HTML

ePub

PDF

Introduction

Business model innovation is a widely known topic and one of the most recurring keywords in managerial studies. It deals with a new way to do business aiming at prosperity in a dynamic environment through the reconceptualization of the underlying logic behind the value creation, capture and delivery (Richardson, 2008; Teece, 2010).

Firms increasingly need to innovate by modifying their business model by initiating changes, improvements and replacements in various organizational elements (Mitchell & Coles, 2003). It is relevant to understand these elements to facilitate the analysis of organizational processes and planning of transformation from one business model to another and to increase the firm’s resilience and the probability of success (Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova, & Evans, 2018).

In recent years, a new form of business model innovation (BMI) has occurred by incorporating the sustainability concept into the firm’s goals and processes. We define sustainable business model innovation (SBMI) as a change in how a firm operates to create positive impacts or reduce negative consequences for the environment and society.

Although there is a broad consensus about the importance of sustainability for firms, the academic studies on how to transform the firm into a sustainable organization remain blurred (i.e. Lemus-Aguilar, Morales-Alonso, Ramirez-Portilla, & Hidalgo, 2019; Presenza, Messeni Petruzzelli, & Natalicchio, 2019). Moreover, the process of implementing a sustainable business model remains unclear. Indeed, the prior scientific research about this topic offers various reviews (i.e. Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014; Geissdoerfer, Bocken, & Hultink, 2016, 2018) or analysis of a specific type of SBM (i.e. circular economy, collaborative consumption, inclusive growth and targeting low-income consumers). Nevertheless, the dynamic vision on how the business model changes to incorporate triple sustainability has received insufficient attention.

For addressing these gaps, this paper aims to simplify the study of the change of a business model that becomes “sustainable.” In particular, the questions addressed by this study are follows:

how to understand the way value proposition, value creation, and value capture within a business model change to include economic, environmental, and social issues. What pathways can an organization take?

To achieve our goal, we propose a new multidimensional framework that allows researchers to study the changes that occur when a business model moves toward sustainability and to study firms that design and manage this transformation process.

To structure the new framework, we must combine elements and characteristics of various tools of both academic and practical matrices. Regarding academic studies, we must consider the three concepts of value proposed by Richardson (2008), the ten types of stakeholders identified by Bocken, Short, Rana and Evans (2013) in the value mapping tool and the nine building blocks of business model canvas (BMC) proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010). Then, we must analyze nonacademic sources. We must consider the four areas of BIA (B Impact Assessment) methods promoted by Blab and the elements of the SDG implementation framework created by the United Nations.

At the end of the design process, we identified three macro-areas, namely value proposition, value creation and delivery and value capture, and several elements to describe each of them.

Our paper contributes to enriching the literature about BMI and sustainable innovation by adopting the business model dynamic perspective and presenting a new tool helpful in understanding how the business model changes to incorporate triple sustainability. A holistic framework for developing sustainable BMI could represent a learning framework for researchers to help identify the current assumptions about the phenomenon and improve them. Moreover, this study assumes a theoretical relevance because it uses the BMI construct as a lens to design a new framework. In contrast, the business model represents only the subject of innovation, and previous studies have instead identified it as the vehicle of innovation or a mediating device that can help achieve sustainable innovation. From a managerial perspective, the paper offers new tools that can serve as a guideline for a reorganization that aspires to increase sustainability within firms and reduce resistance to modifying existing business models.

The present article is structured as follows: first, we show the existing literature on BMI and SBMI to capture the current data. In the second section, we describe the research setting and the methodology. Then we propose a new conceptual and integrative framework as a guideline in the business model transformation toward sustainability. Finally, the discussion and the conclusion summarize the results and show the study implications and its limitations and directions for future research.

Theoretical background

Business model innovation

In the last ten years, the literature on the business model has shifted from the defining aspects to the topic of BMI. It moves away from the idea that innovation is possible only if it is technological, applied to a product or process. Therefore, it resides in the transformation of the business model and expresses how to do business in a new way (Amit & Zott, 2020).

There are several definitionsfor BMI (Table 1). According to Osterwalder et al. (2005), Labbè and Mazet (2005), Santos, Spector and Van der Heyden (2009), Amit and Zott (2020) and Yunus, Moingeon and Lehmann-Ortega (2010), BMI is a reconfiguration of the business model’s elements, of the firm’s activities or of the value proposition.

