Volume 24 Issue 2 Article 1 
June 2022 
An Entrepreneur’s Perspective on Entrepreneurial Recycling 
Alenka Slavec Gomezel 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, alenka.slavec@ef.uni-lj.si 
Rok Stritar 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home 
 Part of the Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Slavec Gomezel, A., & Stritar, R. (2022). An Entrepreneur’s Perspective on Entrepreneurial Recycling. 
Economic and Business Review, 24(2), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1298 
This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business 
Review. 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An Entrepreneur’s Perspective on
Entrepreneurial Recycling
Alenka Slavec Gomezel*, Rok Stritar
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
We propose new insights into entrepreneurial recycling, focusing on the entrepreneur’s perspective on the role of
recycling. We define entrepreneurial recycling as the process by which entrepreneurs share, receive, and transform
human, social, organizational, and financial capital throughout the entire entrepreneurial lifecycle: entry, growth and
exit. However, research on this topic remains fragmented and underdeveloped. We applied a qualitative, interpretive,
and inductive lens to explore the lived experience of six entrepreneurs in order to conceptualize entrepreneurial recy-
cling and understand the implications for entrepreneurial theory and practice. We argue that when entrepreneurs
recycle, they trigger a reciprocal trust loop with benefits for receivers and givers involved in recycling and the entre-
preneurial ecosystem, the region and the national economy.
Keywords: Entrepreneurial recycling, Entrepreneurial ecosystem, Reuse capital, Entrepreneur, Interpretative phenom-
enological analysis
JEL classification: J24, L26
Introduction
“The majority of the things that I implement,
have come from my experiences over the 49 years
that I’ve been in business. And that comes from
that I talk to people all the time, I ask good
questions, and I also am there as a mentor to
other business people.”
(Peter, an interviewee in our study)
W hen entrepreneurs channel a proportion oftheir human, social, organizational, and
financial capital into other, often multiple, entre-
preneurial activities, they recycle their entrepre-
neurial capital, making it available to other
entrepreneurs in their entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Recycling is a vital process of resource flow within
ecosystems (Mack & Mayer, 2016; Spigel & Harri-
son, 2018). In the research to date, there has been
consensus on two key facts of entrepreneurial
recycling. First, entrepreneurial recycling is one of
the crucial pillars of a strong entrepreneurial
ecosystem (Bahrami & Evans, 2000; Mason & Brown,
2014; Mason & Harrison, 2006). Such entrepre-
neurial ecosystems foster regional development and
national competitiveness (DeTienne & Cardon,
2012; DeTienne & Wennberg, 2014; Huggins et al.,
2017; Spigel & Vinodrai, 2020) through its outputs
(e.g. productive entrepreneurial ventures), out-
comes (e.g. creating jobs, new ideas, efficiency), and
impact (e.g. value-added growth) (Nicotra et al.,
2018). Second, individual entrepreneurs in these
ecosystems trigger entrepreneurial recycling. In ef-
fect, recycling takes place at the micro level of in-
dividual entrepreneurs as they interact with one
another (Hessels et al., 2011; Sullivan, 2000); how-
ever, the outcomes of that recycling are mainly seen
at the macro level of the ecosystems in the form of
venture creation, job creation, venture capital funds,
innovation activities, high-growth entrepreneurship
or scale-up firms, and charitable contributions
(Bahrami & Evans, 2010; DeTienne & Cardon, 2012;
Received 5 March 2020; accepted 8 September 2020.
Available online 1 June 2022
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alenka.slavec@ef.uni-lj.si (A. Slavec Gomezel).
https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1298
2335-4216/© 2022 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Mason & Brown, 2014; Spigel & Vinodrai, 2020).
Given the visibility of these outcomes, it is unsur-
prising that research to date has offered macro-level
views of entrepreneurial recycling.
Crucially, research has yet to uncover the foun-
dations of entrepreneurial recycling on the level of
the individual entrepreneur, despite the micro-level
origins of recycling and the ample benefits it be-
stows upon entrepreneurs and their firms (Stam
et al., 2008), the entrepreneurial community, in-
dustry, and the economy (DeTienne & Cardon, 2012;
Mason & Harrison, 2006). There is still limited
knowledge about how, when, and why entrepre-
neurs trigger entrepreneurial recycling and how this
process unfolds. In light of this gap, the following
research questions guided our study: “What is
entrepreneurial recycling, as viewed from the en-
trepreneur’s perspective?” and “How, when, and
why does entrepreneurial recycling happen?”
In this research, we aimed to develop a better
understanding of entrepreneurial recycling by tak-
ing an individual lens of analysis and studying
entrepreneurial recycling at the micro level of the
entrepreneur, rather than at the macro level of the
ecosystem. It is important to understand the forms
and occurrences of entrepreneurial recycling in
order to take advantage of its valuable effects on
firms, clusters, ecosystems, and nations. By applying
interpretative phenomenological analysis as the
primary method in our study, we refine the theo-
retical foundations of entrepreneurial recycling,
considering the individual-level perspective. Our
qualitative study provides an exploratory examina-
tion of new dimensions of entrepreneurial recycling
from the lived experience of the interviewed entre-
preneurs. Among other facts, we uncover that
entrepreneurial recycling occurs in three directions
at the individual level: through sharing, receiving,
and transforming.
With this research, we contribute to the literature
in two areas. First, we contribute to the literature on
entrepreneurial recycling by developing a new
model to explain the process of entrepreneurial
recycling through the three interactions of sharing,
receiving, and transforming; the literature to date
has proposed only the sharing perspective. We also
add new sources of entrepreneurial recycling, new
means of engaging in entrepreneurial recycling, and
a new way to look at entrepreneurial recycling
within the context of the firm lifecycle, as not tied to
entrepreneurial entry or exit. We also expand the
theoretical foundations of entrepreneurial recycling
outcomes, focusing on the individual level of those
who recycle and the feedback loop of benefits ob-
tained from recycling. The second contribution of
our research is to the literature on entrepreneurial
ecosystems (e.g. Malecki, 2018; Mason & Brown,
2014; Stam & Spigel, 2018). Our research bridges the
individual-level perspective of the entrepreneur and
the macro-level perspective of the ecosystem to
understand entrepreneurial recycling. We highlight
that, although entrepreneurs are the heart and soul
of entrepreneurial ecosystems, their important role
in entrepreneurial recycling has been largely over-
looked. From a practical standpoint, our research
has substantial and straightforward implications for
entrepreneurial practice. Given the centrality of the
entrepreneur to entrepreneurial recycling, we sug-
gest that establishing a supportive environment for
entrepreneurs is crucial for fostering entrepre-
neurial ecosystems. It is the entrepreneurs who do
entrepreneurial recycling, not the ecosystem by it-
self. In the final section of our paper, we further
discuss the benefits of recycling in terms of building
collective trust, commitment, success, and satisfac-
tion in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. We also
explain the feedback loop that ensures ample ben-
efits for both the giver and receiver of entrepre-
neurial recycling.
Following this introduction, we establish the
grounds for our research by providing a theoretical
overview of entrepreneurial recycling, including key
contributions thus far and opportunities for further
development. We then describe the methodology
that guided our research design and analysis. For
our study, we conducted an interpretative
phenomenological analysis on entrepreneurial
recycling with six entrepreneurs. This section is
followed by an in-depth analysis of our empirical
and theoretical assessment of entrepreneurial recy-
cling as a three-way process, including several
overlooked attributes. In this section, we introduce
the propositions of the study. We conclude the
paper with a discussion of theoretical and practical
implications, and several important areas for future
research.
1 Literature reviewonentrepreneurial recycling
The notion of entrepreneurial recycling is not
new. In the mid-1990s, Bahrami and Evans (1995)
defined “flexible recycling” as the process through
which the demise of one firm typically leads to the
formation of others, possibly resulting in novel
reconfigurations of knowledge and human capabil-
ities, and allowing new firms to rise from the ashes
of disengaged enterprises. Analyzing the unique
success of the Silicon Valley ecosystem, they pro-
vided seminal findings on entrepreneurial recycling.
Bahrami and Evans (2010) continued their
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 65
exploration of flexible recycling, proposing that
“recycling encourages life after death” of a start-up,
“giving rise to new enterprises, new innovations,
and new teams” (Bahrami & Evans, 2010, p. 11).
Bahrami and Evans (1995, 2010) viewed recycling as
a consequence of failed pre-start-up initiatives or
failed start-up ventures, considering entrepre-
neurial recycling from a firm-level perspective and
as a unidirectional phenomenon, i.e. sharing from
one firm to another.
By contrast, Mason and Harrison (2006) argued
that entrepreneurial recycling was a consequence of
successful entrepreneurial exit, specifically in firm
acquisition. They defined entrepreneurial recycling
as the process typically triggered by an acquisition
“in which the entrepreneurial team leaves their
company either immediately or soon after the sale,
channeling a proportion of their newly acquired
wealth and time, as well as their accumulated
experience, into other, often multiple, entrepre-
neurial activities with clear economic benefits”
(Mason & Harrison, 2006, p. 58). The authors
considered entrepreneurial recycling from a team-
level perspective and also as a unidirectional phe-
nomenon, i.e. sharing from one entrepreneurial
team to others in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Re-entering entrepreneurship after firm exit (i.e.
entering after firm failure or firm sale) is a pervasive
phenomenon in the entrepreneurial process, trig-
gered by the knowledge entrepreneurs have ac-
quired through passive and active learning and
their entrepreneurial experience. This phenomenon
is known as renascent entrepreneurship (Stam et al.,
2008) or accelerated repeat entrepreneurship
(Guerrero & Pe~na-Legazkue, 2019) and are viewed
from the entrepreneur’s perspective, by which
recycling happens as an evolution of one’s own
human, financial, social (Stam et al., 2008), and
experiential capital (Guerrero & Pe~na-Legazkue,
2019).
