See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354748844

Improving sustainability and encouraging innovation in traditional craft

sectors: the case of the Sri Lankan handloom industry

Article  in  Research Journal of Textile and Apparel · January 2020

DOI: 10.1108/RJTA-09-2019-0041

CITATIONS READS

16 698

3 authors:

Thushari Wanniarachchi Kanchana Dissanayake

University of Moratuwa Högskolan i Borås
5 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carolyn Downs
Lancaster University
23 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a thermal insulation panel View project

Ecouturier View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanchana Dissanayake on 22 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1560-6074.htm

Handloom
Improving sustainability and business
encouraging innovation in
traditional craft sectors:
the case of the Sri Lankan 111

handloom industry Received 9 September 2019

Revised 18 December 2019
21 January 2020
Thushari Wanniarachchi and Kanchana Dissanayake Accepted 12 February 2020
Department of Textile and Clothing Technology, University of Moratuwa,
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, and
Carolyn Downs
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to assess sustainability across the handloom industry in Sri Lanka
and identify opportunities for sustainable innovations supporting new markets, development of small-and-
medium enterprises (SMEs) and growth in the Sri Lankan craft sector.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a multiple case studies methodology, 10 case studies and 37
semi-structured interviews were analysed along with the triple-layered business model canvas.
Findings – The study reveals the handloom industry to be fundamentally sustainable but with structural
barriers that hinder both innovation and growth. The environmentally conscious production process and
social inclusion within weaving communities are the key driving forces of sustainability in the sector;
however, the structure of the industry and lack of access to markets and information act as barriers to both
innovation and growth. The incorporation of design interventions, closed-loop manufacturing strategies and
the encouragement of community-based entrepreneurship would support sustainability-orientated business
innovation in the handloom industry.
Originality/value – The rapidly increasing market share for high-quality, hand-made goods indicates the
potential of the creative industries to accelerate socio-economic growth. Handloom textiles is attracting
growing interest in fashion markets because of increasing concern about exploitation in production, thus
encouraging interest in the economic benefits of fairly traded, high quality materials and the potential
contribution of handloom to sustainability in the fashion industry. The results of this study will support the
handloom industry and policy-makers in developing support for sustainable innovation in the handloom
industry.
Keywords Sustainable fashion, Community based production, Sustainable textiles,
Textile handloom industry, Triple layered business model canvas, Handloom industry, Innovation,
Community enterprise
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The world has begun to realize the importance of creative industries terms of both Research Journal of Textile and
Apparel
developing creative economies and maintaining cultural identities. The extensively used Vol. 24 No. 2, 2020
pp. 111-130
definition of creativity refers to the development of innovative ideas associated with © Emerald Publishing Limited
1560-6074
knowledge through “imagination, inspiration, ingenuity and inventiveness” and the DOI 10.1108/RJTA-09-2019-0041
RJTA implementation of these ideas to create new products (UNCTAD, 2008, p. 4). Other
24,2 perspectives emphasize the importance of creativity from an economic perspective (Florida,
2002). Within developing countries, creative industries may potentially support economic
growth, encourage the creation of global partnerships for development or enable new
approaches for including groups vulnerable to social exclusion, thus helping achieve
country-specific sustainable development goals (UNCTAD, 2010, p. 34).
112 Within developing countries, economic growth depends on how successfully it addresses
nation-specific challenges. Challenges for policymakers include aligning economic
development with personal development, enabling individual income generation and
improving outcomes for groups vulnerable to social exclusion. Some developing countries
recognise the potential of creative industries for economic development and build economic
strategy around them. For example, Indonesia recognizes creative industries as a major
source of new entrepreneurship and income generation among young people (Santi et al.,
2012) and has put in place support for innovation in the sector. As Moalosi et al. (2010)
emphasized, creative industries can transform the cultural identity of communities and
countries and foster cultural diversity by promoting competitiveness, creativity, design and
innovation. UNESCO (2009) concluded cultural and creative industries generate a high
growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP), Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment
opportunities in both developing and developed nations. Thus, we can see an
interconnection between culture and the creative economy with culture, linked to creativity
being considered a driver of the development in a country (UNESCO, 2013).
Handcrafted products have an important role in creative cultural industries (Bhatt, 2007;
Van der Pol, 2007; Jakob, 2012; Luckman, 2015; Jakob and Thomas, 2017). Craft is the
application of traditional skills and knowledge, evolved over time, into relatively small-scale
production. Craft is strongly associated with cultural values and traditions, history, religion
and identities of communities, including those vulnerable to social exclusion (Donkin, 2001;
Wood, 2011). Artisanship and the skills involved in maintaining traditional crafts travel
down generations as part of the lived experience of artisans (Bhatt, 2007). In recent years,
the growth of the Fair Trade movement has increased interest in craft products, thus
encouraging greater awareness of the environmentally and socially responsible nature of
production (Blackburn, 2007) and the potential contribution of the sector in developing
creative economies, sustainable products and societies (Wood, 2011; Ferraro et al., 2011).
Craft and fashion have gone together for millennia because textiles and clothing were
manually produced using traditional weaving or knitting skills with embroidery, batik or
beeralu adding value to the final product. Even though the industrial revolution made
labour-intensive craft production uncompetitive, some textile craft sectors managed to
survive, thus providing opportunities for creating unique handcrafted, high-value items for
today’s contemporary fashion world. This is in contrast with mass-produced fast-fashion,
which is the second most polluting industry in the world because of unsustainable
production and consumption practices (UN News, 2019). Rising awareness regarding the
environmental impact of fashion production and consumption has increased the demand for
sustainable fashion (Schrotenboer, 2013; Niinimäki, 2010). In response to this, the global
fashion industry is seeking new ways of adopting environmentally and socially responsible
products and improving manufacturing strategies (Doherty and Huybrechts, 2013; Wong
et al., 2012). In this context, the integration of craft into contemporary fashion is one possible
way of making fashion more sustainable (Ferraro et al., 2011). According to Hur and
Beverley (2013), making use of products created via traditional craft practices can
significantly increase the sustainability of both production and consumption practices of the
fashion industry. Indeed, Cox and Bebbington (2015) claim craft and social sustainability
share common objectives and suggest encouraging a synergy between craft and Handloom
contemporary fashion would escalate the sustainable development of the fashion industry. business
This study identifies opportunities for improving sustainability and encouraging
innovation within the handloom sector and proposes strategies to improve sales and
marketing of products and encourages community-based entrepreneurship.

