inclusive growth for business or STEM majors. Sustainability was often relegated to optional courses or extracurricular clubs (Lozano, 2011).

By underprioritizing sustainability and inclusivity, universities miss opportunities to cultivate ventures that can address pressing global challenges and simultaneously create new markets. Entrepreneurs who do embark on such missions frequently do so with limited institutional guidance or recognition, relying instead on external communities of practice (Rockström et al., 2009).

4.2.3 Risk-Aversion and Bureaucratic Silos

Research intensiveness, publication metrics, and rigid departmental structures foster a cautious culture in many universities (Hazelkorn, 2015). Faculty are incentivized to specialize and publish in narrow subfields, while interdepartmental collaboration faces structural hurdles. This culture can stifle radical experimentation or multi-disciplinary initiatives crucial for market-creating entrepreneurship (Clark, 1998).

• Interviews and Secondary Accounts: Publicly available interviews with startup teams highlight how institutional bureaucracies delayed projects, withheld seed funding for “unproven” ideas, and prioritized short-term partnerships with established corporations. As a result, student founders often sought external incubators or venture funding that offered more creative latitude (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006).
• Documentation of University Governance: Strategic plans from selected universities emphasize graduate employability and research commercialization in partnership with existing industry players, but rarely discuss championing new, socially oriented sectors—indicating a gap in institutional ambition (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

Risk-averse cultures discourage the kind of boundary-pushing innovations that can spark new markets. Moreover, siloed academic structures hinder the cross-pollination of ideas between disciplines (e.g., between computer science and environmental studies), an essential factor in addressing complex societal needs (Delanty, 2001).

4.3 Pathways of Non-Traditional Entrepreneurs (RQ2)

The second research question seeks to uncover how successful market creators, particularly those who did not follow traditional academic trajectories, acquire the skills, networks, and knowledge necessary for disruptive innovation. Analysis of the selected startups—drawn from secondary data such as founder interviews, media profiles, and official press releases—reveals several interlocking pathways:

4.3.1 Experiential and Peer-Driven Learning

Rather than relying on formal coursework, many successful entrepreneurs cited peer networks, online forums, open-source communities, and industry gatherings as pivotal learning platforms (Neck, Greene, & Brush, 2014). These channels offered real-time problem-solving and exposure to cutting-edge practices, contrasting with universities’ typically slower, more structured curricula.

A notable fintech startup featured in the study, launched by founders including individuals without college degrees, credited open-source coding communities (e.g., GitHub) and peer mentorship circles for honing their technical skills and business strategies. Over time, they developed a product addressing financial inclusion for low-income populations in South Asia, effectively creating a new market segment for mobile-based savings. Their learning process was iterative and experimental, unimpeded by rigid academic requirements.

4.3.2 Rapid Prototyping and Agile Adaptation

High-impact disruptors often champion rapid prototyping—introducing minimally viable products quickly, gathering user feedback, and pivoting as needed (Ries, 2011). This contrasts with the more deliberate, hypothesis-driven methodologies taught in many universities, where lengthy project timelines and extensive research proposals can delay market entry.

A case study of a renewable energy startup in Sub-Saharan Africa revealed that the founding team launched small-scale pilots in off-grid communities before finalizing their technology. Their agility allowed them to rapidly iterate based on user feedback, attracting nonprofit and governmental partners who recognized the system’s viability in underserved regions (Bensch, Peters, & Schmidt, 2015). None of the founders had advanced degrees in business; instead, they leveraged localized knowledge and on-the-ground experiments to refine their approach.

4.3.3 Mission-Driven Collaboration

Another hallmark among entrepreneurs bypassing traditional education is their pursuit of strategic collaborations grounded in aligned missions. These alliances range from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to socially responsible corporations, offering access to capital, distribution channels, and credibility (George et al., 2012).

Founders of a consumer-goods startup focusing on biodegradable packaging forged early partnerships with environmental NGOs. These NGOs provided research on biodegradable materials and connected the founders with ethical supply-chain partners. Through this collaboration, the startup effectively created a new market niche for zero-waste consumer packaging. Formal academic institutions played a minor role, mentioned only as a background source for a few research papers on bioplastics (Clark & Harley, 2020).

4.3.4 Culturally Embedded Innovation

In certain contexts, market creation arises from deep cultural understanding—an asset that might not be easily imparted in generalized academic programs (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008). Founders from local communities often leverage tacit knowledge of traditions, language, and social norms to design context-appropriate solutions.