To better understand entrepreneurs’ activity
throughout the complex entrepreneurial process
(Dimov, 2011) and how they complete entrepre-
neurial tasks, we first asked the following question:
Do entrepreneurs recycle only by sharing their
entrepreneurial legacy or are there other ways of
recycling? In the literature to date, there has been no
attempt to address this question. However, there is
reason to believe that entrepreneurial recycling is a
process that involves interactions with feedback
loops. This means that entrepreneurial recycling is
not limited to the enterprising individual, but also
occurs through interactions with other stakeholders
in the community. The insights from our literature
review and empirical research suggest a circular
flow of entrepreneurial capital consisting of (a)
receiving and recycling capital from others; (b)
evolving and recycling one’s own capital; and (c)
sharing one’s own capital and enabling others to
recycle. This three-way flow of entrepreneurial
recycling offers a new perspective on the social and
evolutional component of entrepreneurial recycling.
We also asked: Do entrepreneurs recycle only at
the very beginning or end of the entrepreneurial
process, or does recycling occur throughout? To
date, no research has sought to map entrepreneurial
recycling as a process that takes place throughout
the pre-start-up phase, the start-up phase, the
growth and maturation phase, and the entrepre-
neurial exit phase. Nevertheless, entrepreneurial
practice shows that entrepreneurial recycling is an
ongoing process from the inception of a business
idea onwards. Indeed, entrepreneurs constantly
reuse and evolve (i.e. recycle) previous experiences
and other capital, and do not limit recycling to
entrepreneurial entry or exit. To date, the research
on entrepreneurial recycling has been bound by the
view that entrepreneurial recycling takes place
either (a) at the unsuccessful start-up stage of the
firm (Bahrami & Evans, 2010) or (b) as a conse-
quence of successful entrepreneurial exit, specif-
ically through firm acquisition (Mason & Harrison,
2006) or other forms of entrepreneurial exit (Guer-
rero & Pe~na-Legazkue, 2019; Stam et al., 2008).
However, after observing practicing entrepreneurs
and reviewing the entrepreneurial literature, we
realized that entrepreneurial recycling is not specific
to entrepreneurial entry or exit alone. Rather, recy-
cling occurs at all stages of an entrepreneurial
career. For example, David Cummings, the well-
known serial entrepreneur and founder of Atlanta
Tech Village, is convinced of the importance of
ongoing recycling for successful venturing. On his
blog, he writes, “Talent is the most scarce resource
anywhere and needs to be recycled in the start-up
community to increase the odds of success” (Cum-
mings, 2012).
Our literature review highlighted that entrepre-
neurial recycling is an underexplored topic from
many points of view. In addition to the issues dis-
cussed, we know little about what entrepreneurs
recycle. Apart from ideas, knowledge, networks (e.g.
Bahrami & Evans, 2010), and accumulated wealth
and experience (e.g. Mason & Harrison, 2006), is
there something else that entrepreneurs recycle?
Have other elements of the business process been
overlooked? Furthermore, researchers have not
examined the means through which entrepreneurs
recycle. We know that entrepreneurs and senior
managers reinvest their money and expertise as
66 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
serial entrepreneurs, angel investors, venture capi-
talists, board members, advisors, mentors and role
models to other (aspiring) entrepreneurs, or they
lobby government and establish organizations that
support entrepreneurial activity (Mason & Brown,
2014). However, a deeper investigation on precisely
how entrepreneurial recycling occurs can highlight
other untapped territories of entrepreneurial recy-
cling. Furthermore, the literature has not addressed
the reasons for entrepreneurs to engage in entre-
preneurial recycling. Do entrepreneurs always see
“clear economic benefits” (Mason & Harrison, 2006,
p. 58) when recycling? Finally, there is incomplete
understanding of the benefits of entrepreneurial
recycling, as the benefits to both the receiver and the
giver have yet to be explored. While the literature
has proposed positive outcomes of entrepreneurial
recycling for (a) a firm (Mason & Harrison, 2006;
Stam et al., 2008); (b) a cluster, an ecosystem, and a
region, such as Silicon Valley or Scotland (Bahrami
& Evans, 2010; Mason & Harrison, 2006); and (c) a
nation (DeTienne & Cardon, 2012) through venture
creation, job creation, knowledge spillover, innova-
tion activities, and charitable contributions (Bah-
rami & Evans, 2010; DeTienne, 2010; Stam et al.,
2008), the benefits of entrepreneurial recycling for
the individual entrepreneur have remained vague
(except in terms of financial gains).
Based on our literature review, we conclude that,
while there is a considerable body of literature on
entrepreneurial recycling, the theoretical founda-
tions are fragmented and have not yielded an
empirically derived, coherent theoretical framework
for entrepreneurial recycling, sometimes even
inferred from the entrepreneurial ecosystem litera-
ture as “creative reassembly” (Hwang & Horowitt,
2012). We argue that there is a need to develop such
a framework. To contribute to this endeavor, we
adopted an interpretative phenomenological anal-
ysis approach to answer our research questions,
responding to the call for more qualitative studies in
entrepreneurship research (Gartner & Birley, 2002).
2 Research methodology
In this study, we employed an interpretative
phenomenological analysis of the lived experience
of six entrepreneurs in order to fully understand the
concept of entrepreneurial recycling and gradually
work toward a generalizable theory of entrepre-
neurial recycling (Berglund, 2015; Smith et al., 2009).
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was
developed and refined by Smith and colleagues
(Smith et al., 1999, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Due
to various calls to apply more qualitative and
rigorous methods to the study of entrepreneurship
phenomena (e.g. Gartner & Birley, 2002; Suddaby
et al., 2015), this analytical approach has been
gaining momentum in the entrepreneurship field
(Berglund, 2015; Cope, 2011). Because phenome-
nology can be used to directly explore associations
between meaningful experiences and strategies and
different situations in the entrepreneurial process
(Berglund, 2007), such as when, how and what en-
trepreneurs recycle, IPA presented a useful tool to
provide answers to our research questions: “What is
entrepreneurial recycling, as viewed from the en-
trepreneur’s perspective?” and “How, when, and
why does entrepreneurial recycling happen?”
We framed our research question quite broadly
and openly (Smith & Osborn, 2008) to allow for a
flexible and detailed examination in the area of
entrepreneurial recycling, and to contribute to the
further development of the existing theory on
entrepreneurial recycling. In doing so, we moved
beyond the existing description of entrepreneurial
recycling to embrace the theoretical insights derived
from the entrepreneur’s perspective on the specific
occurrences and characteristics of entrepreneurial
recycling. This approach generated a rich thematic
description of how and what entrepreneurs recycle.
2.1 Sampling and data collection
We combined various forms of sampling (Thorne,
2014): purposeful, convenience, and snowball sam-
pling. We included information-rich cases from our
network. The interviewees also proposed others to
be included in our research. Since IPA suggests
conducting studies on small sample sizes of five or
six participants (Smith & Osborn, 2008), our sample
included six participants.
The primary methodology we used was
phenomenological interviewing. Following the IPA
guidelines (Cope, 2005; Smith et al., 1999, 2009;
Smith & Osborn, 2008), we aimed at gaining a first-
person description of each entrepreneur’s lived
experience. Accordingly, the interviews were semi-
structured, and we allowed the entrepreneurs to
mainly set the course of the dialog. The interviews
began with an opening question about the partici-
pant’s entrepreneurial story from the very begin-
ning up until the interview date. Then, we sought to
investigate when, how, and what entrepreneurs
recycle, if not explicated earlier in the conversation.
It is important to note that, during the first part of
the interview, we did not use the term entrepre-
neurial recycling. Rather, when conversing about
entrepreneurial recycling, we talked about re-using
and applying the knowledge, networks, capital, and
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 67
so on, the entrepreneurs had accumulated
throughout their entrepreneurial journey. This was
done as a precaution to avoid distracting the en-
trepreneurs with our terminology. During the latter
part of the interview, we asked entrepreneurs to
describe what entrepreneurial recycling meant to
them and how it specifically applied in their case.
Our interviews collected the interviewees’ thoughts,
feelings, knowledge, and experience, not only for us,
the researchers, but also for them (Patton, 2002).
We asked entrepreneurs for their permission to
audio record the interview, and all six participants
were willing. We assured their confidentiality and
anonymity by changing their real names when
reporting the research. The profiles of the six en-
trepreneurs are included in the Appendix.
2.2 Data analysis
We adopted an open-ended approach for the in-
terviews with a flexible interview schedule in order
to fully understand when, how, and what entre-
preneurs recycle. We recorded and transcribed all
six interviews, which lasted 53 minutes on average.
We re-read each interview several times to become
more familiar with the specific cases and to inves-
tigate potential new insights.
Following the IPA guidelines (Smith & Osborn,
2008), we took a bottom-up approach, generating
codes from the interview data collected by each of
the two researchers of this study. We then cataloged
the emergent codes and looked for themes (i.e.
patterns of meaning recurring throughout the text).
In the end, themes were clustered into superordi-
nate themes and given a name. These superordinate
themes were those that most strongly captured the
entrepreneur’s views of the researched topic.
We formed a list of themes to go with each su-
perordinate theme and linked the themes with
identifiers to facilitate finding the original source.
During this process, we dropped certain themes,
because they either did not fit in the emerging
structure or were not very rich in evidence from the
transcripts. We repeated the same process for all six
cases. We respected convergence and divergence in
the data, recognizing both the similarities and dif-
ferences between each participant’s themes and
superordinate themes. In the end, five main super-
ordinate themes emerged. We concluded our anal-
ysis by translating the superordinate themes into a
narrative account, distinguishing clearly between
what the entrepreneurs said and our interpretation
of it. We also discussed the links to the literature for
each superordinate theme.
3 Findings
The interviews revealed five fascinating themes
that have been under-investigated in the literature.
The first theme reveals that entrepreneurial recy-
cling takes place in three directions: sharing,
receiving, and transforming. The second theme
proposes that entrepreneurial recycling is an
ongoing process that appears at all stages of an
entrepreneurial career. Additional features of
entrepreneurial recycling include the planned and
unplanned nature of entrepreneurial recycling, the
multiple types of recycling, and the multiple means
by which entrepreneurs recycle. For each of the five
themes, our discussion begins with a narration of
the evidence from the interviews and continues with
an analysis and interpretation of the results linked
to the relevant literature. Our interviewees are:
Christina, Laura, Brigitte, Peter, Steve, and Zack.
