Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective

Abstract

Corporate sustainability has recently been challenging traditional business models that have been based on value proposition, creation and capture. There has been a steady increase in publications using the term “sustainable business models”; however, there have been few that have theoretically defined or characterized the term, and in most cases, they just apply the term. Seven peer‐reviewed papers were selected that aimed to define and explain sustainable business models and that have been widely cited. The papers were analyzed by assessing the elements and activities covered using the corporate sustainability framework, and by comparing them against four approaches to explain organizations. The paper proposes a definition and framework for more sustainable business models aimed at integrating organizational approaches, the company system, stakeholders, change and sustainability dimensions, thus providing a more holistic and systemic approach to discourses on sustainable business models.

Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models

“…As the concept of BMs has been strongly rooted in the rationale of how a company does business and how its structure creates, delivers, and captures value (Evans et al, ; Lozano, ; Osterwalder & Pigneur, ; Teece, ), the fundamental construct of value is of great importance (Den Ouden, ). Coherently, Richardson () develops a BM framework consisting of three main components built upon the concept of value (i.e., value proposition, value creation and delivery system, and value capture system).…”

“…These three main limitations are mainly caused by a set of inherent characteristics of BMfS, which are derived from their complex and dynamic nature (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016;Demil & Lecocq, 2010;Evans et al, 2017). Namely, such a dynamic complexity characterizes BMfS as living structures, with a wealth of interactions and complementarities that can be framed through feedback loops (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016;Hjorth & Bagheri, 2006;Sterman, 2000), thus capturing sustainability from a systemic perspective (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016;Boons, Montalvo, Quist, & Wagner, 2013;Lozano, 2018).…”

“…However, despite their relevance in fueling the debate on BMfS development, these design tools still fail in adopting a systemic view of the core dynamics underlying sustainable value creation processes. According to Lozano (), a BMfS should be “a holistic and systemic reflection of how a company operationalizes its strategy, based on resource efficiency (through operations and production, management and strategy, organizational systems, governance, assessment and reporting, and change), so the outputs have more value and contribute to sustainability more than the inputs (with regard to material and resources that are transformed into products and services, economic value, human resources, and environmental value). The business model is affected by the company's resources (tangible and intangible), the supply chain and the company's stakeholders (internal, interconnecting and external), including the environment (inside and outside the company).” Therefore, a systemic perspective to develop BMfS may provide decision makers and managers with a lean strategy design tool—to be used on a regular basis—which not only lists the key elements shaping a sustainable BM (i.e., social, environmental, and economic value forms) but also outlines the causal interdependencies among them (Casadesus‐Masanell & Ricart, ; Demil & Lecocq, ).…”

Business model based on strong sustainability: Insights from an empirical study

“…One SBM definition states that it helps describe, analyze, manage, and communicate (a) a company's sustainable value proposition to customers and all stakeholders , (b) how it creates and delivers this value , and (c) how it captures economic value while maintaining or regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational boundaries (Schaltegger, Hansen, & Lüdeke‐Freund, , p. 268). This definition de facto reframes Teece's () notions of TBM value flows and also emphasizes the balance of economic, social, and environmental sustainability (Lozano, ), which has been deemed the primary goal of the SBM (Dyllick & Hockerts, ). Hence, Boons and Lüdeke‐Freund () posed that the value proposition must include environmental, social, and economic value.…”

Corporate corruption, business strategy, and sustainable environment: Inferno and paradise!

“…Thus, the corporate corruption can influence several internal and external aspect of contemporary and future organizations starting from their strategical decision‐making processes, strategic actions, and environment. The searching of proactive solutions is directed to propose novel anti‐corruption models, measures, practices, and behaviours assuring both sustainable business model (Lozano, ), sustainable governance and corporate sustainability, and safeguarding stakeholders and environment.…”