sustainability
Article
Business Models Addressing Sustainability
Challenges—Towards a New Research Agenda
Claudia Ogrean 1, *
1
2
*
and Mihaela Herciu 2
Department of Management, Marketing, Business Administration, Faculty of Economic Sciences,
“Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
Department of Finances, Accounting, Faculty of Economic Sciences, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu,
550024 Sibiu, Romania; mihaela.herciu@ulbsibiu.ro
Correspondence: claudia.ogrean@ulbsibiu.ro; Tel.: +40-723-919-023
Received: 11 March 2020; Accepted: 24 April 2020; Published: 26 April 2020
Abstract: From just another buzzword a few decades ago, sustainability has become a hot topic
on strategists’ agenda—and it is here to stay. The growing pressures on businesses to address the
ever-complex sustainability challenges and to (consequently) assess their performance against a
variety of sustainability-related goals are imperatively asking for a new paradigm—grounded on a
global business ethics perspective and able to support a fundamental change in the traditional ways
of doing business; placed at the heart of any company’s way of doing business, business models are
instrumental in these transformative changes, both as triggers (in the short run) and backbones (in the
medium to long run). Building on existing literature and capitalizing on the opportunities provided by
inter- and trans-disciplinary research, this theoretical analysis aims to (re)frame the (research in) search
of the most appropriate business models to address sustainability challenges. Thus, the purpose of the
study is: (1) To advocate for a complex yet contingent approach at the business level—able to capture
the bigger picture (the sustainability imperative) without missing its idiosyncrasies (the best fitted to
the business model context)—when searching for strategic performance; (2) to propose an integrative,
multi-level conceptual framework (able to provide widespread synergies for companies and their
broader environment) as guidance for this kind of approach, and to suggest specific directions with
respect to its implementation.
Keywords: bibliometric analysis; business ethics; business model; complexity; integrative approach;
performance assessment; profitability; strategic performance; sustainability; sustainability of business
1. Introduction
Basically, a business model depicts a company’s way of doing business and making money [1],
as money, and particularly profits, represent prerequisites for any company’s survival and future
existence. This makes business models critical determinants of organizational success, while reflecting
the managerial performance against the challenges of the (broad) business environment. Although
the logic behind this framework is still the same, what are quite disruptively new nowadays are the
challenges facing organizations (together with their increasing complexity) on the one hand, and,
somehow consequently, the paradigm shift in the assessment of organizational success (in light of
these challenges) on the other hand.
In its capacity of being both a global challenge and an immanent goal, sustainability—“the
long-term maintenance of systems according to environmental, economic, and social
considerations” [2]—represents one of the driving forces shaping these transformative changes;
over the last decades, sustainability has managed to surpass the level of ideological debates and/or
political endeavors that used to define its approach, and to boldly penetrate the more pragmatic business
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534; doi:10.3390/su12093534
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
2 of 28
world [3,4]. The deterioration of sustainability parameters—which largely occurred as an externality
of ethically questionable business decisions and practices [5,6]—has led to a global awareness on the
ripple effects that this phenomenon may have, while placing businesses under high scrutiny. Thus,
driven by practical or moral reasons [7], profit-seeking or legitimacy-seeking [8], sustainability has
entered the strategists’ agenda. The growing pressures towards sustainability—coming from a variety
of increasingly powerful global actors (ranging from international bodies/institutions to governments
and non-governmental organizations/groups, or even individuals) [9,10]—have determined companies
and their strategists to progressively address the sustainability-related challenges and to reconsider
the businesses’ goals—through the lens of sustainability [11–14].
However, this kind of approach—able to eventually recouple businesses with the environment
and the society at large, while adding specific content, consistency, and measurability to sustainability’s
multiple valences—asks for a new, enlarged (in “space”), and deeper (in “time”) perspective on doing
business; grounded on “a new way of thinking and acting at a global level—a new global ethic” [15] and
transposed into a “moral frame in the sustainable business space” [16]—this new perspective should
be able to support and optimally balance, both statically and dynamically, financial and non-financial
objectives, while satisfying (often) contradictory interests, demands, and concerns.
All of these innate difficulties—coupled with a plethora of: (1) Criticisms—on the real
motivators of such endeavors; (2) complexities—regarding the variables to be considered and their
interconnections; (3) uncertainties—on the best strategic choices to be made in specific circumstances;
(4) unknowns—regarding the practicalities to be deployed in order to operationalize this approach;
and (5) skepticisms—on the resulted outcomes, for both companies and the environment at
large—energetically (re)vitalize the debate on business models amongst academics and practitioners
as well [17–20]. The long list of “unsolved problems” just mentioned sets the parameters of this
debate, while providing the opportunity for a turning point in the way that companies are setting
the standards of their success and position themselves on the coordinates of the sustainable (global)
business environment.
So, what could/should companies do in order to optimally manage, through their business models,
the increasingly complex relationships between the financial and non-financial dimensions of their
(short- as well as long-term) success? Should the existing (approaches to) business models just be
fine-tuned by companies in order to properly address the multi-faceted challenges of sustainability,
or they should be totally reinvented, as the entire paradigm of doing business is about to change when
companies will fully embrace the challenges of sustainability? These are the broad questions that this
study is trying to shed some light on.
Four (hypo)theses (Figure 1) will guide the search for answers to these questions: (1) The
unprecedented complex sustainability-related challenges that organizations are facing nowadays ask
for a new research agenda (as precursor of a new paradigm) for strategists—built on an integrative,
multi-level, and trans-disciplinary approach; (2) “old” profitability and “new” sustainability are not
opposite (mutually exclusive), but rather complementary targets, able to creatively reinforce each
other on the long term into a “virtuous spiral” of organizational success (with positive externalities);
(3) in the short to medium term, the proper search for, choice, design, and execution of a company’s
business model (BM), as well as its change/innovation (BMI) when necessary, are prerequisites for
sustained and sustainable competitiveness; and (4) there is no such thing as a panacea, “one size fits
all” kind of solution, neither “in space” (as regards different companies), nor “in time” (during a
company’s lifespan), so the strategists’ agenda should continuously be updated, as new challenges are
changing the decision-making frameworks and new tools and instruments are developed to address
these challenges.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
3 of 28
Figure 1. Hypotheses of the study.
Against this background, the purpose of the study is: (1) To highlight the need for a complex yet
contingent approach at the business level—able to capture the “bigger picture” (of sustainability)
without missing its granular idiosyncrasies (the most appropriate business model in a specific
context)—when searching for strategic sustainable performance; and (2) to propose an integrative,
multi-level conceptual framework—able to provide (both diachronically and synchronically)
widespread synergies for companies and their broad (social and natural) environment—as guidance
for this kind of approach, and to suggest specific directions with respect to its implementation.
Whilst companies are facing increasingly complex sustainability-related challenges—which impact
not only their ability to financially succeed in the short run, but also their global performance on the
long run, and, through propagated effects, the quality of life (in general)—it is important for academia
to search for a new paradigm of doing business, able to properly address the (new) challenges while
capitalizing on the opportunities brought by the (new) inter- and trans-disciplinary research results;
as part of this endeavor, this paper aims to (re)frame the (research in) search of the most appropriate
business models and to suggest a new research agenda for strategists.
2. Conceptual Background
2.1. Dynamics of Organizational Goals—From Profitability to Sustainability
At a time when the debate on businesses’ social responsibilities was at its dawns [21]—and the
impact of man/business on the natural environment had just been acknowledged as an issue needing
further consideration [22]—Friedman made his seminal statement, which, often taken out of context
and/or truncated, has ever since served as justification for the unethical-to-irresponsible behavior of
many businesses (and their strategists): “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to
use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within
the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or
fraud” [23].
Although echoes of Friedman’s argument are still audible nowadays [24], its interpretation has
been nuanced [25] and its power has progressively faded, as the tremendous pressures on businesses
“to manage responsibly as well as profitably” have turned responsibility into a “new business
imperative” [26]; moreover, they have opened the door to a “new era of corporate sustainability and
responsibility [ . . . when . . . ] ultimately, the purpose of business is to serve society, through the
provision of safe, high quality products and services that enhance our wellbeing, without eroding our
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
4 of 28
ecological and community life-support systems” [27]. The newer “sustainability imperative” has the
privilege of framing and supporting the completion of this transformative journey regarding the ways
that businesses approach their responsibilities (and, consequently, define and follow their goals in
search for survival and success)—as the emergence and crystallization of the sustainability megatrend
is forcing “fundamental and persistent shifts in how companies compete” [28].
Under these circumstances, concepts and practices such as business/corporate sustainability
have increasingly started to challenge both the theory and practice of strategy and strategic
management [29,30]. Thereby: (a) Van Marrewijk and Werre have analyzed and categorized the
different manifestations of corporate sustainability (CS) based on six “ambition levels”—from pre-CS
(which basically reflects “no ambition for CS”) to holistic CS, where “CS is fully integrated and
embedded in every aspect of the organization, aimed at contributing to the quality and continuation
of life of every being and entity, now and in the future” [31]; (b) Dyllick and Muff have provided a
framework on how business sustainability (BST) is able to gradually replace the business-as-usual
paradigm while leading to the BST 3.0 firm—one that “translates sustainability challenges into business
opportunities making ‘business sense’ of societal and environmental issues” [13].