3.1 Theme 1: Entrepreneurial recycling as a three-
way process
The first major and previously unaddressed
finding of our study is the three directions through
which entrepreneurial recycling unfolds. In his
interview, Peter emphasized that he constantly
learned and reused his own experiences to develop
his businesses. He stated, “The majority of the
things that I implement have come from my expe-
riences over the 49 years that I’ve been in business.”
We perceive Peter’s approach as entrepreneurial
recycling by transforming. Peter also made his
capital available for other entrepreneurs to use by
being “a mentor to other business people.” This is
an example of entrepreneurial recycling by sharing.
In addition, Peter actively sought capital from others
as he talked “to people all the time” and asked
“good questions”, i.e. recycling by receiving.
Another interviewee, Christina, recycled by men-
toring a young producer. She noted, “I worked with
producers my whole life in the music business. I
really understand this business and what I do is I act
as the voice of the reason for him because he can be
very, very all over the place in his decision making
and what I’ll do is I’ll show him the down sides.”
Christina also shared her human capital with a
young entrepreneur from the flower business: “So,
when I left my business, I was introduced to a young
… gentleman who was starting a brand new flower
design company from scratch … and he didn’t have
the experience that I had. So, I worked alongside of
him and I advised him.” At the same time, Christina
is a receiver of recycling from others. When talking
about receiving advice from her sister, Christina
68 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
explained “she [was] the one that … grabbed me
and … taught me how to stop micromanaging …
there was a transformation in my management
style.” Finally, Christina recycled her own experi-
ences, as she stated, “I use the experience, but I also
know that I am not the same person.”
Viewed from the focal entrepreneur’s perspective,
entrepreneurial recycling happens in three di-
rections: (a) from the focal entrepreneur to others,
i.e. entrepreneurial recycling by sharing; (b) from
others to the focal entrepreneur, i.e. entrepreneurial
recycling by receiving; and (c) from the focal entre-
preneur to the focal entrepreneur, i.e. entrepre-
neurial recycling by transforming. Fig. 1 represents
these three directions of entrepreneurial recycling.
Entrepreneurial recycling can take all three forms
or a combination of two of them. However, at the
very least, entrepreneurs certainly participate in
entrepreneurial recycling by transforming, espe-
cially when learning from past mistakes and failures
(Cope, 2011; Stam et al., 2008). All of our in-
terviewees recycled ideas, knowledge, experience,
networks, and financial capital from their previous
or ongoing entrepreneurial endeavors. Since the
three directions of recycling comprise a vital and
enlightening finding of our research, we analyze
each of the three approaches separately.
3.1.1 Evidence 1: Entrepreneurial recycling by sharing
Entrepreneurial recycling is all about interaction
with other people. Every time entrepreneurs
interact with others, they have a choice to make.
They can try to claim as much value as they can or
contribute value to others without worrying about
what they receive in return (Grant, 2014). Entre-
preneurs may share with others for economic and
non-economic gain. Christina said that she liked
sharing her human and social capital, however, at
the time of the interview, she admitted that she
could not afford to do it to a greater extent, because
of financial constraints. She stated, “I am not in a
position financially … to completely not be working.
I have to support my investments, my income,
because I had a lot of challenges with this economy
and losses. So, I need to be paid for my work; I can’t
volunteer completely. I wish I could.”
However, she recalled Score, an organization
dedicated to entrepreneurial recycling between
generations, which helps “retired entrepreneurs
mentor young entrepreneurs.” She continued to
explain that “they would recycle us … for young
people that value having an older person. I think …
partnerships between the young and old are really
great partnerships. It’s a winewin for both.”
On the other hand, entrepreneurs may get intan-
gible, non-economic, and unexpected rewards for
recycling, e.g. feeling good for doing something for
others and making an impact. For example, Peter
said, “I’ll give you an example of something where it
was payback. The payback, not monetary, but you
know … a feel-good feeling.” Peter continued on to
explain how he coached a young woman to get a job.
Fig. 1. Representation of the three directions of entrepreneurial recycling. Source: Own representation.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 69
After a while, he received a letter from her in which
she wrote, “If you hadn’t shown me the way to do
this, it wouldn’t … you really changed me.” Peter
added, “That, to me, is the payback.” Returning to
Christina and her intangible goals, she highlighted,
“At this point in my life, I am very fortunate. What I
want to do in the world is I want to serve people.”
She continued by saying that in her new life, she
had to give something back. Laura engaged in
mentoring, as she explained why she recycles by
sharing: “Because if somebody had given me advice
that I give to these women or business owners and
entrepreneurs in general, then they can grow their
businesses faster [and] build a stronger economy …
By growing a business, they will hire more people;
we’ll reduce the unemployment rate in America.
There are so many benefits in helping entrepre-
neurs grow.”
When Laura explained why she mentored, we
asked her if she wanted to make an impact on the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. To this, Laura replied, “I
hope so. That’s my goal.” Christina explained why
she was recycling by sharing: “I gave back, because I
felt I needed to.” Brigitte expressed willingness to
recycle by sharing, stating “I would like to be a
mentor to a tourism-based start-up, because I feel
that people don’t have this specific knowledge. I
would love to do that.” Zack also said, “I do that for
my employees or for my network contacts. In my
network or at different events, I also like to help
juniors who are at the beginning of their entrepre-
neurial careers and don’t have experience in
entrepreneurship. Most entrepreneurs I know are
like that. It is cool for them to help other
entrepreneurs.”
3.1.2 Interpretation 1
Previous research on entrepreneurial recycling
after exit has proposed that entrepreneurial recy-
cling happens with “clear economic benefits” in
mind (Mason & Harrison, 2006). However, we add
that non-economic goals may also drive entrepre-
neurs to recycle, especially when they recycle by
sharing their human, social, and organizational
capital. Entrepreneurs often share this capital for
free, driven by intangible rewards, such as good
interpersonal relationships or psychological satis-
faction from making an impact, helping others, or
gaining recognition in the entrepreneurial commu-
nity. With financial capital, entrepreneurs recycle
for a fee. For example, when entrepreneurs recycle
by becoming professional venture capitalists or
business angels or by starting a new venture, they
want to gain financial rewards for their investments
(Mason & Harrison, 2006).
Our finding is related to Grant's (2014) “give and
take” proposition. Most entrepreneurs who recycle
by sharing human, social, or organizational capital
(i.e. intangible capital) do so from a matcher or giver
perspective. In a business context, matchers are in-
dividuals who strive to preserve an equal balance
between giving and receiving. This operates on a
principle of fairness, in that, when entrepreneurs
help others, they protect themselves by seeking
reciprocity. Givers operate differently, helping
others regardless of whether the benefits to others
exceed any personal costs. Givers strive to be
“generous in sharing time, energy, knowledge,
skills, ideas, and connections with other people who
can benefit from them” (Grant, 2014, p. 5). At the
opposite end of the continuum are takers, who help
others strategically (i.e. when the benefits outweigh
their personal costs). The taker’s perspective is
especially true when entrepreneurs recycle financial
capital.
Just as in sports, where talent recycling between
the “donor” and “recipient” sports can involve
certain restrictions (Gulbin, 2008; Vaeyens et al.,
2009), equal interchange between the giver and
receiver of entrepreneurial recycling may not be
possible and may depend on the stages of one’s
entrepreneurial career. Entrepreneurs who receive
capital for recycling may be in an early stage of their
career development, at which time they take more
than they give. Later on, during the growing and
maturation stage of a venture, entrepreneurs evolve
into matchers and act based on reciprocity e i.e.
giving and receiving capital to more or less the same
degree. In the later stages of an entrepreneur’s
career and at entrepreneurial exit, the giver
perspective becomes more evident, except for when
recycling financial capital. Experienced and cashed-
out entrepreneurs are likely to give more than they
take, as exemplified by Christina, who expressed
that “she is proud that [her mentee] is where he is,”
regardless of the fact that her own financial condi-
tion was not prosperous at the time of the interview.
Entrepreneurs who recycle, especially in the later
phases of their careers, strive to support the devel-
opment of collective entrepreneurial capacity,
deepen the entrepreneurial culture, and foster the
maturity of entrepreneurial clusters (Mason &
Harrison, 2006). As Timmons (1999, p. 575) put it,
“Recycling of entrepreneurial talent and capital is at
the very heart of our system of private responsibility
for economic renewal and individual initiative.”
When entrepreneurs interact with others in reci-
procity, it fosters success over and above talent
(ability), hard work (motivation), and luck (oppor-
tunity) (Grant, 2014). When engaging in
70 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
entrepreneurial recycling by sharing, entrepreneurs
act as givers to create value for themselves and
maximize opportunities for the benefit of others
(Grant, 2014) e the latter being their primary goal
and the former being a kind of side effect. In doing
so, entrepreneurs spread their human, social, orga-
nizational, and financial capital, and ultimately fos-
ter success.
Among our interviewees, Laura wanted to make
an impact, which reflects Grant's (2014) view of such
an attitude as a giving one. For Laura, the focus was
on the people who could benefit from her help the
most. Most of the entrepreneurs expressed that they
liked recycling by sharing and helping others to
develop and grow e again, characteristic of a giver.
When commenting on mentoring, Christina said,
“That’s probably one of the favorite things that I
have ever done.” Based on this discussion, we
articulate the following proposition:
Proposition 1. One form of entrepreneurial recy-
cling is entrepreneurial recycling by sharing.
3.1.3 Evidence 2: Entrepreneurial recycling by
receiving
Zack explained that in one of his businesses, Save,
he recycled by gaining knowledge from a similar
business in Germany, learning from the entrepre-
neur with whom he talked during seaside vacations.
Christina also recycled by receiving, as noted in the
following passage: “There were some things that I
liked he was showing me and some things that I
didn’t like. But I had the benefit of deciding what I
was going to keep and what I was going to give
away.” Steve was direct in saying, “… sure, if you
are in a business such as I am, where you do firm
consulting, you can quickly pick, copy, and use
anything that you see there.”