Furthermore, scholars have used BMI as a strategic tool or unit of analysis to study how firms can overcome the competitive threat of a specific industry, such as the creative and cultural industry (i.e. Lantano, Petruzzelli, & Panniello, 2022) or the tourism and hospitality industry (Presenza et al., 2019).

Other authors, instead, introduce taxonomies. The most famous is the classification provided by Geissdoerfer et al. (2018), which identifies four types of BMI – startup, transformation, diversification and acquisition – and by Cavalcante, Kesting and Ulhøi (2011) which talks about creation, extension, revision and termination.

Most studies on BMI frame it as a process based on these taxonomies. Andreini et al. (2021) identified five typologies of processes: cognition processes, knowledge-shaping processes, strategizing processes, value creation processes and evolutionary processes.

This vision implies the existence of various phases which can lead firms to achieve a competitive advantage. So, managers must connect people and processes to anticipate market trends and integrate strategic assets creatively. In this regard, a framework can help and support the change process.

Sustainable business model innovation

“SBMI” is a scientific topic that has received significant attention both in the literature of sustainability innovation and business models of the last ten years (Cillo, Messeni Petruzzelli, Ardito, & Del Giudice, 2019). This research field aims to strengthen the firm's ability to integrate sustainability into the business model to achieve the goal of sustainable development. In particular, SBMI is a change in how a firm operates to reduce adverse external effects and create new positive external effects for the environment and society (Presenza et al., 2019).

For explanatory purposes, currently, a growing number of firms integrate green innovation into their business model to attain the opportunities offered by the market and build a competitive advantage (Presenza et al., 2019).

A SBMI is characterized by (1) the incorporation into the existing value proposition of sustainable principles or goals, (2) the extension of value creation concept from economic value to shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011), (3) the consideration of nonfinancial interests in the decision-making process and (4) managers who act as sustainability leaders to promote a new mindset within the whole organization (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008).

The core activity is transforming the value proposition toward a sustainable value proposition that allows value creation by considering the needs of customers, shareholders, suppliers, partners, community, society and environment (Baldassarre, Calabretta, Bocken, & Jaskiewicz, 2017).

It must express economic, environmental and social outcomes. Managers who intend to avoid value destruction through BMI should assume the sustainable value proposition (Roome & Louche, 2016). The sustainable business model must mitigate the value destruction for society and the environment. To do so, managers must clearly understand what value is currently on the verge of being destroyed and consequently act on the business model.

The SBMI also considers the value creation in the carried-out activities and its delivery as eco-social benefits balanced among all the players. In other words, it may include changing energy inputs in the industry using renewable energies, such as the sun and the wind, or modifying the way products reach the market regarding transportation.

The last dimension of a sustainable business model that innovation must consider is the value capture mechanism, the amount of value that individual stakeholders appropriate for themselves (Amit & Zott, 2020). It requires firms to capture economic value for shareholders and investors and environmental and social value for stakeholders. We can affirm that in the SBMI, the subject-matter experts link the value concept to impact and sometimes replace it.

So, this activity is complex because the transformation process often involves incorporating heterogeneous metrics besides including various stakeholders’ needs (Snihur & Wiklund, 2019).

Despite this complexity, the literature on the sustainable business model (i.e. Lozano, 2018) and BMI for sustainability (i.e. Geissdoerfer et al., 2018) has highlighted a gap in the SBMI design and implementation. Considering this scenario, we introduce, in the next section, a new helpful framework as a guideline for scholars and academics to theorize the correct business innovation process toward sustainability. Such a framework is also helpful for practitioners to plan actions at different firms' departments and implement business model transformation.

Methodology

This study presents a conceptual framework summarizing the several SBM critical dimensions to support the complex process under the SBMI. We have detailed the research process of these phases: (1) the selection of scientific papers, (2) the establishment of the framework's design and (3) the analysis of papers.

The selection of scientific papers

We have adopted the SCOPUS academic database to retrieve helpful literature for creating a new theoretical framework. To find the papers, we used the following keywords: [sustainable business model], [“business model innovation” and “sustainability”], [“business model” and “sustainability”] and [sustainable business model innovation]. These keywords must be present in the abstract, the title and the paper’s keywords.

We have included only papers written in English and published between 2010 and 2021. Moreover, we included only papers belonging to the subject area “Business, Management and Accounting.” The database returned 520 results. After excluding conference papers and duplicities, we selected only papers that we considered relevant based on two criteria: the journal which has published them and the number of citations (>50 citations). For obvious reasons, we have not considered this last criterion for the most recently published papers (papers published from 2018 to 2021). The final search on SCOPUS returned 68 results.

