Correction to: Entrepreneurialism Meets Sustainability: Exploring Tensions in the Transition to Sustainable Entrepreneurial Universities (Minerva, (2025), 10.1007/s11024-025-09597-9)

Abstract

In the original publication of the article “Entrepreneurialism Meets Sustainability: Exploring Tensions in the Transition to Sustainable Entrepreneurial Universities” the word “bottom-up” has been mistakenly processed as “top-down” in the below paragraph appearing under the heading “Typology I: University organisation and governance”. The incorrect and correct version of the paragraph is shown below: Incorrect version: In Type II (Community), the university mirrors a ‘rule-governed community of scholars’ (Nybom 2007: 63–64), akin to the classic model of a research-intensive university where autonomy and decentralisation hold centre stage. The strategic priorities in this model are addressed considering internal norms and values tied to Science as an institution (Merton 1973) and the academic profession (Clark 1987). This includes the degree of direct engagement with external stakeholders. A sustainability agenda in this type emerges from top-down, resulting from the internal dynamics within sub-units and research groups influenced by the prevalent norms, as well as epistemological and methodological considerations at the level of the respective disciplinary fields (Clark 1984). Correct version: In Type II (Community), the university mirrors a ‘rule-governed community of scholars’ (Nybom 2007: 63–64), akin to the classic model of a research-intensive university where autonomy and decentralisation hold centre stage. The strategic priorities in this model are addressed considering internal norms and values tied to Science as an institution (Merton 1973) and the academic profession (Clark 1987). This includes the degree of direct engagement with external stakeholders. A sustainability agenda in this type emerges from the bottom-up, resulting from the internal dynamics within sub-units and research groups influenced by the prevalent norms, as well as epistemological and methodological considerations at the level of the respective disciplinary fields (Clark 1984). The original version of the article has been corrected.