A healthcare startup in rural South America integrated indigenous medical practices with modern telehealth services. The founders, primarily from the local community, did not pursue higher education abroad. Instead, their immersion in local cultural practices allowed them to create a service model that resonated with both patients and traditional healers. They effectively opened a new healthcare market that bridged conventional and modern medicine (Sarasvathy, 2001).

4.4 Insights Informing Future Reforms (RQ3)

The third research question centers on identifying pedagogical and institutional reforms that can prepare graduates for market creation focused on sustainability and inclusivity. While the cases generally highlight deficiencies in current academic structures, they also suggest practical pathways for innovation:

4.4.1 Embedding Entrepreneurial Mindsets in Core Curricula

Students across disciplines—from engineering to the arts—could benefit from exposure to market-creation principles, design thinking, and systems-based problem-solving (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011). The case analyses indicate that early, foundational instruction in entrepreneurial mindset development—rather than capstone or elective courses—may foster creative risk-taking and social awareness.

Several universities have piloted first-year programs combining liberal arts inquiry with entrepreneurial project-based learning. In these pilots, students co-develop ventures addressing local community challenges, merging theory with hands-on practice (Neck & Greene, 2011). While few examples exist at large scale, initial results suggest enhanced student engagement and readiness to tackle unstructured problems (Leon, 2017).

4.4.2 Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration and Studio-Based Learning

Some of the most innovative case study ventures relied on cross-functional teams, integrating insights from fields like engineering, design, public policy, and sociology. Universities that facilitate collaborative, studio-based learning environments can mimic this dynamic, giving students experiential exposure to interdisciplinary problem-solving (Brown & Kuratko, 2015).

Design labs within select institutions have begun pairing business students with environmental science majors and computer programmers to jointly tackle sustainability challenges. Real-world case competitions, extended over entire semesters, allow teams to prototype and test solutions, culminating in a public pitch day with industry experts (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). Such structures more closely resemble the iterative, agile approach adopted by non-traditional entrepreneurs.

4.4.3 Incorporating Sustainability and Inclusivity as Core Metrics

Rather than treating sustainability and inclusivity as peripheral, universities can embed these dimensions into academic objectives and assessment criteria. This alignment ensures that entrepreneurial initiatives receive institutional support, funding, and recognition comparable to tech-centered or purely profit-driven ventures (Rockström et al., 2009).

Some business schools have launched “Social and Environmental Impact” tracks, requiring student startups to incorporate impact metrics—like reductions in carbon footprint or improvements in local living conditions—into their pitch decks and business plans (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Faculty mentors from various departments (e.g., social sciences, ecology) are assigned to each team, reflecting a holistic perspective on venture development (Leal, Freitas, & Fontenele, 2015).

4.4.4 University-Community Partnerships and Real-World Engagement

Startups in the study often thrived by aligning closely with the needs of local communities or underserved markets. Universities could replicate this model by establishing partnerships that foster community-based participatory research and service-learning projects, enabling students to co-create solutions with community stakeholders (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003).

In practice, a handful of institutions have established “innovation hubs” located near low-income neighborhoods. Students work alongside local residents, nonprofits, and municipal agencies to identify pressing challenges—like food deserts or inadequate public transportation—and prototype solutions. By weaving these real-world engagements into degree requirements, universities reinforce the idea that market creation can and should address deep-rooted societal issues (George et al., 2012).

4.5 Synthesis of Key Findings

Pulling together the themes from Sections 4.2 through 4.4, the following insights emerge:

1. Higher Education Gaps:
   • Technocratic Focus: Many universities emphasize specialized skills for established industries, neglecting holistic entrepreneurial training for new market creation.
   • Peripheral Treatment of Sustainability and Inclusivity: Social and environmental objectives frequently remain electives or side projects rather than core academic pillars.
   • Risk-Averse Culture: Institutional structures often value safety and predictability over the experimentation vital for disruptive innovation.

2. Non-Traditional Entrepreneurial Pathways:
   • Experiential and Peer-Driven Learning: High-impact founders often learn from hands-on, real-world engagements and digital networks.
   • Rapid, Iterative Experimentation: Minimal bureaucracy and agile pivoting strategies help entrepreneurs respond swiftly to evolving market conditions.
   • Mission-Centric Collaborations: Alliances with NGOs, local communities, and ethical investors create ecosystems supportive of long-term social impact.