1.1 Sri Lankan handloom sector 113

Sri Lanka has a rich history of traditional craft-based industries, including textile crafts
such as handloom textiles, batik and beeralu, which used to be one of the key contributors in
generating household income for women. In the almost 3000-year-old industry, traditional
designs remain important, with skills and designs shared down generations, usually by
women. This is a highly labour-intensive and low-energy industry, and is thus a prime
candidate for development as an environmentally friendly option for economic growth,
although structural barriers to growth will need to be overcome. Being located in the rural
areas of Sri Lanka, this industry plays a vital role in reducing poverty, creating direct and
indirect employment opportunities for the rural poor, particularly for women, thus
enhancing rural household income and promoting local production and consumption (EDB,
2015). This industry generates significant income via both local and global trade and has the
potential for further growth (EDB, 2015).
Depending on the type of business at market place, the Sri Lankan handloom sector
comprises three segments: community-based business, provincial council-based handloom
business and private business. Community-based handloom weavers are scattered around
the country, working as a part of a weaving village or as independent weavers. There are
about 962 independent or privately owned manufacturing facilities and 771 provisional
council-owned production centres operated around the country (EDB, 2013). In general,
these weavers produce sarees and other womenswear, menswear, curtains, bed covers,
cushion covers, accessories and toys. These products are primarily for local markets with
few weavers focussing on exports. However, the rich look of finished materials, product
quality and traditional identity makes the product highly valued and people with high
disposable incomes consume it. The growing criticism of unsustainable production and
consumption behaviours associated with fashion products has begun to create a demand for
environmentally and socially responsible products, including handcrafted apparel (Ferraro
et al., 2011). Furthermore, after thirty years of civil war, Sri Lanka urgently needs to develop
sustainable employment opportunities, which provide a regular and sufficient income for
the population, especially in rural areas. The handloom industry has been identified as an
important industry with potential to improve regional economies and support rural
development (Abeysekara, 2011; Dissanayake et al., 2017). Low capital costs and running
expenses are among the many benefits of handloom, especially in rural areas are, alongside
high-quality, value-added products created by skilled workers. This ecologically friendly
industry, built on the undying creativity of generations, could provide new employment
opportunities for rural communities, thus generating significant household income and
supporting economic development. However, the industry is struggling to reach its full
potential, with several key problems identified in this study:

Weavers are not entrepreneurial but rather rely on middlemen to generate markets;
this significantly reduces their earnings potential;

Weavers do not innovate in design processes (either in the patterns woven or in the
creation of new products), limiting access to valuable markets; and
RJTA
Younger people do not view handloom weaving as a viable career option, leading to
24,2 a reduction in numbers of skilled artisans, which impacts on the production
potential if market size was increased.

To expand the industry while maintaining sustainability, it is vital to understand key

features of the existing business model and to investigate the possibilities for further
development. This study is the first to explore sustainability and innovation with handloom
114 communities in Sri Lanka. Government data shows almost 50 per cent of handloom
operations have local or national government involvement in their organization, with the
remainder being either independent weavers or small groups of village-based weavers. This
structure indicates that top-down problem identification and centralized planning and
implementation of solutions are often the norm, with the expertise of the weavers side-lined
in the decision-making process. Therefore, this study took a participatory action research
approach with the aim of learning from the lived experience of the weaving communities
and identifying methods that enable weaving communities to take control of processes
beyond production of goods.
For this research, our specific aim was to understand existing structures promoting
sustainability within the sector to identify opportunities for improving sustainability and
encouraging innovation.
Objectives were to:

investigate the potential of existing business models to promote craft-based textiles
as a sustainable and innovative business while reducing structural barriers to
enterprise and innovation; and

identify opportunities for improvement in economic, environment and social aspects
of the handloom business, enabling weavers to become more entrepreneurial and
facilitating design and marketing innovations.

1.2 Business model approaches

Business models are a useful tool in analysing approaches to organisation strategy
(Magretta, 2002; Zott and Amit, 2010; Beattie and Smith, 2013). They are helpful in defining
the competitive approach of a business through the product design and development or
service offers, production cost, pricing and value proposition (Rasmussen, 2007). Zott et al.
(2011) have described a business model as a structure enabling analysis of the
interdependent and interconnected activities of stakeholders and engagement of human,
physical and capital resources so as to set effective business objectives. As explained by
Osterwalder et al. (2005), a business model is a conceptual tool enabling understanding of
how a firm does business.
This study followed the approach of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) using their nine-
element business canvas as a tool for analysis of data. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010)
determined these nine elements as the building blocks of a whole business process. The
benefits of the nine-element business canvas are that it enables the exploration of the
potential for innovation in any form of business. Many practitioners (Henriksen et al., 2012;
OECD Report, 2012; Kaplan, 2012) and researchers (Wallin et al., 2013; Bocken et al., 2013)
have adopted the Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) approach for business development and
as an analytical tool. However, this model only addresses the economic aspect of a business
and therefore subsequent models incorporate environmental and social aspects as well,
thus enabling effective evaluation of social responsibility and sustainability in the business
process (Jenkins, 2009). The benefits of business models in western-style organizations is
well understood; however, it is less certain that these approaches will be useful for small Handloom
businesses with non-standard organizational structures although exploring the potential for business
innovation is extremely important across all sizes and types of business. Nieto et al.’s (2015)
results emphasize that the family firm’s efforts in innovation are more likely to achieve
incremental innovations than radical innovations. Note that the work of Teece (2010) and
Rasmussen (2007) failed to consider how their analyses can be used in developing countries
where significant structural and socio-cultural barriers are presented.
115
1.3 Sustainable business model approaches
Given the problems with using more traditional approaches to business models in the Sri
Lankan context, it was important to examine sustainable business models, particularly
because of the low environmental impact of handloom. Sustainable business models can
serve as a vehicle to coordinate technological and social innovations with system-level
sustainability (Bocken et al., 2014). Lüdeke-Freund (2010) describes a sustainable business
model as “a business model that creates competitive advantage through superior customer
value and contributes to a sustainable development of the company and society” (p. 20).
Building on Garetti and Taisch’s (2012) views on sustainable manufacturing, business
models offer a way for organisations to plan how to preserve the environment while
continuing to improve the quality of human life. Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) asserts that
sustainable business models use both systems and firm-level perspective and build on the
triple bottom line approach to define the firm’s purpose and measure performance, including
a wide range of stakeholders. A sustainable business model aligns the interests of all
stakeholder groups and explicitly considers the environment and society as key
stakeholders, which enables the firm to capture economic value for itself by delivering social
and environmental benefits (Schaltegger et al., 2012). While efficiency and quality
improvements of the past may have readily translated into profits, it is not always so clear
how delivering social and environmental value might translate into profit and competitive
advantage for the firm. Nevertheless, the growing attention to the business model in the
literature and practice suggests this is a useful framework for corporate innovation; hence, it
may be used to drive sustainability innovation forward (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008; Lüdeke-
Freund, 2010; Boon and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013).
Bocken et al. (2014) identified eight diversified elements within a sustainable business
model; maximization of material and energy efficiency, creation of value from waste,
substitution with renewable and natural processes, delivering functionality rather than
ownership, adaptation of the stewardship role, encourage sufficiency, re-purpose the business
for society/environment and the development of scalable solutions. Thus, the model goes
beyond delivering economic value and includes generating solutions improving environmental
and social values, including a broader range of stakeholders using both systems and firm-level
perspectives (Lüdeke-Freund, 2010; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Moreover, Pal (2017) further
highlighted and compared eight major sustainable development frameworks such as ecological
footprint, natural step, natural capitalism, industrial ecology, cradle-to-cradle, bio-mimetic,
ZERI, and planetary boundaries and their strategic vectors in the context of the textile industry,
which can support the work of Bocken et al. (2014).
Joyce and Paquin (2016) created the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC),
illustrating how a business creates value by including a triple bottom line approach to
sustainability. The economic layer of TLBMC is based on the nine elements business canvas
proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) and is further expanded to include environmental
and social layers to explain how an organization simultaneously creates, delivers and captures
economic, environmental and social forms of value (Joyce and Paquin, 2016).TLMBC is a well
RJTA suited tool to support developing sustainable business models by understanding both positive
24,2 and negative aspects of sustainability. Thus, there are opportunities for developing the detailed
models of a sustainable fashion business by applying alternative business models (Lantry,
2015) such as TLBMC while creating designs that are appropriate and incorporate important
cultural aspects of a country (Hethorn, 2015). This study used TLBMC to investigate the
sustainability orientation and potential for innovation of the textile handloom industry in Sri
116 Lanka.
Handloom has been a sustainable industry since inception because of environmental
aspects such as low energy production, and social aspects such as community engagement
and rural development. However, limited research has been performed in investigating the
extent to which the business addresses the triple bottom line approach. This research
therefore evaluates the handloom industry business model with respect to the TLBMC
proposed by Joyce and Paquin (2016) to investigate the sustainability orientation of the
business and to identify opportunities for further improvement in economic, environmental
and social aspects of the business.