3.1.4 Interpretation 2
Entrepreneurial recycling by receiving is an
important way of recombining human, social,
organizational, and financial capital. Stritar and
Drnovsek (2015) found that when recycling from
others, entrepreneurs discover several opportunity-
related components in other entrepreneurs’ prior
experience and knowledge. Entrepreneurs crea-
tively combine technology stack, business model,
and product and service design architecture. They
greatly broaden their resource base by reusing
business concepts that have already been proven in
previous ventures.
Although the idea of recombining different com-
ponents can be viewed through the lens of entre-
preneurial bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005),
entrepreneurial recycling enhances our under-
standing of the source of the “resources at hand” by
emphasizing the importance of experience from
preceding ventures. This leads to the following
proposition:
Proposition 2. One form of entrepreneurial recy-
cling is entrepreneurial recycling by receiving.
3.1.5 Evidence 3: Entrepreneurial recycling by
transforming
Entrepreneurs can recycle their own resources by
transforming their human, social, organizational,
and financial resources into something new. This
involves a learning process. Christina explained, for
example, that “in teaching you learn things.” Steve
highlighted that the spin-off company he co-created
has been a project of recycling human, social, and
organizational capital and transforming it into a
new, profitable business opportunity: “We reused
the huge amounts of knowledge we had accumu-
lated on software and industry specifics in our first
and current business. I also reused a combination of
my network relationships to form the spin-off.” He
explained that for his first business, Retail, he had
recycled the knowledge and experience he had
gained by running a student business. He said,
“Before Retail, we had a student firm, where I
learned something about customer relationships
and how to lead project work.” Zack talked about
how his human, social, organizational, and financial
capital had evolved and been recycled in his sub-
sequent businesses: “Every time there was a new
experience. First, you come across a tough business
partner and you have to negotiate the business
terms. Then, you have to import something from a
foreign country for the first time. On another occa-
sion, you have to sell something over the Internet
for the first time or you have to build a web page for
your business. There were many such things that I
reused several times later on in my businesses,
because every time there was something new … I
partly reused what I already had.”
3.1.6 Interpretation 3
It is clear that entrepreneurs benefit in substantial
and multiple ways from recycling by transforming.
Underlying this process is entrepreneurial learning
from experience. Experiential learning theory has
proposed that “knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41).
This is in line with the argument proposed by
Aldrich and Yang (2014), who posited that learning
by doing and experimenting (i.e. recycling by
transforming) along with learning by borrowing and
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 71
imitating (i.e. a form of recycling by receiving) are
crucial for creating viable and profitable ventures.
Kolb (1984) stressed that there are two underlying
dimensions of experiential learning. The first is
grasping the entrepreneurial experience that entre-
preneurs acquire throughout their entrepreneurial
careers. The second is the conscious transformation
of these experiences into meaningful entrepre-
neurial knowledge. Yet, “how entrepreneurs trans-
form their career experience into entrepreneurial
knowledge” (Politis, 2005, p. 407) is a fundamental
question, if we are to understand how entrepre-
neurial learning occurs.
The results of our study show that entrepreneurial
recycling is a way to transform experience into
knowledge. When recycling, entrepreneurs are
forced to embrace cognitive activation, because they
try to solve other entrepreneurs’ problems, coach
them, absorb advice from others, or make sense of
their own decisions and ways of doing business.
Entrepreneurs can also recycle from their own past
experiences. In this context, entrepreneurial
knowledge is the result of both grasping an expe-
rience and transforming that experience (Politis,
2005). As Holmqvist (2004) explained, in the process
of transforming experience, learning is continuously
created and recreated; it is not an independent en-
tity to be acquired or transmitted. However, it is
important to note that entrepreneurs seldom have
time for explicit conceptualization or theorization
beyond individual choices (Politis, 2005). Therefore,
they transform experience into knowledge in
different ways. We propose that one way is entre-
preneurial recycling. Following this discussion, we
propose that:
Proposition 3. One form of entrepreneurial recy-
cling is entrepreneurial recycling by transforming.
3.2 Theme 2: Entrepreneurial recycling as an
ongoing process
3.2.1 Evidence 4: Entrepreneurial recycling as an
ongoing process
The participants in our study highlighted that
recycling is something that entrepreneurs do “all the
time.” When asked whether they had reused the
experience, knowledge, networks, or money that
they had acquired from their current or other
businesses, our interviewees responded in the
affirmative, with Christina saying “absolutely” and
Laura “always.” Steve explained, “If you ask me, I do
that all the time. I am like that. An entrepreneur
always does that. He already has 10 things prepared
and when he finishes, he doesn’t ask ‘What am I
going to do now’.” Brigitte stated, “I think that we
entrepreneurs have all recycled something.” Zack
articulated his view, arguing that, “This happens all
the time. You can’t plan it and say, ‘Now I will
recycle something.’ You do it all the time. In reality,
you always do it in life e you try to use the things
that you have and the knowledge that you have.”
3.2.2 Interpretation 4
The studied cases clearly evidence that entrepre-
neurial recycling happens throughout one’s whole
entrepreneurial career from entrepreneurial entry
to exit. In addition, entrepreneurial recycling is not
tied to either entrepreneurial entry or exit. In the
current literature, the missing link between entre-
preneurial recycling at the start-up phase (Bahrami
& Evans, 2000) and entrepreneurial recycling at the
entrepreneurial exit phase (Mason & Harrison,
2006) is entrepreneurial recycling at the growth and
maturation phase. These three periods align with
the entrepreneurial career stages proposed by Rae
(2000): (a) engaging and entering a venture, (b)
growing a venture, and (c) moving out and on from
a venture.
Bahrami and Evans (2010) extensively analyzed
recycling in the first phase of an entrepreneurial
career. They argued that entrepreneurial recycling
takes place after failed projects at the pre-start-up
stage or failed start-ups. This is because the expe-
rience from failure can be reused to form new pro-
jects and start-ups. Bahrami and Evans (1995) briefly
noted that the processes of firm formation, demise,
and recycling are continuous, but they did not
expand this observation to include the maturation
phase. Similarly, Stam et al. (2008) posited that
renascent entrepreneurs, who re-enter entrepre-
neurship after firm failure, do so on the basis of
prior knowledge, i.e. through entrepreneurial recy-
cling. Mason and Harrison (2006) analyzed recycling
at the entrepreneurial exit stage, specifically after
firm acquisition. They argued that cashed-out en-
trepreneurs reuse the wealth, experience, and time
they have accumulated for other purposes with clear
economic benefits.
To date, no research has focused on recycling
during the growth and maturation phase of a firm.
This gap is surprising given that, by this stage, en-
trepreneurs have already acquired substantial
human, social, organizational, and financial capital
and have experienced successes and failures, which
in turn stimulates entrepreneurial recycling.
Nevertheless, the notion of entrepreneurial recy-
cling in the growth and maturation stage is partly
implied in the insights into the mentoring of nascent
entrepreneurs by experienced ones (Brown &
72 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
Butler, 1995; Ozgen & Baron, 2007) or in descriptions
of entrepreneurs learning throughout their entre-
preneurial careers (Deakins & Freel, 1998; Politis,
2005). Wood and McKinley (2016) recently high-
lighted the scarcity of research on the ongoing
process of seizing opportunities and acting entre-
preneurially after venture funding. The authors
argued that venture funding marks the beginning,
rather than the end, of a dynamic process through
which opportunities must be retained, developed,
and re-evaluated. We argue that, in doing so,
entrepreneurial recycling is instigated. This discus-
sion leads us to the following proposition:
Proposition 4. Entrepreneurial recycling occurs at
all stages of an entrepreneurial career: (a) engaging
and entering a venture, (b) growing a venture, and
(c) moving out and on from a venture.
3.3 Theme 3: Entrepreneurial recycling as planned
or unplanned action
3.3.1 Evidence 5: Entrepreneurial recycling as planned
or unplanned action
While entrepreneurial recycling is a continuous
process, it can be an unplanned or planned action.
Peter admitted that he recycled, but not in a planned
manner: “I am sure I did. But it didn’t process that
way. I didn’t think to myself, ‘Oh, back in 1972 this
happened.’ It just evolves.” Steve explained that
recycling is “the most natural thing, because you, as
an entrepreneur, live like that.” When we asked
Brigitte whether she consciously recycled, she
replied, “No, no. I just talk to people. I don’t do that
with a plan.” At the same time, most of the entre-
preneurs in our sample also engaged in more
structured and organized forms of entrepreneurial
recycling, such as giving seminars at entrepre-
neurial conventions, being mentors at start-up
weekends, giving lectures at colleges, or nurturing
student entrepreneurship talent through organiza-
tions such as Junior Achievement or Virtual Enter-
prise. Laura, for example, was a member of the
Women Presidents’ Organization. She explained
that she had joined the organization, because “[it
seemed] like I could get benefit from that.”
3.3.2 Interpretation 5
The data from our interpretative phenomenolog-
ical analysis show that entrepreneurial recycling is
either (a) an unplanned process, i.e. the entrepre-
neur engages in recycling without extensive plan-
ning, as it seems natural; or (b) a planned action, i.e.
the entrepreneur has clear goals when recycling.
Our findings reinforce the idea that “some of these
experiences are the result of proactive agency on the
part of the person, some come unexpectedly and are
uncalled for” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 3). The literature
and our research point out that, in many cases,
entrepreneurial recycling does not occur indepen-
dently of the entrepreneur, but is triggered by a
course of events that makes it natural for entrepre-
neurs to recycle. Therefore, we propose a new way
to look at entrepreneurial recycling:
Proposition 5. Entrepreneurial recycling happens
as a planned or unplanned action.
3.4 Theme 4: Forms of entrepreneurial recycling
3.4.1 Evidence 6: Forms of entrepreneurial recycling
The entrepreneurs interviewed talked about
multiple types of recycling. Laura explained,
“There’s nothing in my business that I invented.
Everything exists. I read a lot of business books.”
Steve recycled in several ways by teaching students,
mentoring at start-up weekends, leading a spin-off
company, and consulting for other companies. He
said, “I argue that on my own I have come up with
only a few things. Most of the things are a recom-
bination of other things. Also, for ideas that I
regarded at the beginning as being something really
awesome and totally new, I then realized that I had
read somewhere something about them and then
they had grown in me.” Zack explained that his
company, PrintPrint, had been established by
means of recycling a product: “PrintPrint was
formed by the project that my co-founder had done
before I joined him. And his project was based on
the project carried out by his Italian business part-
ner.” The participants in our study had recycled
financial capital to establish subsequent businesses,
however, they had not recycled by being business
angels or venture capitalists. Laura even said, “I
have never invested in somebody else’s business
other than mine, but it wouldn’t be … something I
haven’t thought about.”