3. Reform Possibilities:
   • Curricular Integration: Early introduction of entrepreneurial mindsets and sustainability frameworks across all disciplines.
   • Cross-Functional, Studio-Based Environments: Encouraging interdisciplinary teams that mirror real-world entrepreneurial dynamics.
   • Institutional Realignment: Incorporating sustainability and inclusivity metrics into funding, mentorship, and accreditation to incentivize truly transformative ventures.

Collectively, these findings underscore the urgency and feasibility of reshaping higher education to meet the societal demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Realigning institutional missions, revising curricular priorities, and forging deeper community partnerships could bridge the current gap between conventional academic training and the disruptive potential exemplified by many market-creating entrepreneurs.

The secondary data analysis and multi-case exploration confirm that higher education, as traditionally conceived, does not fully nurture the competencies necessary for creating new, socially impactful markets. While universities excel in imparting technical knowledge and conducting specialized research, they often lag in fostering the creative, transdisciplinary, and socially attuned skill sets required for disruptive entrepreneurship. Simultaneously, case studies of high-impact startups reveal alternative learning pathways—rooted in real-world experimentation, social networks, and mission-driven collaboration—that enable founders to navigate complex market gaps and address sustainability and inclusivity challenges.

These findings serve as a foundation for the discussion that follows, wherein the implications for curriculum design, institutional policies, and stakeholder engagement will be assessed in greater depth. By aligning key lessons from successful market disruptors with cutting-edge pedagogical and institutional reforms, higher education stands poised to reclaim its role as a vital catalyst for societal transformation in the years to come.

• DISCUSSION

Building on the empirical insights presented in Section 4, this section offers a critical interpretation of how the study’s findings relate to the broader theoretical debates and practical challenges discussed in the Literature Review (Section 2). In particular, it explores how higher education can more effectively align itself with the creation of new markets that prioritize sustainability, inclusivity, and ethical innovation. The discussion is organized around three core areas: (1) Reassessing the role of universities as catalysts for disruptive innovation, (2) integrating sustainability and inclusivity into mainstream entrepreneurship education, and (3) outlining strategic institutional reforms that could bridge existing gaps.

5.1 Reassessing the Role of Universities as Catalysts for Disruptive Innovation

5.1.1 Contradiction Between Traditional Academic Metrics and Market Creation

Universities have historically been engines of knowledge production, contributing significantly to technological advances and socio-economic development (Trow, 1973; Altbach, 2016). However, as highlighted in the findings (Section 4.2), many institutions remain bound by traditional metrics of success—publication output, disciplinary specialization, and graduate employability—rather than championing the risk-taking essential for truly disruptive ventures (Hazelkorn, 2015). This contradiction resonates with Schumpeter’s (1934) model of creative destruction, which underscores the entrepreneurial impetus to redefine market boundaries. When academic cultures discourage experimentation and prioritize predictable outcomes, they underutilize their capacity to be epicenters of genuine market creation.

The high-impact startups examined in this study show that market creation flourishes under conditions of agility, collaborative learning, and minimal bureaucratic oversight (Neck & Greene, 2011). Rather than focusing on incremental improvements in established industries, these ventures frequently leapfrogged to new market segments—especially in contexts like clean energy or financial inclusion (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). By contrast, many universities remain oriented toward aligning graduates with existing industry structures, an approach that can inadvertently limit the development of truly radical innovations (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Therefore, a key takeaway for higher education institutions is the need to recalibrate their performance indicators: from near-term employability to the longer-term social and environmental impacts of graduate-led ventures.

5.1.2 Tension Between Theory and Practice

Another tension lies in the interplay between abstract academic theory and the practice-oriented needs of disruptive entrepreneurs. Conventional curricula focus heavily on conceptual frameworks—be they in engineering design, business theory, or scientific research—while the experiential, trial-and-error learning modes characteristic of market creators remain underrepresented (Mwasalwiba, 2010). This discrepancy echoes the findings of Neck, Greene, and Brush (2014), who point out that meaningful entrepreneurship education often hinges on experiential, iterative processes rather than purely conceptual instruction.