Then, we read the abstract and the title to understand the papers’ consistency with the research aim. In the end, we have selected 51 papers after reading them in full.

Establish of framework's design

We have identified three helpful principles to structure our framework:

1. To focus on value to integrate it into the triple bottom line dimensions (i.e. Evans et al., 2017),

2. To have a multi-stakeholder approach that requires systems thinking (Seiffert & Loch, 2005) and

3. To analyze every aspect of the business model according to a comprehensive approach.

Disregarding some of the principles mentioned earlier can cause them to lose consistency, and it will therefore fail if implemented (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005).

Following these principles, we have intersected the theoretical concepts (academic sources) with practical tools to identify the framework's critical elements.

Academic sources

Regarding academic studies, we have considered the following principles:

1. The three value concepts proposed by Richardson (2008): (1) the value proposition concerning offers, target customers, differentiation, vision and mission; (2) the value creation and delivery system regarding resources, assets, processes, position in the value network relative to customers, competitors, collaborators and all stakeholders and (3) the value capture system linked to the way to make money.

2. The nine building blocks of a BMC proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010): value proposition, customers, relationship, channels, key resources, key activities, key partners, cost and revenues.

3. The ten types of stakeholders identified by Bocken et al. (2013) into the “value mapping tool”: customers, investors and shareholders, employees, suppliers and partners, environment, community, government, external agencies, media and academia.

Richardson's classification does not list the business model’s possible elements, and he only focuses on the value concept and considers the latter only in economic terms. So let us add the BMC of Alexander Osterwalder that clearly shows all the components and their interrelationships. However, while being well-conceived and academically grounded, it has a narrow view of the value proposition, focusing only on the customer and not the stakeholder network. Therefore, we have needed a greater focus on the stakeholders. We considered the value mapping tool Bocken et al. (2014) proposed that aims to understand the positive and negative aspects of the value proposition of the network of stakeholders (Bocken et al., 2014).

Nonacademic sources

About nonacademic sources, we have considered the following principles:

1. The four areas of the B Impact Assessment (BIA) method promoted by Blab, a nonprofit organization: governance, community, environment and workers.

2. The elements of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation framework, created by the United Nations to guide companies to deepen integration of SDGs into business operations and stakeholder engagement: strategy and governance, operations and stakeholder engagement (United Nations Global Compact, 2020).

BLab promotes socially aware business practices by allowing firms to adopt responsible standards voluntarily. By voluntarily joining and meeting a certain level in socially responsible standards, a firm becomes a BCorp. The process of certification generates a B Report that includes several broad categories: governance, workers, community and environment. These categories include further subcategories: the governance category includes “transparency” and “accountability”; the workers category includes “compensation benefits and training”, “ownership” and “work environment”; the community category includes “community products and services” and further enumerated “community practices”; and the environment category includes “environmental products and services”, and further enumerated “environmental practices”.

We have also considered the SDG implementation framework linked to 17 Sustainable Development Goals to deepen the single elements. The 17 SDGs are a worldwide initiative introduced by United Nations in 2004 to encourage firms to adopt social and environmental behaviors.

The analysis of papers

We have analyzed the theoretical papers to describe the framework's single elements identified in the previous phase. With this objective in mind, we have first organized the information into three macro-areas: value proposition, value creation and delivery and value capture.

Then we have identified the specific knowledge about (1) a firm’s purpose and governance, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) customers impact, (4) environmental practices, (5) environmental resources, (6) workers, (7) stakeholders, (8) cost structure, (9) revenue stream and (10) corporate finance.

The third step regards the search for examples within papers for each framework dimension. We carefully read papers with case studies. Finally, the authors have discussed the results among them.

New framework to sustainable business model innovation

Based on the process discussed above, we proposed a multidimensional vision of sustainable BMI, which a specific framework, i.e Figure 1 has illustrated. We discuss below the three macro-areas identified.

Value proposition section

The framework suggests starting the analysis from the value proposition section made up not only by describing new sustainable value, like existing tools, but also by explaining the governance.

The first step is aligning the firms’ aims with sustainable principles. The main action refers to renewing their mission, statements and core values. Organizations can focus on their strengths to achieve this triple positive impact through missions that support core business strategies and unlock the motivation of all employees and collaborators (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). As an example, we quote Danone, a leading firm operating in the nutrition industry explicitly states that it studies and applies solutions that regenerate the environment by promoting the use of resources responsibly (Jones, Hillier, & Comfort, 2015).