Although the two theoretical models just mentioned are referring to open-ended evolution
frameworks (that are quite far from being fulfilled) on the one hand, and emphasize the diversity of the
particular solutions that businesses could embrace on the other hand, one thing is for sure: In order for
businesses to survive and to further succeed, the sustainability megatrend and its “mega challenges”
can no longer be ignored [29,32]. Shifting organizational goals from “simple” profitability to “complex”
sustainability will allow businesses to effectively address these challenges, while forcing them to focus
on both the ethical foundation and the strategic operationalization of sustainability [33]. If taking
“seriously the idea that strategic management and business ethics are inseparable” [34], which is now
more true than ever if considering the sustainability imperative, the “global business ethics” [35]
embodying the foundation of sustainability becomes a crucial dimension of the “integrative” approach
that should characterize the operationalization of sustainability [12].
Accordingly, “all three dimensions of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—must
be integrated into all aspects of an organization’s strategy and need to be addressed on an
ongoing basis” [36]. If properly managed, through “the integration of corporate sustainability into
strategic management” [30], they could become opportunities—while capitalizing on the “embedded
sustainability” propensity to be(come) “the next big competitive advantage” [37]—to the (long-term)
benefit of both businesses and the society at whole.
In light of the above, many authors have argued that, at the company level, non-financial,
sustainability-related concerns and goals should accompany the financial-related ones (expressed in
terms of “old” profitability) [38], while building the “business case” for corporate sustainability [39].
Some of them have gone even further when advocating for “an extended framework for corporate
sustainability”, able to address not only the “business case”, but also the “natural case” and the “societal
case” of corporate sustainability [40]. Aware of “the impact of corporate sustainability on organizational
processes and performance” [41], a series of companies have managed to bring profitability and
sustainability together—by integrating sustainability into their strategic approaches [42] and corporate
identities [43]—and to properly balance them [44] into “a positive feedback virtuous circle” [45].
In order for this process of integrating sustainability (alongside profitability) into the business core
to become effective, companies have to identify and employ the most suitable business models, able to
make operational their strategic choices while providing the desired outcomes, for both businesses
and the broader society, in the long run. Therefore, as challenging (almost counter-intuitive for many
companies, if considering the business-as-usual paradigm) as this “integration endeavor” might be, it is
likely to open new perspectives on doing business and new approaches to addressing (the challenges
of) sustainability by forcing entrepreneurs and strategists to (re)think their business models.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
5 of 28
2.2. Bringing Organizational Goals to Life—The Role of the Business Model (Innovation)
Although the history of business models (BM) basically overlaps with the history of businesses
themselves, the documentation of business models by researchers has started far more recently, while
getting an impetus “with the development of information and communication technologies (ICT) and
the emergence of Internet companies” [46]. Since then, the literature in the field of business models has
been quite massively enriched [47,48], but at the same time, it remains rather diverse and fragmented
due to “the lack of a common definition and understanding of business models” [49].
Amongst the most expressive (and relevant for the purposes of this work) conceptualizations
of business models could be mentioned those provided by: Shafer, Smith, and Linder: “We define a
business model as a representation of a firm’s underlying core logic and strategic choices for creating and
capturing value within a value network” [50]; Osterwalder and Pigneur: “A business model describes
the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value” [1]; Casadesus-Masanell
and Ricart: “Put succinctly, business model refers to the logic of the firm, the way it operates, and how
it creates value for its stakeholders” [51].
In addition to the obvious emphasis on “value creation”, all of these definitions of business models
(among others) have in common that they also raise some critical issues, which set apart the different
(lines of) approaches, providing, at the same time, background for further consideration: (1) Who
the beneficiaries of value creation (which, broadly, is a matter of “strategic positioning”) are—the
business itself, its specific stakeholders, or the entire system (value network) that the business is a
part of; (2) what value actually is—a unidimensional money-related concept, a multidimensional
business-related concept (encompassing different facets for different stakeholders), or a pluristratified
business-and-ethics-related concept (encompassing the ethical foundation of its understanding as well
as its business operationalization).
A closer look at the literature on business models reveals the complexity of the concept and the
heterogeneity of perspectives and approaches addressing it; still, a series of (review) articles categorize
the main themes and streams of thoughts, while identifying the remaining gaps and limitations in
order to serve as a basis for clarification and future developments in the field.
Accordingly, Zott, Amit, and Massa found four “emerging common themes among scholars of
business models: (1) The BM is emerging as a new unit of analysis; (2) BMs emphasize a system-level,
holistic approach towards explaining how firms ‘do business’; (3) firm activities play an important role
in the various conceptualizations of BMs that have been proposed; and (4) BMs seek to explain how
value is created, not just how it is captured” [52]. Later on, Massa, Tucci, and Afuah depicted “three
interpretations of the meaning and function of ‘business models’: (1) BMs as attributes of real firms,
(2) BMs as cognitive/linguistic schemas, and (3) BMs as formal conceptual representations of how a
business functions” [53].
Regardless of the variety of viewpoints on their conceptualization, their role of translating strategy
into action [54] makes business models essential strategic tools, with a significant contribution to
the operationalization of a company’s strategic vision, goals, and choices. Consequently, business
models are usually associated with organizational performance [55], success [56], and profitability [57],
while being considered as potential sources for competitive advantage [58].
However, with both performance and competitive advantage likely to rapidly erode in our era of
hypercompetition [59], “business model innovation is becoming one of the main forces driving strategic
renewal efforts of businesses around the world” [60]. Moreover, if considering that business model
innovation (BMI) “may refer to (1) the design of novel BMs for newly formed organizations, or (2) the
reconfiguration of existing BMs” [61], the crucial importance of BMI becomes more evident, making
Massa and Tucci argue that the “organizations that embrace business model innovation will embrace
the possibility to shape industries and possibly change the world” [61]. Given the above, an entire new
branch of literature on business model innovation has emerged, with its own conceptualization-related
differences, streams of research, and further limitations [62,63].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
6 of 28
Within this new research area, Spieth, Schneckenberg, and Ricart have proposed “a role-based
approach to categorize the literature and argue[ed] that the respective roles of explaining the business,
running the business, and developing the business can serve as three interrelated perspectives to
present an overview of the current business model innovation field” [64]; based on these findings, they
then suggested a guiding framework for future research avenues in the field.
More recently, Foss and Saebi pinpointed four streams of research on BMI, as follows:
“Conceptualizing BMI, BMI as an organizational change process, BMI as an outcome, and consequences
of BMI” [65]; when referring to the “gaps and challenges in BMI research”, and particularly to “the
focus on BMI in relation to sustainability”, although the authors noticed the momentum that this
research area has recently gained, they also concluded that “the question of how managers can innovate
their BMs toward greater sustainability has not been addressed sufficiently to date” [65].
2.3. Adding the Sustainability Dimension to the Business Model (Innovation)
The last few decades’ increasing concerns for and pressures towards sustainability have determined
companies to continuously search for new approaches as regards their business model (innovation),
either reactively or proactively, by “changing their business models to adapt to the sustainability
issue or [ . . . by . . . ] designing business models that actively contribute to solving the problem” [18].
With sustainability progressively emerging as the “key driver of innovation” [66], the process of
“sustainable innovation”—integrating sustainability considerations into company systems, including
their business models [67]—has become its main vehicle. Therefore, the efforts businesses have made
in order to align themselves with the new realities and trends shaping their existence have varied from
developing “innovation activities oriented towards making the business models more sustainable” [68]
to engaging in incremental or radical “organizational processes of business model innovation for
sustainability” [69].
This pursuit of sustainability has substantially enriched the business model (innovation) thinking,
designing, and execution, leading to remarkable advancements in both practice and academia, while
opening quite promising avenues for future research in complementary areas, such as “sustainable
business models” (SBM)/“business models for sustainability” (BMS) and “sustainable business model
innovation”/“business model innovation for corporate sustainability” [19,70].
Stubbs and Cocklin were among the first to “develop a ‘sustainable business model’ (SBM)—a
model where sustainability concepts shape the driving force of the firm and its decision-making” [71];
their case-study-based research generated “an ‘ideal-type’ SBM” built around a series of propositions
referring to: The organization’s triple purpose and performance (measuring); the equal preeminence of
all of the stakeholders’ needs to be addressed, including those of nature; the driving role of sustainability
leaders in implementing sustainability; and the complex—system- and firm-level—perspective
necessary to be embraced by such an endeavor [71].
Later on, Schaltegger, Hansen, and Lüdeke-Freund proposed “the following definition of a
business model for sustainability: A business model for sustainability helps describing, analyzing,
managing, and communicating (i) a company’s sustainable value proposition to its customers and all
other stakeholders, (ii) how it creates and delivers this value, and (iii) how it captures economic value
while maintaining or regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational
boundaries” [72].
As concerns the “innovation” dimension of the SBMs/BMS, two streams of research could be
identified: One that aims at contributing to a common/unified understanding of SBMs/BMS—in order
to facilitate/accelerate further progress/innovation in the area, and another one that aims at contributing
to the development of a new, dedicated (sub)field of research.