In many of the cases studied (Section 4.3), founders gained essential competencies—such as rapid prototyping, agile adaptation, and mission-driven collaboration—beyond the confines of university classrooms. Peer-to-peer learning communities, online forums, and grassroots incubators replaced formal academic coursework. These observations suggest that if universities wish to reclaim a central role in incubating innovative ideas, they must better integrate applied, project-based opportunities into the curriculum (Brown & Kuratko, 2015). Doing so could amplify students’ ability to translate theoretical knowledge into tangible solutions, a hallmark of successful market disruptors.

5.2 Integrating Sustainability and Inclusivity into Entrepreneurial Education

5.2.1 Moving Beyond a Peripheral Approach

Echoing much of the sustainability literature (Rockström et al., 2009; Lozano, 2011), the findings reveal that universities often treat sustainability and inclusivity as peripheral to mainstream entrepreneurship education. Courses in “social entrepreneurship” or “environmental management” may be available as electives, but they seldom shape the core learning pathways of the majority of students. This fragmented approach obscures the fact that sustainability and inclusivity can be powerful catalysts for market creation, as evidenced by startups in the study that directly address climate change, resource scarcity, and marginalized communities (George et al., 2012).

Elkington and Hartigan (2008) argue that social and environmental problems can stimulate new demand segments and global business opportunities. The case studies support this notion, showing how ventures that tackle fundamental needs—clean energy, financial accessibility, healthcare—can stimulate the emergence of novel market niches or entire sectors. However, for universities to capitalize on this potential, sustainability must be woven into the fabric of the entrepreneurial curriculum, from introductory modules to capstone projects (Mulgan, 2010). This entails reassessing core assumptions in business and engineering education, where profit-driven metrics often overshadow social and ecological considerations (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014).

5.2.2 Institutionalizing Triple Bottom Line Thinking

A key mechanism for integrating sustainability and inclusivity into higher education is institutionalizing the triple bottom line concept—encompassing economic, social, and environmental dimensions—across the curriculum (Elkington, 1998). The evidence from the study’s sample of startups indicates that triple bottom line approaches foster resilience and long-term impact, partly because they align with evolving consumer demands and public policy priorities (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Startups rooted in emerging economies, in particular, displayed how environmental stewardship and social equity can serve as competitive differentiators, attracting both local stakeholders and international partners (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008).

For triple bottom line thinking to take hold, universities must undertake a systematic shift. Rather than restricting sustainability to specialized programs, institutions could integrate such themes into fundamental business and technical courses, requiring students to assess environmental impacts, ethical concerns, and social externalities. Additionally, performance metrics for new ventures—such as pitch competitions or incubator success rates—should consider environmental impact or social value creation alongside financial viability (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). This shift not only imparts necessary skills for market-creating graduates but also upholds the ethical imperatives of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, wherein technology must be harnessed responsibly to address global challenges (Schwab, 2017).

5.3 Strategic Institutional Reforms to Bridge Current Gaps

5.3.1 Redefining Incentive Structures

One of the most recurring barriers identified in the findings is the risk-averse culture stemming from traditional incentive systems. Faculty promotions often hinge on narrow research metrics, while funding allocations prioritize partnerships with established corporations (Clark, 1998; Hazelkorn, 2015). This environment can stifle the interdisciplinary collaborations and bold experimentation vital for market creation (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

To mitigate this issue, universities could pilot incentive structures that explicitly reward cross-disciplinary grant applications, incubator mentorship, community-engaged research, and the launch of socially impactful ventures. Drawing from examples in progressive institutions, “innovation fellowships” or “entrepreneur-in-residence” programs can recognize both faculty and external entrepreneurs who foster socially responsible market creation within the academic environment (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Promotions and tenure criteria might also begin to factor in societal impact measures, thereby legitimizing the pursuit of socially and environmentally oriented entrepreneurship as a scholarly endeavor.

5.3.2 Embedding Market-Creation Skills Across Disciplines

The persistent gap between specialized training and holistic entrepreneurial thinking highlights a pressing need for embedded market-creation skills in all disciplines. The conventional siloed model—business students learn about entrepreneurship, engineering students learn about product design, and social science students learn about community engagement—often fails to replicate the integrated reality of disruptive ventures (Brown & Kuratko, 2015). Instead, the success stories in the study point to the necessity of cross-functional teams and cross-pollination of ideas.