3.4.2 Interpretation 6
Our research complements the list of recycling
forms proposed in previous research (Bahrami &
Evans, 2000; Hopkins & Basset, 2015; Mason &
Brown, 2014; Mason & Harrison, 2006; Sitar &
Mihelic, 2018; Stritar & Drnovsek, 2015): (a) recy-
cling human capital, such as knowledge, experience,
skills, abilities and talent; (b) recycling social capital,
such as relationships, memberships, recognition
and influence; (c) recycling organizational capital,
such as (parts of) business models, bands, products,
services, processes, space, or offices; and (d)
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 73
recycling financial capital in the form of money and
wealth.
The multifaceted nature of recycling is evidenced
in several research settings. For example, in the
study of Mason and Harrison (2006) of entrepre-
neurial recycling after firm acquisition in the Scot-
tish region, exiting entrepreneurs were found to
recycle wealth, networks, credibility, knowledge,
experience, and expertise. The authors explicated
that the cashed-out entrepreneurs who later became
business angels had “been able to pass on their
knowledge of how to build technology companies to
the next generation of technology entrepreneurs”
(Mason & Harrison, 2006, p. 67). A recent report on
the recycling of entrepreneurial talent showed that
“attracting recycled talent rather than recycled cash
and investment was a greater priority for entrepre-
neurs and companies” (Hopkins & Basset, 2015, p.
4). These studies have evidenced the plurality and
priority of recycling in Scotland. Bahrami and Evans
(2010) focused on the recycling of entrepreneurial
talent and relationships in Silicon Valley, while
Timmons (1999) highlighted the importance of
recycling entrepreneurial talent and capital. Strong
ties bring trust, improve decision making, and
strengthen the knowledge base for entrepreneurs
and their firms (García-Meca & Palacio, 2018; Li
et al., 2013). These ties can be enhanced through
open innovation (Rangus, 2017). Belso-Martinez
et al. (2013) described the strength of the external
resources provided to entrepreneurs by knowledge-
intensive services in the Valencian region (Spain),
proving the benefits of another form of entrepre-
neurial recycling, i.e. recycling social capital. Using
Oxfordshire as a case study, Lawton Smith et al.
(2005) explained that talented entrepreneurs are
those who initiate innovation, which leads to local
and regional development. Desrochers (2002)
argued that the inter-industry recycling linkages
that result from entrepreneurial actions foster
regional development. Debrulle and Maes (2015)
added that export intensity is also fostered.
We introduce another form of recycling to this
discussion: the recycling of organizational capital.
This refers to the recycling of (parts of) business
models, brands, products, services, processes, and
space. Miles and Van Clieaf (2017) highlighted that
organizational capital pertains to tangible and
intangible resources, such as business processes,
operational excellence, strategies and investment
plans in new technology, new products, new mar-
kets, and new business models. Bellman (2005)
exposed that recycling and reviving old brand
names can also be a way to foster entrepreneurial
success. Such forms of recycling were highlighted
by participants in our study, and lie at the core of
the Schumpeterian view of entrepreneurship as a
recombination of products and processes (Schum-
peter, 1934). In addition, Feldman et al. (2019)
confirmed that entrepreneurs bring to their venture
organization heritage, i.e. organizational practices
from previous employment, especially those that are
clearly defined and fit into the requirements of the
new venture. This leads to improved performance
and innovation capabilities. We put forth the
following proposition, which sums up the forms of
entrepreneurial recycling:
Proposition 6. Entrepreneurial recycling involves
recycling the following types of capital: human, so-
cial, organizational, and financial.
3.5 Theme 5: The means of entrepreneurial
recycling
3.5.1 Evidence 7: The means of entrepreneurial
recycling
Entrepreneurs can recycle by multiple means. All
of our participants had been involved in some kind
of mentoring, coaching, or teaching. Laura told us, “I
do a lot of mentoring,” and Peter explained, “I coach
a lot of young people.” Zack and Steve were mentors
during start-up weekends and recycled their human
capital. Zack also recycled his expertise at work-
shops. He has facilitated more than 100 workshops
and consultancy projects on marketing, sales, new
product development, finance, and market research.
Peter had also established two think-tanks, i.e. “a
group of people that I’ve put together,” through
which he recycled his networks and his recognition
in the entrepreneurial community. Laura noted that
she recycled her networks by “expand[ing] and
penetrat[ing] the market through existing cus-
tomers” and “get[ting] new customers as well.”
3.5.2 Interpretation 7
Building on the related literature (Bahrami &
Evans, 2010; DeTienne, 2010; Hopkins & Basset,
2015; Mason & Brown, 2014; Mason & Harrison,
2006) and the findings of our study, we propose a
comprehensive list of the means by which entre-
preneurs engage in entrepreneurial recycling: (a)
recycling human capital through mentoring,
coaching, teaching, and giving seminars and work-
shops at schools, colleges, business incubators,
technology parks, start-up weekends, or accelera-
tors, and through being board members; (b) recy-
cling social capital through building and sharing
networks, being involved in policymaking, building
local infrastructure based on recognition and
74 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
influence, lobbying and connecting with chambers
of commerce and craftsmen, establishing think-
tanks, building entrepreneurship support organi-
zations, and developing collective entrepreneurial
capacity and regional institutional environment; (c)
recycling organizational capital through redesigning
products, services, processes, and business models;
and (d) recycling financial capital by being business
angels or venture capitalists, investing in their own
new start-ups as serial entrepreneurs, or investing
in others’ start-ups or grown firms, giving donations
and participating in philanthropy, bringing in
foreign investments, improving the technological
base of the community, and endowing various
community activities and institutions (e.g. univer-
sities, museums, orchestras). Our last proposition
summarizes the different means of entrepreneurial
recycling:
Proposition 7. Entrepreneurs use different means to
recycle their human, social, organizational, and
financial capital.
3.6 Summary of developed propositions
Table 1 presents a summary of our propositions.
4 Discussion
Entrepreneurial recycling is a process by which
entrepreneurs channel a proportion of their human,
social, organizational, and financial capital into
other, often multiple, entrepreneurial activities in
their entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurs
recycle by sharing, receiving, and transforming their
capital throughout their entrepreneurial career:
through entrepreneurial entry, growth, and exit.
Our views on entrepreneurial recycling offer a
deeper understanding of how entrepreneurial
recycling unfolds and what impact it makes on the
community and national economy. With this
research, we highlighted the individual-level
perspective of entrepreneurial recycling to uncover
the unexplored features of entrepreneurial recy-
cling, such as the three directions of entrepreneurial
recycling; the ongoing nature of entrepreneurial
recycling, which is not tied to either entrepreneurial
entry or exit; the forms and means of entrepre-
neurial recycling; and the motivations for entre-
preneurs to engage in entrepreneurial recycling
(planned or unplanned actions). We also contribute
to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems by
focusing on the entrepreneur when talking about
recycling in an ecosystem. In the following section,
we elaborate on the theoretical and practical impli-
cations of our research, the implications for policy-
makers, the limitations of our study, and
opportunities for future research.
4.1 Theoretical implications
Our research demonstrates that entrepreneurial
recycling is one of the most natural processes that
take place in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs see
recycling as something they do throughout their
entrepreneurial journeys, regardless of the stage of
their career development or the stage of the firm (i.e.
entrepreneurial entry, growth, or exit). This finding
represents an important extension of the current
knowledge on entrepreneurial recycling, which to
date has covered only the pre-start-up and start-up
stage (Bahrami & Evans, 2010) and the entrepre-
neurial exit stage (Mason & Harrison, 2006).
Our research exposes the overlooked occurrence
of entrepreneurial recycling during the growth and
maturation stage of a firm. Our interviewees
emphasized that they recycled their human capital
(e.g. knowledge, experience), social capital (e.g.
networks, referrals), organizational capital (e.g.
reshaping products) and financial capital (e.g.
financing their own or others’ projects and start-
ups), while being active in their current mature
businesses. The literature confirms these findings,
although in a more fragmented manner. Different
research outlets have implicitly articulated the
notion of entrepreneurs sharing, receiving, and
Table 1. Research propositions.
Proposition Proposition statement
Proposition 1 One form of entrepreneurial recycling is entrepreneurial recycling by sharing.
Proposition 2 One form of entrepreneurial recycling is entrepreneurial recycling by receiving.
Proposition 3 One form of entrepreneurial recycling is entrepreneurial recycling by transforming.
Proposition 4 Entrepreneurial recycling occurs at all stages of an entrepreneurial career: (a) engaging and
entering a venture, (b) growing a venture, and (c) moving out and on from a venture.
Proposition 5 Entrepreneurial recycling happens as a planned or unplanned action.
Proposition 6 Entrepreneurial recycling involves recycling the following forms of capital: human, social, organizational, and
financial.
Proposition 7 Entrepreneurs use different means to recycle their human, social, organizational, and financial capital.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 75
transforming their human, social, organizational, or
financial capital during a firm’s growth and matu-
ration stage. For example, Sullivan (2000) demon-
strated that entrepreneurs recycle by mentoring
upstart entrepreneurs in the growth and develop-
ment stage of their firms. Similarly, Ozgen and
Baron (2007) confirmed the occurrence and value of
sharing and receiving human, social, and organiza-
tional capital among more and less experienced
entrepreneurs. More experienced entrepreneurs
also recycle by receiving during the firm growth and
maturation stage recycle, because they are strongly
engaged in the entrepreneurial community and thus
grasp different forms of capital from others (Brown
& Butler, 1995; Ozgen & Baron, 2007).
Furthermore, entrepreneurial learning theory
(Deakins & Freel, 1998; Politis, 2005) posits that en-
trepreneurs learn throughout their entrepreneurial
journey based on their experience, which they
transform into knowledge. In doing so, they engage
in entrepreneurial recycling by transforming their
accumulated non-financial and financial capital into
new capital for further use during the growth and
maturation phase.
