Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to synthesize the body of sustainable value creation (SVC) research within sustainable business model literature through a systematic literature review.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic literature review of 85 research articles of SVC through business models from 2011 to 2020.
Findings
The systematic literature review allowed the authors to identify five core SVC elements: value forms, stakeholders, temporal view, spatial view and tensions and conflicts. Moreover, a conceptual framework presenting the interrelationships of the SVC elements is proposed.
Practical implications
This study carries implications for practitioners in the form of guiding questions provided in the framework. Those questions help responsible managers to plan, identify and choose strategic sustainability actions and to develop companies’ business models aiming to lead to the creation of long-term sustainable value in different time frames and locations or different parts of the value network. Additionally, the framework guides managers to identify and manage potential tensions and conflicts which can otherwise hinder SVC.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first systematic literature review of SVC through business models with the conceptual development of SVC. The study synthesizes the fragmented literature to identify SVC elements and build basis for conceptualization of SVC through business models.
Keywords
Citation
Manninen, K., Laukkanen, M. and Huiskonen, J. (2024), "Framework for sustainable value creation: a synthesis of fragmented sustainable business model literature", Management Research Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 99-122. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2022-0177
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Kaisa Manninen, Minttu Laukkanen and Janne Huiskonen.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Sustainable business model (SBM) research has rapidly grown during the past years to find ways to ensure companies’ effective contributions to sustainability through the creation of sustainable value (Bocken et al., 2015; Fobbe and Hilletofth, 2021; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008; Upward and Jones, 2016). This has created a fragmented body of literature, which draws from different disciplines, such as corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility or sustainable design (Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). Although different research perspectives generate insightful findings, it can lead to disjointed theoretical development if the key concepts are not thoroughly understood. Knowledge accumulation and further development of theory simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework (Suddaby, 2014). For example, sustainable value creation (SVC), the key concept of SBMs, remains ambiguous in most SBM publications (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2020; Roome and Louche, 2016), although uniform main concepts would help establish the SBM research as its own discipline (Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017).
Although in most studies SVC is referred to economic, environmental and social benefits created with and for different stakeholders (Bocken et al., 2014; Cardoni et al., 2020; Freudenreich et al., 2020; Laukkanen and Tura, 2020), an increasing body of SVC literature considers also negative consequences, tensions and conflicting value outcomes between different value forms and different stakeholders that might occur (Biloslavo et al., 2018; Tura et al., 2018). Although much is known about SVC, the knowledge is unstructured, thus leading to misinterpretations about what sustainable value is. Existing reviews have focused more on understanding SBMs as such (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Goni et al., 2020; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017; Nosratabadi et al., 2019; Pieroni et al., 2019; Shakeel et al., 2020), but there are rare comprehensive studies of SVC with conceptual development. Cardoni et al. (2020) discovered how the concept of sustainable value has been used by researchers and how it has been developed within predetermined management- and strategy-related journals. They deductively classified the findings based on the sustainable value framework by Hart and Milstein (2003). The study by Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2020) identified the cornerstones for theorizing about SVC regarding the what, who and how of value creation (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2020). However, to this date, no systematic literature review has inductively gathered the scattered insights of SVC in the context of SBMs. There is a need for conceptual development of SVC to promote theoretical development in SBM field as well as provide new frameworks for responsible managers (Laasch and Conaway, 2015).
To address this gap, the aim of this study is to synthesize the body of SVC research within SBM literature through a systematic literature review (Post et al., 2020; Snyder, 2019; Torraco, 2005). The research question in this study is as follows:
What is the SVC about within SBM literature?
As an outcome, we present the SVC elements, which are structured in a conceptual framework, which helps to clarify the current theoretical understanding of SVC within SBM literature. From the theoretical perspective, the paper contributes the conceptual development of SVC combining the scattered views of SVC and clarifying the concept. For managers, the study offers guiding questions, which can help companies in decision-making to plan, identify and choose strategic sustainability actions and to develop companies’ business models.
The article is structured as follows. Introduction, given in Section 1, is followed by the research approach and methodological choices presented in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the findings from the systematic literature review by presenting the SVC elements. The discussion given in Section 4 presents the framework for SVC through SBMs and examines the contributions and limitations of the study and propositions for future research avenues in Section 5.
2. Methodology
We designed our methodological approach adapting the stages of a systematic literature review suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003) and literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals (Hofmann, 2019; Williams et al., 2017).
The literature search was conducted using Scopus, which is an extensive and multidisciplinary database suitable for a principal search system, particularly covering articles published since 1995 (Falagas et al., 2008; Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020). The search was limited to titles, abstracts and key words; the language was set to English and the source type to journals. To find articles related to value creation through a business model and in the context of sustainability, the following search string was used: sustainab* AND “value creat*” AND “business model.” The main inclusion criteria were that sustainability refers to environmental and/or social sustainability (in addition to economic sustainability); the articles discussed value, not values; and the articles had a business model and a company and/or organizational perspective. For example, articles that contained the term “sustainability” in the abstract, referring only to economic sustainability (e.g. competitive advantage), were excluded. Related to the business model perspective, articles that discussed a business model trivially were excluded.