2. Methodology
The study is based on primary data drawing on ten detailed case studies and 37 semi-
structured interviews enabling detailed investigation of the sustainability of existing business
models in the Sri Lankan handloom industry. Case studies were selected as a qualitative
holistic approach facilitating deeper discovery, enabling investigators to explore the lived
experience of participants in detail (Creswell, 2003; Punch, 2005; Baxter and Jack, 2008; Yin,
2009). Furthermore, multiple case studies here facilitated cross case analysis, comparison and
generalization of findings (Noor, 2008). With the nature of the proposed study, the study sample
was determined by a purposive sampling strategy, focusing on particular characteristics of
populations engaged in handloom business in Sri Lanka, as explained below:
(1) Community based handloom business – operated by traditional weavers in weaving
villages. Weaving operations are performed in households where each family owns
one or several weaving machines. Three such weaving communities were selected
for the study as follows:

Thalagune Community – the only indigenous traditional weaving community
currently operating in Sri Lanka, it is also known as Dumbara weaving.
Thalagune is a remote village in the Central province of Sri Lanka, where
Dumbara wearers have been passing their weaving skills from generation to
generation over many centuries.

Madampellala community – a weaving community created by the government
of Sri Lanka in 1950. However, with the introduction of the open economy in 1977,
the handloom industry experienced a decline and weavers struggled to continue
the business. In 2006, Madampellela weaving community was redeveloped under a
government development program and the weavers were trained in new weaving
techniques. This program intervened to introduce a new customer base and
marketing channels to sustain the community based business.

Marathamunie weaving community – originated as far back as the 18th century
with skills transmitted from generation to generation in the Eastern province of
the country by Arabian Muslims. Currently Maruthamunai is known for its
family-based and factory-based handloom weavers. The tsunami disaster in
2004 had an adverse effect to this handloom business; however, the business
has been re-developed with the government’s support.
 (2) Provincial Council based handloom business is operated under the Department of Handloom
Industries of the Sri Lankan government. There are nine provincial councils and business
several weaving centres operating under each council. The reason for establishing
these weaving centres is to provide employment opportunities for rural communities.
Government support is extended to include training weavers and providing machinery
and resources. Three provinces, Western, North Central and Southern, were included
in this study. Western Provincial Council owns 53 production centres with 435
weavers, thus providing employment for around 15,000 people. Southern Provincial 117
Council owns 81 production centres accounting for 350 weavers while North Central
Provincial Council run 53 production centres with 200 weavers.
(3) Private Handloom Businesses – Private handloom businesses are solely run by
private businessmen who mostly manage their own production facilities in one
central place. There are 15-20 weavers working in the factory. They also work
with independent and small handloom communities scattered around the country.

The nature of the business is similar for all the case study companies; however, there are
differences identified between the product categories and the target consumer markets.
Altogether 37 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The semi structured interview
schedule comprises open-ended questions to capture craft people’s opinion regarding the
research questions. Data was constantly verified for consistency, reliability and quality by
recording in depth and detail. The recorded interviews were accomplished by consent of
participants. The interviews were transcribed and summarized and summary sheets were then
generated (McKevitt, 2007). They were categorized into themes as explained in Yin (2009) for the
analysis. The constant comparative method was used in raw data analysis, which is a technique
based on the analytical element of grounded theory (Silverman, 2000; Jack et al., 2010). This
process included review and re-review of the field observations and case studies from the data
collection process and summarizing, abstracting into concepts and aggregation to themes based
on the key elements presented in the TLBMC created by Joyce and Paquin (2016).

3. Results and discussion

The data collected from all 37 semi-structured interviews were analyzed in detail by
categorizing them into themes with respect to economic, social and environmental layers
defined in TLBMC (Joyce and Paquin, 2016). Secondly, a cross-case analysis was conducted
for the ten case studies by comparing the similarities and differences presented in each
element of the business model across cases. The study identified several common features
across three categories of handloom businesses and drawbacks, as described below under
economic, environmental and social analysis.

3.1 Analysis of the economic layer

Economic aspects of each case were analyzed with respect to the economic layer of the
TLBMC and common elements to all case study companies are summarized in Summary of
the economic layer analysis as follows:
3.1.1 Key elements of the economic layer.

Key resources – Weavers with traditional weaving and design skill are the
prominent resource. Handloom machines are used as a key resource in production
process. Sewing machines are used when there is a need for stitching.