Universities could address this by offering foundational courses that blend entrepreneurial problem-solving, sustainability, and inclusivity across all majors, effectively creating a shared baseline of skills and consciousness (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011). For instance, an engineering curriculum might incorporate modules on social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement, while business students tackle technical feasibility and environmental life-cycle analyses. This interdisciplinary approach not only equips students with diverse skill sets but also encourages them to form collaborative networks, a key determinant of successful market disruption (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

5.3.3 Expanding University-Community-Industry Linkages

Several case studies highlighted how disruptive startups thrived when they aligned themselves with community needs or partnered with local NGOs, bridging knowledge gaps and securing legitimacy (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003). Community-based participatory research models offer a template for integrating these practices into higher education. By fostering collaborations that go beyond superficial consultations, universities can enable students and faculty to engage in co-creation with community stakeholders, focusing on underexplored areas with high social or environmental potential (George et al., 2012).

On the industry side, partnerships typically funnel research resources into established corporate R&D pipelines (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006). For market creation, however, industry collaborations might need to extend beyond mature corporations. Startups, impact investors, and regional innovation clusters can provide valuable insights into emerging sectors, from cleantech to inclusive finance (Schwab, 2017). Universities could formalize relationships with venture studios or impact investment funds that specialize in triple-bottom-line ventures, giving students direct exposure to the realities of early-stage market development (Kickul & Lyons, 2012).

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Overarching Summary of Research Findings

Throughout this research, a consistent theme has emerged: the most transformative entrepreneurial ventures often defy the structural constraints and mindsets commonly found in mainstream higher education. While universities excel at imparting specialist skills and knowledge, they frequently neglect the combination of agility, creativity, social consciousness, and cross-disciplinary collaboration that underpins disruptive market creation. The secondary research and case studies of high-impact startups reveal that founders who created new market spaces—especially in domains of sustainability and social impact—often acquired their capabilities outside conventional academic pathways.

1. Critical Gaps in Higher Education Frameworks: Institutions emphasize discipline-specific, technocratic competencies at the expense of fostering holistic entrepreneurial mindsets. The marginal treatment of sustainability and inclusivity, coupled with rigid, risk-averse structures, impedes the kind of radical experimentation required for novel market creation.
2. Alternative Pathways of Market Creators: Successful disruptors, especially those lacking advanced formal education, typically leverage experiential learning, peer networks, mission-driven partnerships, and culturally embedded insights to develop and refine their ventures. Rather than relying on set curricula, they engage in continual trial-and-error processes, often forging cross-sector alliances to address fundamental needs such as energy access, financial inclusion, and healthcare provision.
3. Prospects for Curricular and Institutional Reform: Embedding entrepreneurial thinking, sustainability, and inclusivity into the heart of higher education can equip graduates to tackle urgent societal challenges. This integration involves project-based learning, risk-friendly funding models, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and stronger community-university-industry linkages that collectively support market creation aligned with social and environmental well-being.

These findings demonstrate a pressing need for systemic shifts in how universities define and operationalize their missions. By recognizing that job readiness alone no longer suffices, higher education can pivot toward empowering a new generation of graduates to conceive and enact transformative ventures that serve both economic and societal objectives.

6.2 Recommendations for Key Stakeholders

The following recommendations outline how different groups—university administrators, faculty, policymakers, and industry leaders—can collectively foster an educational ecosystem that prioritizes market creation and social responsibility.

6.2.1 University Administrators

1. Revise Strategic Priorities and Funding Models:
   • Incentivize Cross-Disciplinary Ventures: Allocate dedicated budgets to support faculty and student projects that bring together diverse fields (e.g., engineering, design, business, social sciences) to tackle “wicked” problems such as climate change or social inequities.
   • Redefine Institutional Metrics of Success: Move beyond simplistic measures like graduate employment rates and research publication counts. Instead, factor in the societal, environmental, and market-disruptive impacts of university-affiliated ventures.
2. Cultivate a Risk-Tolerant Culture:
   • Entrepreneurial Fellowships and Awards: Reward faculty and students who take on riskier, more experimental initiatives—particularly those aimed at underserved markets or systemic sustainability challenges.
   • Flexible Governance Structures: Streamline bureaucratic procedures (e.g., for research funding or new course approvals) to allow rapid iteration and collaboration with external partners.
3. Strengthen Community and Industry Partnerships:
   • Local Innovation Hubs: Launch on-campus or near-campus incubators that engage local entrepreneurs, NGOs, and public agencies. These hubs can serve as real-world test beds for market-creating ventures addressing community-specific needs.
   • International Alliances: In a globalized economy, collaborate with universities and industry networks across different regions to share resources, expertise, and market insights.