Thus, Bocken et al. introduced the “sustainable business model archetypes”—namely: “Maximize
material and energy efficiency, create value from ‘waste’, substitute with renewables and natural
processes, deliver functionality rather than ownership, adopt a stewardship role, encourage sufficiency,
re-purpose the business for society/environment, and develop scale-up solutions“—as “exemplars
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
7 of 28
for sustainable business model innovation” [73]. Then, Joyce and Paquin developed “the triple-layer
business model canvas”, which adds an environmental layer and a social one to Osterwalder and
Pigneur’s original business model canvas [1] with the intention of both making it parallel and extending
it, in order to provide “a tool for exploring sustainability-oriented business model innovation” [74].
Later on, Lüdeke-Freund et al. advanced a “sustainable business model pattern taxonomy”, which
comprises 45 SBM patterns developed around “five major categories of value creation” and “11 SBM
pattern groups”, in an effort “to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation” [75].
On the other hand, Geissdoerfer et al. grouped the specific forms of sustainable business model
innovation into four types, derived from their specific goals (start-ups, transformation, diversification,
and acquisition) [76] and complemented them with “certain sustainable business model types and
strategies”—aiming “at developing a sustainable business model innovation framework [ . . . as
guidance for . . . ] companies through their business model innovation process” [76].
Focused on providing “a unified theoretical perspective for understanding business model
innovations that lead to better organizational economic, environmental, and social performance” [70],
Evans et al. developed “five propositions that support the creation of SBMs: (1) Sustainable value
incorporates economic, social, and environmental benefits conceptualized as value forms; (2) SBMs
require a system of sustainable value flows among multiple stakeholders, including the natural
environment and society as primary stakeholders; (3) SBMs require a value network with a new
purpose, design, and governance; (4) SBMs require a systemic consideration of stakeholder interests
and responsibilities for mutual value creation; (5) internalizing externalities through product–service
systems enables innovation towards SBMs” [70].
3. Methodology
Albeit theoretical, and advocating for interpretivism in finding the most adequate solutions to the
(research) questions raised, this paper preferred to embraced pragmatism as its research philosophy.
In line with this approach, it combined deduction and induction while pursuing (built on an extensive,
quasi-systematic review of the literature, complemented by critical thinking) exploratory, descriptive,
as well as explanatory purposes [77] as follows: (1) Exploring the literature on sustainability and
business models—in search of new insights and/or for assessing topics in a new light—allowing the
further setting of the main coordinates of the study from a comprehensive, trans-disciplinary perspective;
(2) describing the situations/phenomena (derived from both literature and real organizational life)—in
order to produce an accurate representation of them—serving as support for the refining of exploration
(up to the building blocks of the eventual conceptual framework) on the one hand, and for the
scientific substantiation of explanation (regarding the impacts/relationships governing the design of
the conceptual framework) on the other hand; and (3) explaining the impact of different factors and the
relationships between different variables (within the proposed conceptual framework) both statically
and dynamically.
Considering the above, the paper’s scope was to develop a dynamic, multi-level conceptual
framework (open to further improvements—inputs and/or corrections) suitable to be embraced by any
(kind of) company searching for sustainable competitiveness. The main variables, as determined in
the previous section, are: Organizational goals/performance, profit(ability), sustainability, business
model/business model innovation, sustainable business model/business model for sustainability, new
context/challenges, and new research agenda (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
8 of 28
Figure 2. Theoretical framework supporting a new research agenda.
As regards the research strategy, given the paper’s research questions and objectives, probably the
most appropriate would have been an action research strategy, but it would have limited the scope of
the paper, while providing a one-lens kind of answer; however, such research is mandatory in the future
in order to test the validity and to correct/improve the (theoretical) results of this study. On the other
hand, a grounded theory strategy could also be embraced by future research to address the questions
if an appropriate amount of empirical data are available (maybe in the form of a comparative study of
best practices). However, because these two strategies are either inconclusive or impracticable at this
point/moment, evidence-based management has emerged as the most suitable approach. Built on the
basic idea that “good-quality decisions require both critical thinking and the use of the best available
evidence, ( . . . ) evidence-based management is about making decisions through the conscientious,
explicit, and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources ( . . . ) to increase the
likelihood of a favorable outcome” [78].
Therefore, the study has critically appraised evidence from the scientific research literature in
order to answer the research questions; aware of the “methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review” [79], the research methods employed were
the cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis and reanalysis of secondary data (literature in the field of
“sustainability” AND “business model”).
As concerns data collection and data analysis to complete the endeavor, besides the narrative
literature review—based on a bibliographical data search (on Web of Science, Scopus, and Google
Scholar) and aimed to set the theoretical background of the study—a bibliometric analysis was
performed using Web of Science (WoS) publications (http://apps.webofknowledge.com/), as a series of
the studies have previously done [80], including a recent one, on sustainability research in business
and management [4].
Scanning the entire universe of existing literature in the field of <<“sustainability” AND “business
model”>> on WoS was performed in order to have access to the mainstream (most cited) research, but
also to the new and/or heterodox approaches; thus, from the WoS Core Collection database, the records
for <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>> since 1994 (the first year in which a publication
checked the two topics) until (the first quarter of) 2020 were searched to serve as main variables of the
theoretical framework, and a total of 1074 records were returned and extracted for analysis.
The two topics/variables were chosen mainly because of the fragmentation of the (management)
field [79] on the one hand, and the particularity of “trans-disciplinary research in sustainability
science” [81] on the other hand—features asking for a broader view, able to encompass multiple
research perspectives and areas. A narrower search—e.g., for <<”sustainability” AND “business
model” AND “profit*”>>, generating a total of only 146 records—would have been quite insufficient
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
9 of 28
and inconclusive for the purpose of the paper; although, to tunnel the analysis and refine the results,
a filter was then applied to capture the core “business and economics” categories in WoS (Management,
Business, Economics, Business Finance), which returned a total of 365 records. No additional filters
were applied, as a (pure) “systematic review” of existing literature [82] is beyond the paper’s scope.
The bibliometric analysis was made using the VOSviewer version 1.6.15 software tool (https:
//www.vosviewer.com/), which is “a freely available computer program ( . . . ) developed for constructing
and viewing bibliometric maps. ( . . . It uses) the VOS mapping technique ( . . . ), where VOS stands for
visualization of similarities” [83]. Regardless of its limitations [84], VOSviewer is increasingly used
(either alone or together with other tools) by researchers in the fields of business and management to
achieve systematic reviews [85,86]. Following an overall (quantitative) evaluation of the research in
the field of <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>>, based on WoS Analyze Result tool, a more
in-depth analysis—based on the VOSviewer tool—was made, capitalizing on the maps created for both
text and bibliographic data. Once exported to VOSviewer, the results provided by WoS (containing Full
Record and Cited References) became data sources for creating/generating new maps [87]: Text data
were used to construct networks of co-occurrence links between terms, while bibliographic data were
used to construct networks of co-occurrences of keywords and citations (of sources and documents).
According to the VOSviewer manual [87], the “items are the objects of interest” (terms, publications,
or authors) that “may be grouped into clusters”, while “a link is a connection or a relation between
two items; ( . . . ) each link has a strength, ( . . . and . . . ) the higher this value, the stronger the link”.
Moreover, “for a given item, the Links and Total Link Strength attributes indicate, respectively, the
number of links of an item with other items and the total strength of the links of an item with other
items”. Two kinds of map visualizations were generated and displayed in the study to maximize the
impact of results: Network visualization and density visualization; “in the network visualization,
items are represented by their label and ( . . . ) also by a circle. The size of the label and the circle of
an item is determined by the weight of the item”, while “in the item density visualization, items are
represented by their label in a similar way as in the network visualization ( . . . ). Each point in the item
density visualization has a color that indicates the density of items at that point. ( . . . ) The larger the
number of items in the neighborhood of a point and the higher the weights of the neighboring items,
the closer the color of the point is to yellow”/red (depending on the color panel applied).
In this way, the conceptual background previously provided, complemented with the results of
the (following) bibliometric analysis, will allow a qualitative analysis [88] able not only to delineate
and understand the main coordinates that define the complex interplays between businesses and their
broader environment, but also to analyze their structure and dynamics and, further on, to provide
rationale for designing a new research agenda on business models addressing sustainability challenges.
4. Results
4.1. Bibliometric Analysis
Searching on the Web of Science (WoS) for <<“Sustainability” AND “business model”>> returned
a total of 1074 results/publications (Figure 3) between 1994 and (the first quarter of) 2020. A brief
analysis of these records reveals the following features:
•
•
Document types (and their respective number of records—higher than “total results”, as some of
them belong to more than one category): Article (733), Proceedings Paper (274), Review (65), Book
Chapter (44), Editorial Material (17), Early Access (16), and Meeting Abstract (1);
Top 10 WoS categories (and their respective numbers of records): Green Sustainable Science
Technology (274), Environmental Sciences (265), Management (233), Business (192), Environmental
Studies (169), Engineering Environmental (136), Engineering Industrial (68), Economics (58),
Engineering Manufacturing (53), and Computer Science Information Systems (47);
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
•
•
•
10 of 28
Top five source titles (and their respective numbers of records): Journal of Cleaner Production
(111), Sustainability (95), Procedia CIRP (28), Business Strategy and the Environment (19), and
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (11);
Top five authors (and their respective number of records): Evans, Steve (19); Bocken, Nancy M.P.