The second step concerns transparency, which is often associated with the amount of information an organization is willing to disclose. Transparency cannot exist without ethical action as the presence of an ethical code and an ethical audit (Depken & Zeman, 2018). According to the example given by Enel, since 2002, it has adopted the Code of Ethics, which expresses the commitments and responsibilities in conducting business (Mazza & Furlotti, 2019).

The last element necessary to consider is governance since leading the transformation to a more sustainable business model must be a constant topic on the Board of Directors' agenda. The FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) board has adopted a “diversity policy” as they understand that diversity in the firm’s composition, in terms of age, gender, experience, work background and nationality, is essential for promoting debate and making balanced decisions.

Value creation and delivery section

Following the framework’s logic, we must consider how the value is created and distributed.

First, one must consider the customer area, carefully observing the impact of products or services on health and wellness, support and satisfied needs (Schaltegger, Hansen, & Lüdeke-Freund, 2016). Customers are interested in corporate sustainability. Consequently, the firm examines all marketing activities aimed at sustainability to satisfy the customers’ needs. The sales team also plays a vital role in promoting the firm's values.

For example, we can mention Illycaffè, an Italian company operating in the coffee industry, which bases its customer relationship on maximizing the sustainable value created by reducing the environmental impact of products and packaging. The salesforce guarantees constant contact with B2B customers and updates on all the leading news regarding products, services, promotions and events. Instead of B2C customers, the firm offers shops based on beauty, socialization, creativity and food culture.

Then the framework requires an in-depth study of the leading resources, the key activities and the partnerships. Inserting sustainable ambition into periodical investor relations is relevant to ensure accountability, and the information enables the communication of long-term value generation. Reporting of sustainable progress requires defining specific metrics (Depken & Zeman, 2018). Some environmental dimensions of sustainability activities refer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and waste management.

Another element refers to resources considered essential, such as personnel and the environmental.

Human resources play an essential role in achieving sustainable ambitions. Therefore, it is relevant to analyze some elements concerning workers, such as their benefits or wages, training, work environment, job flexibility and others. To illustrate, the Salvatore Ferragamo’s Group considers the well-being of its workers and the internal environment as fundamental elements for its success. It implements many corporate welfare initiatives to favor balancing each employee's professional and private life (https://sustainability.ferragamo.com/it).

The use of environmental resources, such as renewable energy, is a significant talking point for some firms. There are several ways to purchase renewable energy: buying specific technologies, like solar panels, wind turbines or vegetable oil filters.

For example, AUDI aims to make all the activities “carbon neutral” by 2050, from the supply chain until production. The firm implements the circular economy model through the implementation of “remanufacturing,” the industrial regeneration of used parts or through the introduction of the “Aluminium Closed Loop project”: the scraps of the aluminum sheet are isolated from other waste and sent back to suppliers for new processing (Wellbrock, Ludin, Röhrle, & Gerstlberger, 2020).

Another element of the framework regards the partnership with all stakeholders. Collaboration with government, suppliers, academia, media, external agencies and the community can accelerate innovation to advance sustainable goals.

These external relationships help grow the core business and extend companies’ social licenses to operate (Bruneel, Moray, Stevens, & Fassin, 2016). When companies come together with industry partners, they further raise the playing field for all and pave the way to engage with governments and policymakers to drive action. For example, we can cite the community representing Esselunga, a stakeholder group that influences sustainable practices. Esselunga is an Italian food and mass retail channel company that contributes to the community's economic, social, cultural and well-being development where it operates. The main initiatives implemented last year have focused on three macro-objectives: redistribution of food surpluses, promotion of culture and education, and support for scientific research.

Value capture section

The last area of our framework focuses mainly on the firm’s results and their measurement.

The main question concerns how the firm assesses the impact. There are several metrics that firms can use to assess the triple bottom line integration in the new business model. Such metrics can assess the last year’s turnover and net income, the number of new offices, the hiring of new workers, the new investments attracted, the environmental indices and the customer feedback (Breuer, Fichter, Lüdeke-Freund, & Tiemann, 2018). Tod's group, FCA or ENEL, like most listed companies, use the “Global Reporting Initiative for Sustainability Reporting Standards” indicators defined by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to measure the results of its activities.

Integrating sustainable practices into the capital flow from an economic perspective is essential, and it is from sustainable initiatives that the economic costs derive and consequently the financial investment. These decisions are critical for progress on any sustainable process from investments toward research and development to capital allocations for new facilities.

Further activities concern the updating of risk expectations connected with revenue flows.

Indeed, in the value capture process, firms aim at monetizing the outputs of their activities. Due to products' social and environmental characteristics, managers can increase customer loyalty and willingness to pay, allowing firms to capture higher product prices.

This last section includes the qualitative measurement of the impact concerning mitigation of the destroyed value and the value not captured. To exemplify this qualitative measurement, we mention the permanence of waste from production flows, the nonexploited co-production and the sub-utilized resources about overworking capacity or insufficient use of skills and knowledge.

For each of the three dimensions, we have provided some questions the managers should answer at the end of the sustainable business innovation process and which scholars should study in-depth to provide further theoretical insights. In Table 2, we have summarized the questions we would include in a possible checklist.

Discussion and conclusion

Subject-matter experts consider the SBMI a complex process that changes the core elements of the firm’s logic to create new value for all their stakeholders.

The radicality of organizational change makes the adoption of a sustainable orientation easier for new entrants (start-up) and riskier for incumbents – the existing companies that have been operating their business for a long time. Indeed, the start-up does not transform an existing business model but creates new ones without a history to respect or a tradition to maintain. At the same time, incumbents’ firms must start revising their current business model. The ambiguity of the situation also can bring uncertainty.

Consequently, the research questions based on this study are “how to understand how the value proposition, value creation, and value capture within business model are changed to include economic, environmental, and social issues? What pathways can an organization take?”

In order to fill this gap, we have proposed a novel framework that provides a multidimensional view concern to the SBMI process.

We have divided the new framework into three sections: value proposition, value creation delivery and value capture. We have made up each dimension by different elements deriving from the literature. Then we provided a helpful checklist to interpret the framework.

The section related to value proposition includes the description of new sustainable value. The renewed purpose should stem from an authentic motivation and passion within the firm’s organizational culture. It is relevant notice that the governance became a central element to consider within this dimension despite studies on the business model often do not consider it. The second section of the new framework considers the customer’s sphere to create value and the essential resources, activities and partnerships to delivery it. The literature reveals the importance of the sales team that plays a role in promoting the firm's values. Moreover, all the activities of this section must guarantee transparency and ethics. The last area of the framework focuses on the impact and its measurement.

Theoretical implications

The present study provides a new knowledge on the SBMI process design by introducing a new framework.

From the theoretical point of view, a comprehensive framework for developing SBMI could represent a learning framework for researchers. Indeed, the framework proposed should seek to identify the current assumptions about the phenomenon and improve them.

Adopting a dynamic perspective for the business model and introducing a valuable tool to understand how the business model changes to incorporate triple sustainability are contributing factors in the theory development of the BMI and sustainable innovation.

Another theoretical contribution lies in the approach adopted to find the critical areas of the new framework: we have linked theoretical and practical sources. We have sought to develop an integrative framework of elements that are easy to investigate to facilitate the BMI process. This approach is still rare in the published scientific articles and other theoretical frameworks dealing with BMI.

Moreover, the new framework differs from recent academic efforts (Breuer et al., 2018), above all, by the theoretical approach at its foundation. For example, to build his framework, Ludeke-Freud considers the business model a mediating device that can help him achieve sustainable innovation (Lüdeke-Freund, 2020). So, the business model is the vehicle of innovation. In this case, the BMI construct is the core of the new framework, not the business model. The business model represents the theme of innovation.

Managerial implications

About practical implications, the proposed framework can serve as a guideline for a reorganization that aspires to increase the level of sustainability within an organization. It can help managers and consultants: (1) to experiment, orient, test and implement the business model transformation and the consequent organizational change and (2) to analyze and correct transformation processes that have already started.

Moreover, the study provides an essential feature of the sustainable innovation process, which is helpful for practitioners: they can initially analyze the identified elements in a sequence and then follow an iterative process that assumes continuous questioning of the business model until it achieves complete coherence between all parties.

Therefore, such a framework reduces resistance to modification of the business model within firms and promotes the commitment of individuals to the BMI implementation.

Even if the framework applies to all firms that want to change their business model toward sustainability, since the governmental organizations until the private businesses, experts have designed this framework for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are less used to dealing with sustainable indicators and metrics. The scenario forces large corporations to follow the strict business model transformation processes and monitor them with indicators for implementing sustainability. For example, we can mention the listed companies that use the GRI Indicators to disclose their sustainable results in most cases. SMEs faced with these complex processes may become discouraged and implement the organizational change process incorrectly or not implement it at all.

Limitations and future research

This research is subject to certain limitations: we have used a theoretical approach in SBMI, and we have proposed a framework that may be interpreted differently by various researchers.

Consequently, the validation of the results, which one could do through the qualitative methodology of the case studies, is not present in this study due to space constraints in the article and the risk of sidetracking the reader. Therefore, future studies can use this methodology to understand our framework's applicability and suitability in different contexts and smaller and larger firms alike.

Moreover, future research might develop a system of metrics for each element of the framework to measure value delivery and value captured by the firm. Consequently, this could create the basis for future quantitative studies of SBMI, a segment of business model studies that is less important than qualitative empirical studies.

References

Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). Business model innovations for electric mobility—what can be learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1).

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2020). Business model innovation strategy: Transformational concepts and tools for entrepreneurial leaders. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Andreini, D., Bettinelli, C., Foss, N. J., & Mismetti, M. (2021). Business model innovation: A review of the process-based literature. Journal of Management and Governance, 25, 1–33.

Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 175–186.

Berglund, H., & Sandström, C. (2013). Business model innovation from an open systems perspective: structural challenges and managerial solutions. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3–4), 274–285.

Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482–497.

Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19.

Breuer, H., Fichter, K., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Tiemann, I. (2018). Sustainability-oriented business model development: Principles, criteria and tools. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 256–286.

Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., & Fassin, Y. (2016). Balancing competing logics in for-profit social enterprises: A need for hybrid governance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 263–288.

Bucherer, E., Eisert, U., & Gassmann, O. (2012). Towardssystematic business model innovation: lessons from product innovation management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 183–198.

Casadesus‐Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor‐based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 464–482.

Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation:(re) establishing the missing linkages. Management decision.

Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy and Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.

Cillo, V., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26, 1012–1025.

Depken, D., & Zeman, C. (2018). Small business challenges and the triple bottom line, TBL: Needs assessment in a Midwest State, USA. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 44–50.

Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 597–608.

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227.

Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 262–271.

Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1218-e1232.

Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainablebusiness model innovation: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 401–416.

Johnson, M. W., & Lafley, A. G (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and renewal. Harvard Business Press.

Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2015). Water stewardship and corporate sustainability: A case study of reputation management in the food and drinks industry. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(1), 116–126.

Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity: structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a Cloud business model. R&D Management, 44(3), 322–340.

Labbè, M., & Mazet, T. (2005). Die Geschaftsmodellinnovations-Matrix: gesch€aftsmodellinnovationen analysieren und bewerten. Der Betr, 17, 897e902.

Landoni, P., Dell’era, C., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., Verganti, R., & Manelli, L. (2020). Business model innovation in cultural and creative industries: Insights from three leading mobile gaming firms. Technovation, 92.

Lantano, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Panniello, U. (2022). Business model innovation in video-game consoles to face the threats of mobile gaming: Evidence from the case of Sony PlayStation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121210.

Lemus-Aguilar, I., Morales-Alonso, G., Ramirez-Portilla, A., & Hidalgo, A. (2019). Sustainable business models through the lens of organizational design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(19), 5379.

Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1159–1166.

Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2020). Sustainableentrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: Integrative framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 665–681.

Markides, C. (2006). Disruptiveinnovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25.

Mazza, T., & Furlotti, K. (2019). Quality of code of ethics: An empirical analysis on the stakeholder employee. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), 1377–1402.

Mitchell, D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), 15–21.

Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, C. B. (2004). Business model innovation breakthrough moves. Journal of Business Strategy, 25(1), 16–26.

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 1–17.

Presenza, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Natalicchio, A. (2019). Business model innovation for sustainability. Highlights from the tourism and hospitality industry. Sustainability, 11, 2–5.

Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133–144.

Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models for sustainability: A conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 11–35.

Santos, J., Spector, B., & Van der Heyden, L. (2009). Toward a theory of business model innovation within incumbent firms. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 3–10.

Seiffert, M., & Loch, C. (2005). Systemic thinking in environmental management: Support for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(12), 1197–1202.

Snihur, Y., & Wiklund, J. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 305–325.

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172–194.

United Nations Global Compact (2020). Report“SDG ambition – scaling business impact for the decade of action”, available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/5732.

Wellbrock, W., Ludin, D., Röhrle, L., & Gerstlberger, W. (2020). Sustainability in the automotive industry, importance of and impact on automobile interior–insights from an empirical survey. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 5(1), 1–11.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308–325.

IR