6.2.2 Faculty and Curriculum Designers

1. Embed Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Across Disciplines:
   • Mandatory Foundational Courses: Introduce first-year modules that integrate basic entrepreneurial skills (e.g., design thinking, market research, stakeholder engagement) with critical sustainability and inclusivity themes.
   • Project-Based Learning: Replace or supplement lectures with experiential, team-based projects that simulate real-world market creation, requiring students to engage with end-users, pilot new ideas, and iterate in response to feedback.

2. Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration in the Classroom:
   • Studio-Based Pedagogy: Adopt design-studio models where students from multiple majors collaborate on complex, open-ended challenges—mirroring the cross-functional nature of successful startups.
   • Co-Teaching and Joint Appointments: Encourage faculty from different departments (e.g., business, computer science, environmental studies, sociology) to design and co-teach courses that blend theoretical perspectives with hands-on ventures.
3. Integrate Ethical, Social, and Environmental Metrics into Assessment:
   • Sustainability and Inclusivity Criteria: When students pitch new venture ideas or develop prototypes, require assessments to include impact measurement—how effectively the proposed solution addresses ecological footprints or socio-economic disparities.
   • Reflection and Critical Thinking: Institute reflection components, such as journals or peer evaluations, that prompt students to consider broader implications and moral responsibilities tied to entrepreneurship.

6.2.3 Policymakers

1. Reform Accreditation and Funding Guidelines:
   • Innovation and Impact Criteria: Update accreditation standards to recognize universities that demonstrate measurable success in fostering disruptive, socially responsible entrepreneurship.
   • Inclusive Funding Mechanisms: Offer grants or public-private partnerships that reward interdisciplinary research and development, especially those that tackle global challenges like climate resiliency or social equity.
2. Establish Policy Frameworks to Support Emergent Markets:
   • Regulatory Sandboxes: Create conducive environments where new ideas—particularly in regulated sectors like healthcare or financial services—can be tested without excessive bureaucratic barriers.
   • Tax Incentives and Subsidies: Offer incentives to companies that collaborate with universities on market-creating ventures aimed at improving sustainability or inclusive growth. This reduces the inherent risk of innovation while encouraging broader social benefits.
3. Support Capacity-Building in Underserved Regions:
   • Rural and Urban Development Programs: Direct public funds to universities in underserved areas, enabling them to become local engines of market creation, talent development, and community transformation.
   • International Collaboration: Partner with universities in emerging economies to share best practices, research infrastructures, and funding opportunities, thereby fostering globally networked innovation ecosystems.

6.2.4 Industry Leaders and Investors

1. Value Practical Skills and Societal Impact in Hiring:
   1. Beyond Academic Pedigree: Emphasize entrepreneurial capability, track records in problem-solving, and commitment to ethical practices over formal degree attainment. Doing so signals to universities that holistic skill sets and social responsibility are valued in the market.
   1. Holistic Employee Development: Create continuous learning pathways within organizations that help employees refine entrepreneurial, sustainability-oriented competencies, bridging any gaps left by higher education.
2. Forge Collaborative R&D with Universities:
   1. Joint Innovation Labs: Invest in or co-sponsor on-campus labs that focus on co-creating products and services aimed at high-impact social or environmental challenges.
   1. Mentorship and Knowledge Sharing: Encourage corporate leaders and technical experts to serve as mentors, guest lecturers, or project advisors, offering students real-world exposure and guidance.
3. Adopt Responsible Investment Strategies:
   1. Social and Environmental Due Diligence: Assess potential ventures not only by financial returns but also by their triple bottom line impacts.
   1. Inclusive Accelerators and Incubators: Work with universities to launch programs specifically for underserved entrepreneurs, catalyzing market creation in overlooked communities.

6.3 Final Thoughts: Positioning Higher Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

The concluding argument of this study is that higher education has reached a pivotal juncture. The complex, interdependent challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution—spanning climate crises, demographic shifts, and rapid technological evolution—cannot be navigated through incremental improvements to existing economic models alone (Schwab, 2017). Instead, new markets must arise to address unmet needs, foster inclusive prosperity, and safeguard the planet. As evidenced by the entrepreneurs and ventures examined here, the capacity for such transformation already exists; the question is whether universities will adapt quickly enough to nurture these disruptions or risk marginalization.