(17) / Bocken, Nancy (8), Ludeke-Freund, Florian (14), McAloone, Tim (7), Pedersen, Esben R.G.,
Pigosso, Daniela, C.A., and Rana, Padmakshi (6);
Citation report: Average citations per item—12.44; sum of times cited—13362 (11105 without
self-citation); citing articles—8760 (8311 without self-citation).
240
211 208
220
200
180
166
160
140
121
120
100
100
80
66
60
40
20
1
1
2
1
6
6
2
2
6
9
19
28
32
32
39
16
0
Figure 3. Web of Science (WoS) records for <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>>.
Out of the total 1074 documents, 163 (15.18%) were published between 1994 and 2013, while 911
(84.82%) have been published since 2014. The exponential growth in number was accompanied by
major content-related changes; in order to properly capture these changes, the bibliometric analysis
was performed on three time-related data sets: (1) Documents published during 1994–2013, to outline
the emergence and early evolutions of the research on <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>>;
(2) documents published in 2019 (208 records), to assess the most recent interests and developments;
and (3) documents published during 1994–2020, to extract the main dynamics and trends characterizing
the research field.
Imported from WoS to VOSviewer, these data have served as inputs enabling the construction
of bibliometric maps to back the analysis further; all the figures and tables in this section have been
generated accordingly (using WoS data and VOSviewer tool). Thus:
Between 1994 and 2013, the “term co-occurrence map based on text data” (Figure 4) generated
25 items—grouped into three clusters, developing 282 links and a total link strength of 1691:
•
•
•
Cluster 1 (12 items): Analysis, business model, case, environment, implementation, lack, model,
organization, quality, study, sustainability, world;
Cluster 2 (8 items): Activity, challenge, company, country, customer, number, opportunity, product;
Cluster 3 (5 items): Article, firm, innovation, new business model, way.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
11 of 28
(a) Network visualization
(b) Density visualization
Figure 4. Term co-occurrence map based on text data (1994–2013).
In 2019, the “term co-occurrence map based on text data” (Figure 5) generated 73 items—grouped
into three clusters, developing 2431 links and a total link strength of 7443:
•
•
•
Cluster 1 (31 items): Action, activity, application, author, context, country, demand, economy,
end, enterprise, example, factor, field, future research, gap, interest, knowledge, lack, number,
operation, opportunity, platform, principle, relation, researcher, sample, survey, sustainable
development, time, tool, user;
Cluster 2 (23 items): Addition, attention, business model innovation, case study, characteristic,
customer, element, firm, implication, importance, influence, literature, need, new business model,
relationship, review, service, stakeholder, sustainable business model, theory, type, value creation,
value proposition;
Cluster 3 (19 items): Actor, barrier, challenge, circular business model, circular economy,
consumption, design methodology approach, driver, interview, literature review, manager,
methodology, originality value, product, product service system, production, supply chain,
transition, understanding.
(a) Network visualization
(b) Density visualization
Figure 5. Term co-occurrence map based on text data (2019).
As regards the entire time frame under analysis (1994–2020), the “term co-occurrence map based
on text data” (Figure 6) generated 362 items—grouped into three clusters, developing 32,251 links and
a total link strength of 52,720. Amongst the most relevant items within each cluster (together with
their respective total link strengths) are:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
•
•
•
12 of 28
Cluster 1 (157 items): Platform (718), program (495), effectiveness (456), consequence (434), long
term (391), connection (388), vision (372), trust (363), decision making (355), emergence (349), new
approach (336), cooperation (316), feasibility (285), diffusion (277), recycling (258), flexibility (261),
transparency (284), bmi (243);
Cluster 2 (152 items): Sustainable business model (1104), firm (1072), sustainable development
(742) enterprise (766), business model innovation (891), value creation (681), circular economy (580),
value proposition (513), product service system (432), environmental impact (419), competitive
advantage (389), partnership (384), corporate social responsibility (335), business models
(344), environmental sustainability (300), competitiveness (299), circular business model (266),
profitability (249), reporting (223), business model canvas (222), corporate sustainability (209),
social value (208), social enterprise (185), csr (183), business case (177), sustainable innovation
(171), social entrepreneurship (154), sustainability performance (153), sustainable business model
innovation (152), climate change (153), financial performance (150), sustainable business (150),
current business model (143), triple bottom line (139), integrated reporting (138), circularity
(134), sustainable business models (132), energy efficiency (132), business model concept (129),
environmental performance (127), sustainable development goal (124), value capture (122), tension
(121), sustainability issue (120), best practice (120), social sustainability (118), sustainability
transition (117), traditional business mode (116), economic value (107), economic performance
(105), environmental value (113), negative impact (110), sustainable value (104), business model
perspective (104), positive impact (103);
Cluster 3 (53 items): Investment (663), infrastructure (609), report (594), financial sustainability
(267), mission (233), adaptation (190), social impact (146), business sustainability (142), key
stakeholder (129), long term sustainability (108), digitalization (100).
(a) Network visualization
(b) Density visualization
Figure 6. Term co-occurrence map based on text data (1994–2020).
The above illustrated results mainly suggest: (1) The constant (need and) search for “innovation”,
especially in relationship with or in terms of: new business model (during 1994–2013), business model
innovation (in 2019), business model innovation, eco innovation, innovation management, innovation
process, innovative business model, sustainable business model innovation, sustainable innovation,
technological innovation (as concerns the entire period under scrutiny); (2) the refinement of research
on “sustainability” and the emergence of: Corporate sustainability, environmental sustainability, social
sustainability, sustainability performance, business sustainability, financial sustainability, long term
sustainability; (3) the diversification and increasing consistency of research on “business model”,
focused on: Business model canvas, business model concept, business model innovation, business
model perspective, circular business model, current business mode, innovative business model, pss
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
13 of 28
business model, sustainable business model, sustainable business model innovation, traditional
business models. Together, the three tendencies have led to new theoretical constructs and new
organizational practices, such as: Circular business model, sustainable business model, or sustainable
business model innovation.
The most relevant citation sources of the entire period under analysis (Figure 7) are presented
in Table 1.
Figure 7. Most relevant citation sources (1994–2020).
Table 1. Top five most relevant citation sources (1994–2020).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Source
Documents
Citations
Total Link Strength
Journal of cleaner production
Sustainability
Organization and environment
Business strategy and the environment
Long range planning
111
95
10
18
6
3731
307
913
485
745
549
291
263
156
65
As regards the most relevant citation documents (Figure 8) during 1994 and 2020, they are
extracted in Table 2.
Figure 8. Most relevant citation documents (1994–2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
14 of 28
Table 2. Top five most relevant citation documents (1994–2020).
Document
1. Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P., and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
2. Boons, F., and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation:
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19.
3. Stubbs, W., and Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”.
Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.
4. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G., and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for
sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & Environment,
29(1), 3–10
5. Pieroni, M.P., McAloone, T.C., and Pigosso, D.C. (2019). Business model innovation for
circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production,
215, 198–216.
Citations
Links
657
189
558
174
346
133
173
81
28
67
The “keyword co-occurrence map based on bibliographic data” (Figure 9) reveals the following:
•
•
For the 1994–2013 time span (163 records): 11 items were grouped into 3 clusters: Cluster 1
(five items): Business models, innovation, performance, strategy, sustainability; Cluster 2 (four
items): Framework, management, systems, technology; Cluster 3 (two items): Business model,
competitive advantage; in terms of total link strength, the ranking of the 11 items is: Sustainability,
performance, business model, framework, technology, competitive advantage, systems, innovation,
strategy, management, business models.
In 2019 (208 records): 69 items were grouped into six clusters: Cluster 1 (14 items): Competitive
advantage, corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, csr, entrepreneurship, green,
impact, implementation, integration, knowledge, performance, responsibility, supply chain,
sustainable development; Cluster 2 (13 items): Barriers, circular economy, drivers, economy,
efficiency, industry, innovation, life-cycle assessment, of-the-art, opportunities, renewable energy,
smes, sustainable business model; Cluster 3 (13 items): Business models, challenges, creation,
design, develop, energy, firms, literature review, product-service systems, pss, servitization,
strategies, sustainable business models; Cluster 4 (13 items): Business model, framework,
information, insights, management, model, stakeholders, sustainability transitions, systems,
technology, tool, transitions, transport; Cluster 5 (10 items): Business model innovation, future,
industry 4.0, perspective, product, service, services, smart, strategy, value creation; Cluster 6
(six items): Collaborative consumption, consumption, evolution, platforms, sharing economy,
sustainability; in terms of total link strength, the ranking of the top 10 items is: Sustainability,
business model, innovation, circular economy, business model innovation, design, framework,
management, future, perspective.
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. Keyword co-occurrence map based on bibliographic data in (a) 1994–2013 versus (b) 2019.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
15 of 28
With respect to the entire period under analysis (1994–2020), the “keyword co-occurrence map
based on bibliographic data” (created by considering the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword
at ten, as compared to just five in the previous cases), encompassing 123 items grouped around five
clusters, is presented in Figure 10; it captures the entire picture from both general (density visualization)
and particular perspectives (the five items governing the five clusters).