Through interpretative phenomenological anal-
ysis, we discovered an important and previously
overlooked feature of entrepreneurial recycling,
namely that entrepreneurial recycling takes place in
three directions. First, entrepreneurs recycle by
sharing when they share their human, social, orga-
nizational, or financial capital with other stake-
holders in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Second,
entrepreneurs recycle by receiving when they draw
on the human, social, organizational, or financial
capital of other stakeholders in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Third, entrepreneurs recycle by trans-
forming as part of the learning process by which
they change their own human, social, organiza-
tional, or financial capital into new capital. We
discuss the theoretical implications of this important
contribution in the following paragraphs.
Entrepreneurial recycling by sharing is a mani-
festation of an entrepreneur’s prosocial behavior in
the entrepreneurship context. Entrepreneurs often
care about making a positive impact on other peo-
ple’s lives (e.g. family, customers, younger col-
leagues) and are willing to share with others in their
entrepreneurial community what they have learned
or achieved (Ozgen & Baron, 2007). When recycling
by sharing, entrepreneurs act as givers (Grant,
2014), recycling without worrying about what they
receive in return.
As evidenced by our research, this prosocial
motivation for entrepreneurial recycling by sharing
takes different forms. Sometimes entrepreneurs
want to give back, sometimes they want to help
others, and sometimes they want to make an impact.
The entrepreneurs in our sample felt that personal
success correlated with feeling good by doing good
and with a healthy and friendly community. Some
entrepreneurs felt that sometimes when they had
needed the help or advice of their more experienced
peers, they had not received it; accordingly, they
wanted to alleviate the same barriers for their peers
and help them. Furthermore, some entrepreneurs
who had recycled from others wanted to give back
and help their entrepreneurial ecosystem. Such
altruistic behavior of entrepreneurs forms the
theoretical foundation of the giver perspective in
entrepreneurship research, as previously investi-
gated primarily among employees and managers
(Grant, 2007; Higgins & Kram, 2001).
In entrepreneurship research, prosocial behavior
has been investigated as a characteristic of social
entrepreneurs (Miller et al., 2012; Renko, 2013).
However, establishing a business with the motiva-
tion to solve a social or environmental problem is
extreme evidence of prosocial behavior. This is why
such “prosocially motivated entrepreneurs are a
rare breed” (Renko, 2013, p. 1047). In recycling
among general entrepreneurs, and not necessarily
social entrepreneurs, we find that prosocial
behavior e as a deliberate choice to do something
good for others in their entrepreneurial ecosystem e
is not rare at all.
Entrepreneurial recycling by receiving relates to
the theory of entrepreneurial bricolage (Baker &
Nelson, 2005). In resource-constrained environ-
ments, entrepreneurs make do with what is at hand
(e.g. physical resources, skills or ideas), or what is
available very cheaply or for free outside the firm
(often because others judge this capital to be useless
or substandard). Although bricolage and recycling
both involve the recombination of resources,
entrepreneurial recycling by receiving is about a
conscious action and interaction among entrepre-
neurs and presents the source of the resources at
hand. Entrepreneurial recycling also differs from
bricolage in that it is often free and occurs through
mentoring and favor-giving by those with prosocial
natures. It is evident that entrepreneurial recycling
by receiving builds upon the theory of entrepre-
neurial bricolage, but encompasses features that
extend beyond the boundaries of bricolage. When
entrepreneurs recycle by receiving from other en-
trepreneurs, they innovatively reuse, adapt, and
combine human, social, organizational, and finan-
cial capital.
The third form of entrepreneurial recycling is by
transforming. With this notion, we push forward the
76 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
understanding of the entrepreneurial learning the-
ory. When recycling from their own resources and
capital, entrepreneurs do so by reflecting on and
making sense of their successful and unsuccessful
experiences, thereby transforming experience into
knowledge (Politis, 2005). We argue that entrepre-
neurial recycling is a catalyst that enables entre-
preneurial learning, because recycling activates
cognitive mechanisms. By making sense of their
experiences when recycling by sharing or receiving,
entrepreneurs acquire a deeper understanding of
themselves, their decision-making processes, the
reasons for success and failure, and the nature of
their relationships. This knowledge enables entre-
preneurs to recycle by transforming. Cope (2011)
proposed that entrepreneurial learning, especially
from failure, has powerful future-oriented outcomes
that increase the entrepreneur’s level of prepared-
ness for future business activities.
The framework discovered in this research im-
plies that entrepreneurial recycling is about in-
teractions; it is a social process among stakeholders
in an entrepreneurial community with broad bene-
fits for both entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial
community. However, previous research has not
accounted for the several individual-level benefits of
entrepreneurial recycling, often because entrepre-
neurial recycling has not been viewed as a process
involving interactions in an entrepreneurial
ecosystem. To date, research has focused on the
benefits for the firm, region, and national develop-
ment (Bahrami & Evans, 2010; DeTienne & Cardon,
2012; Mason & Harrison, 2006). Our research shows
that, by recycling, entrepreneurs gain new knowl-
edge and opportunities, while making sense of their
decisions and experiences, yet for conscious
learning, they usually do not have spare time. En-
trepreneurs then transform their experience into
knowledge in disparate ways (Politis, 2005) e one
way being entrepreneurial recycling. When entre-
preneurs recycle by sharing or receiving, they
implicitly recycle by transforming, because they
learn from experiences when they share or receive
human, social, organizational, or financial capital,
and gain valuable capital for their businesses. In the
sharing and receiving process of entrepreneurial
recycling, both the giver and receiver have the op-
portunity to transform new information or experi-
ences into new knowledge.
Moreover, the entrepreneurship literature has
been silent on the benefit loop of entrepreneurial
recycling for the entrepreneurs who do recycle. We
argue that recycling brings well-being, trust,
commitment, and satisfaction to those who recycle.
On the one hand, those entrepreneurs who recycle
by sharing feel good when the human, social,
organizational, or financial capital they give leads
to their peers’ success. This outcome makes them
even more committed to recycling in the entre-
preneurial ecosystem. On the other hand, those
entrepreneurs who recycle by receiving become
more confident about their abilities, and develop
trust in and commitment to the giver and the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. In turn, we argue that
those who recycle by receiving will recycle by
sharing in the future. This creates a domino effect
of sharing and receiving, which boosts entrepre-
neurial recycling. Such prosocial behavior can be
explained by the social effect through which some
entrepreneurs inspire many followers in the
entrepreneurial ecosystem (Zhang, 2003). In a
similar vein, Cerne et al. (2014) found that em-
ployees who hid knowledge from other co-workers
not only lowered their co-workers’ creativity, but
also hindered their own creativity due to the
reciprocal hiding and distrust created among co-
workers. Recycling benefits both the giver and the
receiver, although the true giver does not enter into
recycling with these outcomes in mind; rather, the
giver is motivated by wanting to help others. When
a routine network is created with regular in-
teractions between the giver and the receiver, the
network and ecosystem has a better chance of
success (Agostini, 2016).
Underling the process of entrepreneurial recy-
cling for the greater good of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem, the region, and the competitiveness of
the nation is the premise that entrepreneurial
recycling is started by the individual entrepreneur.
We add an important caveat to the literature on
entrepreneurial ecosystems (Huggins et al., 2017;
Mason & Harrison, 2006), namely that individuals
are the building blocks of such ecosystems. How-
ever, Spigel and Vinodrai (2020) suggested that
entrepreneurial recycling can be fostered also by
former employees of the collapsed firm, such as in
the case of the demise of Blackberry.
A final note regarding the theoretical implications
of our research pertains to the utilization of the IPA
method. The IPA method proved very useful in our
research setting, and we invite other researchers to
adopt this approach. As Rae (2000) noted, it was
evident from the phenomenological interviews that
the opportunity to tell their entrepreneurial story
enabled each participant to reflect on, organize, and
integrate their account of their entrepreneurial
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 77
recycling. This led us to discover features of entre-
preneurial recycling that had not emerged
previously.
4.2 Practical implications for entrepreneurs and the
entrepreneurial community
Given that entrepreneurial recycling has several
advantages on the individual level of the entrepre-
neur and on the collective level of the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem, our research provides multiple
practical implications.
First, entrepreneurs should become aware that in
their daily business activities they engage in entre-
preneurial recycling. Engaging more consciously
would enable entrepreneurs to participate in build-
ing a stronger entrepreneurial ecosystem that would,
in turn, yield benefits for them too. It has been
argued that givers e i.e. the ones who give to others
more than they receive or who give without
expecting anything in return (Grant, 2014) e are
more successful and satisfied. Therefore, we propose
that entrepreneurial recycling works as a feedback
loop. In effect, what you put in, you get back.
In giving, people strengthen their commitment to
the ecosystem in which they operate (Grant et al.,
2008). Therefore, we propose that stimulating
entrepreneurial recycling by sharing has the po-
tential to enhance the commitment of entrepreneurs
to their ecosystem. Grant and colleagues (Grant,
2007; Grant et al., 2008) argued that many people in
a work environment have a prosocial identity, which
shapes the important motives, values, and guiding
principles of their life. Following the findings from
previous research on the giver’s commitment to
recipients (Flynn & Brockner, 2003; Grant et al.,
2008), we argue that when entrepreneurs recycle by
sharing, they should make sense of the sharing
behavior and deepen their commitment to others. In
doing so, recycling will help them to value the re-
cipients and the entrepreneurial ecosystem through
the connection, trust, and respect that are built in
such interactions.
When looking at recycling by receiving alone, we
posit that most entrepreneurs would reciprocate
what they receive (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976;
Homans, 1958), because receiving from others
would make them more dedicated to the givers and
more committed to the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
From a practical standpoint, we suggest a net of
recycling that has wide benefits on the regional,
national, and global level. Therefore, campaigns
should be fostered in local entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems to promote entrepreneurial success stories,
highlighting hard work, collaboration, and recycling
from one another, and stimulating entrepreneurs to
give back to their society (Walsh & Winsor, 2019).
Finally, entrepreneurs recycle by transforming,
which is a kind of experiential entrepreneurial
learning. Kolb (1984) argued that experiential
learning needs a conscious catalyst for learning to
happen from experience. When recycling, entre-
preneurs experience cognitive activation when
recycling by sharing (e.g. mentoring and solving
problems of nascent entrepreneurs by thinking
about their own entrepreneurial experiences) or
when recycling by receiving from others (e.g. when
absorbing advice from a peer and connecting it to
their own entrepreneurial experience). Following
the propositions of experiential and entrepreneurial
learning (Holmqvist, 2004; Politis, 2005), we argue
that when cognitive activation is triggered by
entrepreneurial recycling (through sharing or
receiving) and aligned with the entrepreneur’s own
experiences, it yields new entrepreneurial knowl-
edge. When recycling, entrepreneurs are able to fill
any gaps in human, social, organizational, and
financial capital in the service of venture and per-
sonal development.
The second practical implication concerns the
search for entrepreneurial ideas for business start-
ups or business development. Although it is true
that some breakthrough entrepreneurial ideas have
radically changed the way we live and disrupted
some industries, most entrepreneurial ideas come
from recycling and recombining what already ex-
ists into new forms and for new purposes. This
implies that entrepreneurs should strive to engage
more in recycling, reusing, recombining, and
drawing from what is already known and in use in
order to make something new or modified. Based
on the results of our research, we argue that
entrepreneurship is more about recycling and less
about totally new ‘aha’ moments. Entrepreneurial
recycling offers entrepreneurs the possibility to
add new business opportunities to existing ones, or
to switch to new business projects as they develop
their careers. Entrepreneurs already have a set of
human, social, organizational, and financial capital
that can be recycled to explore new entrepreneurial
endeavors.
Third, conscious entrepreneurial recycling can
offer entrepreneurs second-chance opportunities,
especially after failure. Entrepreneurs gain valuable
human, social, organizational (and occasionally
financial) capital when they fail (DeTienne & Car-
don, 2012; Singh et al., 2015). By recycling the
various forms of acquired capital, entrepreneurs can
subsequently use it in a venturing project (Bahrami
& Evans, 2000).
78 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
4.3 Policy and support implications
There are several regional- and national-level
implications for policy makers and agencies that
support the entrepreneurial ecosystem. By fostering
entrepreneurial recycling, increased return on in-
vestment is achievable at the macro level. National
and regional programs for stimulating and helping
the entrepreneurial community invest considerable
amounts of money in the promotion and develop-
ment of entrepreneurship. By fostering entrepre-
neurial recycling, such programs would gain more
from their investments. Research from Silicon Val-
ley and Scotland has shown that recycling has
highly beneficial outcomes for entrepreneurial eco-
systems in terms of start-up creation, venture capital
fund operations, networking, and the prosperity of
innovation activities (Bahrami & Evans, 2010; Mason
&Harrison, 2006). There are also other benefits to be
had, such as job creation, charitable contributions,
and enhanced competitiveness of firms, industries,
and nations (DeTienne & Cardon, 2012). Other
regional and national agencies would do well to take
similar approaches to stimulate recycling among
entrepreneurs in a community.
Furthermore, financing early-stage entrepre-
neurial endeavors, reducing taxes for start-ups, and
stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation
through grants should not be thought of as a waste
of money if such projects do not deliver the ex-
pected result. The human, social, and organizational
capital gained through such projects is invaluable
for the sponsored entrepreneurs and will be recy-
cled to some degree in the near future, implicitly
providing positive outcomes.
The second implication deals with decreasing the
uncertainty in the identification of promising busi-
ness opportunities. Recycling can increase the odds
of selecting the right candidates in national com-
petitions, start-up weekends, grant programs, and
other entrepreneurship support activities with na-
tional and regional funding. However, the commit-
tee has to consist of entrepreneurs who can recycle
extensive expertise. In addition, our interviewees
exposed that the collaboration between elder en-
trepreneurs and younger ones is effective at pro-
ducing valuable results, such as reducing the period
from start to success, employing more people,
listening better to market needs, and so on. Asso-
ciations such as the Score Association of counsellors
to America’s small businesses have already taken
such a direction, but more such efforts are needed
worldwide.
Additionally, policy makers should promote
organized entrepreneurial recycling programs in
which interested entrepreneurs meet and work on
creating benefits for others and themselves. An
example that was raised in our research was the
Women Presidents’ Organization started by Marsha
Firestone, PhD, a successful businesswoman. More
such organizations or communities could enhance
the prosperity of an entrepreneurial ecosystem or a
nation. Mentoring programs are valuable to re-
cipients, because they learn from others. Mentoring
programs also benefit the mentors who gain the
opportunity to transform their experience into
knowledge (Cope & Watts, 2000; Sullivan, 2000).
Finally, policy makers could benefit from the re-
sults of our study through the realization that
fostering programs for new business ideas is not all
that is needed to enhance the entrepreneurial ac-
tivity of a nation. It is important to understand the
value of combining human, social, organizational,
and financial capital. Shifting focus to resource
availability and networking so that entrepreneurial
recycling by sharing, receiving, and transforming
can take place can advance success and entrepre-
neurship activity. Established or exiting entrepre-
neurs could nurture a new generation of nascent
entrepreneurs or start-ups, boost their own devel-
opment, and prepare students, pupils, and work-
shop and seminar participants for their
entrepreneurial journey. In doing so, a collaborative
entrepreneurship mindset is nurtured, thereby
enhancing regional and national development.
5 Conclusion
The aim of this research was to provide a detailed
phenomenological conceptualization of entrepre-
neurial recycling. Our interpretative phenomeno-
logical analysis of six entrepreneurs was extremely
fruitful in providing a number of new insights into
this process. Entrepreneurial recycling takes place
through sharing, receiving, and transforming at all
stages of an entrepreneur’s career and firm devel-
opment. Entrepreneurial recycling is a social pro-
cess yielding multiple tangible and intangible
benefits for all stakeholders in an entrepreneurial
context. Therefore, we should promote recycling
and foster greater discussion on it so that the un-
conscious acts of recycling by entrepreneurs
become more explicit, planned, and beneficial.
Our study has four key limitations which present
opportunities for future research. First, IPA relies on
what participants in the study say. Sometimes par-
ticipants struggle to express what they are thinking
or feeling and do not always wish to self-disclose.
Therefore, researchers must interpret participants’
mental and emotional states from what they say
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 79
(Smith & Osborn, 2008). While there is certainly a
possibility that we may have misinterpreted parts of
the participants’ narration, we note that we took
great care in our in-depth analysis by following the
rules of IPA. Future research could replicate our
study to see whether we missed anything.
Second, longitudinal studies over longer periods,
ideally over an entire entrepreneurial career, would
be of particular value in advancing our under-
standing of the evolution of entrepreneurial recy-
cling. In doing so, researchers could map the stages
and reciprocity of recycling by sharing, receiving,
and transforming. A possible discovery could be a
chain reaction of giving and receiving that is
sparked by an entrepreneur who is willing to recycle
by sharing. In turn, the receiver might replicate the
sharing, revealing a kind of recycling network that
could be investigated for its benefits. We encourage
researchers to take such an approach in order to
generate a better understanding of the entrepre-
neurial recycling process and its outcomes.
Third, one could argue that the purposeful,
convenient, and snowball sampling we used may
not have been sufficient, and that a more thorough
investigation into the differences and commonalities
between the entrepreneurial activity and entrepre-
neurial recycling in Slovenia and the United States
could be undertaken. However, this study does not
make comparisons or macro-level propositions
using a narrow qualitative sample. Rather, our aim
was to demonstrate that entrepreneurial recycling is
shared by entrepreneurs regardless of their location.
There may be some attributes of entrepreneurial
recycling that are specific to different nations, but
such an investigation is beyond the scope of this
study. This creates an opportunity for future
research.
Finally, our research relied upon narrations of
recycling by sharing, receiving, and transforming by
individual entrepreneurs in the giverereceiver
relationship. While this is an initial attempt to
develop a deeper understanding of the entrepre-
neurial recycling process, future research could
investigate the recycling from both sides e from
those who recycle by sharing and from those who
directly receive the capital from the givers. We
believe that investigating the joint effects of recy-
cling by sharing, receiving, and transforming will
help to further the understanding of entrepreneurial
recycling.
References
Agostini, L. (2016). Organizational and managerial activities in the
development process of successful SME marketing networks.
European Management Review, 13(2), 91e106. https://doi.org/10.
1111/emre.12069
Aldrich, H. E., & Yang, T. (2014). How do entrepreneurs know
what to do? Learning and organizing in new ventures. Journal
of Evolutionary Economics, 24(1), 59e82. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00191-013-0320-x
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible recycling and high
technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review,
37(3), 62e89.
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2000). Flexible recycling and high
technology entrepreneurship. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Under-
standing Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region.
Stanford University Press.
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2010). Super-flexibility for knowledge en-
terprises: A toolkit for dynamic adaptation (2nd ed.). Springer.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from
nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial
bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329e366.
Bellman, L. M. (2005). Entrepreneurs: Invent a new brand name
or revive an old one? Business Horizons, 48(3), 215e222. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.025
Belso-Martinez, J. A., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Mas-Verdu, F.
(2013). Combining effects of internal resources, entrepreneur
characteristics and KIS on new firms. Journal of Business
Research, 66(10), 2079e2089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2013.02.034
Berglund, H. (2007). Researching entrepreneurship as lived
experience. In H. Neergaard, & J. P. Ulhøi (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 75e93).
Edward Elgar.
Berglund, H. (2015). Between cognition and discourse: Phenom-
enology and the study of entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(3), 472e488.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2013-0210
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
Brown, B., & Butler, J. E. (1995). Competitors as allies: A study of
entrepreneurial networks in the U.S. wine industry. Journal of
Small Business Management, 33(3), 57e66.
Cerne, M., Nerstad, C. G. L., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2014).
What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding,
perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(1), 172e192.
Cope, J. (2005). Researching Entrepreneurship through phenom-
enological inquiry: Philosophical and methodological issues.
International Small Business Journal, 23(2), 163e189. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0266242605050511
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An inter-
pretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business
Venturing, 26(6), 604e623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.
