An Islamic vision and approach for entrepreneurship: developing through a multi-stage comparative analysis of systems, ideologies and code of ethics

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the Islamic character of entrepreneurial activity along with its systemic, ideological and ethical particularities in contrast to the tech-based entrepreneurial model of Silicon Valley.

Design/methodology/approach

Hollingsworth’s framework of institutional analysis is used to analyze and compare the institutional design of tech-based entrepreneurship originated in Silicon Valley with the Islamic alternative.

Findings

An ideal Muslim entrepreneur will have a service-oriented-collectivist mindset, as opposed to an individualistic-self-centric mindset, where solving problems for all stakeholders is a priority instead of profit maximization at the expense of other stakeholders. A Muslim entrepreneur while ensuring the financial sustainability of the firm would avoid complexity on a systemic level, thus would adopt a personalized-family-like atmosphere. A Muslim entrepreneur will also constructively engage local stakeholders and will not possess a disintegrating tendency toward the local social structures.

Practical implications

The paper can help Muslim entrepreneurs to critically evaluate their entrepreneurial activities and firm design in contrast to the contemporary tech-based model.

Originality/value

A number of papers already have discussed the features of an Islamic model of entrepreneurship, however, none has done so while sequentially comparing the Islamic alternative with the contemporary model using Hollingsworth’s framework of institutional analysis. In this paper, the resulting model of Islamic entrepreneurship can be clearly evaluated and contrasted, feature by feature, with its tech-based counterpart.

Citation

Javaid, O. (2022), "An Islamic vision and approach for entrepreneurship: developing through a multi-stage comparative analysis of systems, ideologies and code of ethics", International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-03-2021-0066