(a) Sustainability
(b) Business model
122 links, 1717 total link strength, 415 occurrences
120 links, 1028 total link strength, 257 occurrences
(c) Innovation
(d) Performance
117 links, 1171 total link strength, 215 occurrences
109 links, 538 total link strength, 92 occurrences
(e) Future
(f) Density visualization
102 links, 412 total link strength, 67 occurrences
Figure 10. Keyword co-occurrence map based on bibliographic data (1994–2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
16 of 28
If considering the two figures above, capturing the keyword co-occurrence map based on
bibliographic data: (1) Competitive advantage is a recurrent concern (in relationship with: Business
model, sustainability, technology, framework, and performance – during 1994–2013; corporate
sustainability, performance, management, business model, life-cycle assessment, framework, design,
sustainability, innovation, strategies, opportunities, circular economy, and product–service system –
in 2019; firm performance, firm, resource-based view, impact, corporate sustainability, governance,
business model, sustainability, management, innovation, framework, business model innovation,
and value creation – during 1994–2020); (2) the five items/keywords governing the five clusters
in the reference period (1994–2020)—sustainability, business model, innovation, performance, and
future—are not only indicators of the previous research directions, but they can also guide future
research (especially by considering their not necessarily “most obvious” links, but the emerging,
new ones).
If tunneling the analysis to the core “business and economics” categories in WoS (Management,
Business, Economics, Business Finance), a total of 365 records (during 2008 and 2020) were returned
for <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>>. The main results are found in Figure 11.
(a) Map based on text data: 125 items, 4 clusters
(b) Co-occurrence of keywords: 102 items, 7 clusters
(c) Bibliographic coupling: 326 items, 15 clusters
(d) Citations: 155 items, 23 clusters
Figure 11. Map visualization for <<“sustainability” AND “business model”>> in core “business and
economics” WoS categories (1994–2020).
Despite expectations, tunneling the search did not lead to (more) clarification in terms of returned
results; on the contrary, the acute scattering of results reveals a territory still in search of shape as
regards both its boundaries and its inner relationships.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
17 of 28
To summarize, both the narrative literature review and the bibliometric analysis support the
general assessment of the high complexity of the issue (multiple components and relationships,
accompanied by accentuated dynamics) and raise awareness of the need for a more coagulated yet
complex and trans-disciplinary approach in order to address it.
4.2. Guiding Lines for a New Approach at the Business Level and a New Research Agenda
To sum up, over the last few decades, the dynamics of the relationships between profitability and
sustainability at the business level—and particularly, the ways that they are captured and translated
into successful business models—have drawn the attention of many scholars (with different scientific
backgrounds and lenses of approach), leading to considerable contributions, derived from both
theoretical developments and empirical investigations.
Still, the increasing complexity of the issue continuously raises new challenges—in terms
of untapped areas and/or unanswered questions—while providing new perspectives, tools, and
instruments for addressing them—mainly derived from previously unrelated and/or inexistent
sciences/theories, such as: Complexity theory [89], paradox theory [90], co-evolutionary economics [91],
or sustainability science [92]—as well as new solutions to be explored and conceptualized based on
practical, business-level advancements.
Therefore, the need for a complex yet contingent approach at the business level—able to capture the
“bigger picture” without missing its idiosyncrasies, while providing widespread (both diachronically
and synchronically) synergies—becomes both evident and compulsory; by bringing together different
streams of research (originating in different research areas) and “connecting the dots” in order to
develop new synapses, the rationale of the current endeavor is to suggest a conceptual framework as
guidance for this kind of approach (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Suggested conceptual framework.
4.2.1. Governing Mechanisms of Business Behavior—Complexity, Open Systems, and Coevolution
The complex system that defines the global economy of today [93], on the one hand, and the
progresses registered towards the encapsulation of complexity into a theory of its own, with multiple
valences and applications [94], on the other hand, have introduced complexity economics [95] and the
approach of “organizations as complex adaptive systems” [96], namely “systems that involve many
components that adapt or learn as they interact” [97].
Acknowledging the key properties of complexity—“nonlinear interaction, decentralized control,
self-organization, non-equilibrium order, coevolution, and collectivist dynamics” [98]—and the major
features of complex adaptive systems—“parallelism, conditional action, modularity, and adaptation
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
18 of 28
and evolution” [97]—will allow managers to better understand organizations and their (relationships
with the) broader environment from an ecosystem perspective, governed by and leading to co-evolution.
Within this extended framework: (1) Organizations are “open systems operating under conditions
of substantial turbulence, risk ( . . . ), and uncertainty ( . . . ) and seeking to balance stability and coherence
with flexibility and change in pursuit of higher levels of efficacy and organizational sustainability” [99];
(2) the ecosystem perspective—integrating “the focal complexity aspects ( . . . of . . . ) self-organization,
emergence, co-evolution and adaptation” [100]—“offers a new way to obtain a holistic view of the
business network and the relationships and mechanisms that are shaping it, while including the roles
and strategies of the individual actors that are a part of these networks” [101]; and (3) coevolution
“encompasses the twin notions of interdependency and mutual adaptation, with the idea that ( . . . )
organizations evolve in relation to their environments, while at the same time these environments
evolve in relation to them” [102].
Accordingly, “coevolutionary research in the organizational sciences has concluded that
organizations and their environments are locked into perpetual coevolutionary cycles of change in which
the ever increasing turbulence of the business environment leads to more flexible, innovation-driven
organizational structures and processes” [103]; more specifically, the theory of coevolutionary economics
argues that “the economy, society, and the environment are linked together in a coevolutionary
relationship” [91]—a fundamental assumption that imperatively asks for (business) managers to
eventually transform their businesses into “sustaining corporations”—“the regenerative organizations
of the future that act as constituent cells in a complex and fully self-renewing world” [104].
This “ultimate” (level of) corporate sustainability not only goes beyond the nowadays commonly
accepted approach of “strategic proactivity”, while calling for “an integrated approach to coordinating
strategies in the three main streams of sustainability: Economic, social, and ecological” [104], but it
also amplifies a recurrent (unsolved) issue of sustainability—that of the “tensions between different
desirable, yet interdependent and conflicting sustainability objectives” [105]. These “tensions” are
inevitable if considering the three pillars of sustainability and the difficulties of their integration into a
“triple bottom line” perspective [106] at the business level on the one hand, and the time dimension
requested by sustainability, reflected into “the ability of the firm to balance the short and long term”
and thus surpassing short-termism [107], on the other hand.
Although not formally expressed (and/or addressed), the conflicting objectives have been an
immanent presence in sustainability research (and practice): In one of the early (and highly referred
to) studies, Dyllick and Hockerts defined corporate sustainability in terms of “meeting the needs of a
firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders ( . . . ), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of
future stakeholders as well” [40]. In line with the stakeholder management approach when referring
to the beneficiaries of a corporation’s endeavors and their (often) conflictual needs and expectations,
the two authors were, on the other hand, way ahead of their times when: (1) Advocating for “the
six criteria managers aiming for corporate sustainability will have to satisfy”, thus enlarging “in
space” the perspective beyond the business case for sustainability, and (2) emphasizing the (somehow
forgotten/neglected) original, time-related dimension of sustainability, thus deepening the perspective
on corporate sustainability “in time”.
4.2.2. Corporation-Level Adjustment Settings—Addressing Sustainability Tensions through a
Paradox Lens
However, strategic dualities and tensions amongst objectives (and the means to achieve them)
are neither new nor unusual for businesses [108]. Moreover, researchers in organizational theory
suggest that “oppositional demands represent core features of organizational life” [109], while strategic
management scholars claim that “at the heart of every set of strategic issues, a fundamental tension
between apparent opposites can be identified” [110].
Therefore, De Wit and Meyer developed a generic framework on dealing with strategy tensions
“as puzzles, dilemmas, trade-offs, and paradoxes”, and concluded that “viewing strategy tensions
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
19 of 28
as strategy paradoxes is the ultimate intellectual challenge (because it . . . ) will encourage the use of
creativity to find out ways of benefiting from both sides of a tension at the same time” [110]. On the
other hand, Smith and Lewis identified three “alternative approaches to managing organizational
tensions” [90] corresponding to the evolution of management theories/perspectives; then, arguing that
“paradox becomes a critical theoretical lens to understand and to lead contemporary organization”,
they advocated for a theory of paradox, which “at its core ( . . . ) presumes that tensions are integral
to complex systems and that sustainability depends on attending to contradictory yet interwoven
demands simultaneously” [90].
Challenged by the dualities that have always accompanied strategic choices, managers and
researchers alike have been forced to search for and develop new, innovative solutions—sometimes by
even redefining the rules of the game and/or reshaping the boundaries of the strategic management
filed. Accordingly, relatively recent concepts and practices, such as blue ocean strategy [111] or
organizational ambidexterity [112], are solid proof of how particular pairs of apparent irreconcilable
opposites (low cost/differentiation and exploitation/exploration, respectively) can be successfully
managed, if: (1) Considering them as inevitable presences and defining features of an increasingly
complex business context; (2) replacing the traditional reductionist mindset with a more integrative,
holistic view; and (3) searching for specific creative solutions, able to optimally accommodate the
conflicting requirements; if enlarging this frame—from particular issues to the entire organizational
picture—(4) acknowledging the simultaneous presence of multiple pairs of opposites needing to be
handled is the fourth dimension that has to be taken into account.
The “bad news” that sustainability has the “privilege” of bringing together the most complex
duality-related strategic challenges—financial and non-financial (social and environmental) goals,
accomplished against the long-term and short-term needs and expectations of myriads of (known as well
as unpredictable) stakeholders—can only be overshadowed by the “good news”, that decision-makers
are increasingly addressing (to different degrees and in various forms) the sustainability megatrend,
while academia is making considerable progress towards dealing with the sustainability-related
strategic dualities by embracing a paradox perspective.
Thus, in a review article on “tensions in corporate sustainability”, Van der Byl and Slawinski
identified “four general approaches to how tensions are examined: Through a win–win, trade-off,
integrative, or paradox lens” [113]; arguing that the paradox approach “seeks to understand the
nature of tensions along with how actors work through them”, the authors emphasize its value in
providing “an opportunity to evaluate complex sustainability issues and generate creative approaches
to them” [113].
Later on, Hahn et al. proposed a comprehensive “paradox perspective on corporate sustainability”
based on a definition of the concept and “a framework to delineate its descriptive, instrumental, and
normative aspects”, as well as the interconnections amongst them, and concluded that “responses to
sustainability challenges that allow businesses and society to thrive, paradoxically, require giving up
the categorical primacy of profitability so that firms can iteratively attend to various interrelated, yet
competing demands for achieving economically prosperous, environmentally healthy, and socially
equitable development paths” [105]. Although not yet entirely configured at the firm level, this kind of
perspective sheds some light on the ways businesses should address the sustainability-related dualities
and opens wide avenues for the desired reconciliation between business and society.
4.2.3. Fine-Tuning Mechanisms—Designing, Implementing, and Innovating Business Models
for Sustainability
Building on a complexity view aiming for coevolution, while contextually addressing the challenges
of sustainability through a paradox lens, managers will then have to (dynamically) transpose the
resulting vision into reality—a “business model that aims to integrate business, society, and nature”
both spatially and temporally [12]. Orchestrating this entire process will require a new, “responsible
management”, which integratively “assumes responsibility for the triple bottom line (sustainability),
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
20 of 28
stakeholder value (responsibility), and moral dilemmas (ethics)” [114] as the main driver for the
“prime business”—“a superior type of business that leads to performance that is in the same time
socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable, optimizes stakeholder value, and displays
moral excellence” [114].
In order to “ultimately transform trade-offs into synergies” [115], managers will basically have to
search for (co)creating sustained and sustainable value by: (1) Fully overlapping their sustainability
and business strategy [116] in the long run; (2) continually (2.a) building resilience [107] as feedback
loops for the long-term outcomes, and (2.b) developing dynamic capabilities [46] to support business
model innovation in the medium run; and (3) thoroughly implementing best-fitting business models
in the short run (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Granular steps/components of the general framework.
Within this (holistic and dynamic) framework governed by the multiple dimensions and valences
of “value”, the different (time-related) levels of approach are (inter)connected and support each
other, while their outcomes/performances are likely to be cascading and synergistically enhanced.
The comprehensive ultimate goal of (co)creating (and delivering/capturing) sustained and sustainable
value for multiple stakeholders encompasses:
•
•
•
Sustained value creation, which “relies on successfully shaping, adapting, and renewing the
underlying business model of the company on a continuous basis” [117], and sustained value
co-creation, which requires a company “to possess the capacity to structure its resource portfolios,
including those of its collaborating partners ( . . . ), bundle the resources to create capabilities
and leveraging/reconfiguring the capabilities to (efficiently) exploit market opportunities, and
(flexibly) explore innovations for latent market demands” [118];
Achieving “sustainable value—shareholder wealth that simultaneously drives us toward a more
sustainable world” [119] or shared value, “which involves creating economic value in a way
that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenge” [120], based on the
“shared value creation framework” [54], able to generate myriads of opportunities in areas such as
reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and enabling local
cluster development [120];
Adding the time dimension to the sustainable/shared value created—or “mainstreaming
sustainability in strategy” [107]—which implies: (a) “A dynamic systems view of strategy
( . . . where . . . ) the firm’s outcomes are seen as part of a larger system of outcomes, and issues
of sustainability and organizational viability over time become important”, and (b) “firm
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
•
•
21 of 28
performance that captures long-term value ( . . . namely . . . ) a wider measure of firm performance
( . . . ) that can convey not only the firm’s profitability at a point in time, but also its sustainability
over time” [107];
Building resilience and developing dynamic capabilities as coping mechanisms able to connect
the different time-level frames (upstream and downstream, respectively): (a) Resilience—“the
capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change” [121]—will
serve as precursor and enabler of sustainability while valorizing “dynamic, adaptive management
rather than static optimization” [121]; (b) dynamic capabilities—“the firm’s ability to integrate,
build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing
environments” [122]—will shape a company’s business model [46] while moderating its business
model innovation capacity [49];
Designing and implementing the most appropriate business model will crucially rely on managers’
ability to holistically understand and capitalize on the “complementarity of business-model
perspectives” [49]: Business model activities (detailing the flow of value-adding processes);
business model logics (detailing the consequence chain); business model archetypes (detailing
overall approaches); business model elements (detailing the set of necessary parts); and business
model alignment (detailing the connections between parts).
This kind of “virtuous spiral” approach—with “value” as an underlying principle, common thread
across timeframes, and complex performance measurement criterion—will be able to (continuously)
connect the end results of a business’s endeavors with the (time-related) progressive means to achieve
them, while eventually contributing to the (re)coupling of businesses and their broader environment.
However, in order to become effective, it needs to be founded on “a pluralistic logic of responsible
management [ . . . and driven by . . . ] responsible managers as institutional leaders and strategists” [123].
5. Discussion
As “recent evidence has shown that companies have increased the management commitment and
investments they are dedicating to sustainability” [68], “the question of whether or not to embrace
sustainability is being replaced by another question: How do we do it?” [32], causing the raising of
awareness about the sustainability megatrend and its ever-complex challenges to gradually become
dominant and global. Consequently, myriads of contributions have enriched both the literature and
the practice in the generic field of corporate sustainability, aiming (each one of them) at providing
(specific) solutions to the “how” question, while (together) advancing towards a (new) paradigm
of doing business through the lens of sustainability and grounded on an emerging global business
ethics perspective.
Considering the “business model as a key initiating component of corporate sustainability”,
Schaltegger et al. argued that “the business model perspective is particularly interesting in the
context of sustainability because it highlights the value creation logic of an organization and its effects,
and potentially allows (and calls) for new governance forms, such as cooperatives, public private
partnerships, or social businesses, thus helping transcend narrow for-profit and profit-maximizing
models” [72]. Thus, the solution of considering business models as building blocks of corporate
sustainability would allow organizations to translate a rather distant and blurry target into concrete
(series of) decisions able to be implemented and then assessed against tangible and measurable criteria;
moreover, it opens new avenues for out-of-the-box ways of organizing and managing, while redefining
organizational success and performance.
The proposed framework and its guidelines are consonant with this theory, as they lie instrumental
on business models in the transformative process induced at the business level by the sustainability
imperative. In addition to the contributions the Guiding lines for a new approach at the business level
and a new research agenda bring to the literature (by gathering together different streams of research
originated in several research areas), the Suggested conceptual framework (Figure 12) and the Granular
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
22 of 28
steps/components of the general framework (Figure 13) encapsulate the potential practical value of the
paper, aiming at providing guidance for strategists in the search for sustainable competitiveness.
Accordingly, business models serve both as triggers—aiming to reach (different forms of) shared
value in the short term, as a specific outcome of a particular strategy that they translate into action—and
backbones—supporting, in the medium to long term, the time-related dimension of sustainability,
while capitalizing on different forms and facets of innovation, including business model innovation.
Moreover, the approach is in line with Visser’s anticipated (need for and) emergence of a holistic/systemic
perspective on corporate sustainability and responsibility (CSR), which “focuses on understanding the
interconnections in the macro-level system ( . . . ) and changing a company’s strategy to optimize the
outcomes for this larger human and ecological system ( . . . while . . . ) identifying and tackling the
root causes of our present unsustainability and irresponsibility, typically through innovating business
models” [27].
Thus, the suggested conceptual framework has advanced a cascading, multi-level, and
complexity-based approach at the business level, able to dynamically position a company on
the coordinates of its broader environment, and to effectively mediate its continuous search for
performance; within the general framework, granular steps/components have been generically
formulated in order to both complete the picture and provide guidance on its implementation.
Considering the theoretical approach of this paper as representing its main limitation, future studies
should complement it by addressing the same research questions and objectives through empirical
enquiries—both action research strategies and grounded theory strategies might be employed in order
to test the proposed model (depending on the availability of data—collected from one or multiple
units of analysis). Moreover, the conceptual framework may be improved/refined as a result of both
systematic bibliographical analysis and empirical studies.
Although beyond the purpose of this study, a series of specific practicalities should be mentioned
in order to provide a glimpse on the different facets that contribute to the complex composition of the
kaleidoscope that the new proposed agenda is. Thus, “old” (approaches of) business models have
been upgraded and/or refined and new ones have come to light while (re)designing “certain forms
of organizations—e.g., B-Corporations, Worker-Owned Corporations, Crowd-Funded Corporations,
and Cooperative Corporations” [17] and/or leading to a multitude of “sustainable business model
types: Circular business model innovation, social enterprises, bottom-of-the-pyramid businesses, and
product–service systems” [76]. Furthermore, the findings of a recent review article “reveal that the
application of sustainable business models can be classified into fourteen unique categories: Innovation,
management and marketing, entrepreneurship, energy, fashion, healthcare, agri-food, supply chain
management, circular economy, developing countries, engineering, construction and real state, mobility
and transportation, and hospitality industry” [19]. All of these practicalities are also suitable for
being integrated into a future more comprehensive framework, developed based on modularity and
dynamic/changeable patterns.
According to Roome and Louche, “three elements contributed to the path of transformation
toward business models for sustainability: Building networks and collaborative practices for learning
and action around a new vision; the deployment of new concepts drawn from outside the company; and
elaborating an implementation structure within a reconfigured network” [124]. This transformative
process is still in its growing phase, if considering the current stages of “business sustainability” and
“global sustainability”, as well as the anticipated dynamics of the complex interplays between these
two ongoing processes and goals.
On the other hand, the search for (and research of) the most appropriate (approaches to) business
models—able to properly accommodate both statically and dynamically financial and non-financial
goals and outcomes to the benefit of both businesses and their broader environment—seems to
have reached a turning point, where it calls for a new paradigm of doing business. Fueled by the
unprecedented complex sustainability-related challenges shaping a company’s strategic choices and
their translation into action, the emergence of this new paradigm is favored and supported by a
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
23 of 28
series of recent advancements derived either from new (or not yet explored in relationship to the
issue) theories/sciences, or from practical solutions that have already been successfully experimented
by businesses.
In light of the above considerations, the study has advanced a possible solution to (re)frame the
search for (research of) the most appropriate business models addressing sustainability challenges,
and suggested a new research agenda for strategists as a precursor/component of the new paradigm.
In order to accomplish this goal, a cascading, inter-disciplinary approach has been taken—able to
delineate the main coordinates that define the complex interplays between businesses and their
broader environment, while supporting the need for an integrated, trans-disciplinary new research
agenda—that was proposed later on. Thus, built on four hypotheses, the theoretical analysis has
advocated for a complex, yet contingent approach at the business level—able to capture the “bigger
picture” (of sustainability) without missing its granular idiosyncrasies (the most appropriate business
model in a specific context)—when searching for strategic performance. An integrative, multi-level
conceptual framework—able to provide (both diachronically and synchronically) widespread synergies
for companies and their broad (social and natural) environment—has been provided as guidance for
this kind of approach, as well as specific directions with respect to its implementation.
The paper contributes to the development of a more coherent and consistent theory on business
models addressing sustainability challenges by capitalizing on the opportunities brought by (new) interand trans-disciplinary research results; without pretending to be exhaustive, but rather to represent a
skeleton in search for shape, the proposed agenda is open for discussion and further improvements, as
regards the general framework, its granular steps/components, and/or its implementation.
Author Contributions: All authors have equally contributed to the present work. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Project financed from Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu research, grant number LBUS-IRG-2018-04.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Clark, T. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers,
and Challengers; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-470-87641-1.
Crane, A.; Matten, D. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization,
4th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-0-19-969731-1.
Gladwin, T.N.; Kennelly, J.J.; Krause, T.-S. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for
management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 874–907. [CrossRef]
Jia, Q.; Wei, L.; Li, X. Visualizing sustainability research in business and management (1990–2019) and
emerging topics: A large-scale bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5596. [CrossRef]
Elkington, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable
development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [CrossRef]
Steger, U. The Business Case for Sustainability: Building Industry Cases for Corporate Sustainability;
Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0-230-52447-7.
Brønn, P.S.; Vidaver-Cohen, D. Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the
bottom line? J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 91–109. [CrossRef]
Schaltegger, S.; Hörisch, J. In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: Legitimacy- or
profit-seeking? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 145, 259–276. [CrossRef]
Wright, C.; Rwabizambuga, A. Institutional pressures, corporate reputation, and voluntary codes of conduct:
An examination of the equator principles. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2006, 111, 89–117. [CrossRef]
Perez-Batres, L.A.; Doh, J.P.; Miller, V.V.; Pisani, M.J. Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic
choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? J. Bus. Ethics
2012, 110, 157–172. [CrossRef]
Fowler, S.J.; Hope, C. Incorporating sustainable business practices into company strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ.
2007, 16, 26–38. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
24 of 28
Gao, J.; Bansal, P. Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 241–255.
[CrossRef]
Dyllick, T.; Muff, K. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from
business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 156–174. [CrossRef]
Nunhes, T.V.; Bernardo, M.; de Oliveira, O.J. Rethinking the way of doing business: A reframe of management
structures for developing corporate sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1177. [CrossRef]
Howard, A. A new global ethic. J. Manag. Dev. 2010, 29, 506–517. [CrossRef]
Elkington, J. The 6 Ways Business Leaders Talk About Sustainability. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2017, 1–5. Available
online: https://hbr.org/2017/10/the-6-ways-business-leaders-talk-about-sustainability?utm_medium=email&
utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=dailyalert&referral=00563&spMailingID=18302410&
spUserID=OTY0OTMwNTk5NwS2&spJobID=1121123502&spReportId=MTEyMTEyMzUwMgS2
(accessed on 25 April 2020).
Dentchev, N.; Baumgartner, R.; Dieleman, H.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Jonker, J.; Nyberg, T.; Rauter, R.; Rosano, M.;
Snihur, Y.; Tang, X.; et al. Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: Social entrepreneurship,
corporate intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 1–4. [CrossRef]
Jørgensen, S.; Pedersen, L.J.T. RESTART Sustainable Business Model Innovation; Palgrave studies in
sustainable business in association with Future Earth; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018;
ISBN 978-3-319-91971-3.
Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W.
Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [CrossRef]
Kennedy, S.; Bocken, N. Innovating business models for sustainability: An essential practice for responsible
managers. In The Research Handbook of Responsible Management; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2020.
Eells, R. Social responsibility: Can business survive the challenge? Bus. Horiz. 1959, 2, 33–41. [CrossRef]
Tisdale, E.W. Modern Man and the Natural Environment. Natl. Forum 1963, 43, 32.
Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1962.
Clifton, C.; Hershey, H.F. “Maximizing Shareholder Value”: A theory run amok. i-Manag. J. Manag. 2016,
10, 45. [CrossRef]
Mackey, J.; Friedman, M.; Rodgers, T.J. Rethinking the social responsibility of business. J. Reason 2005,
10, 15–17.
Waddock, S.A.; Bodwell, C.; Graves, S.B. Responsibility: The new business imperative. Acad. Manag. Perspect.
2002, 16, 132–148. [CrossRef]
Visser, W. The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. J. Bus. Syst. Gov. Ethics 2010,
5, 7–22. [CrossRef]
Lubin, D.A.; Esty, D.C. The sustainability imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010, 88, 4–50.
Bergman, M.; Bergman, Z.; Berger, L. An Empirical Exploration, Typology, and Definition of Corporate
Sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 753. [CrossRef]
Engert, S.; Rauter, R.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic
management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2833–2850. [CrossRef]
van Marrewijk, M. Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 107–119. [CrossRef]
Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Haanaes, K.; von Streng Velken, I. Sustainability nears a tipping point. MIT Sloan Rev.
2012, 53, 69–74. [CrossRef]
Chen, B. Moral and ethical foundations for sustainability: A multi-disciplinary approach. J. Glob. Citizsh.
Equity Educ. 2012, 2, 1–20.
Elms, H.; Brammer, S.; Harris, J.D.; Phillips, R.A. New Directions in Strategic Management and Business
Ethics. Bus. Ethics Q. 2010, 20, 401–425. [CrossRef]
Frederick, R. Global Business Ethics. In International Encyclopedia of Ethics; Lafollette, H., Ed.; Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2013; p. 453. ISBN 978-1-4051-8641-4.
Bonn, I.; Fisher, J. Sustainability: The missing ingredient in strategy. J. Bus. Strategy 2011, 32, 5–14. [CrossRef]
Laszlo, C.; Zhexembayeva, N. Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big competitive Advantage, 1st ed.; Routledge:
London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-351-27832-4.
Hawkins, D.E. Corporate Social Responsibility Balancing Tomorrow’s Sustainability and Today’s Profitability;
Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-230-62581-5.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
25 of 28
Salzmann, O.; Ionescu-somers, A.; Steger, U. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Eur. Manag. J.
2005, 23, 27–36. [CrossRef]
Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002,
11, 130–141. [CrossRef]
Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes
and Performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [CrossRef]
Lozano, R. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: An analysis of voluntary
corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 25, 14–26. [CrossRef]
Sneirson, J.F. Green is good: Sustainability, profitability, and a new paradigm for corporate governance.
Iowa Rev. 2008, 94, 987–1022.
Du, W.; Pan, S.L.; Zuo, M. How to Balance Sustainability and Profitability in Technology Organizations:
An Ambidextrous Perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2013, 60, 366–385. [CrossRef]
Rodriguez-Fernandez, M. Social responsibility and financial performance: The role of good corporate
governance. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2016, 19, 137–151. [CrossRef]
DaSilva, C.M.; Trkman, P. Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 379–389.
[CrossRef]
Magretta, J. Why business models matter. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 86–92.
Wirtz, B.W.; Pistoia, A.; Ullrich, S.; Göttel, V. Business Models: Origin, Development and Future Research
Perspectives. Long Range Plann. 2016, 49, 36–54. [CrossRef]
Ritter, T.; Lettl, C. The wider implications of business-model research. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
Shafer, S.M.; Smith, H.J.; Linder, J.C. The power of business models. Bus. Horiz. 2005, 48, 199–207. [CrossRef]
Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics. Long Range Plan.
2010, 43, 195–215. [CrossRef]
Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. J. Manag. 2011,
37, 1019–1042. [CrossRef]
Massa, L.; Tucci, C.L.; Afuah, A. A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017,
11, 73–104. [CrossRef]
Rothärmel, F.T. Strategic Management, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
ISBN 978-1-260-09237-0.
Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms. Organ. Sci. 2007,
18, 181–199. [CrossRef]
Lambert, S.C.; Davidson, R.A. Applications of the business model in studies of enterprise success, innovation
and classification: An analysis of empirical research from 1996 to 2010. Eur. Manag. J. 2013, 31, 668–681.
[CrossRef]
Afuah, A. Business Model Innovation: Concepts, Analysis, and Cases; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014;
ISBN 978-0-415-81739-4.
Purkayastha, A.; Sharma, S. Gaining competitive advantage through the right business model: Analysis
based on case studies. J. Strategy Manag. 2016, 9, 138–155. [CrossRef]
D’Aveni, R.A.; Gunther, R.E. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering; The Free
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-1-4391-2263-1.
Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. Competing through business models. In Handbook of Research on
Competitive Strategy; Edward Elgar: Chelthenham, UK, 2012.
Massa, L.; Tucci, C.L. Business model innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 420–441.
Chesbrough, H. Business Model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363.
[CrossRef]
Christensen, C.M.; Bartman, T.; Van Bever, D. The hard truth about business model innovation. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 31–40.
Spieth, P.; Schneckenberg, D.; Ricart, J.E. Business model innovation—State of the art and future challenges
for the field: State of art and future challenges. RD Manag. 2014, 44, 237–247. [CrossRef]
Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation: How Far Have We Come, and
Where Should We Go? J. Manag. 2017, 43, 200–227. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
26 of 28
Nidumolu, R.; Prahalad, C.K.; Rangaswami, M.R. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 2009, 87, 56–64.
Clark, T.; Charter, M. Sustainable innovation: Key conclusions from Sustainable Innovation Conferences 2003–2006
Organized by the Centre for Sustainable Design; The Centre for Sustainable Design, University College for the
Creative Arts: Farnham, UK, 2007.
Grigorescu, A.; Maer-Matei, M.M.; Mocanu, C.; Zamfir, A.-M. Key Drivers and Skills Needed for Innovative
Companies Focused on Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 12, 102. [CrossRef]
Inigo, E.A.; Albareda, L.; Ritala, P. Business model innovation for sustainability: Exploring evolutionary and
radical approaches through dynamic capabilities. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 515–542. [CrossRef]
Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business Model
Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models.
Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [CrossRef]
Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127.
[CrossRef]
Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present
Research, and Future Avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [CrossRef]
Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable
business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [CrossRef]
Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business
models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef]
Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Carroux, S.; Joyce, A.; Massa, L.; Breuer, H. The sustainable business model pattern
taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum.
2018, 15, 145–162. [CrossRef]
Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 198, 401–416. [CrossRef]
Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P. Doing Research in Business and Management, 2nd ed.; Pearson: Harlow, UK, 2018;
ISBN 978-1-292-13352-2.
Barends, E.; Rousseau, D.M. Evidence-Based Management: How to Use Evidence to Make Better Organizational
Decisions; Kogan Page Ltd: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-7494-8374-6.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management
Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
Zhang, X.; Estoque, R.C.; Xie, H.; Murayama, Y.; Ranagalage, M. Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles
on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210707. [CrossRef]
Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J.
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012,
7, 25–43. [CrossRef]
Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell Pub: Malden,
MA, USA; Oxford, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-1-4051-2110-1.
van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.
Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [CrossRef]
van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact; Ding, Y.,
Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320.
ISBN 978-3-319-10376-1.
Martínez-López, F.J.; Merigó, J.M.; Gázquez-Abad, J.C.; Ruiz-Real, J.L. Industrial marketing management:
Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 84, 19–38. [CrossRef]
Castillo-Vergara, M.; Alvarez-Marin, A.; Placencio-Hidalgo, D. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the
field of business economics. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 85, 1–9. [CrossRef]
van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual; Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019.
Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall:
New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-273-71686-0.
Anderson, P. Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 216–232.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
27 of 28
Smith, W.K.; Lewis, M.W. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 2011, 36, 381–403. [CrossRef]
Gowdy, J.M. Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment; Springer: Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 1994; ISBN 978-90-481-5798-3.
Kates, R.W. Environment and development: Sustainability science. Science 2001, 292, 641–642. [CrossRef]
Homer-Dixon, T. Complexity Science. Oxf. Leadersh. J. 2011, 2, 1–15.
Suh, N.P. Complexity: Theory and Applications; MIT-Pappalardo series in mechanical engineering; Oxford
University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-19-517876-0.
Arthur, W.B. Complexity and the economy. Science 1999, 284, 107–109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schneider, M.; Somers, M. Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of Complexity Theory
for leadership research. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 351–365. [CrossRef]
Holland, J.H. Studying Complex Adaptive Systems. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 2006, 19, 1–8. [CrossRef]
Atkinson, S.R.; Moffat, J. The Agile Organisation: From Informal Networks to Complex Effects and
Agility; Information Age Transformation Series; CCRP Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2005;
ISBN 978-1-893723-16-0.
Carayannis, E.G.; Sindakis, S.; Walter, C. Business Model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability.
J. Technol. Transf. 2015, 40, 85–104. [CrossRef]
Peltoniemi, M.; Vuori, E. Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments.
In Proceedings of the eBusiness Research Forum, Tamper, Finland, 20–22 September 2004; Volume 2,
pp. 267–281.
Anggraeni, E.; Den Hartigh, E.; Zegveld, M. Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations
between firms and their business networks. In Proceedings of the ECCON 2007 Annual Meeting, Veldhoven,
The Netherlands, 19–21 October 2007; pp. 1–28.
Porter, T.B. Coevolution as a Research Framework for Organizations and the Natural Environment. Organ.
Environ. 2006, 19, 479–504. [CrossRef]
Stead, J.G.; Stead, W.E. The Coevolution of Sustainable Strategic Management in the Global Marketplace.
Organ. Environ. 2013, 26, 162–183. [CrossRef]
Benn, S.; Edwards, M.; Williams, T. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability, 4th ed.; Routledge:
London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-315-61962-0.
Hahn, T.; Figge, F.; Pinkse, J.; Preuss, L. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive,
instrumental, and normative aspects. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 235–248. [CrossRef]
Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 23–38.
Bansal, P.; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ. 2014, 12, 70–78.
[CrossRef]
Guerras-Martín, L.Á.; Madhok, A.; Montoro-Sánchez, Á. The evolution of strategic management research:
Recent trends and current directions. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2014, 17, 69–76. [CrossRef]
Smith, W.K.; Erez, M.; Jarvenpaa, S.; Lewis, M.W.; Tracey, P. Adding complexity to theories of paradox,
tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on
paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organ. Stud. 2017, 38, 303–317. [CrossRef]
de Wit, B.; Meyer, R. Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage: Text and
Readings, 3rd ed.; South-Western/CENGAGE Learning: Andover, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1-4080-1899-6.
Kim, W.C.; Mauborgne, R. Blue Ocean Strategy How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition
Irrelevant; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-62527-450-2.
Pertusa-Ortega, E.M.; Molina-Azorín, J.F. A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of
ambidexterity. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2018, 21, 84–98. [CrossRef]
Van der Byl, C.A.; Slawinski, N. Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from
win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 54–79. [CrossRef]
Laasch, O.; Conaway, R.N. Principles of Responsible Management: Glocal Sustainability, Responsibility, and Ethics;
Cengage Learning: Stamford, Australia; Stamford, CT, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-285-08026-0.
Haffar, M.; Searcy, C. Classification of Trade-offs Encountered in the Practice of Corporate Sustainability.
J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 495–522. [CrossRef]
Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Massa, L.; Bocken, N.; Brent, A.; Musango, J. Business models for shared value: Main Report;
Network for Business Sustainability South Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2016; ISBN 978-0-620-70726-8.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3534
28 of 28
117. Achtenhagen, L.; Melin, L.; Naldi, L. Dynamics of Business Models—Strategizing, Critical Capabilities and
Activities for Sustained Value Creation. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 427–442. [CrossRef]
118. Chew, E.; Semmelrock-Picej, M.T.; Novak, A. Value co-creation in the organizations of the future.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, Klagenfurt,
Austria, 9 January 2013; pp. 16–23.
119. Hart, S.L.; Milstein, M.B. Creating sustainable value. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2003, 17, 56–67. [CrossRef]
120. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The big idea: Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 1–17. Available online:
https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value (accessed on 24 April 2020).
121. Fiksel, J. Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2006, 2, 14–21.
[CrossRef]
122. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997,
18, 509–533. [CrossRef]
123. Radoynovska, N.; Ocasio, W.; Laasch, O. The emerging logic of responsible management: Institutional
pluralism, leadership, and strategizing. In The Research Handbook of Responsible Management; Edward Elgar:
Chelthenham, UK, 2019.
124. Roome, N.; Louche, C. Journeying Toward Business Models for Sustainability: A Conceptual Model Found
Inside the Black Box of Organisational Transformation. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 11–35. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).