2010.06.002
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing e an exploration
of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepre-
neurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior
& Research, 6(3), 104e124. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13552550010346208
Cummings, D. (2012, November 29). Recycling talent in a startup
community. http://davidcummings.org/2012/11/29/recycling-
talent-in-a-startup-community/
Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the
growth process in SMEs. The Learning Organization, 5(3),
144e155. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810223428
Debrulle, J., & Maes, J. (2015). Start-ups' internationalization: The
impact of business owners' management experience, start-up
experience and professional network on export intensity. Eu-
ropean Management Review, 12(3), 171e187. https://doi.org/10.
1111/emre.12050
Desrochers, P. (2002). Regional development and inter-industry
recycling linkages: Some historical perspectives. Entrepre-
neurship & Regional Development, 14(1), 49e65. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08985620110096627
DeTienne, D. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical compo-
nent of the entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development.
80 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 203e215. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusvent.2008.05.004
DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Impact of founder
experience on exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38(4),
351e374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9284-5
DeTienne, D. R., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Small business exit:
Review of past research, theoretical considerations and sug-
gestions for future research. In S. Newbert (Ed.), Small busi-
nesses in a global economy: Creating and managing successful
organizations. Praeger.
Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of
entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 35(1), 57e81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.
00423.x
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2, 335e362.
Feldman, M. P., Ozcan, S., & Reichstein, T. (2019). Falling not far
from the tree: Entrepreneurs and organizational heritage.
Organization Science, 30(2), 337e360. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.2018.1222
Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It's different to give than to
receive: Predictors of givers' and receivers' reactions to favor
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034e1045.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1034
García-Meca, E., & Palacio, C. J. (2018). Board composition and
firm reputation: The role of business experts, support spe-
cialists and community influentials. Business Research Quar-
terly, 21(2), 111e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2018.01.003
Gartner, W. B., & Birley, S. (2002). Introduction to the special
issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 387e395. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0883-9026(01)00077-5
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to
make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review,
32(2), 393e417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
Grant, A. M. (2014). Give and take: Why helping others drives our
success. Penguin Books.
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving
commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial
sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5),
898e918. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.34789652
Guerrero, M., & Pe~na-Legazkue, I. (2019). Renascence after post-
mortem: The choice of accelerated repeat entrepreneurship.
Small Business Economics, 52(1), 47e65. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11187-018-0015-7
Gulbin, J. (2008). Identifying and developing sporting experts. In
D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport
expertise (pp. 60e72). Routledge.
Hessels, J., Grilo, I., Thurik, R., & van der Zwan, P. (2011).
Entrepreneurial exit and entrepreneurial engagement. Journal
of Evolutionary Economics, 21(3), 447e471. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00191-010-0190-4
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing men-
toring at work: A developmental network perspective. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 26(2), 264e288.
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploi-
tation and exploration within and between organizations: An
empirical study of product development. Organization Science,
15(1), 70e81. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American
Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597e606.
Hopkins, P., & Basset, A. (2015). The recycling of entrepreneurial
talent: A report for Scottish Enterprise. http://www.
evaluationsonline.org.uk/evaluations/Search.do?ui¼basic&
action¼show&id¼571
Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship
and the determinants of firm survival within regions: Human cap-
ital, growth motivation and locational conditions (pp. 1e33).
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08985626.2016.1271830
Hwang, V. W., & Horowitt, G. (2012). The rainforest: The secret to
building the next Silicon Valley. Regenwald.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Lawton Smith, H., Glasson, J., & Chadwick, A. (2005). The
geography of talent: Entrepreneurship and local economic
development in Oxfordshire. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 17(6), 449e478. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08985620500247819
Li, Y., Wang, X., Huang, L., & Bai, X. (2013). How does entre-
preneurs' social capital hinder new business development? A
relational embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business
Research, 66(12), 2418e2424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2013.05.029
Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118e2133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586547
Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial eco-
systems. Geography Compass, 12(3), 1e21. https://doi.org/10.
1111/gec3.12359
Mason, C. M., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and
growth oriented entrepreneurship (Vol. 30). OECD.
Mason, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2006). After the exit: Acquisi-
tions, entrepreneurial recycling and regional economic
development. Regional Studies, 40(1), 55e73. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00343400500450059
Miles, S. J., & Van Clieaf, M. (2017). Strategic fit: Key to growing
enterprise value through organizational capital. Business Hori-
zons, 60(1), 55e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.008
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012).
Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion
encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Review, 37(4), 616e640. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0456
Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E.
(2018). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem
and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement frame-
work. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 640e673. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in
opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry net-
works, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing,
22(2), 174e192.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative
inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social
Work, 1(3), 261e283. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1473325002001003636
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A
conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
29(4), 399e424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x
Rae, D. (2000). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A ques-
tion of how? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 6(3), 145e159. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13552550010346497
Rangus, K. (2017). Does a firm's open innovation mode matter?
Economic and Business Review, 19(2), 181e201.
Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepre-
neurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045e1069.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00522.x
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development.
Harvard University Press.
Singh, S., Corner, P. D., & Pavlovich, K. (2015). Failed, not
finished: A narrative approach to understanding venture
failure stigmatization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1),
150e166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.005
Sitar, A. S., & Mihelic, K. K. (2018). The interplay of expatriates'
psychological and social capital for knowledge transfer. Eco-
nomic and Business Review, 20(2), 195e219. https://doi.org/10.
15458/85451.65
Smith, J. A., Flower, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative
phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research (1st ed.).
Sage Publications.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpreta-
tive phenomenological analysis. In M. Murray, & K. Cham-
berlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology. Sage Publications.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 81
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenolog-
ical analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology:
A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
12(1), 151e168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268
Spigel, B., & Vinodrai, T. (2020). Meeting its Waterloo? Recycling
in entrepreneurial ecosystems after anchor firm collapse.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 33(7-8), 599e620.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1734262
Stam, E., Audretsch, D., & Meijaard, J. (2008). Renascent entre-
preneurship. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(3), 493e507.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-008-0095-7
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R.
Blackburn, D. De Clercq, & J. Heinonen (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 407e421).
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Stritar, R., & Drnovsek, M. (2015). What entrepreneurs discover
when creating opportunities? Insights from skype and You-
Tube ventures. The International Entrepreneurship and Manage-
ment Journal, 12(3), 659e679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-
015-0362-7
Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship
through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or
discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(1), 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.
09.003
Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. In-
ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(3),
160e175. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346587
Thorne, S. (2014). Applied interpretive approaches. In P. Leavy
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Timmons, J. A. (1999). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21st century. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Vaeyens, R., Güllich, A., Warr, C. R., & Philippaerts, R. (2009).
Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic
athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(13), 1367e1380. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02640410903110974
Walsh, J., & Winsor, B. (2019). Socio-cultural barriers to devel-
oping a regional entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Enter-
prising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,
13(3), 263e282. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-11-2018-0088
Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2016). After the venture: The
reproduction and destruction of entrepreneurial opportunity.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(1), 18e35. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sej.1238
Zhang, J. (2003). Growing Silicon Valley on a landscape: An
agent-based approach to high-tech industrial clusters. Journal
of Evolutionary Economics, 13(5), 529e548. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00191-003-0178-4
82 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83
Appendix
Table A1. Description of participants in the study.
Brigitte (Slovenia): As a student in the early 2000s, Brigitte co-founded a tourist agency in a niche segment for student summer jobs and
summer camps in the United States. Such services were not available on the Slovenian markets at that time. From a small start-up, the
company grew into a leading Slovenian tourist agency with a branch in Croatia. By recycling her human, social, organizational, and
financial capital, recently, Brigitte co-founded a crowdfunding platform for tourism projects. The idea evolved from a desire to
combine tourism, crowdfunding, and the knowledge from the tourism sector. Brigitte would love to be a mentor for tourism-related
start-ups.
Christina (U.S.): Christina is 60 and is currently working as a freelancer in the flower business, specializing in flower decor for weddings.
Before that, she owned a flower shop and a flower wholesale business which she sold in the late 2000s, because of the global crisis and
the end of her marriage. This experience made her transform her ways of thinking and acting, recycle that experience into knowledge,
and share that knowledge. Before entering into the flower business, Christina had worked in the music industry for two start-ups. She
considers the owner of the first music start-up to be her mentor from whom she recycled human, social, and organizational capital.
She teaches at a college part-time and recycles her human capital by mentoring young entrepreneurs.
Laura (U.S.): When in college in the mid-1980s, Laura started her business of selling t-shirts in the college dormitory. The firm evolved
and today helps firms to strategically build their brands and drive sales with unique promotional gifts and products in the U.S. and
U.K. Her firm employs 35 people and has a turnaround of 18 million USD. Laura is in her 40s and gives lectures, seminars, and
coaching to students and small business owners. She is an active member of the Women Presidents’ Organization in which she
recycles by receiving and sharing.
Peter (U.S.): Peter is in his 70s and runs three international businesses and two think-tanks. In his entrepreneurial career, he has recycled
by sharing, receiving, and transforming human, social, organizational, and financial capital. Peter does a lot of business with China.
He is a coach for young people and nascent entrepreneurs and is on the board of directors for two organizations aimed at nurturing
pupils’ entrepreneurial skills. He loves to be a coach and loves sharing his experience and knowledge with others.
Steve (Slovenia): Steve started the first business of his own, Retail, in the last year of his university studies. The business was based on a
research project that he carried out at a research institute with a group of researchers. He also founded a spin-off company from the
first company by recycling human, social, organizational, and financial capital. Steve recycles by sharing at start-up weekends,
advising other companies, and being a mentor and role-model for young entrepreneurs. Steve worked for several years as a teaching
assistant for entrepreneurship courses.
Zack (Slovenia): Zack has had an entrepreneurial spirit from a young age. He ran several small businesses before founding his main
business, PrintPrint. He recycled human, social, and organizational capital from those small businesses to grow his PrintPrint business
to a high level until a successful exit at the age of 33, when he sold his business. Today, Zack works as a professor at a university and is
a mentor to young entrepreneurs. He runs several projects for companies focused on human-centered design for building better user
experiences.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:64e83 83