This search (March 2021) identified 230 potential articles for further review. To ensure the reliability of the review, the first and second authors read the titles and abstracts and coded them “accept,” “reject” or “further review” based on the inclusion criteria. From this process, 156 articles were coded either “accept” or “further review,” and they underwent full-text analysis. Of the sample of 156 articles, full-text access to eight articles was not available. After full texts were screened, 69 articles were selected for the final data analysis. The second literature search was conducted to find articles that did not include the explicit term “business model” in their titles, abstracts and key words. The focus was still limited to business and management literature, but the search terms included “sustainab* value” OR “value for sustainability,” which revealed articles outside the explicit business model context. The second search round revealed 288 articles. The titles and abstracts were read, and full-text articles providing potentially new insights into the topic were screened. Full-text screening resulted in nine new articles for the more detailed data analysis phase. Moreover, seven additional articles were selected through the snowball method by scanning the references of articles found in the database searches and based on the expertise and previous knowledge of the three researchers of this paper. The article sample selection process is described in Figure 1 and the full list of reviewed articles in Appendix.
Two researchers analyzed the full set of 85 articles in detail through iterative data analysis phases. Following the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), a data analysis was conducted to reveal the SVC elements in the context of SBMs. To identify the elements, the questions “what is sustainable value” and “how is sustainable value creation defined” were used. Through an inductive interpretive data analysis approach (Corbin and Strauss, 2015), we identified five core SVC elements: value forms, stakeholders, temporal view, spatial view and tensions and conflicts. The elements are described in more detail in the specific sections containing the presentation of data-driven first-order concepts and theory-centric second-order themes (Figures 3–7), revealing the aggregate dimensions, which are called SVC elements in this study (Gioia et al., 2013).
3. Findings
3.1 Descriptives
The key publications considering SVC in the context of SBMs are from 2011 and later. In the selected and reviewed sample, one article was published in 2011, but in 2018, 15 articles were published and in 2020, 27 articles (Figure 2).
Based on the statistics, the Journal of Cleaner Production is highlighted in the review as the leading journal with 34 articles. This was followed by Sustainability with 7 articles, Organization and Environment with 6 articles, Business Strategy and Environment with 4 articles and Business and Society with 3 articles. Further, as two articles were found in Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Production and Consumption, and each of the remaining 25 articles in different journals, it indicates that the concept of SVC has been broadly adopted in management literature. From the reviewed studies, 21 were conceptual and 64 empirical, of which 62 were qualitative and only two quantitative. Further, most of the empirical studies (51) were single- or multiple-case studies, which reflects the novelty and complexity of SVC.
The theme and focus areas were related, for example, to the clothing and fashion industry (Abreu et al., 2020; DiVito et al., 2020; Hirscher et al., 2018; Niinimäki and Hassi, 2011), bottom-of-the-pyramid business models (Angeli and Jaiswal, 2016; Bittencourt Marconatto et al., 2016; Dembek and York, 2020), the energy sector (Hellström et al., 2015; Rohrbeck et al., 2013; Rossignoli and Lionzo, 2018), the hospitality industry (Aagaard and Ritzén, 2020; Van Riel et al., 2019), new ventures and entrepreneurship (Gregori and Holzmann, 2020; Täuscher and Abdelkafi, 2018), the sharing economy (Ciulli and Kolk, 2019; Laukkanen and Tura, 2020) and the circular economy (Fonseca et al., 2018; Vogtlander et al., 2017). Previous literature has presented different SVC frameworks, such as tools for identifying new value creation opportunities (Baldassarre et al., 2017; Bocken et al., 2013) or identifying potential sustainability impacts and SVC mechanisms (Patala et al., 2016) and frameworks for managing tensions and creating sustainable value (Brennan and Tennant, 2018; van Bommel, 2018).
3.2 Sustainable value creation elements
In the following, we provide the findings of the data analysis (Gioia et al., 2013) and present the core elements used to describe the SVC within SBM literature, and guiding questions to manage these elements. Each of the sections provides data-driven first-order concepts reflecting the actual words from the reviewed literature, and theory-centric second-order themes describing what each element is about (Figures 3–7). All the articles and their contributions to the findings are listed in Appendix.
3.2.1 Value forms – What are the value sources and what kind of value is created?
The element of value forms (Figure 3) was identified to describe the value sources and what kind of value is created. On the other hand, value forms can be approached through strategic resources, i.e. tangible and intangible value forms (e.g. brand, natural, human capital or cultural resources, physical resources), which are seen as value creation opportunities and involved and combined to enable SVC (Allais et al., 2015; Brennan and Tennant, 2018). On the other hand, SVC can be approached from the perspective of not only multiplicity of value forms perceived, including the triple bottom line point of view, but also several other value forms (Bocken et al., 2015; Breuer et al., 2018; Evans et al., 2017; Schneider and Clauß, 2019; Velter et al., 2020).
The studies share the view that SVC refers to including (Alberti and Varon Garrido, 2017; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018; Todeschini et al., 2017), integrating (Bocken et al., 2015; Dohrmann et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2017), balancing (Fonseca et al., 2018; Oskam et al., 2018), complementing (Sinthupundaja et al., 2020) or improving (Bittencourt Marconatto et al., 2016) economic, environmental and social value or their combinations (Yang and Evans, 2019). However, the current direction of SVC is toward net-positive benefits, which refers to minimizing negative impacts as well as maximizing positive impacts to create “net-positive” effects, meaning that the business models should give more back to society and nature than they take (Dyllick and Rost, 2017). This requires that both the potential benefits and negative consequences of value creation should be identified and acknowledged (Laukkanen and Tura, 2020; Seevers et al., 2018; Slowak and Regenfelder, 2017; Van Riel et al., 2019).
To understand the impacts, the network perspective of different stakeholders must be considered, as what may be beneficial for one stakeholder may be harmful to another (Matos and Silvestre, 2013). Further, the key is to determine how to prevent (Bittencourt Marconatto et al., 2016) or minimize (Van Riel et al., 2019) negative effects for some stakeholders while optimizing value creation for others and improving the overall outcome for stakeholders in the value network – especially for society and the environment.
3.2.2 Stakeholders – With and for whom is value created?
The element of stakeholders describes with and for whom value is created (Figure 4). In SBM studies, SVC is related to the multiplicity of stakeholders, which can be defined and categorized in various ways (Bittencourt Marconatto et al., 2016). Stakeholders can be involved in SVC as value co-creators or collaborators, but it is also important to consider multiple stakeholders as value recipients, perceivers or beneficiaries (Freudenreich et al., 2020; Oskam et al., 2018).
Collaboration requires not only recognizing the existence of multiple, complementary business models instead of a single business model (Pedersen et al., 2019; Zufall et al., 2020), for example, integrating stakeholders across the product’s life cycle (Reinhardt et al., 2020; Yang and Evans, 2019), but also exploiting stakeholder pressure concerning social and environmental issues (Park et al., 2018) and wider stakeholder engagement, including financial institutions and government support (Abuzeinab et al., 2016). As SVC necessitates multi-stakeholder collaboration, in the creation of mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders, it is important that all the parties are headed in the same direction (Bittencourt Marconatto et al., 2016; Dembek and York, 2020; Evans et al., 2017; Freudenreich et al., 2020; Sinthupundaja et al., 2020; Van Riel et al., 2019).
3.2.3 Temporal view – When is value created?
The element of temporal view considers when value is created (Figure 5). SBMs and SVC require longer time horizons than traditional for-profit business models (Alberti and Varon Garrido, 2017) and balancing short- and long-term business performance (Rezaee, 2016). Moreover, sustainability impacts occur in different life cycles in the long term (Manninen et al., 2018; Yang and Evans, 2019). This necessitates considering longer product lifespans through upgrading, updating, repairing, or modifying products, services or systems (Niinimäki and Hassi, 2011; Pedersen et al., 2019), extending the use of products to multiple life cycles (Slowak and Regenfelder, 2017), developing life cycle-based products (Seevers et al., 2018) and optimizing materials through the full product life cycle (Fonseca et al., 2018). Heading toward sustainable development requires developing new capabilities during value creation processes, which can take time (Weissbrod and Bocken, 2017). Overall, the SVC pathway is a dynamic process where a company responds to emerging market opportunities and threats and flexibly ensures long-term business sustainability (Short et al., 2014).
3.2.4 Spatial view – Where is value created?
Because SBM studies apply an extended notion of value forms and stakeholders, value can be created at a greater distance from the core company, and therefore, the element of spatial view considers where is value created (Figure 6). The distance of SVC can be approached through a spatial view, meaning, for example, the horizontal, vertical and network perspectives or widening organizational boundaries. This requires taking a boundary-spanning perspective to see how value is created and captured across organizational boundaries (Brehmer et al., 2018; Breuer et al., 2018; Zufall et al., 2020). Considering society and the environment as independent stakeholders further widens organizational boundaries (Bocken et al., 2013; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Evans et al., 2017; Schaltegger et al., 2016) and transfers the focus of the company’s internal operations to finding SVC opportunities from ecological and social problems outside the core company (Kuckertz et al., 2019). Network participation is even more important when targeting system-level goals, such as SDGs that enlarge the spatial perspective of value outcomes far from the core company.
3.2.5 Tensions and conflicts – What are the tensions and conflicts in value creation and how to manage them?
Decision-makers frequently face situations where they need to deal with conflicting sustainability aspects (Hahn et al., 2015). Therefore, the element of tensions and conflicts considers what the tensions and conflicts are in value creation and how to manage them (Figure 7). SVC combines diverse actors, and therefore, contradictory goals and interests of different stakeholders as well as multiple value forms can cause tensions (Brennan and Tennant, 2018; Patala et al., 2016; Tura et al., 2018; van Bommel, 2018). Additionally, temporal patterning of value creation can exist (DiVito et al., 2020) and contradictive value can be created on different spatial scales (Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). Companies can try to identify, resolve and/or manage tensions and conflicts through different approaches (Alberti and Varon Garrido, 2017; Brennan and Tennant, 2018; Freudenreich et al., 2020; van Bommel, 2018).
Through an instrumental approach (Hahn et al., 2015), tensions and conflicts can be avoided by focusing primarily on sustainability actions that contribute positively to financial outcomes leading to win-win solutions. Following a trade-off strategy, a decision can have negative impacts on the company’s financial capital while bringing about environmental benefits. By applying an integrative approach, a company can try finding a balance between actions and create multiple value forms holistically (van Bommel, 2018). The trade-offs or potential value destruction situations can offer companies new business or value creation opportunities (Bocken et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2017). As decisions related to SVC often involve contradictory and interrelated sustainability dimensions, research on paradoxical thinking to manage conflicting sustainability aspects has recently increased. Paradoxical thinking aims to achieve all the sustainability dimensions simultaneously, which can generate creative approaches to managing SVC (Hahn et al., 2015; Morales, 2020; van Bommel, 2018).
4. Discussion and future agenda
Building on the findings from the systematic literature review, we combined scattered insights on SVC within SBM literature and identified five core SVC elements, which are value forms, stakeholders, temporal view, spatial view and tensions and conflicts, and the guiding questions to manage them. We propose that these five elements are fundamental concepts to SVC, describing a phenomenon of theoretical interest (Gioia et al., 2013).
Prior studies defining SVC (Bocken et al., 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2020) have pointed out that SVC is about creating benefits and positive impacts for multiple stakeholders, thus aiming to fulfill their fundamental needs. However, these definitions leave room for a variety of interpretations and, in the worst case, can lead to value creation that is not sustainable at all, one of the reasons being tensions and conflicts related to SVC. Studies concerning tensions and conflicts in SVC are rare, although research about the topic within corporate sustainability literature has increased in recent years (Hahn et al., 2015; van Bommel, 2018). Therefore, the identified elements provide a way to approach SVC more holistically and comprehensively by laying a foundation for defining and theorizing SVC in the specific contexts under study.
To summarize, SVC is about using different value sources, which are transformed to multiplicity of value forms, perceived differently by multiple stakeholders. Moreover, SVC is about creating value with and for different stakeholders aiming to create mutually beneficial relationships, as an individual company cannot solve systemic sustainability challenges alone. Further, SVC necessitates considering the life cycle and long-term perspectives, as value can be created on different time scales and life-cycle phases with and for different stakeholders. Additionally, the creation of sustainable value requires the horizontal, vertical and network perspectives as well as widening organizational boundaries because the impacts of SVC must be considered from, for instance, the individual, local, society and biosphere perspectives. The current trend is for SVC to aim for net positive benefits, which necessitates considering not only the positive impacts but also the potential value trade-offs and value destruction, conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders, temporal pattering of value creation and potential contradictive value creation in different spatial scales.
Based on the identified elements, we propose a conceptual framework (Meredith, 1993) for describing SVC elements and their interrelationships and guiding questions, which help to manage each element to create sustainable value through SBM (Figure 8). In the framework, the SVC elements are the aggregate dimensions identified in the data analysis phase while the second-order themes describe what each element is about (Figures 3–7).
This study offers several possible future directions. First, the framework is meant to be general to be applicable in different contexts. Therefore, the framework could be used for more detailed guidance regarding each element in different types of SBMs. For example, it could be interesting to study what type of value creation in collaboration with stakeholders (Freudenreich et al., 2020) is suitable in the different SBM archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014) to enable SVC. Second, the review was limited to SBM literature. However, it could be useful to carry out a structured search of, for example, corporate sustainability and strategic management studies to better understand how SVC elements should be considered in areas such as companies’ strategy planning. Third, the framework provides different angles to study potential tensions and conflicts related to SVC. Therefore, future research could find specific strategies to manage tensions that are caused by, for example, the temporal patterning of SVC to enable SVC in the long term. Especially studies applying paradoxical thinking to manage SVC could offer interesting perspectives on how to create multiplicity of value forms for multiple stakeholders on different temporal and spatial scales to achieve long-term, net-positive benefits.
5. Implications for theory and practice
This study is the first systematic literature review of SVC through business models with the conceptual development of SVC. Through a systematic literature review of 85 research articles from 2011 to 2020, this study synthesizes the fragmented literature and identify core SVC elements. As main contribution, this study proposes a comprehensive conceptual framework that captures the characteristics of SVC elements and is aimed to facilitate further theorizing about SVC elements “that can later be more narrowly specified, operationalized, and measured” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 27).
This study carries implications for practitioners in the form of guiding questions provided in the framework. Those questions help responsible managers (Laasch and Conaway, 2015) in decision-making to plan, identify and choose strategic sustainability actions and to develop companies’ business models. This could lead to the creation of long-term sustainable value in different time frames and locations or different parts of the value network. Additionally, the framework guides managers to identify and manage potential tensions and conflicts which can otherwise hinder SVC.
The proposed framework of SVC through business models guides attention from a company-centered business perspective to a company’s role embedded in a wider societal and environmental system (Bolton and Hannon, 2016; Gorissen et al., 2016). The important notion is that SVC should be considered holistically from each element angle to identify tensions and conflicts that can prevent creating net sustainable value.
Figures
Final article sample and their contributions to the findings
| Author(s), Year | Type of study | Journal | Value forms | Stakeholders | Temporal view | Spatial view | Tensions and conflicts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Niinimäki and Hassi (2011) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 2 | Bocken et al. (2013) | Empirical, case study | Corporate Governance | x | x | x | ||
| 3 | Matos and Silvestre (2013) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 4 | Rohrbeck et al. (2013) | Empirical, case study | International Journal of Technology Management | x | ||||
| 5 | Bocken et al. (2014) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 6 | Short et al. (2014) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Industrial Ecology | x | ||||
| 7 | Allais et al. (2015) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 8 | Bocken et al. (2015) | Empirical, research through design | Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering | x | ||||
| 9 | Dohrmann et al. (2015) | Empirical, case study | Entrepreneurship Research Journal | x | ||||
| 10 | Hellström et al. (2015) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 11 | Jolink and Niesten (2015) | Empirical, case study | Business Strategy and the Environment | x | ||||
| 12 | Abuzeinab et al. (2016) | Empirical, case study | Built Environment Project and Asset Management | x | ||||
| 13 | Angeli and Jaiswal (2016) | Empirical, case study | Organization and Environment | x | x | x | ||
| 14 | Bittencourt Marconatto et al. (2016) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 15 | Dyllick and Muff (2016) | Conceptual | Organization and Environment | x | x | x | ||
| 16 | Patala et al. (2016) | Empirical, case study | Industrial Marketing Management | x | x | x | x | |
| 17 | Rezaee (2016) | Conceptual | Journal of Accounting Literature | x | x | x | ||
| 18 | Schaltegger et al. (2016) | Conceptual | Organization and Environment | x | x | |||
| 19 | Scheepens et al. (2016) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 20 | Alberti and Varon Garrido (2017) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Business Strategy | x | x | x | ||
| 21 | Baldassarre et al. (2017) | Empirical, research through design | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 22 | Dyllick and Rost (2017) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 23 | Evans et al. (2017) | Conceptual | Business Strategy and the Environment | x | x | x | x | |
| 24 | Morioka et al. (2017) | Empirical case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 25 | Rauter et al. (2017) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 26 | Slowak and Regenfelder (2017) | Empirical, case study | Innovation | x | x | |||
| 27 | Todeschini et al. (2017) | Empirical, case study | Business Horizons | x | ||||
| 28 | Weissbrod and Bocken (2017) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 29 | Williams et al. (2017) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 30 | Vogtlander et al. (2017) | Conceptual | Journal of Remanufacturing | x | x | |||
| 31 | Yang et al. (2017) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 32 | Brehmer et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 33 | Brennan and Tennant (2018) | Empirical, case study | Business Strategy and the Environment | x | x | x | ||
| 34 | Breuer et al. (2018) | Conceptual | International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing | x | x | |||
| 35 | Fonseca et al. (2018) | Empirical, quantitative study | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | x | |||
| 36 | Hirscher et al. (2018) | Empirical, action research | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 37 | Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2018) | Conceptual | Sustainable Production and Consumption | x | ||||
| 38 | Manninen et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 39 | Oskam et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 40 | Park et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | ||||
| 41 | Rossignoli and Lionzo (2018) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 42 | Seevers et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management | x | x | x | ||
| 43 | Sulkowski et al. (2018) | Conceptual | Organization and Environment | x | ||||
| 44 | Tura et al. (2018) | Empirical, case study | Industrial Marketing Management | x | ||||
| 45 | Täuscher and Abdelkafi (2018) | Empirical, modeling approach | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 46 | van Bommel (2018) | Empirical, qualitative approach | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 47 | Bocken et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 48 | Ciulli and Kolk (2019) | Empirical, qualitative approach | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 49 | Gregori et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | ||||
| 50 | Hu et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | ||||
| 51 | Jensen et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 52 | Kuckertz et al. (2019) | Empirical, quantitative study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 53 | Lee and Chang (2019) | Empirical, qualitative approach | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | x | |||
| 54 | Pedersen et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management | x | x | |||
| 55 | Schneider and Clauß (2019) | Empirical, case study | Organization and Environment | x | x | x | ||
| 56 | Van Riel et al. (2019) | Conceptual | Journal of Service Management | x | x | x | ||
| 57 | Yang and Evans (2019) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 58 | Ünal et al. (2019) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management | x | ||||
| 59 | Aagaard and Ritzén (2020) | Empirical, case study | Creativity and Innovation Management | x | ||||
| 60 | Abreu et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing | x | x | |||
| 61 | Bradley et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Sustainable Production and Consumption | x | ||||
| 62 | Cardoni et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Sustainability | x | x | |||
| 63 | Dembek and York (2020) | Empirical, case study | Business and Society | x | ||||
| 64 | DiVito et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Business and Society | x | x | |||
| 65 | Farrukh and Holgado (2020) | Empirical, participatory research | Technological Forecasting and Social Change | x | ||||
| 66 | Feger and Mermet (2020) | Empirical, action research | Organization and Environment | x | ||||
| 67 | Freudenreich et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Journal of Business Ethics | x | x | x | ||
| 68 | Goni et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy | x | ||||
| 69 | Gregori and Holzmann (2020) | Empirical, qualitative approach | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 70 | Hansen and Revellio (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Industrial Ecology | x | ||||
| 71 | Laukkanen and Tura (2020) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 72 | Lehtimäki et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases | x | ||||
| 73 | Lüdeke-Freund (2020) | Conceptual | Business Strategy and the Environment | x | ||||
| 74 | Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Journal of Business Models | x | ||||
| 75 | Mattila et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management | x | ||||
| 76 | Morales (2020) | Empirical, qualitative approach | Sustainability (Switzerland) | x | ||||
| 77 | Mähönen (2020) | Conceptual | Accounting, Economics and Law: A Convivium | x | ||||
| 78 | Nußholz et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 79 | Oskam et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Business and Society | x | x | |||
| 80 | Reinhardt et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 81 | Schoneveld (2020) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | ||||
| 82 | Shakeel et al. (2020) | Conceptual | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | x | ||
| 83 | Sinthupundaja et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development | x | x | |||
| 84 | Velter et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x | |||
| 85 | Zufall et al. (2020) | Empirical, case study | Journal of Cleaner Production | x | x |
Source: Authors’ creation
Appendix
References
Aagaard, A. and Ritzén, S. (2020), “The critical aspects of co-creating and co-capturing sustainable value in service business models”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 292-302.
Abreu, M.C.S.D., Ferreira, F.N.H., Proença, J.F. and Ceglia, D. (2020), “Collaboration in achieving sustainable solutions in the textile industry”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1614-1626.
Abuzeinab, A., Arif, M., Kulonda, D.J. and Awuzie, B.O. (2016), “Green business models transformation: evidence from the UK construction sector”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 478-490.
Alberti, F.G. and Varon Garrido, M.A. (2017), “Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Allais, R., Reyes, T. and Roucoules, L. (2015), “Inclusion of territorial resources in the product development process”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 94, pp. 187-197.
Angeli, F. and Jaiswal, A.K. (2016), “Business model innovation for inclusive health care delivery at the bottom of the pyramid”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 486-507.
Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N.M.P. and Jaskiewicz, T. (2017), “Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: a process for sustainable value proposition design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147, pp. 175-186.
Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C. and Edgar, D. (2018), “An eco-critical perspective on business models: the value triangle as an approach to closing the sustainability gap”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 746-762.
Bittencourt Marconatto, D.A., Barin-Cruz, L., Pozzebon, M. and Poitras, J.-E. (2016), “Developing sustainable business models within BOP contexts: mobilizing native capability to cope with government programs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 129, pp. 735-748.
Bocken, N., Boons, F. and Baldassarre, B. (2019), “Sustainable business model experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208, pp. 1498-1512.
Bocken, N.M.P., Rana, P. and Short, S.W. (2015), “Value mapping for sustainable business thinking”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 88-102.
Bocken, N., Short, S., 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.
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, pp. 42-56.
Bolton, R. and Hannon, M. (2016), “Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: towards a systems understanding”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1731-2717.
Bradley, P., Parry, G. and O'Regan, N. (2020), “A framework to explore the functioning and sustainability of business models”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 21, pp. 57-77.
Brehmer, M., Podoynitsyna, K. and Langerak, F. (2018), “Sustainable business models as boundary-spanning systems of value transfers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4514-4531.
Brennan, G. and Tennant, M. (2018), “Sustainable value and trade-offs: exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery's malt supply network business model”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 621-630.
Breuer, H., Fichter, K., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Tiemann, I. (2018), “Sustainability-oriented business model development: principles, criteria and tools”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 256-286.
Cardoni, A., Kiseleva, E. and Taticchi, P. (2020), “In search of sustainable value: a structured literature review”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 2, p. 615.
Ciulli, F. and Kolk, A. (2019), “Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing economy: implications for sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 214, pp. 995-1010.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015), Basics of Qualitative Research: techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Dembek, K. and York, J. (2020), “Applying a sustainable business model lens to mutual value creation with base of the pyramid suppliers”, Business and Society, Article in Press, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 2156-2191.
DiVito, L., van Wijk, J. and Wakkee, I. (2020), “Governing collaborative value creation in the context of grand challenges: a case study of a cross-sectoral collaboration in the textile industry”, Business and Society, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1092-1131.
Dohrmann, S., Raith, M. and Siebold, N. (2015), “Monetizing social value creation - a business model approach”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 127-154.
Dyllick, T. and Muff, K. (2016), “Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 156-174.
Dyllick, T. and Rost, Z. (2017), “Towards true product sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 346-360.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., VanFossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E.A. and Barlow, C.Y. (2017), “Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 597-608.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A. and Pappas, G. (2008), “Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses”, The FASEB Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 338-342.
Farrukh, C. and Holgado, M. (2020), “Integrating sustainable value thinking into technology forecasting: a configurable toolset for early stage technology assessment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 158, art. no. 120171.
Feger, C. and Mermet, L. (2020), “New business models for biodiversity and ecosystem management services: an action research with a large environmental sector company”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 252-281.
Fobbe, L. and Hilletofth, P. (2021), “The role of stakeholder interaction in sustainable business models. A systematic literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 327, p. 129510.
Fonseca, L.M., Domingues, J.P., Pereira, M.T., Martins, F.F. and Zimon, D. (2018), “Assessment of circular economy within Portuguese organizations”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 7, p. 2521.
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Schaltegger, S. (2020), “A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: value creation for sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 166 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D. and Evans, S. (2018), “Sustainable business model innovation: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198, pp. 401-416.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Goni, F.A., Gholamzadeh Chofreh, A., Estaki Orakani, Z., Klemeš, J.J., Davoudi, M. and Mardani, A. (2020), “Sustainable business model: a review and framework development”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 889-897.
Gorissen, L., Vrancken, K. and Manshoven, S. (2016), “Transition thinking and business model innovation-towards a transformative business model and new role for the reuse centers of Limburg, Belgium”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 112, 1-23.
Gregori, P. and Holzmann, P. (2020), “Digital sustainable entrepreneurship: a business model perspective on embedding digital technologies for social and environmental value creation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 272, art. no. 122817.
Gregori, P., Wdowiak, M.A., Schwarz, E.J. and Holzmann, P. (2019), “Exploring value creation in sustainable entrepreneurship: insights from the institutional logics perspective and the business model lens”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 9, p. 2505.
Gusenbauer, M. and Haddaway, N.R. (2020), “Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources”, Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. and Figge, F. (2015), “Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Hansen, E.G. and Revellio, F. (2020), “Circular value creation architectures: make, ally, buy, or laissez-faire”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1250-1273.
Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), “Creating sustainable value”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 56-69.
Hellström, M., Tsvetkova, A., Gustafsson, M. and Wikström, K. (2015), “Collaboration mechanisms for business models in distributed energy ecosystems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 102, pp. 226-236.
Hirscher, A.-L., Niinimäki, K. and Joyner Armstrong, C.M. (2018), “Social manufacturing in the fashion sector: new value creation through alternative design strategies?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4544-4554.
Hofmann, F. (2019), “Circular business models: business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transitions?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 224, pp. 361-374.
Hu, H., Huang, T., Cheng, Y. and Lu, H. (2019), “The evolution of sustainable business model innovation: evidence from a sharing economy platform in China”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 15, p. 4207.
Jensen, J.P., Prendeville, S.M., Bocken, N.M.P. and Peck, D. (2019), “Creating sustainable value through remanufacturing: three industry cases”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 218, pp. 304-314.
Jolink, A. and Niesten, E. (2015), “Sustainable development and business models of entrepreneurs in the organic food industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 386-401.
Kuckertz, A., Berger, E.S.C. and Gaudig, A. (2019), “Responding to the greatest challenges? Value creation in ecological startups”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 230, pp. 1138-1147.
Laasch, O. and Conaway, R. (2015), Principles of Responsible Management: Glocal Sustainability, Responsibility, Ethics, Cengage, Mason.
Laukkanen, M. and Tura, N. (2020), “The potential of sharing economy business models for sustainable value creation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 253, p. 120004.
Lee, J.-Y. and Chang, C.-H. (2019), “Efforts toward creating a sustainable business model: an empirical investigation of small-scale certified forestry firms in Taiwan”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 9, p. 2523.
Lehtimäki, H., Piispanen, V.-V. and Henttonen, K. (2020), “Strategic decisions related to circular business model in a forerunner company: challenges due to path dependency and lock-in”, South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 402-412.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2020), “Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: integrative framework and propositions for future research”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 665-681.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Dembek, K. (2017), “Research and practice on sustainable business models: emerging field or passing fancy?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 168, pp. 1668-1678.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Rauter, R., Pedersen, E.R.G. and Nielsen, C. (2020), “Sustainable value creation through business models: the what, the who and the how”, Journal of Business Models, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 62-90.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L. and Breuer, H. (2018), “The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy-45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 15, pp. 145-162.
Mähönen, J. (2020), “Integrated reporting and sustainable corporate governance from European perspective”, Accounting, Economics and Law: A Convivium, Vol. 10 No. 2.
Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N., Dahlbo, H. and Aminoff, A. (2018), “Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 171, pp. 413-422.
Matos, S. and Silvestre, B.S. (2013), “Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models: the case of the Brazilian energy sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 61-73.
Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N. and Heikkinen, A. (2020), “Platform-based sustainable business models: reducing food waste in food services”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 24 Nos 4/5, pp. 249-265.
Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Morales, A.H. (2020), “Exploring paradoxical tensions in circular business models-cases from North Europe”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 18, art. no. 7577.
Morioka, S.N., Bolis, I., Evans, S. and Carvalho, M.M. (2017), “Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 167, pp. 723-738.
Niinimäki, K. and Hassi, L. (2011), “Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and clothing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 16, pp. 1876-1883.
Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Rakotonirainy, A. and Chau, K.W. (2019), “Sustainable business models: a review”, Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 6, p. 1663.
Nußholz, J.L.K., Rasmussen, F.N., Whalen, K. and Plepys, A. (2020), “Material reuse in buildings: implications of a circular business model for sustainable value creation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, art. no. 118546.
Oskam, I., Bossink, B. and de Man, A. (2018), “The interaction between network ties and business modeling: case studies of sustainability-oriented innovations”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 177, pp. 555-566.
Oskam, I., Bossink, B. and de Man, A.-P. (2020), “Valuing value in innovation ecosystems: how cross-sector actors overcome tensions in collaborative sustainable business model development”, Business and Society, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1-36.
Park, J., Hwang, K. and Kim, S.-J. (2018), “Forming a social partnership between a small social enterprise and a large corporation: a case of the joint platform, H-JUMP”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 10 No. 10, p. 3612.
Patala, S., Jalkala, A., Keränen, J., Väisänen, S., Tuominen, V. and Soukka, R. (2016), “Sustainable value propositions: framework and implication for technology suppliers”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 144-156.
Pedersen, E.R.G., Earley, R. and Andersen, K.R. (2019), “From singular to plural: exploring organisational complexities and circular business model design”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 308-326.
Pieroni, M.P.P., McAloone, T.C., Pigosso,. and D., C.A. (2019), “Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of approaches”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215, pp. 198-216.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C. and Prescott, J.E. (2020), “Advancing theory with review articles”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 351-376.
Rauter, R., Jonker, J. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2017), “Going one's own way: drivers in developing business models for sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 144-154.
Reinhardt, R., Christodoulou, I., García, B.A. and Gassó-Domingo, S. (2020), “Sustainable business model archetypes for the electric vehicle battery second use industry: towards a conceptual framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 254, art. no. 119994.
Rezaee, Z. (2016), “Business sustainability research: a theoretical and integrated perspective”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 48-64.
Rohrbeck, R., Konnertz, L. and Knab, S. (2013), “Collaborative business modelling for systemic and sustainability innovations”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 63 Nos 1/2, pp. 4-23.
Roome, N. and Louche, C. (2016), “Journeying toward business models for sustainability”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-35.
Rossignoli, F. and Lionzo, A. (2018), “Network impact on business models for sustainability: case study in the energy sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, pp. 694-704.
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016), “Business models for sustainability: origins, present research, and future avenues”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Scheepens, A.E., Vogtländer, J.G. and Brezet, J.C. (2016), “Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 114, pp. 257-268.
Schneider, S. and Clauß, T. (2019), “Business models for sustainability: choices and consequences”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 1-24.
Schoneveld, G.C. (2020), “Sustainable business models for inclusive growth: towards a conceptual foundation of inclusive business”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 277, art. no. 124062.
Seevers, D.K., Badurdeen, F. and Jawahir, I.S. (2018), “Value creation for lifecycle based product development through the sustainable half-life return model”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Shakeel, J., Mardani, A., Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A. and Klemeš, J.J. (2020), “Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 261, art. no. 121201.
Short, S.W., Bocken, N.M.P., Barlow, C.Y. and Chertow, M.R. (2014), “From refining sugar to growing tomatoes: industrial ecology and business model evolution”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 603-618.
Sinthupundaja, J., Kohda, Y., Chiadamrong, N. and Thajchayapong, S. (2020), “Investigating business model innovation for sustainability: cases from Thailand”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 313-329.
Slowak, A.P. and Regenfelder, M. (2017), “Creating value, not wasting resources: sustainable innovation strategies”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 455-475.
Snyder, H. (2019), “Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 104, pp. 333-339.
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008), “Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model’”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 103-127.
Suddaby, R. (2014), “Editor's comments: why theory?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 407-411.
Sulkowski, A.J., Edwards, M. and Freeman, R.E. (2018), “Shake your stakeholder: firms leading engagement to cocreate sustainable value”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 223-241.
Täuscher, K. and Abdelkafi, N. (2018), “Scalability and robustness of business models for sustainability: a simulation experiment”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 170, pp. 654-664.
Todeschini, B.V., Cortimiglia, M.N., Callegaro-de-Menezes, D. and Ghezzi, A. (2017), “Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry: entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 759-770.
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 356-367.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tura, N., Keränen, J. and Patala, S. (2018), “The darker side of sustainability: tensions from sustainable business practices in business networks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 77, pp. 221-231.
Ünal, E., Urbinati, A. and Chiaroni, D. (2019), “Managerial practices for designing circular economy business models: the case of an Italian SME in the office supply industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 561-589.
Upward, A. and Jones, P. (2016), “An ontology for strongly sustainable business models: defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 97-123.
van Bommel, K. (2018), “Managing tensions in sustainable business models: exploring instrumental and integrative strategies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 196, pp. 829-841.
Van Riel, A.C.R., Zhang, J.J., McGinnis, L.P., Nejad, M.G., Bujisic, M. and Phillips, P.A. (2019), “A framework for sustainable service system configuration: exploring value paradoxes with examples from the hospitality industry”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 349-368.
Velter, M.G.E., Bitzer, V., Bocken, N.M.P. and Kemp, R. (2020), “Sustainable business model innovation: the role of boundary work for multi-stakeholder alignment”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 247, art. no. 119497.
Vogtlander, J.G., Scheepens, A.E., Bocken, N.M.P. and Peck, D. (2017), “Combined analyses of costs, market value and eco-costs in circular business models: eco-efficient value creation in remanufacturing”, Journal of Remanufacturing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Weissbrod, I. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2017), “Developing sustainable business experimentation capability – a case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 2663-2676.
Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F. and Whiteman, G. (2017), “Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 148, pp. 866-881.
Yang, M. and Evans, S. (2019), “Product-service system business model archetypes and sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 220, pp. 1156-1166.
Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D. and Rana, P. (2017), “Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1794-1804.
Zufall, J., Norris, S., Schaltegger, S., Revellio, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2020), “Business model patterns of sustainability pioneers - analyzing cases across the smartphone life cycle”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 244, art. no. 118651.
Further reading
Arnold, R.D. and Wade, J.P. (2015), “A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 44 No. C, pp. 669-678.
Camilleri, M.A. (2018), “Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: the inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 567-581.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Kaisa Manninen, M.Sc. (Tech), is a doctoral candidate in the School of Engineering Science at LUT University. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on to increase in understanding of conducting sustainability target-driven business. She aims to increase the understanding on how companies could take conscious steps toward being a sustainable company and how companies could develop their business models to advance system-level sustainability.
Minttu Laukkanen, D.Sc. (Tech), is a Researcher in the School of Business and management at LUT University. She defended her dissertation focusing on sustainable business models for advancing system-level sustainability in 2019. She is interested in understanding how the transition toward sustainable business at company level will be achieved as well as how the companies can act as agents within broader sustainability transformation. Further, she is interested in understanding how to recognize new sustainable business opportunities for companies and to build competitiveness through sustainable business models.
Janne Huiskonen, D.Sc. (Tech), is Professor of Supply Chain Management in the School of Engineering Science at LUT University. He is also the Head of Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. His research focuses on sustainable business models and operations management in supply chains, networks and service systems. He has published over 40 articles in scientific conferences and journals.