By reimagining curricula, realigning institutional incentives, and forging cross-sector alliances that embrace both humanistic and innovative ideals, universities can assert their centrality in shaping the future. They can birth cohorts of graduates who are not merely job-ready but future-ready—capable of designing, implementing, and scaling ventures that uplift local communities, champion environmental stewardship, and drive equitable economic growth. Far from negating the importance of formal academic credentials, this vision enriches the value of higher education: graduates gain the perspectives and capacities to shape entirely new sectors, ultimately positioning academia as a true catalyst for global progress.

REFERENCES:

Altbach, P. G. (2016). Global perspectives on higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Armendáriz, B., & Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. (2001). What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 267–315.

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.

Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430.

Bensch, G., & Ankel-Peters, J. (2015). The intensive margin of technology adoption: Experimental evidence on improved cooking stoves in rural Senegal. Journal of Health Economics, 42, 44–63.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.

Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., & Kjeldsen, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship education – the new challenge facing the universities.

Bocken, N., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Brown, T., & Kuratko, D. (2015). The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9.

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–14.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Chang, J. (2013). Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills development in live projects. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20, 225–241.

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53.

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation (Issues in Higher Education, 12). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Clark, W., & Harley, A. (2020). Sustainability science: Toward a synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45, 1–56.

Craig, R. (2015). College disrupted: The great unbundling of higher education. St. Martin’s Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Croitoru, A. (2012). Schumpeter, J. A., 1934 (2008), The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 3(2), 137–148.

Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Harper & Row.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers.

Elkington, J., & Hartigan, P. (2008). The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Harvard Business Review Press.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government innovation in action. Routledge.

Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.

Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 157–160.

Geiger, R. L. (2019). American higher education since World War II: A history. Princeton University Press.

George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 661–683.

Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. SAGE Publications.

Giroux, H. A. (2010). Dumbing down teachers: Rethinking the crisis of public education and the demise of the social state. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 32(4–5), 339–381.

Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2nd ed.). Palgrave MacMillan.

Hindle, K. (2007). Teaching entrepreneurship at university: From the wrong building to the right philosophy. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 104–126). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster.

Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.

Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 46(8/9), 416–423.

Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. S. (2012). Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013). The benefits of sustainability-driven innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(2), 69–73.

Leach, L. (2013). Participation and equity in higher education: Are we going back to the future? Oxford Review of Education, 39.

Leal, A. L. C. A., Freitas, A. A. F., & Fontenele, R. E. S. (2015). Value creation in social entrepreneurship: Evidence from a comparison with commercial entrepreneurship. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 9(2), 51–65.

Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U. M., Alves, F., Pace, P., Mifsud, M., Brandli, L., … Disterheft, A. (2018). Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: The role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(2), 131–142.

Leon, R. D. (2017). Developing entrepreneurial skills: An educational and intercultural perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 13(4), 97–121.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78.

Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University Publishing.

Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals: A special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Moingeon, B., Yunus, M., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.

Mokski, E., Leal Filho, W., Sehnem, S., & Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. de. (2022). Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: An approach for effective interdisciplinarity. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 64–82.

Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 781–818.

Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(3), 38–43.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. The Young Foundation/NESTA.

Mwasalwiba, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education and Training, 52(1), 20–47.

Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49.

Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

O’Cass, A., & Sok, P. (2014). The role of intellectual resources, product innovation capability, reputational resources and marketing capability combinations in firm growth. International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 996–1018.

Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

Rieckmann, M., Mindt, L., & Gardiner, S. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. UNESCO.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), Article 32.

Rüegg, W. (Ed.). (2011). A history of the university in Europe (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.

Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.

Siegner, M., Pinkse, J., & Panwar, R. (2018). Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1314–1324.

Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. MIT Press.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.

Strand, K., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., Marullo, S., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. Jossey-Bass.

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model.” Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.

Sull, D. N. (2004). Disciplined entrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 71–77.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Volkmann, C. K., Tokarski, K. O., & Ernst, K. (Eds.). (2012). Social entrepreneurship and social business: An introduction and discussion with case studies. Springer Gabler.

Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D., Robinson, K., & Geobey, S. (2014). Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: Case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 234–260.

Wiek, A., Keeler, L. W., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.

World Economic Forum. (2020). The Global Competitiveness Report: Special Edition 2020 – How Countries Are Performing on the Road to Recovery. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2020.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

---

[1] Nabraj Lama is a Research Scholar at Lumbini Buddhist University, Nepal, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Colorado Boulder, USA. He can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected].