Theorising theNormative Business Model

Abstract

We begin with a critique of the ontological underpinnings of the mainstream business model literature with its origins in design-science and offer instead insights from sociology and organisational institutionalism to argue for a more accurate representation of actual processes of organisational transformation, especially necessary where scholarship is concerned to address societal mission-oriented normative cares beyond the objectives of efficiency and profit maximisation. We propose the foundations of a new theoretical construct: the Normative Business Model (NBM) distinguishing deep institutionalisation as the embedding of values (normative orientations) into the design, practices and identity of organisations. The NBM comprises four cornerstones: (a) normativity, (b) (de)institutionalisation and deep institutionalisation processes, (c) institutional entrepreneurialism and (d) economic and financial governance. A case overview of Arizona State University is used to highlight that the NBM refers to the full range and variety of organisation types, not exclusively businesses.

Sustainable value and trade‐offs: Exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery's malt supply network business model

“…Our These insights contribute to the SBM, SSCM, sustainability tradeoffs and strategic management literatures and have implications for organizations seeking to use BMI to contribute to the development of sustainable supply networks. The paper refines our understanding of: (1) how sustainable value creation in supply chains is mediated by social interactions of business model actors (Zott & Amit, 2010); (2) how business models institutionalize power relations (Fuchs et al, 2016;Randles & Laasch, 2016;Roome & Louche, 2016); (3) the extent to which sustainability trade-offs can be overcome (Beckmann et al, 2012;Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014) through BMI that brings partners into new relationships; and (4) using Archer (1995) as a lens represents a novel way of coherently integrating the RBV and RDT while strengthening the 'relational view' in SSCM (Beske & Seuring, 2014;Gold et al, 2010;Schaltegger & Burritt, 2014).…”

“…Thus, business model actors need to understand how to use both shared values and their relative influence to reinforce sustainability cultural resources within their networks. By addressing the calls for greater depth in understanding how power impacts sustainable value creation and is institutionalized in business models (Fuchs et al, ; Randles & Laasch, ; Roome & Louche, ) our work goes beyond both existing literature that recognizes the importance of network‐centric BMI (Bocken et al, ; Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, ; Evans et al, ) and literature which argues that values (cultural resources) and shared values (complementary logics) are necessary requirements in BMI for sustainable value creation (Breuer & Lüdeke‐Freund, ).…”

“…resources may be used and affect their diffusion into society, but on its own says nothing about how easy diffusion is. Linking the cultural-structure distinction with Archer's conceptualization of power and situational logics provides a novel means to address overly optimistic assumptions that sustainability ideas and values (cultural resources) will naturally diffuse (Fuchs et al, 2016;Harris & Crane, 2002), as well as the constraints of institutionalizing sustainability, which are persistently overlooked (Randles & Laasch, 2016).…”

Enabling Political Legitimacy and Conceptual Integration for Climate Change Adaptation Research within an Agricultural Bureaucracy: a Systemic Inquiry

“…It is one thing to name an agenda for innovation and change; the challenge is to purposefully create new practices and institutional forms that enable action that is transformative in relation to 'the wicked problem' or situation of concern (Hall, Sulaiman, Clarke, & Yoganand, 2013;Roome & Louche, 2016;Eppel, 2016). Problems as pervasive and insurmountable as climate change require some internal rerationalisation that can help improve the performance of actions intended to address the situation (Randles & Laasch, 2016;Puusiten & Lehtimäki, 2016) by becoming sensitive to the systemic effects of planned actions and the systemic consequences of actions already undertaken or built into extant practices and institutions (i.e., norms, or 'rules of the game').…”

Developing alternative business models for smart infrastructure: a UK case study

“…The process of creating the new business models must be sufficiently dynamic to cope with the constant stream of technological, policy and regulatory developments, as well as ongoing environmental trends and drivers that organisations face (Burger and Luke, 2016). It must take account of the social aspects of an organisation's operations and provide a more accurate representation of the actual processes of organisational transformation, involved in establishing and maintaining business models across a network of stakeholders (Randles and Laasch, 2016). Moreover, it must have a temporal element, telling the story of how an organisation's operations have developed -'A good business model begins with [a narrative around] human motivations and ends in a rich stream of profits' (Magretta, 2002: p. 3).…”