Key activities – (i) sourcing of raw materials: cotton, silk, Rayon, bamboo and banana
fibres are imported. (ii) Yarn Dyeing: when raw yarns are imported, dyeing process
RJTA is performed in local dye plants. (iii) Product design: traditional craftsmanship is
24,2 used. (iv) Manufacturing: is performed under three scenarios- home based weaving,
community weaving centres and factory based weaving (v) Retailing: Both direct
sales (manufacturer to end consumer) and indirect sales (Manufacturer to retailer or
intermediary sales agent) are taking place where majority accounts for indirect
sales.
118
Key Partnerships – Supplier-manufacturer partnership and manufacturer- retailer/
manufacturer-intermediary salesmen are well established. Designer-manufacturer
and manufacturer- end-customer relationships are weak.

Customer segment – two markets can be identified: Niche and segmented. Niche
market comprises high quality, customized, unique, one-off pieces at premium price
levels. Segmented market offers different value propositions and affordable price
range with volumes and slight variations in designs to maintain the uniqueness.

Value proposition – Diversified value proposition including personalized products,
handmade, traditional product design, ethical and sustainable manufacturing
process, customization is achieved though colour combination and weaving
structure.

Channels –Uses both direct and indirect channels to reach the customer. Customer
awareness is raised through trade fairs, exhibitions or indirect channels using
salesmen. Purchasing via direct channels occur when customers place direct orders
with the manufacturer. Indirect channels are when the products are sold through an
independent retailer or intermediary salesmen.

Cost structure – Cost structure is value driven where premium value propositions
and product personalisation are offered. High potion of the cost structure represents
fixed cost such as manufacturing facilities and salaries.

Customer relationship – For community based weavers, customer can directly link
with the manufacturer via a co-creation process. But, the common practice for the
business is to maintain customer relationship using a personal assistant of the
retailer.

Revenue streams – Transaction revenue is generated through the sales of handloom
products.

According to the summary of the economic layer analysis, analysis of the economic layer Sri
Lankan handloom business model provides an insight into the alignment of nine key
economic elements in the business supporting competitiveness and profitability of the
business. The study found the success of each business is largely dependent on its value
proposition. Businesses offer traditionally designed, ethically handmade, long lasting,
customized products with unique fabric designs. Consumer attraction to those personalized
fashion pieces secures a marketplace and drives the profit of the business where low
volumes of production can be compromised with premium prices.
However, the analysis reveals that the lack of contemporary design skills may affect the
business in the long run. Product design is largely based on traditional knowledge and
weavers do not have access to initiatives where they could learn new product design skills
or techniques. As consumers always prefer to follow latest trends (Lang et al., 2013), lack of a
contemporary touch in designs can affect the sustainability and future growth of the
business. Another drawback is the absence of an appropriate sales and marketing strategy.
While there is a growing consumer desire to purchase handloom fashion products,
investment in marketing aspects of the businesses is almost zero. Government initiatives Handloom
include annual trade shows and exhibitions on behalf of the handloom industry; however, business
other strategies such as developing advertising and marketing campaigns, and
understanding or exploiting online marketplaces or promotion are barely present.
Key partnerships among designer-manufacturer and manufacturer-end consumer are
limited. Although fashion designers are involved in the business, they are like
commissioners; thus, there is no access to design education that would enable weavers to
improve their portfolio of design. Manufacturers (weavers) are not directly connected to the 119
end-consumer because the business channel runs through intermediaries. This can be
salesmen, retailers or designers who gain and retain the larger portion of the profit margin
of the product. While the relationship between the community weavers and end-consumer
could be easily facilitated, opportunity is blocked by intermediaries providing relatively low
rewards for the effort and the inherited skill of weavers and leading to a decline in numbers
of weavers because young people are attracted to more lucrative occupations.

3.2 Analysis of the environmental layer

The environmental layer of the handloom business was analyzed using the key
elements of TLBMC, thus incorporating the life cycle of handloom products such as
sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal. At the time of
the study, quantified carbon footprint data along the life cycle of a handloom product
were not available for the 10 case studies conducted; however, this model can be used to
qualitatively identify the key environmental benefits or impacts of the industry, which
in turn helps in planning to improve environmental benefits. Summary of the
environment layer analysis:
3.2.1 Key elements of the environmental layer.

Functional value – This is the total production of handloom items over a period of
time.

Materials – key materials used in the production are cotton, silk and rayon. Because
of the rise of sustainability concerns of cotton fibre, alternatives such as bamboo
and banana fibres are being used to reduce the environmental impact caused by
cotton.

Production – Yarn dyeing process involves both synthetic and natural dyes. In
synthetic dyeing process, environmental impact is minimized by using standard
German dyes and proper treatment of wastewater, which can be reused in
farming. Use of natural dyes is increasing, which minimizes the carbon footprint
involved in the process. Handloom machines and yarn winding machines are
manually operated; therefore, the carbon footprint is zero in the manufacturing
operation. Sewing machines consume energy and thus generate a carbon
footprint.

Supplies and outsourcing – Water is mostly supplied in house (local well) or
otherwise national water board. Energy is supplied by the national grid where
almost 50 per cent is covered by hydro power, and the rest is coal, which accounts
for the carbon footprint.

Distribution – Yarns are imported and a small percentage of finished products are
exported, which involves shipping. Local transportation of goods primarily involves
public vehicles such as train; however, private vehicles are being occasionally used.
Cardboard boxes are used as main packaging material during transportation.
RJTA
Use phase – Key impacts are from water and energy usage for washing and ironing.
24,2
End of life – Mostly used fibre is cotton and other sustainable fibres such as bamboo
and banana fibre are biodegradable. Handloom textiles are primarily produced with
mono-materials that facilitate the recycling option. Re-purposing is already
occurring where used handloom textiles such as sarees are made into curtains and
clothing.
120
Environmental impacts – Environmental impacts associated with cotton farming
and production is affected to the business. International shipping and local
transportation generate carbon footprint. Both water and chemical usage in the
yarn-dyeing process creates an environmental impact.

Environmental benefits – Production process does not consume energy. Products are
designed to minimize waste generation. Generated fabric waste during apparel
manufacturing (cutting process) is recycled into byproducts such as accessories and
toys.

Summarizes environmental aspects identified across case studies.

The analysis of the environmental layer indicates an environmentally conscious production
process and highlights the positive features of a sustainable business model. Currently,
cotton is the dominating raw material in production; however, a trend towards using
sustainable fibres, such as bamboo and banana fibres, is developing. There is a growing
demand for naturally dyed products; thus, the industry is currently seeking new ways of
developing use of natural dyeing processes. Weaving, which is the core manufacturing
process, is entirely a manual process, with no energy use. Sewing machines are primarily
used when manufacturing apparel using hand-woven textiles, which generate a carbon
footprint because of energy consumption. However, only 3 companies out of 10 cases own a
small scale in-house sewing facility; nevertheless, for all the cases, the main product is
sarees, which are entirely hand woven and do not require sewing.
Zero waste to landfill is another environmental benefit of this manufacturing process
because the weaving process does not generate any fabric waste. Fabric waste generated in
the cutting process is reused to make by-products such as soft toys and accessories.
Wastewater released from dye plants is properly treated to meet environmental standards,
and then treated water is used for agricultural purposes.
While there are clear opportunities existing for end-of life product recycling or
remanufacturing, little attention is given to developing other options than repurposing.
However, there are many opportunities for remanufacturing or recycling. Re-dyeing is a
potential end-of-life option, especially when natural dyes are being used in the initial
production process. Because products are mostly manufactured using mono-materials,
recycling is a viable option. If the cotton fabrics could be recycled back to obtain yarns to be
reused in the manufacturing process, significant environmental benefits could be obtained
by replacing virgin cotton in the supply chain.

3.3 Analysis of the social layer

According to Joyce and Paquin (2016), the social layer focuses on capturing key social
impacts that help to improve social value creation. Summary of the social layer
analysis:
3.3.1 Key elements of the social layer.

Social value – Social value is created by offering ethically made sustainable products
while uplifting rural communities by job creation and women empowerment.

Employee – Equity in terms of gender and ethnicity. Disabled employees are Handloom
absorbed and trained. Flexible working hours are allowed to accommodate childcare business
and family related issues. Employees are trained in basic weaving skills and further
development opportunities are provided. Additional support schemes such a child
care facilities, home based working centres are also provided.

Governance Employee – Community based businesses are operated as
independent, cooperatives or privately owned. In cooperative structure, active 121
engagement of stakeholders and transparency in decision making can be
observed, whereas controlling power is exercised by higher authorities in
privately owned business.

Communities – Local community is embedded to the business through the concept
of weaving villages.

Societal culture – Handloom industry is tightly interconnected with the social
culture. Product designs are identical to the culture and the region.

Scale of outreach Societal culture – Locally spread overall nine provisional councils
in the country.

End-users – Who value personalized, sustainable and ethically made local product.

Social impacts – Social impacts associated with cotton farming such as child labour,
unfair wages, and health issues of using hazardous chemicals.

Social benefits – Women empowerment and personal development is facilitated
through training. Rural livelihood development is one of the core objectives of the
business.

Provides an insight into the social aspects of the handloom industry.

This analysis indicates that the handloom business offers important social benefits to the
community such as providing jobs for rural communities, improving their income levels
and living standards, empowering women to take leadership roles and providing self-
development opportunities. Weavers do not have to travel to another city for employment
and they can work closer to home, thus supporting their households and community.
This also preserves the identity of the community and the product, which helps to create,
harness and enable collaborative development among community members. While these
social benefits are promising for community-based businesses, provisional council-based
and privately-owned business set ups are making an effort to preserve the identity and
culture of the communities they work with. Production centres are located in places close
to weavers’ homes or they are given the flexibility of working from home. Products are
promoted with the identity of the community, which in turn provides strength and
visibility for them in a wider society.
In community-based handloom businesses, weavers work independently and there is no
organizational structure as such. Therefore, training and development opportunities and
additional support schemes are almost absent for this category of weavers. Similar to the
model prevalent in the UK before the industrial revolution, they operate with basic working
conditions as looms are located in their households (Thompson, 1969). This independent
weaving community was found to be isolated and operated with minimal support from the
government. However, provisional council operated centres and private businesses do have
a clearly defined organizational structure and hierarchy in which employees are provided
with training and development opportunities. Working conditions are better than in
households and additional support services are provided. A mechanism needs to be in place
RJTA to provide training and development opportunities for the independent weavers to help
24,2 uplift their social status. Developing their entrepreneurial skills, design capabilities and
knowledge of retailing channels would be helpful to sustain these handloom communities in
the long run.
While the handloom business generally creates social value, social and environmental
impacts associated with cotton farming (such as chemical use, child labour, water depletion
122 and emissions associated with importing cotton) cannot be under-estimated. The social
impacts of cotton as the primary raw material for the handloom industry can be considered
a major social impact beyond the weaving communities in Sri Lanka; however, as cotton is
not grown in Sri Lanka, these social and environmental costs are not directly felt in the
weaving communities.
Analysis of the 10 case studies as per the economic, social and environmental layers of a
sustainable business model shows the handloom business represents a positive drive
towards a sustainable business, suggesting the utility of the model in the setting of a
developing country. Working with weaving communities enabled the project to identify
similar problems across different structures of handloom business; it was then possible to
map the data from interviews onto the canvas to identify strengths and weaknesses.
Figure 1 shows the economic layer of the handloom industry, areas requiring further
improvements are highlighted. The economic value of the business is largely governed by
consumer trends towards a long-lasting, customized and unique product range; however,
this relies on consumers being aware of the availability of handloom. Equally consumer
tastes vary, the study reported that handloom communities were not well placed to identify
or respond to differing tastes across markets even within Sri Lanka and certainly not in the
export market. To gain a competitive position in the market, the study highlighted several
elements likely to support sustainability and innovation within the sector. Enhancing the
design capabilities to cater for contemporary customer requirements is one of the key
factors. This can be achieved by providing design education or with the involvement of a
professional designer, thus enabling innovation reflecting current market trends without
losing the traditional touch. Support for effective collaborations between weavers and
designers could facilitate the process of design innovation. As Sanders and Stappers (2008)
stated, design intervention is a possible process to merge designers and weavers via a direct

Key Partners Key Acvies Value Customer Customer

Supplier - Raw material
Proposions Relaonships Segments
Manufacturer sourcing
Personalized Through personal Segmented
Yarn dyeing products assistant market with
Retailer -
Manufacturer diversified need
Manufacturing Tradional in volume
Designer - Product design product designs
Manufacturer Niche market
Handmade with personalized
Key Resources Channels
Manufacturer - Ethical and high-quality
End user Tradional skills sustainable Indirect channels one-off pieces
(weaving/ design) manufacturing
process Direct channels
Manufacturing
facilies
(Weaving
machinery)
Cost Structure Revenue Streams
Figure 1.
Value driven
Economic layer of the Sales of handloom products
Major poron represent fixed costs of
handloom business manufacturing
interaction and co-creation process that would possibly stimulate the growth of the Handloom
business. This process can involve innovative re-designing of existing products, designing business
entirely new products, exploring new markets and using traditional skills to match the
requirements of contemporary fashion markets. This process relies on reusing existing
knowledge and recombining this in an innovative manner to create a novel product to fulfil
the market demand (Pannozzo, 2007). However, there are structural barriers to
implementation; firstly, investment in design innovation will be required. The current
structure of the industry makes this difficult. There are many small groups or individuals; 123
therefore, to make an investment cost-effective, new models of organization are required,
such as setting up co-operative businesses as community-based enterprises. Secondly, many
weavers have a strong attachment to their traditional practices, and new design innovations
will need to enable maintenance and celebration of traditional design practices. Thirdly,
innovation in end products to create novel items for new markets will require routes for
collaboration within and beyond Sri Lanka to be developed; thus, weavers and producers
can share knowledge with product design teams to ensure the weaving communities retain
the ownership of their traditional processes and practices.
Weak customer relationships and inappropriate marketing channels are significant issues
that need to be addressed. Improving manufacturer-customer relationships will support the
design co-creation process and cater for the actual desires and demands of the customer.
Handloom products are already made with unique designs; therefore, opening up relationship
links between the customer and the manufacturer could further facilitate producing customized
designs for individual taste, which in turn can develop customer loyalty towards the products
and the manufacturer. These types of healthy relationships are vital for market expansion and
long-term economic success of the business. For this purpose, exceptionally strong Smartphone
penetration in Sri Lanka [131 per cent according to Jebamani (2018)] could be harnessed to
facilitate contacts as most of our weaving communities are not easily accessible from the urban
centres where markets are based. However, for rural communities, smart phones (enabling
internet access) are far less common than more basic phones; therefore, this is another
structural barrier preventing innovation in handloom.
Analysis of the environmental layer of the handloom industry is shown in Figure 2.
Production is a low-energy process, where handloom machines are manually operated, and

Suppliers and Producon Funconal End of Life Use Phase

outsourcing Natural dyeing
Value Biodegradable Energy for;
Local suppliers; Manual Total handloom Re-purposing Washing
weaving process producon
Water - Re-manufacturing Drying
In house Synthec dyeing Re-cycle Ironing
Energy - (effecve synthec
treatment)
Hydro powered
naonal grid Distribuon
Materials
Transportaon;
Sustainable
Public
Materials
(Bamboo, Banana) Private

Environmental Impacts Environmental Benefits

Coon farming Handmade products Figure 2.
Impacts from raw material imports Zero waste to landfill Environmental layer
Synthec dyeing process of the handloom
Distribuon process business
RJTA electricity is used only for few sewing machineries and other support services such as
24,2 lighting. Therefore, handloom textile manufacturing can be identified as an environmentally
sustainable process generating a very low carbon footprint, especially where a portion of the
electricity is supplied from renewable resources. Major environmental impacts come from
cotton farming and the import of yarns from India and China. This study identified a trend
towards using other sustainable fibres such as bamboo and banana fibres instead of cotton.
124 However, there are only few weavers using those fibres at the moment, and the use of these
fibres tends to result from special orders rather than being an integral part of production.
While there are no production issues identified with these new sustainable fibres, high cost
and lower availability of sufficient quantities are current concerns. If those fibre markets
were to be developed, the handloom industry could be lifted into a new level of
environmental sustainability. Within the current scenario, developing partnerships with
small scale organic and fair-trade cotton suppliers would be helpful in minimizing
environmental and social impacts of sourcing raw materials. However, again there are
structural barriers to accessing environmentally sustainable materials. Weavers are not
easily able to source from new suppliers because of the lack of knowledge about overseas
suppliers and difficulties in communicating with them because of poor access to the Internet.
This requires weavers to develop new skills in procurement and being able to place larger
orders to purchase at a cost-effective price. Again, co-operative, community-based business
organization could help overcome this barrier.
The handloom industry is already practicing “zero waste to landfill” in its manufacturing
process, although end of life disposal does generate waste. There is a possibility of
incorporating closed- loop manufacturing strategies into the business where products are
taken back for reuse, recycling or remanufacturing. Because handloom textiles are primarily
produced with a mono-material such as cotton or silk, recycling them back into yarn is a
possibility and encouraging innovation in this area would be beneficial. Moreover, products
can be upgraded using craft techniques such as batik or by re-dyeing them. In particular,
when natural dyes were used in the coloration process, depending on the compatibility of the
exiting colour of the fabric, fabrics can be re-dyed. Potentially therefore, at the end of use
phase, consumers can return their product to the manufacturer and have them re-dyed and
upgraded to an “as new” product. This facilitates extending the product life while providing
the consumer a product with a completely new look. Furthermore, products such as sarees
consist of 5 m of fabric, which can be taken back, upgraded and used in manufacturing other
apparel such as dresses, blouses or skirts. Currently, there is a market for reusing sarees but
closed-loop manufacturing, even within Sri Lanka structural barriers need to be overcome,
and systems and incentives need to be developed to support manufacturers in organizing
this.
As shown in Figure 3, the handloom industry represents a socially responsible business
in various aspects. The business is tightly connected with social and traditional culture, thus
providing rural development, employment opportunities and generating household income,
as well as employment and leadership opportunities for women. However, community-
based handloom weavers independently operate and are thus less advantaged in terms of
training, development opportunities and other support services, for which provisional
council and private business-based weavers are offered. Their strength comes from being a
part of a weaving village where their identity and product ownership are secured.
Developing entrepreneurial skills among community weavers would facilitate the self-
development of the community and create new job opportunities. Community-based
entrepreneurship is a social enterprise model (such as co-operative forms of business) geared
towards achieving a community’s economic and social goals (Peredo and Chrisman, 2004).
 Local Governance Social Value Societal End User Handloom
Communies Independent Ethically made
Culture
Who value; business
Local handloom Co-operave sustainable Tightly personalized
communies products interconnected Sustainable
Privately owned
with social Ethically made
Employees culture and
Local products
region.
Local weavers
without gender Scale of 125
and ethnicity or Outreach
some disabilies
Locally spread
Flexible Island wide

Social Impacts Social Benefits Figure 3.

Impact for coon farming Women empowerment Social layer of the
Rural livelihood development handloom business

As noted above, a number of issues identified in the business model could be addressed if
weavers were organized into more effective business units. Furthermore, there are structural
barriers and socio-cultural issues to overcome. Weavers are accustomed to autonomy even
where they can see that there might be a route to efficiency and profit from working in a
different manner. One possible solution is for government to intervene in developing the
entrepreneurship skills of the community-based weavers by providing both financial
support and human resources expertise. Because the majority of community-based weavers
have inherited craft skills as opposed to the externally trained weaves in private businesses,
developing those craft communities would help to preserve the traditional identity and
cultural aspects of the business, thus ensuring the survival of both tangible and intangible
cultural heritage for future generations. Moreover, this approach would enable more
efficient procurement and provide a means for design innovations to be efficiently
introduced.

4. Conclusion
This study explored the Sri Lankan handloom industry from a triple bottom line
perspective. The results from the study indicate that the industry offers a promising
approach towards a sustainable business model. The analysis provides useful insights to
drive sustainability-oriented business innovation. Growing consumer awareness and
demand for sustainable products could accelerate the market expansion of handloom
business if interventions proposed here were adopted. To sustain the growth and expansion
of the business, the implementation of design intervention and developing entrepreneurial
skills of the weaving communities are recommended.
There is a requirement for more research in craft sectors of developing countries.
There is clearly potential for innovation within and expansion of the sector, but there is
only limited understanding of the socio-cultural and structural barriers to innovation
and growth. A limitation of this study was the lack of capacity to explore the concerns
of handloom weavers over the reluctance of younger generations to learn craft skills or
to remain within the community. The flight of young people from craft sectors has not
been explored by academics but understanding the phenomenon is central to stemming
the loss of future handloom weavers from their communities. It is also important to
understand how stronger business networks can be created between the developed and
developing world to support craft sectors. Although globalisation has increased the
RJTA knowledge of products such as handloom in the developed world, weavers have very
24,2 limited access to markets and require support to build new networks beyond their
community and country.
There is an emerging market for exclusive, hand-made products with cultural integrity
and provenance as opposed to mass manufactured, cheap, throwaway products. Consumers
are increasingly beginning to respect and value ethical, fair and green products because they
126 become more conscious of the influence of their consumption pattern on the environment
and society. Thus, many more consumers direct their choices to handmade, local and eco
products following the trend for sustainability, and this is a growing market. Handloom
products carry the local identity, cultural value, and sustainable manufacturing process;
thus, they are in a strong position to react to this current market trend but there remain
structural barriers to progress. This should be addressed by changes in government policy
and practice. Such changes could encourage growth in the industry by developing a
community-based enterprise, closed-loop manufacturing, use of sustainable raw materials
and innovations in design and marketing.

References
Abeysekara, N. (2011), “A case for a creative economy in Sri Lanka”, The Nation, available at: www.
nation.lk/21/05/15/newsfe11.html
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), “Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation
for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 544-559, available at: https://
nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
Beattie, V. and Smith, S.J. (2013), “Value creation and business models: refocusing the intellectual
capital debate”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 243-254, doi: 10.1016/j.
bar.2013.06.001.
Bhatt, J. (2007), “Philosophy and practice of crafts and design”, available at: www.india-seminar.com/
2007/570/570_jatin_bhatt.htm
Blackburn, W.R. (2007), The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving
Social, Economic, and Environmental Responsibility, Environmental Law Institute.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2013), “A value mapping tool for sustainable
business modelling”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 482-497, doi: 10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014), “A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65 No. 2014,
pp. 42-56, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
Boon, N.M.P. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013), “Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-
art and steps towards a research agenda”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 9-19, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007.
Cox, E. and Bebbington, J. (2015), “Craft and sustainable development: an investigation”, available at: https://
cgi.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/sasi/documents/Craft%20and%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf
Creswell, J. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd ed.,
SAGE Publication.
Dissanayake, D.G.K., Perera, S. and Wanniarachchi, T. (2017), “Sustainable and ethical manufacturing:
a case study from handloom industry”, Textiles and Clothing Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-10,
doi: 10.1186/s40689-016-0024-3.
Doherty, B. and Huybrechts, B. (2013), “Connecting producers and consumers through fair and
sustainable value chains”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-10, doi: 10.1108/SEJ-05-
2013-0021.
Donkin, L. (2001), “Crafts and conservation: Synthesis report for ICCROM”, available at: www.iccrom. Handloom
org/sites/default/files/2017-12/iccrom_02_craftsandconservation_en.pdf
business
EDB (2013), “Export Performance Report”, Export Development Board, available at: www.
srilankabusiness.com/exporters/export-performance-report.html (accessed 22 February 2018).
EDB (2015), “Trade Statistics – Sri Lanka Exports Development Board”, available at: www.
srilankabusiness.com/edb/trade-statistics.html
Ferraro, E., White, R., Cox, E., Bebbington, J. and Wilson, S. (2011), “Craft and sustainable development: 127
reflections on Scottish craft and pathways to sustainability”, Craft þ Design Enquiry, Vol. 3,
pp. 1-26.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class, Vol. 9, Basic books, New York, NY.
Garetti, M. and Taisch, M. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 83-104, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.591619.
Henriksen, K. Bjerre, M. Øster, J. and Bisgaard, T. (2012), “Green business model innovation - policy
report”, available at: www.nordicinnovation.org/. . ./2012/2012_16%20Green%20Business%
20Model%20I. . .
Hethorn, J. (2015), User-Centered Innovation: Design Thinking and Sustainability. Sustainable Fashion:
What’s Next?, 2nd ed., Bloomsbury, New York, NY, pp. 51-75.
Hur, E.S. and Beverley, K.J. (2013), “September. ‘The role of craft in a co-design system for sustainable
fashion’”, Making Futures: The Crafts in the Context of Emerging Global Sustainability Agendas,
Vol. 2, Plymouth College of Art, Leeds.
Jack, S., Moult, S., Anderson, A.R. and Dodd, S. (2010), “An entrepreneurial network evolving: patterns
of change”, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. pp315-337, doi: 10.1177/0266242610363525.
Jakob, D. (2012), “Crafting your way out of the recession? New craft entrepreneurs and the global
economic downturn”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 127-140, doi: 10.1093/cjres/rss022.
Jakob, D. and Thomas, N.J. (2017), “Firing up craft capital: the renaissance of craft and craft policy in
the United Kingdom”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-511.
Jebamani, D. (2018), “Digital data for Sri Lanka”, available at: www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-data-
2018-sri-lanka-dinesh-jebamani/
Jenkins, H. (2009), “A ‘business opportunity’ model of corporate social responsibility for small-and
medium-sized enterprises”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Joyce, A. and Paquin, R.L. (2016), “The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to design more
sustainable business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 1474-1486, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067.
Kaplan, S. (2012), The Business Model Innovation Factory: How to Stay Relevant When the World
is Changing, Wiley, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/
9781119205234
Lang, C., Armstrong, C.M. and Brannon, L.A. (2013), “Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: an
exploration of the role of personal attributes and behaviors in frequent disposal”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 706-714, doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12060.
Lantry, J.L. (2015), “Artisan culture: rethinking sustainability through collaborative exchange between
emerging Australian designers and Indian artisans in fashion and textiles”, Doctoral
dissertation, available at: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/52949 (accessed 27 November
2019).
Luckman, S. (2015), Craft and the Creative Economy, Springer.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010), “Towards a conceptual framework of’ business models for
sustainability”, in Wever, R., Quist, J., Tukker, A., Woudstra, J., Boons, F. and Beute, N.
RJTA (Eds), Knowledge Collaboration and Learning for Sustainable Innovation, Delft, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.00.
24,2
McKevitt, C. (2007), “Doing health anthropology: research methods for community assessment and
change”, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 416-417, doi: 10.1525/
maq.2007.21.4.416.
Magretta, J. (2002), “Why business models matter”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.
org/2002/05/why-business-models-matter
128
Moalosi, R., Popovic, V. and Hickling-Hudson, A. (2010), “Culture-orientated product design”,
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 175-190.
Nieto, M.J., Santamaria, L. and Fernandez, Z. (2015), “Understanding the innovation behavior of family
firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 382-399, doi: 10.1111/
jsbm.12075.
Niinimäki, K. (2010), “Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 150-162.
Noor, K.B.M. (2008), “Case study: a strategic research methodology”, American Journal of Applied
Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 11, pp. 1602-1604, doi: 10.3844/ajassp.2008.1602.1604.
OECD Report (2012), “Key role of cultural and creative industries in the economy”, available at: www.
oecd.org/site/worldforum06/38703999.pdf (accessed 22 April 2019).
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, John Wiley and Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005), “Clarifying business models: origins, present and
future of the concept”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16,
pp. 1-25.
Pal, R. (2017), “Sustainable design and business models in textile and fashion industry”, in Muthu, S.
(Ed.), Sustainability in the Textile Industry, Springer, Singapore, pp. 109-138, doi: 10.1007/978-
981-10-2639-3_6OAI.
Pannozzo, A. (2007), “The (Ir) relevance of technology: creating a culture of opportunity by
design”, Design Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 18-24, doi: 10.1111/j.1948-7169.2007.
tb00090.x.
Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2004), “Toward a theory of community-based enterprise”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 309-328, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208683.
Punch, K.F. (2005), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, SAGE
Publications.
Rasmussen, B. (2007), “Business models and the theory of the firm”, Working Paper, available at: http://
vuir.vu.edu.au/15947/
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscape of design”, CoDesign,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-18, doi: 10.1080/15710880701875068.
Santi, S., Rucita, C.P., Hani, U. and Rachmania, I.N. (2012), “Women empowerment through creative
industry: a case study”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, pp. 213-222, doi: 10.1016/S2212-
5671(12)00336-X.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2012), “Business cases for sustainability: the role
of business model innovation for corporate sustainability”, International Journal of Innovation
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 95-119.
Schrotenboer, A.L. (2013), “Ethical fashion and its effects on consumer buying behavior”, available at:
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=hhstheses
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Handbook, Sage, London.
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008), “Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model”, Organization and
Environment, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 103-127.
Teece, D.J. (2010), “Business models, business strategy and innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Handloom
Nos 2/3, pp. 172-194.
business
Thompson, V.A. (1969), Bureaucracy and Innovation, University of Alabama Press.
UN News (2019), available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035161 (accessed 2 December
2019).
UNCTAD (2008), “Creative economy report; the challenge of assessing the creative economy: towards
informed policy-making”, available at: http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditc20082cer_en.pdf
129
UNCTAD (2010), “Creative economy report; a feasible development options”, available at: https://
unctad.org/en/docs/ditctab20103_en.pdf
UNESCO (2009), “Review of the framework for cultural statistics”, Belén Usero, available at: HYPERLINK:
www.tandfonline.com/author/Usero%2C6Bel%C3%A9n or HYPERLINK: www.tandfonline.com/
author/Angel6del6Br%C3%ADo%2C6Jes%C3%BAs or HYPERLINK: www.tandfonline.com/
author/Usero%2C6Bel%C3%A9n“JesúsAngeldelBríopp193-197, https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.
2011.563915
UNESCO (2013), “Creative economy report; special edition”, available at: www.unesco.org/culture/pdf/
creative-economy-report-2013.pdf (accessed 13 June 2019).
Wallin, J., Chirumalla, K. and Thompson, A. (2013), “Developing PSS concepts from traditional product
sales situation: the use of business model canvas”, in Meier, H. (Ed.), Product-Service Integration
for Sustainable Solutions. Lecture Notes in Production Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 263-274.
Wong, C.W., Lai, K.H., Shang, K.C., Lu, C.S. and Leung, T.K.P. (2012), “Green operations and the
moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on manufacturing firm
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 283-294.
Wood, S. (2011), “Sustaining crafts and livelihoods: handmade in India”, Craft þ DesignInquiry, Vol. 3,
pp. 1-15.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications.
Zott, C. and Amit, R. (2010), “Designing your future business model: an activity system perspective”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 216-226.
Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2011), “The business model: recent developments and future research”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1019-1042.

Further reading
Benson, B., Crego, E.T. and Drucker, R.H. (1990), Your Family Business: A Success Guide for Growth
and Survival, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Ricart, J.E. (2010), “From strategy to business models and onto tactics”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 195-215, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004.
Dewulf, J., Meester, S.D. and Alvarenga, R. (2016), Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based
Products: Methods and Case Studies, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, Hoboken, NJ, ISBN: 978-
1-118-93394-.
Dumas, C. (1998), “Women’s pathways to participation and leadership in the family-owned firm”,
Family Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 219-228.
EDB (2017), “Export performance”, available at: www.srilankabusiness.com/exporters/export-
performance-report.html
Francis, A.E. (1999), The Daughter Also Rises: How Women Overcome Obstacles and Advance in the
Family-Owned Business, Rudi Publishing, San Francisco, CA.
Kotler, P. (2011), “Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 132-135, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/
jmkg.75.4.132
RJTA Olson, P.D., Zuiker, V.S., Danes, S.M., Stafford, K., Heck, R.K. and Duncan, K.A. (2003), “The impact of
the family and the business on family business sustainability”, Journal of Business Venturing,
24,2 Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 639-666.
Polsa, P. (2016), “Marketing thought follows the circle of consumption”, Australasian Marketing Journal
(Amj), Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 252-253.
Richardson, J. (2008), “The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution”, Strategic
Change, Vol. 17 Nos 5/6, pp. 133-144.
130
Van der Pol, H. (2007), “Key role of cultural and creative industries in the economy”, available at: www.
oecd.org/site/worldforum06/38703999.pdf
Ward, J.L. (2011), Keeping the Family Business Healthy: How to Plan for Continuing Growth,
Profitability, and Family Leadership, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Whiteside, M.F. and Brown, F.H. (1991), “Drawbacks of a dual systems approach to family firms: can
we expand our thinking?”, Family Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 383-395.

Corresponding author
Kanchana Dissanayake can be contacted at geethadis@uom.lk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats