Adams Et Al 2016

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.
18, 180–205 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12068
Sustainability-oriented Innovation:
A Systematic Review
Richard Adams, Sally Jeanrenaud,1 John Bessant,1 David Denyer2
and Patrick Overy3
University of Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK, 1 University of Exeter
Business School, Streatham Court, Streatham Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4ST, UK, 2 Cranfield
University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK, and 3 Forum Library, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter,
EX4 4PT, UK
Corresponding author email: correspond.adams@btinternet.com
This paper is intended as a contribution to the ongoing conceptual development of

sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) and provides initial guidance on becoming and
being sustainable. The authors organize and integrate the diverse body of empirical
literature relating to SOI and, in doing so, develop a synthesized conceptual framework
onto which SOI practices and processes can be mapped. Sustainability-oriented inno-
vation involves making intentional changes to an organization’s philosophy and values,
as well as to its products, processes or practices to serve the specific purpose of creating
and realizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns. A critical
reading of previous literature relating to environmental management and sustainability
reveals how little attention has been paid to SOI, and what exists is only partial. In a
review of 100 scholarly articles and 27 grey sources drawn from the period of the three
Earth Summits (1992, 2002 and 2012), the authors address four specific deficiencies that
have given rise to these limitations: the meaning of SOI; how it has been conceptual-
ized; its treatment as a dichotomous phenomenon; and a general failure to reflect more
contemporary practices. The authors adopt a framework synthesis approach involving
first constructing an initial architecture of the landscape grounded in previous studies,
which is subsequently iteratively tested, shaped, refined and reinforced into a model of
SOI with data drawn from included studies: so advancing theoretical development in
the field of SOI.
Introduction environmental book detailing the scale of damage

wrought on nature by humanity was Fairfield Os-
Growing concern about resource over-consumption, borne’s (1948) classic, Our Plundered Planet. Other
environmental degradation and social inequity have more, or less, apocalyptic studies followed (e.g.
resulted in calls for a transition toward a more sustain- Carson 1962; Cole et al. 1973; Meadows et al. 1972),
able society and economy. The first mass-readership their fears and ideas echoed in institutional environ-
mental initiatives such as The International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
The authors acknowledge the generous contribution of the (IUCN, founded 1956), The United Nations Envi-
Network for Business Sustainability (http://www.nbs.net) in
supporting this work and permitting reproduction of Figures ronment Programme (UNEP, founded 1972) and the
1 and 3. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous launch of the World Conservation Strategy in 1980,
reviewers and editor of the International Journal of Manage- the product of a collaboration between IUCN, UNEP
ment Reviews for the helpful and insightful comments that and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF 1980). The latter
have helped improve this paper. John Bessant would also like document showed, for the first time, that economic
to acknowledge the support of the Theo and Friedl Schoeller
Foundation. development and conservation are not incompatible.

C 2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Sustainability-oriented Innovation 181
It was in the subsequent work of the World Commis- Klewitz and Hansen 2013), previous work often over-
sion on Environment and Development’s Brundtland looks the social dimension (Schiederig et al. 2012) of
report (Brundtland 1987) that the idea of sustainable SOI. Fourth, many reviews of environmental manage-
development – ‘development that meets the needs of ment and sustainability exclude contemporary grey
the present without compromising the ability of future evidence and are thus prone to time lag and incom-
generations to meet their own needs’ – became more pleteness of search.
mainstream. Elkington (1997) popularized the notion The purpose of this paper is to present the evidence
of sustainable development in terms of the Triple Bot- on SOI through identifying, analysing and synthesiz-
tom Line (TBL), in which businesses are exhorted to ing firm-level SOI practices and processes, and to pro-
adopt a responsible approach and give equivalence vide guidance on becoming and being sustainable. In
to environmental, social and economic dimensions in so doing, we attempt to address the deficiencies high-
decision-making. lighted above. To achieve this, we employ a novel
Markets and economic agents have been identi- review approach involving three stages:
fied as either part of the problem, thus requiring
changes to the dominant economic paradigm (Mit- (1) Stage 1: Developing an initial ‘architecture’ for
telstaedt and Kilbourne 2008), or part of the solution, reviewing SOI. Drawing on theories of environ-
positioned to effect positive change in the direction mental management and of innovation in fields
of sustainability (Mittelstaedt and Kilbourne 2008; cognate to sustainability, we sketch the basic
UN 1999; Desrochers and Hoffbauer 2009; Sima- building blocks of an initial conceptual frame-
nis and Hart 2009). Either way, business has been work of SOI, its underlying assumptions and key
encouraged to find means of achieving sustainable dimensions.
economic growth, and so the role of innovation in (2) Stage 2: Systematic review of SOI. We systemat-
helping businesses transition to sustainability has re- ically review (Tranfield et al. 2003) the literature
ceived considerable interest from academics, man- on SOI published between 1992 and 2012. We
agers and policy-makers (EYGM 2012; Hall 2002; chose these dates as they mark an era when busi-
OECD 2010a, UNDP 2010). Sustainability-oriented ness began seriously to engage in the sustainable
innovation (SOI) involves making intentional changes development debate, highlighted by their role in
to an organization’s philosophy and values, as well as the three Earth Summits 1992, 2002 and 2012.1
to its products, processes or practices, to serve the (3) Stage 3: Framework synthesis. We adopt a frame-
specific purpose of creating and realizing social and work synthesis methodology for our systematic
environmental value in addition to economic returns. review, in which the initial framework from stage
A critical reading of previous literature relating to 1 is iteratively developed as it is tested, shaped,
environmental management, sustainability and inno- reinforced and refined by findings from included
vation reveals how little attention has been paid to studies (Barnett-Page and Thomas 2009; Dixon-
SOI (Doherty et al. 2014), and what exists is often Woods 2011; Thomas et al. 2013).
deficient in four respects.
First, within the existing literature it remains un-
We propose a model of SOI that commences as a re-
certain precisely what sustainability means or how
sponse to regulatory stimuli with incremental change
it can be achieved. A variety of conceptualizations
at the firm level and culminates with radical change
exist (Blättel-Mink 1998; Blowfield et al. 2007; Bos-
at the large-scale systems level. We argue that to
Brouwers 2010; Elkington 1994; Fussler and James
move through the framework requires a step-change
1996; George et al. 2012; Gladwin et al. 1995) and
in philosophy, values and behaviour, and that this
a confusing array of labels applied to (aspects of) the
is reflected in the firm’s innovation activity. The pa-
phenomenon, including, but not exhaustively: corpo-
per concludes with a discussion of the implications
rate social responsibility; green-, eco- or ecological
of findings for scholarship, policy and practice, and
innovation; social environmental management; and
identifies opportunities for further research.
responsible innovation (Carroll and Shabana 2010;
Owen et al. 2013; Seebode et al. 2012). Second, pre-
vious work tends to treat sustainability dichotomously
(sustainable/not sustainable), rather than embedding
SOI as a dynamic, unfolding process that is achieved 1
See, for example: http://www.uncsd2012.org/ (accessed 25
over time. Third, with some notable exceptions (e.g. November 2014).

C 2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
182 R. Adams et al.
Stage 1: Developing an initial SOIs, but has focused excessively on a limited range
‘architecture’ for reviewing SOI of innovation types (products and technologies) pre-
dominantly in the realm of environmental challenges.
The importance of innovation in refreshing products Table 1 summarises previous reviews in fields cog-
and services, renewing the organization, even ensur- nate to sustainability, and is organized according to
ing its survival is seldom disputed. Innovation is also the innovation area of focus with which each study is
mobilized to pursue environmental and social ob- predominantly concerned: product innovation; prod-
jectives. One key sustainability question is: ‘What uct and process innovation; and product, process and
are the innovation activities firms engage in to be- organizational innovation. This organization reveals
come sustainable?’ The question implies organiza- the field’s rather narrow, product-centric origins and
tional change over time, a dynamic process with dif- subsequent evolution to include more diverse in-
ferent models of activity playing a dominant role in novations implemented and impacting in different
each (Hargrave and Van de Ven 2006). Sustainability contexts.
is not about either/or: rather, sustainability is about We draw on these studies to provide dimensions of
becoming, an idea usefully captured by the journey SOIs in our conceptual framework. Three dimensions
metaphor (Mohrman and Worley 2010). emerge: technical/people; stand-alone/integrated;
To address this question, we first construct an ‘ini- and insular/systemic. These dimensions are discussed
tial architecture’ by drawing on and integrating two below and are illustrated in Figure 1.
theoretical perspectives from cognate fields: the in-
novation activities of firms (e.g. D’Este et al. 2012), Technical/people. The literature to date has been
to give ‘Dimensions of SOI’ and theories of environ- dominated by a technically focused, product-oriented
mental management (e.g. Kolk and Mauser 2002), view of innovation, promoting incremental adjust-
to give a temporal aspect, or ‘Contexts of SOI’ (see ments in practice to attend to environmental chal-
Figure 1). This architecture provides the starting point lenges. For example, Winn and Roome (1993) con-
for our evidence synthesis, which follows the frame- clude that R&D management and the environment
work synthetic approach (Barnett-Page and Thomas is represented in the literature as a set of tools and
2009; Dixon-Woods 2011; Thomas et al. 2013), and techniques rather than a strategic management issue:
we build on these bodies of literature to take bet- Baumann et al. (2002) observe increased understand-
ter account of the wide range of innovation activity, ing within firms of ‘tools’ – any systematic means for
dynamic and contextual possibilities (e.g. Schiederig dealing with environmental issues – in the product
et al. 2012) to provide a more complete picture of development process. Contrasting with this is a more
SOI. recent focus on people-centred innovation, in which
sustainability is treated as a socio-technical challenge
affecting a cluster of elements including, for example,
Dimensions of SOI
technology, regulation, user practices and markets,
The mainstream study of innovation for environmen- cultural meaning, infrastructure and supply networks
tal and social benefit is young, yet its relatively rapid (Geels 2005). The technical responses that character-
growth has already prompted a number of reviews. ize early SOI literature have become supplemented
Research to date reveals important dimensions of or supplanted by fundamental transformations at
Figure 1. SOI dimensions

Table 1. Previous reviews of innovation in fields cognate to sustainability
Area of focus Findings (Studies) SOI dimension (example)
Product innovation or r Environmental NPD an emergent phenomenon, principally r Technical (tools,

NPD regarded as a set of tools, techniques and hardware techniques and hardware)
r SMEs’ environmental innovation predominantly technological, r Insular (internal-focus)
internally focused and incremental r Integrated (linking across
r Firms lack, but require, a strategic orientation to NPD and functions)
environmental challenges r Stand-alone (isolated
r NPD taking place in isolation from its context NPD)
r Environmental NPD seldom linked to other processes inside the
company or to processes outside the company
r Need for functional departments (R&D, marketing, operations)
to act together in an integrated way with external stakeholders
for successful environmentally related NPD
(Winn and Roome (1993); Baumann et al. (2002); Johansson
(2002); del Brı́o and Junquera (2003))
Product and process r Innovations focus mostly on technological development but are r People (non-technological
innovation facilitated by non-technological changes change)
r Practices are evolving from ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions to integrated r Stand-alone (end-of-pipe
environmental strategies technologies)
r External stakeholders within firm’s value chain becoming r Systemic (external
involved stakeholders)
r More challenging sustainability goals require multiple targets to r Integrated (strategically
be addressed, by wide range of mechanisms in different contexts and competitively
r Eco-innovation can be strategically and competitively advantageous)
advantageous, not simply a cost to the business
(OECD (2009); Pereira and Vence (2012))
Product, process and r Interaction with external actors increases as sustainability r Systemic (external actors
organizational behaviour becomes more strategic and market oriented and wider systems)
innovation r Firms adopt different response modes to sustainability challenge r Integrated (strategic and
r The most active exponents of SOI interact extensively with market orientation)
external actors and effecting transformations on a systemic level r People (business model
r Many SMEs engage mostly in incremental innovation innovation)
r Business model innovation emerges as enabler of radically
changing processes, products, and organizational forms in order
to more successfully integrate sustainability into core business
(Schiederig et al. (2012), Klewitz and Hansen (2013))
different levels of socio-technical systems. Some ented practice. They note how innovation for sustain-
‘advanced players’, OECD (2009) report, innovate in able manufacturing has moved on from end-of-pipe,
domains beyond the technical, such as adopting new ‘stand-alone’ solutions to modes of practice that re-
business models or replacing products with services quire sustainability to be more deeply embedded in
that represent alternatives, or additions, to primarily the culture of the firm: for example, through the effec-
technological solutions, suggesting that the focus is tive adoption of product lifecycle thinking, integrated
not just technological, but also on how innovations environmental strategies and environmental manage-
are used, who they involve, and how they impact be- ment systems. That is, SOI moves from being an ‘add-
haviour change (Geels 2004). on’ activity to diffusing and suffusing throughout the
organization as strategic sustainability behaviour (del
Stand-alone/integrated. This dimension is internal Brı́o and Junquera 2003; Klewitz and Hansen 2013;
to the firm and describes the extent to which SOI Schiederig et al. 2012).
thinking extends across the firm: whether or not SOIs
‘stand alone’ as increments to the dominant design Insular/systemic. The insular/systemic dimension
(Abernathy and Utterback 1978) associated, typically, reflects the firm’s view of itself in relation to wider
with individual departments, functions or products, or society. It is about whether or not innovations are in-
are integrated widely through the firm. OECD (2009) ternally oriented, addressing internal issues, or are de-
provides evidence of a shift to a more strategically ori- signed and targeted to impact a wider socio-economic

184 R. Adams et al.
system beyond the firm’s immediate boundaries and in which a strong sense of social–environmental pur-
stakeholders. Baumann et al. (2002) observe that pose provides the backdrop for the firm’s corporate
firms’ environmental product development processes and competitive strategies. More recently, Baya and
are seldom linked to other processes outside the com- Gruman (2011) described a Sustainability Maturity
pany. More progressive SOI firms are described as Path, a four-part journey in which sustainable prac-
looking beyond their boundaries, engaging with and tices are adopted along a trajectory mapped from
facilitating change in wider systems and engaging Compliance through Obligation and Efficiency to
with diverse actors, possibly including forming coali- Leadership. However, even in Leadership, in which
tions with stakeholders such as NGOs, lobby groups sustainability is embedded in every part of the busi-
and governments (OECD 2009; Pereira and Vence ness, and economic, environmental and social im-
2012; Schiederig et al. 2012). pacts are equally and intelligently weighed, activity
remains internally focused.
In the more recent models, sustainability is seen
Contexts of SOI
as a systems-level problem in which some of the
Kolk and Mauser (2002) reviewed 50 firm-level, challenges are simply too great for any single or-
stage/phase models and typologies of environmen- ganization to tackle alone (Lamming et al. 1999).
tal management published between 1987 and 2000. In this sense, SOI ultimately must address and have
In the period following, more models have been pro- an impact on a diverse set of external issues, col-
posed, reflecting a continuing desire for better under- laborators and stakeholders (Florida 1996). A small
standing and clearer insight into how organizations number of models include this ultra-firm perspec-
become sustainable. tive. Berry and Rondinelli (1998) describe three cat-
These models have evolved from simple linear rep- egories, Non-Compliance, Compliance and Beyond
resentations to more elaborate taxonomies reflecting Compliance: Beyond Compliance is characterized
context and activity. However, they remain limited by as a new industrial revolution reflecting changes in
their relatively static view of the world: a general fail- the perceptions of legislators, government regulatory
ure to recognize that, over time, firms may look to ex- officials, business leaders and environmental inter-
tend the levels and nature of their response (Kolk and est groups of their own and of each other’s roles.
Mauser 2002). Furthermore, they tend to be limited Tukker and Butter (2007) describe a three-category
either by their largely conceptual or anecdotal origins model commencing with System Optimization (e.g.
or, in the case of empirical studies, methodological fuel efficiency, low-emission technologies) and Sin-
quality. Typically, this means that models directly or gular Innovations (changing elements of the produc-
indirectly suggest categorizations unique to each in- tion/consumption chain) culminating with Systems
dividual study. So, for example, models are inconsis- Level innovations, which focus on societal needs
tent with respect to the point of departure, number or functions and the systems that determine how
of stages, stage duration, transitions through stages these are fulfilled (e.g. spatial planning and transport
and end point. These characteristics limit general- infrastructure).
izability and make cumulative and comparative work Based on this analysis, we propose three initial
difficult. Nevertheless, from these models, which typ- contexts of SOI activity, initially labelled ‘Reac-
ically consist of between three and five categories, we tive’, ‘Embedding’ and ‘Systems Change’. Integrat-
are able inductively to derive three distinct contexts ing these with the dimensions of SOI generates our
of activity as described below. initial architecture of the field. It is initial in the sense
Mostly, models adopt an intra-firm perspective in that it provides an a priori framework onto which we
which a firm’s sustainability orientation is passive, re- map innovation activity data from studies identified
active and incremental or proactive in integrating and for this review.
embedding sustainability into strategy. For example, Initially, the model was conceived as presented
Hart (1995) describes a three-category model. Ini- in Figure 2 but, as we accumulated SOI activi-
tially, the focus is on Pollution Prevention, focusing ties, and consistent with the framework synthetic
on end-of-pipe methods of continuous improvement method (Barnett-Page and Thomas 2009; Dixon-
to reduce emissions; next is Product Stewardship in Woods 2011), it was iteratively developed, applying
which the use of tools (e.g. Life-cycle Analysis) is the data to the framework and the framework to the
integrated into the firm’s product-development pro- data in a process of model refinement, enrichment and
cess; the final category is Sustainable Development, validation to produce our final model (see Figure 3).

Figure 2. Initial model of SOI
Figure 3. Final model of SOI
Stage 2: Systematic review of SOI consisting of academic and industry experts. Follow-
ing discussion, the research question was settled as
Denyer and Tranfield (2009) describe five steps in ‘What are the innovation activities firms engage in to
producing a systematic review: Question formulation; become sustainable?’
Locating studies; Study selection/evaluation; Analy-
sis/synthesis; and Reporting/using results. Focusing
on the first four, our review approach was as follows. Locating studies
Our search strategy (Figure 4) consisted of looking
for relevant studies in the scientific and grey litera-
Question formulation
ture. An initial literature scoping helped to identify
Research scope, question and inclusion/exclusion cri- keywords and search strings relating to innovation
teria and protocol were established in dialogue be- and sustainability which, with guidance committee
tween the research team and a guidance committee support, was developed and refined over a number of

186 R. Adams et al.
Figure 4. Search strategy
iterations. A range of electronic databases including tiatives, including: the WBCSD (founded 1991); The
EBSCO Business Source Complete, IBSS, ISI Web Global Reporting Initiative (founded 1997); business
of Knowledge and JSTOR were searched. and consumer certification systems, e.g. the Forest
A supplementary, multi-layered strategy was Stewardship Council (founded 1993); the United Na-
adopted to search the grey literature, including hand- tions Global Compact (founded 2000); international
searching, seeking expert recommendations, snow- environmental and social standards for business, e.g.
balling, cross-referencing, technical and specialist the ISO 14000 (1990s) and 26000 series (2010); and
online databases selected on the basis of reputation, various sustainable business think-tanks, strategy and
currency and authority as well as search functionality consultancy groups, e.g. Volans (founded 2008), and
(e.g. United Nations; WWF; European Commission; blog sites, e.g. the Guardian Sustainable Business
World Business Council for Sustainable Development Blog (founded 2010).
(WBCSD); Global Reporting Initiative) as well as For the two types of source material (academic
five blogs, again using authority and reputation as the and grey), a dual and pragmatic approach to selec-
yardstick for inclusion. tion and evaluation was adopted. No studies were
excluded on the basis of quality; rather, relevance –
that the innovation described directly addresses at
Study selection/evaluation
least one of the three components of the Triple Bot-
Evaluation is not simply a mechanism for excluding tom Line (Elkington 1997), people, planet profit, but
evidence on the basis of its quality, but is about ap- not profit alone – was the important inclusion cri-
praising and reporting what is included to allow con- terion. This approach is consistent with the notion
clusions to be drawn about the reliability of findings of fit-for-purpose evidence (Boaz and Ashby 2003;
(Denyer and Tranfield 2009). Briner et al. 2009; Gough 2007) in which quality
We bound our study in the period 1992–2012, appraisal can be subordinate to the objective of a
book-ended by the Rio Earth Summits. During this review: the important consideration is the contribu-
period, the foundations of sustainable business prac- tion of the evidence to synthesis and understanding
tice began to be laid, reflected in the establishment (Pawson 2006; Pawson et al. 2004; van Aken and
and/or growth of many influential platforms and ini- Romme 2009).

To establish generalizability and reliability of find- framework were excluded from the subsequent sys-
ings (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Gough 2007), and tematic review, thus limiting potential for method
using journal ranking as proxy indicator of quality variance (Chang et al. 2010).
and Reay et al.’s (2009) hierarchy to assess strength Data were extracted to a specially designed spread-
of evidence, studies were evaluated after selection. sheet pro-forma. The studies included were coded
For various reasons, some researchers have been according to bibliographic characteristics, study de-
reluctant to include grey literature in systematic re- sign, quality, strength of evidence and innovation ac-
views: the process can be resource intensive (Benzies tivities. Grey literature coding focused on innovation
et al. 2006) and concerns over quality can distract activities.
from scholarly ambitions (Goduscheit and Jørgensen Using the Dimensions and Contexts of SOI as a
2013; Müller-Seitz 2012). However, including the guide, SOI activities were mapped onto the frame-
grey literature can bring benefits (Hopewell et al. work and simultaneously categorized according to
2007), including addressing the problems of time lag established categories in the innovation management
to provide more contemporary, relevant and contextu- literature (e.g. Adams et al. 2006; Tidd and Bessant
ally important findings as well as providing evidence 2009), namely:
for ‘the wisdom of practice’, which may not be re-
r strategy: organizational and management pro-
flected in the scientific literature (Benzies et al. 2006;
Winn and Roome 1993). Thus, our rationale for in- cesses aligned to deliver sustainability
cluding the grey literature is twofold: it is grounded,
r innovation process: the organization of the innova-
first, in having the utility for practice of our findings tion process to deliver sustainability, from search-
in mind; and second, from the observation that, of the ing for new ideas to converting them into products
scholarly studies included, the average lag from study and services and capturing value from them
r learning: recognizing the value of new knowledge,
to publication was four years, thus raising the real
possibility that many contemporary practices (as our assimilating and applying it to support sustainabil-
guidance committee pointed out) were not included ity
r linkages: internal and external linkages crafted as
in the scholarly literature.
The selection process largely followed that out- opportunities for learning and influencing around
lined in Barroso et al. (2003), including scanning sustainability
all citations identified from the various databases
r innovative organization: work organization ar-
and web searches and within-team review to validate rangements that create the conditions within which
selections. SOI can take place (e.g. enabling structures, com-
munications, training and development, leadership
and, reward and recognition).
Analysis/synthesis
Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
We adopted a framework synthetic approach. Frame-
work synthesis is similar to framework analysis (Pope
et al. 2007), a matrix-based technique for data anal- Descriptive summary
ysis in primary qualitative research involving the a
We, like others (e.g. Baumann et al. 2002; Klewitz
priori construction of thematic categories into which
and Hansen 2013; Schiederig et al. 2012), find the
data can be coded (Ritchie and Spencer 2002). Frame-
scholarly literature to be widely distributed, of vari-
work synthesis is an adaptation of this and has been
able quality, immature and skewed.
used to conduct syntheses with similar a priori spec-
ification of a coding framework (Barnett-Page and
Widely distributed. Of the academic literature, 100
Thomas 2009; Carroll et al. 2011). The approach is
articles selected from 55 separate journals are in-
particularly suited to addressing questions related to
cluded.2 Thirty-six journals provide one article each,
the attributes of activities (Gough et al. 2012; Oliver
and 18 journals provide two or more. Two journals,
et al. 2008).
Business Strategy and the Environment and Journal of
Our initial framework is drawn from an extensive
Cleaner Production, accounted for over one-quarter
reading of the environmental management and in-
of the included scholarly studies.
novating for social and environmental benefit liter-
atures, lending it legitimacy (Dixon-Woods 2011).
2
The studies informing the development of the initial Full list available from corresponding author.

188 R. Adams et al.
Figure 5. Selected studies by industry
Variable quality. Academic studies were evaluated tive body of literature and theoretical development
using the Association of Business Schools (ABS) (Burgess et al. 2006; Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007).
journal rankings3 for 2010 as a proxy for quality and
assessed against Reay et al.’s (2009) evidence hierar- Skewed. Within our sample, the service and con-
chy, and found to be of variable quality. Only seven sumer goods sectors are under-represented and man-
studies came from journals rated 4 in the ABS rank- ufacturing and process industries over-represented
ings, 16 from journals rated 3, 27 from journals rated (Figure 5). This reflects a focus on environmental
2, and 8 from journals rated 1. The remaining 42 ar- considerations in the manufacturing context and on
ticles are derived from journals not included in the technical processes, with work done largely by schol-
ABS rankings. Reay et al.’s (2009) evidence hierar- ars in science and engineering.
chy consists of six levels, where 1 is the strongest level In terms of the grey literature, we uncovered a rich
of evidence and 6 the weakest. Our sample of studies stream of evidence, including conference papers, re-
consists exclusively of evidence of levels 3 (Com- ports, teaching- and consultancy-based case studies,
parative, multisite case studies or large-sample quan- histories, individual stories of SOI and prescriptions
titative studies: 32 studies), 4 (Small-sample, single- relating to innovative activity that seemingly were
site qualitative or quantitative studies: 45 studies) and not represented in the scientific literature — at least
5 (Descriptive studies and/or self-report stories: 23 not in a timely fashion. We identified a short list
studies). of 267 grey items, subsequently reduced to 27 (five
books/chapters, one case study, three conference pa-
Immature. Sixty-eight (of 100) studies are small pers, 11 reports/practitioner press, one thesis and five
sample or single case, largely focused on empirical sustainability blog posts).
discovery and description. Top quality journals pro-
vided only seven studies. These observations suggest
an immature field lacking a coherent and cumula- Stage 3: Framework synthesis – final
model of SOI
(1) Innovation activities of Operational Optimization
3
Rated from 1 (described as ‘modest standard journals within
their field’) to 4* (described as ‘world elite journals’). Source: Operational Optimization reflects an internally ori-
http://www.associationofbusinessschools.org/sites/default/ ented perspective on sustainability, referring to a ‘do-
files/abs_lightningwintro.pdf accessed January 2014. ing the same things but better’ approach directed

toward reducing harm through reactive, incremental Firms with effective knowledge management pro-
improvements driven by compliance or proactively cesses can exploit these to support SOI (Ayuso et al.
pursuing efficiencies. These are activities character- 2011), and focus on: exploiting existing knowledge
istically technical, stand-alone and insular. management capabilities to identify and access rele-
vant knowledge; unlearning existing knowledge that
Strategy. The argument that adopting sustainable contradicts sustainability principles (Bossink 2007;
social and environmental policies is competitively Magnusson et al. 2003); filling competence gaps
disadvantageous to firms has been challenged by through training, targeted recruitment or importing
Porter and Van der Linde (1995) among others (e.g. expertise (Geffen and Rothenberg 2000; Petruzzelli
Peloza 2009; Peloza and Shang 2011). Strategically, et al. 2011); and integrating diverse elements of sus-
the focus of innovation activity in Operational Op- tainability by issuing guidelines and monitoring com-
timization lies within the firm’s boundaries: the tar- pliance (Zwetsloot 2001).
gets for change are internal. Principal drivers include
responding to regulatory requirements (compliance) Linkages. The necessary linkages in the context of
and the pursuit of efficiency gains through new prac- Operational Optimization are those that connect line
tice adoption. Sustainability-oriented innovation be- workers and managers with the necessary knowledge
comes more proactive when reactive innovation be- to effect the changes appropriate to comply with legis-
comes uneconomic, e.g. when add-on solutions incur lation and regulation. Typically, such knowledge does
costs greater than the cost of process redesign (Al- not exist within the firm, especially in regard to sus-
ston and Roberts 1999). The sustainability outcome tainability tools, and external knowledge experts may
is a reduction in harm per unit of production, which is be required to help navigate and implement these
achieved through using existing innovation processes (Conway and Steward 1998; Lee 2009).
and without compromise to existing business models.
Innovative organization. Operational Optimization
Process. The innovation process focuses on incre- is achievable through mobilizing existing innovation
mental improvements, oriented to a single issue and capabilities. Any already developed innovation capa-
related to ‘technical-fixes’ as the way to reduce im- bility can be an important antecedent of SOI capabil-
pacts while maintaining business as usual. Examples ity (Ayuso et al. 2011). Innovation activities directed
include: reducing the intensity of resource use, better in this way can be a stepping-stone toward increasing
waste management or pollution capture/control, recy- firm-level sustainability, e.g. by contributing to the
cling (Alston and Roberts 1999; Bossink 2002; Chen beginnings of an empowering SOI culture through-
et al. 2012; Dangelico and Pujari 2010); (re)designing out the firm (Peloza 2009). This can be enhanced
product content and packaging (Alston and Roberts if internal communications are reframed to focus on
1999; Clark et al. 2009; Shrivastava and Hart 1995); sustainability, such as by incorporating the sustain-
product miniaturization (Chen and Subramian 2010); ability message (Reed 2002), establishing clear goals
and using decision tools and aids to integrate environ- at the product level (Petala et al. 2010) and securing
mental thinking into NPD, such as through demate- the involvement (Florida et al. 2001) and motivation
rialization or eco-design (De Marchi 2012; Maxwell of line workers (Sandström and Tingström 2008).
and van de Vorst 2003; Simon et al. 2000). The ap- Shrivastava and Hart (1995) note that many com-
plication of tools, of which there are many and which panies have embraced the practices of environmental
range in purpose, complexity and ease of use, enables management in the sense of Operational Optimiza-
users to evaluate sustainable materials and sustainable tion, but fewer have seriously engaged the wider im-
design alternatives and relate them to financial incen- plications of sustainability thinking. Moving beyond
tives, environmental regulations or the demands of Operational Optimization requires a more radical ap-
clients (Bossink 2002). proach that renders innovation more complex and am-
biguous.
Learning. Sustainability-oriented innovation is ren-
dered uniquely complex by the requirement to inte-
(2) Innovation activities of Organizational
grate diverse knowledge relating to economic, social
Transformation
and environmental considerations: this makes SOI
an information and learning challenge, making new Innovation activity for Organizational Transforma-
knowledge and knowledge management essential. tion represents a fundamental shift in mindset and

190 R. Adams et al.
purpose from ‘doing less harm’ to creating shared Transformers, where more radical innovation may
value and delivering wider benefits for society: ‘do- be required (Sandström and Tingström 2008). Here,
ing good by doing new things’. The context is char- the innovation process is often driven by the per-
acterized by a redefinition of internal and external sonal values and aspirations of concerned business
relationships that increasingly are conceived in terms leaders themselves (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002); this
of environmental and social impacts. Returning to the can have a profound impact on organizational values
three dimensions of the SOI framework, activities are and culture, as documented by Anderson and White
characteristically more people oriented, more deeply (2009) in the case of Interface.
integrate sustainability within the organization and The innovation process can be enhanced for SOI
are less insular. It remains largely internally oriented, through the adoption of new platforms and new
suffusing and diffusing sustainability throughout the knowledge sources. To stimulate more radical inno-
organization, but extends to immediate stakeholders vations, firms are drawing inspiration from a range of
too. new sources, including: biomimicry (Benyus 1997), a
design science approach meaning ‘to imitate life’. For
Strategy. In this context innovation and sustainabil- example InterfaceFLOR looked to nature for design
ity are deliberately orchestrated within the firm, im- inspiration for their ‘Entropy’ range, which resulted
plying a growing SOI culture in which sustainabil- in significantly reduced waste going to landfill, and
ity is no longer regarded as an add-on, but rather increased company revenues (Anderson and White
is/becomes embedded as a cultural and strategic 2009). Backcasting (Nattrass and Altomare 1999) in-
norm. The strategic shift towards ‘doing good’ of- volves envisaging a desired end state and working
fers opportunities for innovation in business concepts backwards from that to discover and design the nec-
and practices, constituting a shaping logic that goes essary intermediate steps to reach that point. Other
beyond an internal, operational focus on ‘greening’ techniques include systematically looking to iden-
to a more external and strategic focus on sustainable tify, explore and integrate the views of stakeholders
development (Hart 1997). from the ‘fringes’ (Hart and Sharma 2004), specifi-
A clearly articulated sustainability strategy can act cally including community action groups, social en-
as a trigger for innovation (Ayuso et al. 2011; Huang trepreneurs and activists (Mulgan et al. 2007). Firms
and Wu 2010). For example, Bendigo Bank’s strategy need to be alert to, pick up and use such weak signals
is to improve the prospects of its customers and com- (Aschehoug et al. 2012; Holmes and Smart 2009;
munities first, on the basis that doing the right thing Joshi 2010) by investing in absorptive capacity (Co-
by customers and communities results in strong com- hen and Levinthal 1990), reaching out and bridging to
munity support for the bank, and therefore sustain- new communities of stakeholders (Hollander 2003).
able growth in shareholder value (Stubbs and Cocklin Innovation practice in bottom-of-the-pyramid mar-
2008). kets has seen the emergence of new innovation plat-
Our review also reveals that the social dimension forms such as reverse innovation, jugaad innovation
of sustainability emerges more strongly in the Orga- and resource constrained innovation. Reverse innova-
nizational Transformation context. This is realized tion describes a trickle-up effect, where innovations
predominantly by organizations serving new mar- are first used in developing countries and then applied
kets with novel, sustainable products and also making in developed countries (Govindarajan 2012; Immelt
products and services available to communities disad- et al. 2009). Frugal or resource-constrained innova-
vantaged or isolated for reasons of geography, infras- tion occurs where resource inputs are minimized with
tructure or income (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2010; the purpose of reducing the end product’s cost without
Prahalad 2012; Ray and Ray 2011; Viswanathan and loss of quality (Zeschky et al. 2011). Similar to this is
Sridharan 2012). This observation is drawn from stud- jugaad innovation, from a Hindi word that translates
ies focused on sustainable innovation in developing roughly as ‘an innovation fix’, referring to harness-
economies, often related to bottom-of-the-pyramid ing ingenuity to locate opportunities and improvise
innovation (e.g. Hart and Christensen 2002; Praha- simple solutions (Radjou et al. 2012).
lad 2010).
Learning. Organizational Transformers recognize
Process. Where Operational Optimizers may suc- the importance of leadership and of the exter-
cessfully leverage existing innovation processes, this nal knowledge that resides in value chains: in-
may not be a useful approach for Organizational teractions with both suppliers and customers can

contribute to successful SOI (Conway and Steward working with existing suppliers to provide sustainable
1998). Sustainability-oriented innovation driven by materials; developing sustainability standards for the
regulation may not result in added value, but engag- supply chain and then operationalizing them through
ing with key stakeholders of the firm can positively a supplier code of conduct; providing environmental
affect a firm’s SOI (Ayuso et al. 2011). In the case design specification to suppliers; performing envi-
of the automotive industry, for instance, Geffen and ronmental audits for suppliers’ internal management;
Rothenberg (2000) demonstrated the importance of requiring suppliers’ ISO 14000/ ISO 26000 certifi-
developing partnering arrangements to allow suppli- cation; and cooperating with customers on environ-
ers and assembly plant to work together effectively mental objectives (Pujari et al. 2003; Zhu et al. 2011).
to exploit and implement complementary skills and Firms wanting to achieve the greatest sustainability
competencies to improve the environmental perfor- impact may choose to target upstream supply chain
mance of assembly plants. Bringing customers’ input initiatives, where the greatest damage occurs in the
to the process, such as through sales force proxim- extractive and primary processing industries (Huber
ity, market research, extensive charting and in-depth 2008). At InterfaceFLOR,4 for example, more than
analysis of customer needs (Milliman et al. 2012), two-thirds of the overall environmental impact of a
provides another mechanism for identifying where carpet tile is related to raw materials. Virgin nylon
the value added from environmental innovation can yarn alone makes up about half a carpet’s greenhouse
be found (Foster and Green 2002). gas emissions: reducing the amount used is funda-
mental to InterfaceFLOR’s strategy of creating a more
Linkages. The emphasis in the literature is on how sustainable product (Arratia 2010).
firms develop and exploit external linkages in pur-
suit of sustainability objectives. These linkages in- Innovative organization. Innovative activity around
clude developing new networks into their wider value internal and external communications helps to em-
chains and stakeholder networks and, in particular, bed sustainability. The literature particularly em-
into supply chains, to develop long-term collaborative phasizes the importance of top management sup-
approaches with external partners. Whereas techno- port and line manager commitment for sustainabil-
logical innovations reduce or eliminate impacts at a ity: explicit, clearly defined sustainability policies
product level, in the long-term a collaborative ap- intertwined with overall firm strategy; communica-
proach is necessary to make the whole supply chain tion of values and goals of sustainability that reach
sustainable (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). beyond operational and eco-efficiencies (Huang and
Compared with other innovations developed by the Wu 2010; Lee 2009; Pujari et al. 2003; Reed 2002).
same firm, SOI activity is characterized by higher The call for action, communications between depart-
levels of both inter- and intra-organizational collab- ments, clarity of long-term goals and strategies and
oration (Petruzzelli et al. 2011). New relationships the importance of the sustainability agenda in the con-
up and down value chains promoting collaborations text of the business purpose distinguish this context
for adapting processes to respond to sustainability from the reactive mode of Operational Optimization
are evident (Baya and Gruman 2011). In contrast to (Reed 2002; Moors et al. 2005; Polonsky and Ottman
Operational Optimization, the focus shifts from lo- 1998).
cal activity to activity among the firm’s immediate The prevailing neoliberal economic paradigm priv-
stakeholders, including: exploring new opportunities ileges profit maximization as the critical value di-
at inter-sectoral interfaces (Lettice and Parekh 2010; mension in firms’ business models. Among Organi-
Mirata and Emtairah 2005) and developing sustain- zational Transformers, an emergent paradigm is ev-
able supply chains (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). ident: a business that ascribes value to social and
Considerable attention has been paid to Sustain- environmental as well as economic considerations
able Supply Chain Management (SSCM), and we (Bertens and Statema 2011; Dyllick and Hockerts
found evidence of organizations extending sustain- 2002; Esslinger 2011; Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). The
ability principles into their supply chains (e.g. Birkin precise nature of the sustainable business model re-
et al. 2009; Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2010; Huber mains unclear and, for Birkin et al. (2009) at least,
2008; Zhu et al. 2010). To achieve effective SSCM,
long-term collaborations with external partners ap-
pear critical. Specific activities can include sourc- 4
InterfaceFLOR, designer and maker of carpet tiles, see
ing sustainable materials from alternative suppliers or http://www.interface.com/ (accessed 25 November 2014).

192 R. Adams et al.
no business claims to be fully realizing one. Never- The German sportswear company Puma is a leader
theless, a number of emergent types, such as social in transparency and disclosure of its external costs to
entrepreneurship (OECD 2010b), and characteristics, society. It measures, evaluates and publishes data on
such as treating nature as a stakeholder (Laine 2010; its carbon emissions, freshwater usage, pollution and
Stubbs and Cocklin 2008), have been identified. waste. The unique aspect of this exercise is that Puma
Less radical business model innovation can mean has measured and monetized these impacts, calcu-
changing the nature of the deliverable. This can be lating them along its entire supply chain. It effec-
done in several ways: for example, by designing tively created the world’s first environmental profit-
‘green’ from the outset of the product development and-loss statement. Although Puma disclosed an es-
process (Sandström and Tingström 2008) to focus- timated €145m (US$182m) in such externalities for
ing less on creating products and more on delivering 2010, the revelation was far from the public relations
services: this is a process of servitization, where a tan- disaster that some had predicted. The firm now uses
gible product is replaced with a service, and reflects what it learned to engage its raw materials and manu-
one response to re-thinking how to meet needs while facturing supply chain (which is where almost 95% of
sustaining growth without costly social and environ- these externalities arise) to improve its environmental
mental impacts (Hansen et al. 2009; Tukker 2004). performance (Sukhdev 2012).
For sustainability to be strategically embedded, re-
ward systems and incentives need to reflect its cen-
(3) The innovation activities of Systems Building
trality: linking individual and group reward systems
to sustainability goals reflects corporate commitment Systems Building requires another radical shift in phi-
and can help in shifting sustainability from a pro- losophy to thinking beyond the firm and reframing the
grammatic phenomenon to a corporate mindset (Baya purpose of business in society: ‘doing good by doing
and Gruman 2011; Blake 2006; Lent and Wells 1992). new things with others’. A key feature is that sustain-
Sustainability cultures can be built from the top-down ability cannot logically be thought of as an attribute
— e.g. by embedding sustainability goals and objec- of a single firm, but can only properly be applied at
tives in strategic and operational plans — and from the global level (Lamming et al. 1999); this puts link-
the bottom up — e.g. by being alert and responsive to ages at the heart of SOI activity, as is reflected in the
and rewarding employees’ SOI ideas and initiatives limited evidence that we found.
(Florida et al. 2001; Haanes et al. 2011). The context is characterized by a shift toward net-
Embedding sustainability metrics with financial re- works of relations in which sustainability value is
porting integrates sustainability as a core concern created collaboratively rather than individually (del
through the organization and can lead to better sus- Rı́o et al. 2010) and firms shift from existing in isola-
tainability performance (Sardinha et al. 2011; Shri- tion and in competition to integrated collaborations,
vastava and Hart 1995). A globally accepted stan- with the potential to bring systems-shaping innova-
dard for peer-to-peer and industry benchmarking re- tions (Gulbrandsen 2005; Taylor 2005): ‘intercon-
mains elusive, and so organizations adopt new report- nected set[s] of innovations, where each influences
ing mechanisms either of their own design (Kaval the other, with innovation both in the parts of the
2011), or by signing up to one or more of the ini- system and in the ways in which they interconnect’
tiatives striving to make sustainability reporting stan- involving many actors and institutions (Mulgan and
dard practice.5 Alongside new performance metrics Leadbeater 2013, p. 4). In terms of sustainability, it
(Lent and Wells 1992), new structures and new lines can be seen as the ‘set of actions that shift a system –
of communication are instituted, supported by CEO a city, a sector, an economy – onto a more sustainable
backing and cross-functional management commit- path’ (Draper 2013, p. 11).
tees (Haanes et al. 2012). Because the concept of Systems Building reflects
an unconventional economic paradigm, relatively few
organizations or industries appear currently to occupy
5
Multiple schemes have sought to establish common frame- this space: at least, this is the impression given from
works for reporting sustainability progress. These include the limited number of empirical scholarly papers we
the Global Reporting Initiative (www.globalreporting.org), were able to identify (Loorbach et al. 2010; Seebode
the International Integrated Reporting Committee
(http://www.theiirc.org/), the Carbon Disclosure Project et al. 2012). Consistent with our objective of inform-
(https://www.cdproject.net) and the Dow Jones Sustainabil- ing practice, we found it helpful to turn to the grey
ity Index (www.sustainability-index.com). literature to provide instances of activities.

Strategy. Being a Systems Builder means leaving issues; and Sony’s initiative with Forum for the Fu-
behind the prevailing economic paradigm to reframe ture, bringing together technical experts, futurolo-
the purpose of the firm in society: a part of soci- gists, designers, sustainability experts, writers and
ety, not apart from it. This moves beyond efficiency the public to explore how technologies might redefine
to effectiveness (McDonough and Braungart 2002a). lifestyles in 2025 (Bent 2012; Draper 2013). Collabo-
The perspective underpins a logic of wide collaborations such as these broaden a firm’s search activities
rations and investing in systems solutions to derive and knowledge base, particularly in relation to pick-
new, shared value propositions from the entire socio- ing up weak signals, to deliver innovations and also
technical and ecosystem network to make a positive enhance social legitimacy (Holmes and Smart 2009).
impact.
Because the ultimate objectives of sustainability lie Learning. Novel collaborations are important for
beyond the individual capacity of firms to achieve, the systems builders for the dialogues they inspire, the
role of Systems Builders becomes one of initiating, legitimacy they endow, the opportunities for new
mobilizing, inspiring and leading change: business knowledge acquisition and the creative and respon-
is uniquely placed, more than government or civil sive solutions they stimulate. Shared value, in which
society, to lead on this (Hart 2010). There is evi- the causes of eco- and social-systems are advanced
dence of intimate, interdependent collaborations be- as equivalents to economic returns are being ad-
tween perhaps previously unconnected actors, such dressed through these novel collaborations (Porter
as NGOs, industry associations and economic devel- and Kramer 2011). But these opportunities may fail to
opment organizations, emerging as a response (UN be realized if firms lack the internal knowledge man-
Global Compact and Accenture 2013; Wagner 2009). agement processes to convert these into innovation
Such radical shift in philosophy and behaviour can (Ayuso et al. 2011).
present a considerable challenge for incumbent firms. Exploring the limitations of existing models of in-
The macro-level dynamics of the context constitute a novation in the context of working across and beyond
socio-technical landscape, an exogenous environment traditional boundaries to realize new value configu-
beyond the direct control of organizations (Geels rations, Seebode et al. (2012) reflect on the case of
2005), but within their sphere of influence. Changes Philips, the Dutch multinational. They find that more
at the landscape level usually take place slowly, in the radical SOI projects follow novel pathways, involve
order of decades. external partners and new configurations of knowl-
edge, and that learning to work with new partners
Process. We found few scholarly studies reporting raises issues around ‘finding, forming and perform-
the innovation process among systems builders, and ing’ within new innovation systems.
this remains a gap in the literature. The sorts of wide In Loorbach et al.’s (2010) study of inter-firm
collaborations described above, though rare, involve relations among Dutch industrial collaborators, the
developing workable relationships between a wide concept of ambidexterity (Turner et al. 2012) is a
range of private, public and civil society partners (Mc- helpful guide to understanding how firms success-
Donough and Braungart 2002a, UNDP 2010). Where fully experimented with and learned from multiple
the sustainability challenges are of such scale that new approaches to sustainability in a ‘shadow track’.
there is no single ‘owner’ of the problem, and there is While simultaneously maintaining existing business
a need to implement transformations aligned with the models, the collaborators: redefined products and ser-
requirements of a more environmentally sustainable vices; restructured practices and organization to break
development, diverse collaborations usefully collec- away from technological and paradigmatic lock-in;
tively define the problem and search for solutions and developed a management approach integrating
(Mirata and Emtairah 2005). foresight and broader stakeholder collaboration. In
Firms are working in new platforms with collab- these activities, they saw themselves as coevolving
orators. Examples include: Nike’s LAUNCH open actors within a wider societal system pursuing radi-
innovation platform, involving working with indus- cal innovation leading to increased sustainability.
try representatives, material scientists, governments,
investors and consumer groups on sustainable ma- Linkages. Systems Building locates firms in an in-
terials; Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan, involving dustrial ecology characterized by mutually affect-
working with governments and NGOs on broader sys- ing interactions between multiple stakeholders em-
tem transformation to tackle food, energy and health bedded in networks, community, collaborations and

194 R. Adams et al.
partnerships (del Rı́o et al. 2010). Industrial ecology Corps legislation ‘helps return business to its proper
calls for a radical shift from firms existing in isolation role in society to create shared and durable prosper-
and in competition to integrated collaborations, new ity’ and certified B Corps are required to make deci-
frameworks for working together with the potential to sions that have a positive material impact on society
bring game-changing systemic innovation to sustain- and the environment: ‘not just to be the best in the
ability challenges (Berry and Rondinelli 1998). world, but to be the best for the world’ (B Corps
For example, some of the most significant sustain- 2013). A growing community of ࣙ1100 Certified B
able supply systems for natural resources, such as the Corps from 37 countries and 121 industries now ex-
Forest Stewardship Council and the Marine Steward- ists (B Corps 2013). Similar developments include
ship Council, developed as a result of partnerships ideas expressed by Conscious Capitalism and Corpo-
of industry groups, social and environmental NGOs ration 2020, models of enterprise that explicitly take
and the public (Gulbrandsen 2005; Taylor 2005). We social and ecological considerations into account in
also note the coming together of previously impla- their business strategies and purpose (Waddock and
cable protagonists such as Greenpeace and Foron, to McIntosh 2011).
develop and market an ozone- and climate-safe refrig- Other examples include, ‘closed-loop production’
erant (Stafford and Hartman 2001), or between WWF (Abdallah et al. 2011) and ‘circular economy’ (The
and Lafarge that led, among other things, to the lat- Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013): restorative in-
ter’s decision not to pursue plans to build the UK’s dustrial models that move away from ‘take, make and
biggest super quarry on an unspoiled Scottish island waste’ to active recovery (e.g. waste, heat, water, en-
(Seitanidi 2007). In a Swedish multi-sectoral initia- ergy or other resources) reuse and return of end-of-life
tive, the Landskrona industrial symbiosis programme products, at which point they can be disassembled and
brought together more than 20 firms and three public recycled into new products. Also emerging is the ‘net
organizations to find novel solutions to sustainability positive contributor’ model (McDonough and Braun-
challenges (Mirata and Emtairah 2005). gart 2002b), which promotes adding greater value to
In this way, Systems Builders are increasingly en- society and the environment than is extracted.
gaging in constructive dialogues with multiple stake-
holders rather than simply acting on their own. They
require the ability to build, manage or participate in Summary
complex coalitions over time (WBCSD 2010). They A framework was devised for examining the activities
not only focus internally, but also look to lead and in- of innovating for sustainability. The organizing logic
spire change in the wider societal, economic, techni- for the framework was the context for innovation in
cal and environmental management systems through which activities progressively shift from being inter-
strong and visionary leadership and the mobilization nally oriented, incremental and efficiency-focused to
of dynamic capabilities. Much of this, though, re- being more radical and systemic. The framework pro-
mains aspirational or at least empirically untested. vides structure for bringing together and understand-
ing findings on innovation activities from a diverse
literature. These are complex concepts becoming rei-
Innovative organization. At a conceptual level, the fied in corporate practice as new business models and
role of business in society has been reframed in a num- new forms of value creation. They reflect new and
ber of ways, and the scholarly and grey literature intro- extensive partnerships reaching deep and wide across
duce novel rhetoric around this. Chang (2010), for ex- social, institutional, regulatory and stakeholder strata,
ample, suggests moving away from metaphors of war and wider cultural change beyond the capacity of en-
and competition, which can (inappropriately) inform terprises to control but the development of which they
leaders’ decision-making, and instead use metaphors can motivate, inspire and mobilise: these findings are
that describe businesses as part of a cooperative com- summarized in Table 2.
munity based on relationships. In line with this, new
business paradigms are emerging. The ‘Benefit Cor-
poration’ or ‘B Corp’, emerging in the US in 2010, Discussion
is one striking example of the role of business re-
framed. The B Corp has created a new legal form, This review, organized around the idea of sustainabil-
allowing firms to go beyond benefiting shareholders ity as a journey, presents a representation of contexts
to benefiting wider society and the environment. B of that journey and its characteristic activities. The

Table 2. Activities of SOI
Operational Optimization: doing Organizational Transformation: Systems Building: doing good by

more with less doing good by doing new things doing new things with others
Strategy r Comply with regulations or r Embed sustainability as a cultural r Logic of wide collaborations
pursue efficiency gains and strategic norm in a shaping and investing in systems
logic that goes beyond greening solutions to derive new,
co-created value propositions
Process r Focus on internal and incremental r Adopt new values and platforms r Adopt new collaborative
innovation facilitated by use of (e.g. reverse innovation) and new process platforms with diverse
tools ideation practices (e.g. stakeholders
biomimicry)
Learning r Exploit existing knowledge r Engage with key stakeholders of r Develop ambidextrous skills
management capabilities to the firm – internal and external enabling ‘shadow tracking’
identify and access relevant and learning from
knowledge experimentation with multiple
new approaches
Linkages r Recruit external domain experts r Shift focus from intra-firm r Get the whole system in the
for new knowledge linkages to collaborations with room to diagnose problems,
immediate stakeholders understand system complexity,
build trust and identify levers
for change
Innovative r Exploit existing innovation r Embed SOI culture through the r Adopt new business
organization capabilities organization paradigms (e.g. B-Corps)
focus is on practices that constitute day-to-day SOI through the organization of disparate activities into
activities. The literature does not allow us to conclude a meaningful, dynamic framework more focused on
whether or not the journey is linear, or that firms can- ‘How’.
not simultaneously pursue SOI activities that charac- At the outset, we proposed addressing four defi-
terize more than one context. In that sense, we do not ciencies in the existing research: its meaning, con-
claim to offer a stages model, which requires categor- ceptualization, dichotomous treatment and failure to
ical exclusivity, nor is it a typology, as typologies can- reflect more contemporary practices. Our focus has
not account for change over time (Kolk and Mauser been on the literature published between 1992 and
2002). 2012, for reasons already explicated. However, it is
Instead, we submit the model as a Scientific Model valuable to reflect on how the literature has developed
(Baden-Fuller and Morgan 2010, p. 168), a ‘generic in the months following that cut-off and the extent to
in-between kind[s]-of-description[s] that [is] neither which it fits with or challenges our findings.
general theory nor full empirical description’: it sub- Consequently, we searched (March 2015) for the
mits a quasi-laboratory in which scholars can gen- most recent literature on SOI, using EBSCOHost
erate concepts and theories and investigate empirical (‘sustainab* AND innovation’, Abstracts 2013–2015,
domains and for managers to understand how their Academic Journals). This returned, in total, 456 refer-
world works in a practical sense. ences. Using criteria established in the research proto-
We have found the academic literature to exhibit col (i.e. language, focus on the substantive question,
characteristics indicative of a field at an early stage unit of analysis, empirical study), and following a
of theoretical development (Burgess et al. 2006; review of abstracts, 19 were retained for further in-
Mäkinen and Seppänen 2007): it is widely distributed, vestigation. In light of these subsequent studies, the
largely focused on empirical discovery and descrip- proposed SOI framework appears robust, but we make
tion and utilises a range of conceptual labels and def- the following observations.
initions, many of which overlap, but around which The articles published since the cut-off reinforce
there is limited consensus. In Whetten’s (1989) terms, our original analysis that a diverse and skewed lit-
this is the ‘What’ phase of theory-building. Here, the erature forms the basis of this review, from which
variables, constructs and concepts logically to be con- three distinct contexts of SOI activity and practice
sidered part of the explanation of the phenomenon of are identified. However, a more coherent research and
interest emerge. The current study offers a theoretical practice agenda that intertwines firm, societal and en-
contribution by moving knowledge beyond this state vironmental priorities may be emerging in the most

196 R. Adams et al.
recent contributions: in particular, around the themes as well as the need to develop new corporate ap-
of implementation, the systems perspective, business proaches. As such, research, policy and practice agen-
models and technological insufficiency. das are coalescing around addressing long-standing
problems caused by business having become disem-
Implementation. Increasing attention in the litera- bedded from society (Polanyi 1944).
ture is being paid to the implementation of innovative In the absence of managerial, policy and be-
solutions for sustainability. Hallstedt et al. (2013) pro- havioural change within and beyond organizational
pose a range of prescriptions for effectively embed- boundaries, technological solutions are limited in
ding a strategic sustainability perspective in the prod- what they can deliver. Our analysis highlights the im-
uct innovation process. Ceschin (2013) reflects on portance of systems-level innovation, but we found
corporate, cultural and regulatory barriers that hinder little empirical work to populate this context. As
the uptake of eco-efficient product–service system in- a result, and consistent with the notions of fit-for-
novations finding, specifically, that implementation is purpose evidence (Briner et al. 2009; Gough 2007)
influenced by a diversity of factors, not just by the and pragmatic management research (Tranfield et al.
technology itself. Silvestre and Silva Neto (2014) ex- 2003), this gap caused us to turn to the grey litera-
plore the impediments to the implementation of tech- ture. Nike speak of ‘getting the whole system in the
nological solutions in the Brazilian mining industry room’ in order to diagnose problems, understand sys-
and, although noting the availability of technological tem complexity, build trust, identify possible levers
solutions to these challenges, conclude that technol- for change, and develop common thought processes
ogy alone is insufficient. Instead, they report a largely (Draper 2013).
passive and reactive industry, many of whose mem- The grey literature also highlights a number of trail-
bers lack the knowledge, motivation, education or blazing Systems Building initiatives, not all of which
will, and who operate in a context characterized by a are catalysed by the business community, but in which
lack of enforcement of environmental regulations. business plays a significant role. For example, NGOs
On the basis of the proposed SOI model, and in the such as the WBCSD and the WWF are helping bridge
absence of empirical studies, we can speculate that the science–business gap through innovative initia-
start-up firms and spin-outs could select their point tives, recognizing that corporate sustainability must
of entry to the framework and design their organi- be rooted in ecological science, and that business has
zations accordingly, e.g. many social enterprises are a key role in helping to reduce its impact and ensuring
founded specifically to support sustainable develop- it stays within the limits of the planetary boundaries
ment and will launch as Organizational Transform- (Whiteman et al. 2013).
ers or Systems Builders. Incumbent firms, however, In the 2013–2015 literature, we observe a grow-
will probably face a stiffer task and may find it less ing body of Systems Building empirical work. Gaz-
disruptive to build from a basis of Operational Opti- iulusoy et al. (2013), for example, explore the use
mization. Keskin et al. (2013) provide some empirical of the scenario method as a mechanism for firms
support for our speculation. They describe start-ups to develop innovation pathways that require institu-
attempting to take sustainable innovation beyond the tional, social/cultural, organizational and technolog-
traditional environmental focus to incorporate social ical change. De Medeiros et al.’s (2014) review and
aspects, as well as create awareness for sustainable empirical test highlight internal, inter-functional inte-
behaviour through their products. gration and wider, stakeholder integration as critical
success factors for sustainable product innovation.
Systems Building. Beyond Operational Optimiza-
tion and Organizational Transformation lies highly Business model. An increasing number of scholars
radical, game-changing systemic innovation that tar- are framing SOI as a business model challenge (e.g.
gets transforming established societal relationships Rohrbeck et al. 2013), reflecting the complexities of
and interactions between industry, consumer be- developing new value propositions and opportunities
haviour and lifestyles, institutional orientations, and for new value creation and capture that a sustain-
even the very aims of business. The financial crisis of ability orientation poses. In an echo of the finding
2008, coupled with the challenges of climate change in the current review about the emergence of orga-
and growing social inequalities exposed major frail- nizational reframing practices, Boons and Leudeke-
ties of the prevailing economic system, prompting Freund (2013) conclude that the search for business
widespread debate on the need for systemic change models for sustainable innovation equates to a search

for a business model that challenges the neoclassical Technological insufficiency. The business model
economic worldview. perspective integrates the business case with soci-
This may be more aspirational than actual, as etal and environmental considerations and locates
many sustainability business models continue to exist nexuses of sustainability value. The perspective also
within the neoliberal paradigm. Bocken et al. (2014) strongly indicates that sustainability is becoming less
propose eight sustainable business model archetypes, of a technical challenge than it is one of changing
a number of which are clearly rooted in the context of behaviour. To take advantage of new opportunities,
optimization. Their archetype maximizing resource societal actors and downstream entities need to be
productivity and energy efficiency emphasizes doing involved and invested in defining new value creation
more with fewer resources and generating less waste, and what is sustainably valuable (e.g. performance
emissions and pollution. advantages and environmental impact reduction) (Iles
The benefits to companies of this business model, and Martin 2013).
such as cost reduction sustainability and competi- Systems thinking and technological insufficiency
tive advantage, are increasingly clear (Aguado et al. come together at the macro level where, we note, two
2013). The business model is articulated in terms of models have recently gained considerable academic,
Operational Optimization, rooted in resource man- policy and practical traction: Planetary Boundaries
agement – maximizing the productivity of resources, (Rockström et al. 2009) and Doughnut Economics
energy efficiency, minimizing waste – as, for exam- (Raworth 2012). The Rockström et al. (2009) frame-
ple, Nair and Paulose (2014) describe in the case of work of ‘Planetary Boundaries’ consists of nine Earth
the bio-fuel industry. system processes which, to the extent that they are not
But Bocken et al.’s (2014) taxonomy extends be- crossed, define a ‘safe operating space for human-
yond this: the remaining seven archetypes include ity’. Crossing these boundaries, they argue, consti-
two with a technological orientation: creating value tutes a risk of ‘irreversible and abrupt environmental
from waste; and substituting non-renewables with re- change’, with potentially disastrous consequences for
newables and natural processes. The logical extension the biosphere and, by extension, humanity. Doughnut
of the latter leads away from the linear ‘take–make– Economics brings planetary boundaries together with
waste’ industrial paradigm, to a systems-building ori- 11 social boundaries, dimensions of human depriva-
entation characterized by innovative business model tion developed from priorities outlined at Rio+20.
configurations such as the circular economy (The Integrated in this fashion, planetary and social bound-
Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013). aries describe a safe and just people/planet space in
Five archetypes are categorized as either socially which humanity can thrive.
or organizationally oriented and attend to behaviour Steffen et al. (2015) note that four of the nine plan-
change reflective of Organizational Transformation etary boundaries have already been crossed, with oth-
and Systems Building. Three archetypes have a so- ers in imminent danger. Raworth (2012), using UN
cial focus and describe business models that em- data, shows that humanity is currently falling be-
phasise: ‘sufficiency’, solutions that actively seek to low each of the 11 social boundaries. The practical
reduce consumption and production; ‘functionality’, implication of occupying this space is the need for
services that satisfy users’ needs without having to an interdisciplinary science of sustainability (Leach
own physical products; and ‘stewardship’, proactively et al. 2013) promoting innovation in the use of natural
engaging with all stakeholders to ensure their long- resources and far greater efficiency in transforming
term health and well-being. those resources to meet human needs at a systems
The remaining two archetypes address the organi- level (Whiteman et al. 2013).
zational domain. The first describes the repurposing These perspectives assert that economic activity
of business in society, prioritizing delivery of social is embedded in and dependent on complex, living,
and environmental benefits through close integration self-organizing natural and social systems with limits;
between the firm, local communities and other stake- and that a healthy economy is rooted in a healthy
holder groups rather than pursuing only profit maxi- ecology and society: as encapsulated in the nested or
mization. The second is about delivering sustainable ‘strong’ model of sustainable development (Giddings
solutions at a large scale to maximize benefits for et al. 2002). Paraphrasing Lee (2008), this means
society and the environment. incorporating and aligning business environmentally

198 R. Adams et al.
and socially to take on responsibility to lead, through We also make two methodological contributions:
innovation, towards a sustainable world (Hart 2010). first, by adopting a novel framework-synthetic ap-
However, while it is in the Systems Building con- proach – to the best of our knowledge, the first in a
text that the grey literature sheds the greatest sup- published systematic review in management and or-
plementary and contextual light, it is for reasons of ganizational studies. Our efforts to develop SOI the-
its presence that the conclusions here must be treated ory are robust, given an approach grounded in the
with greater caution. While we find some triangula- data of previous studies (Glaser and Strauss 2009;
tion between the findings of the two bodies of lit- Yin 1994). Framework synthesis has been demon-
erature (lending some validation to our framework), strated as useful in other domains, and it has en-
the paucity of empirical work highlights an immedi- abled us to build a richer, more refined model of
ate opportunity for further definitional and evaluative SOI through a process of iteration between the ini-
research in this context. tial model and data (Ratcliff 1994), and to provide
Indeed, the whole framework indicates important a palette of practices from which practitioners might
opportunities for future research. A significant op- select. The framework, by plausibly accounting for
portunity exists at the transition points between the the range of empirical observations provided by the
different contexts. Previous research has indicated studies included, delivers increased analytic gener-
that new knowledge (Phelps et al. 2007) and spe- alizability (Locke 2001) compared against previous,
cific capabilities (Francis and Bessant 2005) are re- isolated studies. In this sense, our synthesis, by mov-
quired at different stages of firm growth and change, ing to a higher level of abstraction, contributes to the
raising questions about the specific knowledge and development of knowledge (Tranfield et al. 2003).
capabilities required to help firms move around con- The use of a framework synthetic approach in this
texts. The capability-based view originates in the study should act as a stimulus for its continued use
work of a number of scholars, drawing on the and for further exploratory use of other methods of
resource-based view of the firm (Barney 1996; Pen- synthesis in systematic reviews in the field.
rose 1959). Amit and Schoemaker (1993) defined ca- The second methodological contribution is the in-
pabilities as the ‘capacity to deploy resources, usu- clusion of a wider range of the grey literature than
ally in combination, using organizational processes, in previous studies. By integrating the grey literature,
to affect a desired end’. By extension, then, SOI ca- we have been able to reflect more contemporary SOI
pability can be conceived as the dynamic ability to activity than had we relied on the scholarly litera-
adapt, integrate and reconfigure organizational skills, ture alone. In particular, we suggest that combining
resources and functional competencies to respond the two bodies of literature is particularly promising
to contemporary sustainability challenges (Assink where research publications appear to lag contempo-
2006; Teece 2007). Research should focus on the rary practice and that opportunities should be taken,
further identification of specific resources and com- where appropriate, for the greater use of the grey lit-
petencies of SOI that help firms move through the erature in systematic reviews. Specifically, we have
framework. included the grey literature in this review to provide
Furthermore, we have noted the challenge that examples of practice to managers and others inter-
managers face in knowing how to help their orga- ested in making organizations more sustainable. In
nizations become and be sustainable. The proposed doing so, we push the boundaries of systematic review
framework offers a useful heuristic to help navigate practice in management research into new territory.
this landscape and provides a set of indicative activ- While this might be contentious, the approach finds
ities in each context. To give further practical value support from Nutley et al. (2013), who argue that the
to the findings of this review, future research efforts processes of the review should reflect not only on what
should be directed towards both empirically testing we want to know and why we want to know it, but
the framework and operationalizing it in the form of also on how we envisage the knowledge product be-
a maturity model. ing used. With a clear practitioner purpose in mind,
Research in this domain would be greatly enhanced this review recalls the practice-oriented purpose of
by taking a longitudinal perspective, and we have been systematic reviews, but not at the cost of rigour (Tran-
constrained from drawing conclusions about transi- field et al. 2003). In doing so it raises questions about
tions between contexts by the cross-sectional nature under what conditions more attention might be given
of the studies included. to grey evidence in systematic reviews.

Conclusion Assink, M. (2006). The Inhibitors of disruptive innovation

capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of In-
Roome (1992) argued that the conditions for sustain- novation Management, 9, pp. 215–233.
Ayuso, S., Rodrı́guez, M.Á., Garcı́a-Castro, R. and Ariño,
ability cannot be met simply by compliance, and that
M.Á. (2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sus-
managerially led action is required. The increasing tainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management &
presence of business representation over the course Data Systems, 111, pp. 1399–1417.
of the three Earth Summits suggests that some man- Baden-Fuller, C. and Morgan, M.S. (2010). Business models
agers, at least, also subscribe to this view. as models. Long Range Planning, 43, pp. 156–171.
The pressing need to equip managers with the tools Barnett-Page, E. and Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the
for innovative solutions to sustainability challenges synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC
coupled with the diversity and fragmentation of the Medical Research Methodology, 9(59), pp. 1–11.
academic literature have made this review necessary. Barney, J.B. (1996). The resource-based theory of the firm.
Our inductively derived framework reflects and builds Organization Science, 7, pp. 469–469.
on the findings of previous studies and permits a syn- Barroso, J., Gollop, C.J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J.,
Pearce, P.F. and Al, E. (2003). The challenges of searching
thesis of the innovation activities of becoming and
for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of
being sustainable. We argue that, by understanding Nursing Research, 25, pp. 153–178.
how organizations can become sustainable, pragmat- Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A. (2002). Mapping the
ically oriented SOI-related research has the potential green product development field: engineering, policy and
positively to influence organizational behaviour: our business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10,
model provides a strong basis for such influence. pp. 409–425.
Baya, V. and Gruman, G. (2011). Sustainability: moving from
compliance to leadership. Technology Forecast: A Quar-
References terly Journal, 4, pp. 6–21.
Abdallah, T., Diabat, A. and Simchi-Levi, D. (2011). Sus- B Corps (2013). Available at: http://www.bcorporation.net/
tainable supply chain design: a closed-loop formulation (accessed 25 November, 2014).
and sensitivity analysis. Production Planning & Control, Bent, D. and Le Grand, Z. (2012). Breakthrough Innovation.
23, pp. 120–133. Your Guide to Innovating for a Brighter Future. London:
Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of in- Forum for the Future.
dustrial innovation. Technology Review, 64, pp. 254–228. Benyus, J.M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation nature. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
management measurement: a review. International Jour- Benzies, K.M., Premji, S., Hayden, K.A. and Serrett, K.
nal of Management Reviews, 8, pp. 21–47. (2006). State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and
Aguado, S., Alvarez, R. and Domingo, R. (2013). Model of challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews on
efficient and sustainable improvements in a lean produc- Evidence-Based Nursing, 3, pp. 55–61.
tion system through processes of environmental innova- Berry, M.A. and Rondinelli, D.A. (1998). Proactive corporate
tion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, pp. 141–148. environmental management: a new industrial revolution.
Alston, K. and Roberts, J.P. (1999). Partners in new product Academy of Management Executive, 12, pp. 38–50.
development: SC Johnson and the alliance for environ- Bertens, C. and Statema, H. (2011). Business models of eco-
mental innovation. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 6, innovations: an explorative study into the value network of
pp. 110–128. the business models of eco-innovations and some Dutch
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993). Strategic assets and case studies. Project commissioned by Dutch Ministry of
organization rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. Infrastructure and Environment.
33–46. Birkin, F., Polesie, T. and Lewis, L. (2009). A new business
Anderson, R. and White, R. (2009). Confessions of a Radical model for sustainable development: an exploratory study
Industrialist. How Interface Proved that You Can Build a using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations.
Successful Business without Destroying the Planet. Lon- Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, pp. 277–290.
don: Random House Books. Blake, J. (2006). From protection to innovation: BT’s jour-
Arratia, R. (2010). Sustainable innovation: think big, be open ney in corporate social responsibility. Global Business &
to new ideas and embrace successful failure. Available at: Organizational Excellence, 26, pp. 7–17.
http://www.interfaceraise.com (accessed 14 July 2012). Blättel-Mink, B. (1998). Innovation towards sustainable
Aschehoug, S.H., Boks, C. and Støren, S. (2012). Environ- economy – the integration of economy and ecology in
mental information from stakeholders supporting product companies. Sustainable Development, 6, pp. 49–58.
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, pp. 1– Blowfield, M., Visser, W. and Livesey, F. (2007). Sustain-
13. ability innovation: mapping the territory. University of

200 R. Adams et al.
Cambridge Programme for Industry Research Paper Se- tional business research. Journal of International Business
ries: No. 2. Studies, 41, pp. 178–184.
Boaz, A. and Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing Chang, Z.K. (2010). Biomimicry: Tool for Innovation at All
research quality for evidence based policy and practice. Levels of Organization. Herndon, VA: Strategic Sustain-
Working Paper 11, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based ability Consulting.
Policy and Practice, London. Chen, J. and Subramian, A.M. (2010). Developing disrup-
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014). A tive products for emerging economies: lessons from Asian
literature and practice review to develop sustainable busi- cases. Research Technology Management, 53, pp. 21–26.
ness model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, Chen, Y.-S., Chang, C.-H. and Wu, F.-S. (2012). Origins of
pp. 42–56. green innovations: the differences between proactive and
Boons, F. and Leudeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models reactive green innovations. Management Decision, 50, pp.
for sustainable innovation: state of the art and steps towards 368–398.
a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, pp. Clark, G., Kosoris, J., Hong, L.N. and Crul, M. (2009). De-
9–19. sign for sustainability: current trends in sustainable prod-
Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and uct design and development. Sustainability, 1, pp. 409–
innovation in SMEs: evidence of themes and activities in 424.
practice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, pp. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capac-
417–435. ity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin-
Bossink, B.A.G. (2002). A Dutch public–private strategy for istrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128–152.
innovation in sustainable construction. Construction Man- Cole, H., Freeman, C., Jahoda, M. and Pavitt, K. (1973).
agement and Economics, 20, pp. 633–642. Thinking about the Future: A Critique of the Limits to
Bossink, B.A.G. (2007). The interorganizational innovation Growth. London: Chatto & Windus.
processes of sustainable building: a Dutch case of joint Conway, S. and Steward, F. (1998). Networks and interfaces
building innovation in sustainability. Building & Environ- in environmental innovation: a comparative study in the
ment, 42, pp. 4086–4092. UK and Germany. Journal of High Technology Manage-
Briner, R.B., Denyer, D. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009). ment Research, 9, pp. 239.
Evidence-based management: concept cleanup time? D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M. and Von Tunzelmann,
Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, pp. 19–32. N. (2012). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers
Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Report of the World Commission versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, 41, pp. 482–
on Environment and Development: ‘Our Common Future’. 488.
New York, NY: United Nations. Dangelico, R. and Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green
Burgess, K., Singh, P.J. and Koroglu, R. (2006). Supply chain product innovation: why and how companies integrate en-
management: a structured literature review and implica- vironmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95,
tions for future research. International Journal of Opera- pp. 471–486.
tions & Production Management, 26, pp. 703–729. De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Del Rı́o, P. and Könnölä, T. (2010). cooperation: empirical evidence from Spanish manufac-
Diversity of eco-innovations: reflections from selected turing firms. Research Policy, 41, pp. 614–623.
case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, pp. 1073– De Medeiros, J.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D. and Cortimiglia, M.N.
1083. (2014). Success factors for environmentally sustainable
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010). The business case product innovation: a systematic literature review. Journal
for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, of Cleaner Production, 65, pp. 76–86.
research and practice. International Journal of Manage- Del Brı́o, J.A. and Junquera, B. (2003). A review of the liter-
ment Reviews, 12, pp. 85–105. ature on environmental innovation management in SMEs:
Carroll, C., Booth, A. and Cooper, K. (2011). A worked implications for public policies. Technovation, 23, pp.
example of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis: a systematic 939–948.
review of views concerning the taking of some potential Del Rı́o, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. and Könnölä, T. (2010).
chemopreventive agents. BMC Medical Research Method- Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. Journal of
ology, 11(29), pp. 1–9. Industrial Ecology, 14, pp. 541–557.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic
Mifflin. review. In Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (eds), The Sage
Ceschin, F. (2013). Critical factors for implementing and dif- Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London:
fusing sustainable product-service systems: insights from Sage, pp. 671–689.
innovation studies and companies’ experiences. Journal of Desrochers, P. and Hoffbauer, C. (2009). The post
Cleaner Production, 45, pp. 74–88. war intellectual roots of the population bomb. Fair-
Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010). field Osborn’s ‘Our Plundered Planet’ and William
From the editors: common method variance in interna- Vogt’s ‘Road to Survival’ in retrospect. Electronic

Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(3), pp. 37– level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social
61. Change, 72, pp. 681–696.
Dixon-Woods, M. (2011). Using framework-based synthesis Geffen, C.A. and Rothenberg, S. (2000). Suppliers and en-
for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Medi- vironmental innovation – The automotive paint process.
cal Research Methodology, 9(39), pp. 1–2. International Journal of Operations & Production Man-
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014). Social en- agement, 20, pp. 166–186.
terprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research George, G., Mcgahan, A.M. and Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, for inclusive growth: towards a theoretical framework and
16, pp. 417–436. a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49,
Draper, S. (2013). Creating the Big Shift: System Innovation pp. 661–683.
for Sustainability. London: Forum for the Future. Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. and O’Brien, G. (2002). Environ-
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business ment, economy and society: fitting them together into sus-
case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and tainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, pp.
the Environment, 11, pp. 130–141. 187–196.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.S. (1995). Shift-
win–win–win business strategies for sustainable developing paradigms for sustainable development: implications
ment. California Management Review, 36, pp. 90–100. for management theory and research. Academy of Man-
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks. Oxford: Cap- agement Review, 20, pp. 874–907.
stone. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (2009). The Discovery of
Esslinger, H. (2011). Sustainable design: beyond the Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
innovation-driven business model. Journal of Product In- London: Transaction.
novation Management, 28, pp. 401–404. Goduscheit, R.C. and Jørgensen, J.H. (2013). User toolkits
EYGM and Greenbiz Group (2013). Six growing trends for innovation – a literature review. International Journal
in corporate sustainability. An Ernst and Young survey of Technology Management, 61, pp. 274–292.
in cooperation with GreenBiz Group. Available at Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: a framework for the
http://www.ey.com/US/en/Services/Specialty-Services/ appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Re-
Climate-Change-and-Sustainability-Services/Six-growing- search Papers in Education, 22, pp. 213–228.
trends-in-corporate-sustainability—single-page (accessed Gough, D., Thomas, J. and Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying dif-
20 April 2015). ferences between review designs and methods. Systematic
Florida, R. (1996). Lean and green: the move to environ- Reviews, 1(28), pp. 1–9.
mentally conscious manufacturing. California Manage- Govindarajan, V. (2012). A reverse-innovation playbook.
ment Review, 39, pp. 80–105. Harvard Business Review, 90, pp. 120–124.
Florida, R., Atlas, M. and Cline, M. (2001). What makes Gulbrandsen, L.H. (2005). Mark of sustainability? Chal-
companies green? Organizational and geographic factors lenges for fishery and forestry eco-labeling. Environment,
in the adoption of environmental practices. Economic Ge- 47, pp. 8–23.
ography, 77, pp. 209–224. Haanes, K., Arthur, D., Balagopal, B., Kong, M.T., Reeves,
Foster, C. and Green, K. (2002). Environmental innova- M., Velken, I., Hopkins, M.S. and Kruschwitz, N. (2011).
tion in industry: the importance of environmentally-driven Sustainability: the ‘embracers’ seize the advantage. MIT
users. International Journal of Environmental Technology Sloan Management Review, (Winter), pp. 1–28.
& Management, 2, pp. 303–314. Haanes, K., Reeves, M., Strengvelken, I., Audretsch, M.,
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and Kiron, D. and Kruschwitz, N. (2012). Sustainability nears
implications for capability development. Technovation, 25, a tipping point. MIT Sloan Management Review, (Winter),
pp. 171–183. pp. 1–19.
Fussler, C. and James, P. (1996). Driving Eco-Innovation: A Hall, J. (2002). Sustainable development innovation; a re-
Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and Sustainabil- search agenda for the next 10 years Editorial for the 10
ity. London: Pitman. Anniversary of the Journal of Cleaner Production. Jour-
Gaziulusoy, A._I., Boyle, C. and McDowall, R. (2013). Sys- nal of Cleaner Production, 10, pp. 195–196.
tem innovation for sustainability: a systemic double-flow Hallstedt, S.I., Thompson, A.W. and Lindahl, P. (2013). Key
scenario method for companies. Journal of Cleaner Pro- elements for implementing a strategic sustainability per-
duction, 45, pp. 104–116. spective in the product innovation process. Journal of
Geels, F.W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation Cleaner Production, 51, pp. 277–288.
to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and Hansen, E.G., Grosse-Dunker, F. and Reichwald, R.
change from sociology and institutional theory. Research (2009). Sustainability innovation cube – A framework
Policy, 33, pp. 897–920. to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. Interna-
Geels, F.W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions tional Journal of Innovation Management, 13, pp. 683–
and system innovations: refining the coevolutionary multi- 713.

202 R. Adams et al.
Hargrave, T.J. and Van De Ven, A.H. (2006). A collective Kolk, A. and Mauser, A. (2002). The evolution of environ-
action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Man- mental management: from stage models to performance
agement Review, 31, pp. 864–888. evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11,
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. pp. 14–31.
Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 986–1014. Laine, M. (2010). The nature of nature as a stakeholder.
Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable Journal of Business Ethics, 96, pp. 73–78.
world. Harvard Business Review, 75, pp. 66–76. Lamming, R., Faruk, A. and Cousins, P. (1999). Environ-
Hart, S. (2010). Capitalism at the Crossroads: Next Gener- mental soundness: a pragmatic alternative to expectations
ation Business Strategies for a Post-Crisis World. Upper of sustainable development in business strategy. Business
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Prentice Hall. Strategy & the Environment, 8, pp. 177–188.
Hart, S. and Christensen, C.M. (2002). The great leap: driv- Leach, M., Raworth, K. and Rockström, J. (2013). Be-
ing innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan tween social and planetary boundaries: navigating path-
Management Review, 44, pp. 51–56. ways in the safe and just space for humanity. In ISSC
Hart, S. and Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakehold- and UNESCO, World Social Science Report 2013: Chang-
ers for competitive imagination. Academy of Management ing Global Environments. Paris: OECD/Unesco, doi
Executive, 18, pp. 7–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264203419-10-en
Hollander, E.E. (2003). The noble art of demand shaping – Lee, K.H. (2009). Why and how to adopt green management
how the tenacity of sustainable innovation can be explained into business organizations?: The case study of Korean
by it being radical in a new sense. Paper presented at SMEs in manufacturing industry. Management Decision,
GIN2003 Innovating for Sustainability, 11th International 47, pp. 1101–1121.
Network Conference, 12–15 October, San Francisco State Lee, M.D.P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate
University. social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road
Holmes, S. and Smart, P. (2009). Exploring open innovation ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,
practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: a corporate so- pp. 53–73.
cial responsibility perspective. R&D Management, 39, pp. Lent, T. and Wells, R.P. (1992). Corporate environmental
394–409. management study shows shift from compliance to strat-
Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. and Egger, egy. Environmental Quality Management, 1, pp. 379–394.
M. (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of ran- Lettice, F. and Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation pro-
domized trials of health care interventions. Cochrance cess: themes, challenges and implications for practice. In-
Database of Systematic Reviews, doi 10.1002/14651858. ternational Journal of Technology Management, 51, pp.
MR000010.pub3. 139–158.
Huang, Y.C. and Wu, Y.C.J. (2010). The effects of organi- Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Re-
zational factors on green new product success. Evidence search. London: Sage.
from high-tech industries in Taiwan. Management Deci- Loorbach, D., Van Bakel, J.C., Whiteman, G. and Rotmans,
sion, 48, pp. 1539–1567. J. (2010). Business strategies for transitions towards sus-
Huber, J. (2008). Technological environmental innovations tainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment,
(TEIs) in a chain-analytical and life-cycle-analytical per- 19, pp. 133–146.
spective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, pp. 1980– Magnusson, T., Lindström, G. and Berggren, C. (2003).
1986. Architectural or modular innovation? Managing dis-
Iles, A. and Martin, A.N. (2013). Expanding bioplastics pro- continuous product development in response to chal-
duction: sustainable business innovation in the chemical lenging environmental performance targets. Interna-
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, pp. 38–49. tional Journal of Innovation Management, 7, doi
Immelt, J.R., Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2009). How 10.1142/S1363919603000714.
GE is disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review, October. Mäkinen, S. and Seppänen, M. (2007). Assessing business
Joshi, S. (2010). Sustainable and Inclusive Innovation: model concepts with taxonomical research criteria: a pre-
Strategies for Tomorrow’s World. Confederation of Indian liminary study. Management Research News, 30, pp. 735–
Industry. 748.
Kaval, P. (2011). Measuring and Valuing Environmental Im- Maxwell, D. and Van De Vorst, R. (2003). Developing sus-
pacts. A Systematic Review of Existing Methodologies. tainable products and services. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
London, Ontario: Network for Business Sustainability. duction, 11, pp. 883–895.
Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C. and Molenaar, N. (2013). Innovation McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002a). Cradle to Cra-
process of new ventures driven by sustainability. Journal dle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. London: North
of Cleaner Production, 45, pp. 50–60. Point Press.
Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E.G. (2013). Sustainability-oriented McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002b). Design for the
innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of triple top line: new tools for sustainable commerce. Cor-
Cleaner Production, 65, pp. 57–75. porate Environmental Strategy, 9, pp. 251–258.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. analysing public involvement in health services research.
(1972). The Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Universe Health Expectations, 11, pp. 72–84.
Books. Osborn, F. (1948). Our Plundered Planet. London: Faber &
Milliman, J., Gonzalez-Padron, T. and Ferguson, J. (2012). Faber.
Sustainability-driven innovation at Ecolab, Inc.: finding Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher,
better ways to add value and meet customer needs. Envi- E. and Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible
ronmental Quality Management, 21, pp. 21–33. innovation. In Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds),
Mirata, M. and Emtairah, T. (2005). Industrial symbiosis Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emer-
networks and the contribution to Environmental Innova- gence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester:
tion: the Case of the Landskrona Industrial Symbiosis John Wiley.
Programme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, pp. 993– Pawson, R. (2006). Digging for nuggets: how ‘bad’ research
1002. can yield ‘good’ evidence. International Journal of Social
Mittelstaedt, J.D. and Kilbourne, W.E. (2008). Macromarket- Research Methodology, 9, pp. 127–142.
ing perspectives on sustainable consumption. In Ken, T.G., Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G. and Walshe, K.
Tukker, A., Vezzoli, C. and Ceschin, F. (eds), Sustainable (2004). Realist synthesis: an introduction. ESRC Research
Consumption and Production: Framework for Action. 2nd Methods Programme University of Manchester: RMP
Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Ex- Methods Paper 2/2004.
change (SCORE!) Network, 10 and 11 March, Halles des Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial im-
Tanneurs, Brussels, Belgium. pacts from investments in corporate social performance.
Mohrman, S.A. and Worley, C.G. (2010). The organizational Journal of Management, 35, pp. 1518–1541.
sustainability journey: introduction to the special issue. Peloza, J. and Shang, J.Z. (2011). How can corporate social
Organizational Dynamics, 39, pp. 289–294. responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A
Moors, E.H.M., Mulder, K.F. and Vergragt, P.J. (2005). To- systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
wards cleaner production: barriers and strategies in the Science, 39, pp. 117–135.
base metals producing industry. Journal of Cleaner Pro- Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.
duction, 13, pp. 657–668. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mulgan, G. and Leadbeater, C. (2013). Systems Innovation Pereira, A. and Vence, X. (2012). Key business factors for
Discussion Paper. London: Nesta. eco-innovation: an overview of recent firm-level empirical
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. and Sanders, B. (2007). Social studies. Cuadernos de Gestion, 12, pp. 73–103.
Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Petala, E., Wever, R., Dutilh, C. and Brezet, H. (2010). The
Accelerated. Oxford: Said Business School. role of new product development briefs in implementing
Müller-Seitz, G. (2012). Leadership in interorganizational sustainability: a case study. Journal of Engineering and
networks: a literature review and suggestions for future Technology Management, 27, pp. 172–182.
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, Petruzzelli, A.M., Dangelico, R.M., Rotolo, D. and Albino,
14, pp. 428–443. V. (2011). Organizational factors and technological fea-
Nair, S. and Paulose, H. (2014). Emergence of green busi- tures in the development of green innovations: evidence
ness models: the case of algae biofuel for aviation. Energy from patent analysis. Innovation: Management, Policy &
Policy, 65, pp. 175–184. Practice, 13, pp. 291–310.
Nattrass, B. and Altomare, M. (1999). The Natural Step for Phelps, R., Adams, R. and Bessant, J. (2007). Life cycles
Business: Wealth, Ecology and the Evolutionary Corpora- of growing organizations: a review with implications for
tion. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. knowledge and learning. International Journal of Man-
Nutley, S., Powell, A. and Davies, H. (2013). agement Reviews, 9, pp. 1–30.
What counts as good evidence? Provocation pa- Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: the Political
per for the alliance for useful evidence. Available and Economic Origins of Our Time. New York, NY: Farrar
at: http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org (accessed 5 & Rinehart.
February 2015). Polonsky, M.J. and Ottman, J. (1998). Stakeholders’ con-
OECD (2009). Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco- tribution to the green new product development process.
Innovation: Framework, Practices and Measurement Syn- Journal of Marketing Management, 14, pp. 533–557.
thesis Report. Paris: OECD. Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. (2007). Analysing qual-
OECD (2010a). Eco-innovation in Industry: Enabling Green itative data. In Pope, C. and Mays, N. (eds), Qualitative
Growth. Paris: OECD. Research in Health Care, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.
OECD (2010b). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innova- 63–81.
tion. Paris: OECD. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared
Oliver, S.R., Rees, R.W., Clarke-Jones, L., Milne, R., Oak- value. Harvard Business Review, 89, pp. 62–77.
ley, A.R., Gabbay, J., Stein, K., Buchanan, P. and Gyte, Porter, M.E. and Van Der Linde, C. (1995). Green and com-
G. (2008). A multidimensional conceptual framework for petitive. Harvard Business Review, pp. 120–134.

204 R. Adams et al.
Prahalad, C.K. (2010). The Fortune at the Bottom of the centres. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, pp. 1486–
Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Upper Sad- 1493.
dle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. (2012). Green in-
Prahalad, C.K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of novation in technology and innovation management – an
breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42, pp.
Management, 29, pp. 6–12. 180–192.
Pujari, D., Wright, G. and Peattie, K. (2003). Green and com- Seebode, D., Jeanrenaud, S. and Bessant, J. (2012). Managing
petitive: influences on environmental new product devel- innovation for sustainability. R&D Management, 42, pp.
opment performance. Journal of Business Research, 56, 195–206.
pp. 657–671. Seitanidi, M.M. (2007). Intangible economy: how can in-
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J. and Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad Inno- vestors deliver change in businesses? Lessons from
vation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough nonprofit-business partnerships. Management Decision,
Growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 45, pp. 853–865.
Ratcliff, D.E. (1994). Analytic induction as a qualitative re- Shrivastava, P. and Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable cor-
search method of analysis. Unpublished research paper. porations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4, pp.
Available at: http://archive.is/FofSy (accessed 20 Novem- 154–165.
ber 2012). Silvestre, B.S. and Silva Neto, R.E. (2014). Are cleaner pro-
Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: can duction innovations the solution for small mining opera-
we live within the doughnut? Oxfam International Dis- tions in poor regions? The case of Padua in Brazil. Journal
cussion Paper. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/ of Cleaner Production, 84, pp. 809–817.
www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity- Simanis, E. and Hart, S. (2009). Innovation from the inside
130212-en.pdf (accessed 12 January 2015). out. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, pp. 77–86.
Ray, S. and Ray, P.K. (2011). Product innovation for the Simon, M., Poole, S., Sweatman, A., Evans, S., Bhamra,
people’s car in an emerging economy. Technovation, 31, T. and Mcaloone, T. (2000). Environmental priorities in
pp. 216–227. strategic product development. Business Strategy and the
Reay, T., Berta, W. and Kohn, M.K. (2009). What’s the evi- Environment, 9, pp. 367–377.
dence on evidence-based management? Academy of Man- Stafford, E. and Hartman, C. (2001). Greenpeace’s ‘Green-
agement Perspectives, 23, pp. 5–18. freeze Campaign’: hurdling competitive forces in the dif-
Reed, K.E. (2002). Everyone takes the field: how 3M en- fusion of environmental technology innovation. In Green,
courages employee involvement in promoting sustainable K., Groenewegen, P. and Hofman, P. (eds), Ahead of the
development. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9, pp. Curve: Cases of Innovation in Environmental Manage-
383–389. ment. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 107–131.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analy- Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E.,
sis for applied policy research. In Huberman, A.M. and Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., De
Miles, M.B. (eds), The Qualitative Researcher’s Compan- Vries, W., De Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke,
ion, Classic and Contemporary Readings, Thousand Oaks, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers,
CA: Sage, pp. 305–329. B. and Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, human development on a changing planet. Science, 347,
F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C. doi 10.1126/science.1259855.
and Schellnhuber, H.J. (2009). A safe operating space for Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a ‘Sus-
humanity. Nature, 461, pp. 472–475. tainability Business Model’. Organization & Environment,
Rohrbeck, R., Konnertz, L. and Knab, S. (2013). Collabo- 21, pp. 103–127.
rative business modelling for systemic and sustainability Sukhdev, P. (2012). The corporate climate overhaul. Nature,
innovations. International Journal of Technology Manage- 486, pp. 27–28.
ment, 63, pp. 4–23. Taylor, P.L. (2005). In the market but not of it: fair trade cof-
Roome, B.M. (1992). Developing environmental manage- fee and forest stewardship council certification as market
ment strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, based social change. World Development, 33, pp. 129–147.
1, pp. 11–24. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the na-
Sandström, G. and Tingström, J. (2008). Management of ture and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise per-
radical innovation and environmental challenges. Euro- formance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 1319–
pean Journal of Innovation Management, 11, pp. 182– 1350.
198. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Available at:
Sardinha, I.D., Reijnders, L. and Antunes, P. (2011). Using http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ (Accessed 16
corporate social responsibility benchmarking framework July 2013).
to identify and assess corporate social responsibility trends Thomas, J., Newman, M. and Oliver, S. (2013). Rapid ev-
of real estate companies owning and developing shopping idence assessments of research to inform social policy:

taking stock and moving forward. Evidence & Policy, 9, corporate responsibility in a 2.0 world. Business & Society
pp. 5–27. Review, 116, pp. 303–330.
Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Wagner, M. (2009). The links of sustainable competitiveness
Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational and innovation with openness and user integration: an em-
Change. Chichester: John Wiley. pirical analysis. International Journal of Innovation and
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Sustainable Development, 4, pp. 314–329.
methodology for developing evidence-informed manage- WBCSD (2010). Vision 2050. the New Agenda for Busi-
ment knowledge by means of systematic review. British ness. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: World Business
Journal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222. Council for Sustainable Development. Available at:
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: http://www.wbcsd.org (accessed 5 February 2015).
eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical con-
Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, pp. 246–260. tribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 490–
Tukker, A. and Butter, M. (2007). Governance of sustain- 495.
able transitions: about the 4(0) ways to change the world. Whiteman, G., Walker, B. and Perego, P. (2013). Planetary
Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 94–103. boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustain-
Turner, N., Swart, J. and Maylor, H. (2012). Mechanisms for ability. Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 307–336.
managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Winn, S. and Roome, N. (1993). R&D management re-
International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, pp. sponses to the environment: current theory and implica-
317–332. tions to practice and research. R&D Management, 23, pp.
UN (1999). Business and the United Nations: Partners in 147–160.
Sustainable Development. New York, NY: UN. WWF (1980). World Conservation Strategy. World Conser-
UN Global Compact and Accenture (2013). CEO study vation Union, United Nations Environment Programme,
on Sustainability 2013. Architects for a Better World. Word Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
Available at: http://www.accenture.com/Microsites/ungc- Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
ceo-study/Documents/pdf/13-1739_UNGC%20report_ Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Final_FSC3.pdf (accessed March 2014). Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B. and Gassmann, O. (2011).
UNDP (2010). Business solutions to poverty: how in- Frugal innovation in emerging markets: the case of Mettler
clusive business models create opportunities for all Toledo. Research-Technology Management, 54, pp. 38–45.
in Emerging Europe and Central Asia. Available Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T. and Hashimoto, S. (2010). Green
at: http://www.growinginclusivemarkets.org (accessed 5 supply chain management in leading manufacturers: case
February 2015). studies in Japanese large companies. Management Re-
Van Aken, J.E. and Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the fu- search Review, 33, pp. 380–392.
ture: adding design science to the repertoire of organiza- Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K-H. (2011). Green supply chain
tion and management studies. Organization Management management innovation diffusion and its relationship to
Journal, 6, pp. 5–12. organizational improvement: an ecological modernization
Viswanathan, M. and Sridharan, S. (2012). Product devel- perspective. Journal of Engineering & Technology Man-
opment for the BoP: insights on concept and prototype agement, 29, pp. 168–185.
development from university-based student projects in In- Zwetsloot, G. (2001). The management of innovation by
dia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, pp. frontrunner companies in environmental management and
52–69. health and safety. Environmental Management and Health,
Waddock, S. and McIntosh, M. (2011). Business unusual: 12, pp. 207–214.


Adams Et Al 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adams Et Al 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adams Et Al 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

18, 180–205 (2016)

This paper is intended as a contribution to the ongoing conceptual development of

Introduction environmental book detailing the scale of damage

Figure 1. SOI dimensions

Table 1. Previous reviews of innovation in fields cognate to sustainability

Area of focus Findings (Studies) SOI dimension (example)

Product innovation or r Environmental NPD an emergent phenomenon, principally r Technical (tools,

Figure 2. Initial model of SOI

Figure 3. Final model of SOI

Figure 4. Search strategy

Figure 5. Selected studies by industry

Table 2. Activities of SOI

Operational Optimization: doing Organizational Transformation: Systems Building: doing good by

Conclusion Assink, M. (2006). The Inhibitors of disruptive innovation

You might also like