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

net/publication/319172289

Sustainable Business Model Research and Practice: Emerging Field or Passing

Fancy?

Article  in  Journal of Cleaner Production · December 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093

CITATIONS READS

245 4,450

2 authors, including:

Florian Lüdeke-Freund
ESCP Europe Berlin
116 PUBLICATIONS   8,102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

International Conference on New Business Models View project

Values-Based Innovation Management - Innovating by What We Care About View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Florian Lüdeke-Freund on 02 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sustainable Business Model Research and Practice:
Emerging Field or Passing Fancy?

Florian Lüdeke-Freund, ESCP Europe Business School, Berlin, Germany

fluedeke-freund@escpeurope.eu

Krzysztof Dembek, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

krzysztof.dembek@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

This article reflects on the current state of the dynamically growing research and practice on
sustainable business models (SBMs), motivated by the question of whether dealing with
SBMs is just a passing fancy or an emerging field, maybe even a field in its own right. We
follow Ehrenfeld (2004), who asked a similar question for the field of industrial ecology in
this journal, and reflect on the major beliefs and concepts underpinning SBM research and
practice, tools and resources, authorities, and the related community of actors. These elements
are considered characteristics of a field and must be institutionalised in academia, industry
and government for a field to emerge and progress. We therefore also identify some
institutionalisation tendencies. As a result, we conclude that SBM research and practice show
traits of an emerging field. It is however too early to foresee if it will develop as a sub-field
within already established domains (“sub-field hypothesis”) or as a stand-alone field (“stand-
alone hypothesis”). We argue that the sub-field and the stand-alone positioning may hamper
the unfolding of the field’s full potential. Instead, we propose that the SBM field needs to
assume the role of an integrative field to break existing academic niches and silos and
maximise practical impact (“integration hypothesis”). Our observations indicate that the SBM
field is indeed developing into an integrative field and force. But we need to better understand
and strengthen this development, for example by crafting a dedicated SBM research
programme. A series of critical reviews could be a starting point for such an endeavour.

Accepted for publication, uncorrected author version, reference:

Lüdeke-Freund, F. & Dembek, K. (2017): Sustainable Business Model Research and

Practice: New Field or Passing Fancy?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 168, 1668-1678,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093.

1
1 Introduction
The business model concept has become very prominent over the past 15 years in both
research and practice. While business model research is a dynamically growing field that
produces a significant number of articles, special issues and even whole journals (Wirtz et al.,
2016; Zott et al., 2011), the concept itself is of increasing importance for practitioners dealing
with more competitive, complex and fast moving business environments (IBM, 2015). The
rise of modern information and communication technologies and e-business in the late 1990s
is often seen as the advent of business model research (Alt & Zimmermann, 2014), of which
theoretical foundations have been identified as being rooted in information technology,
organisation theory and strategic management (Wirtz, 2016). It did not take long until
researchers dealing with sustainable development in general, and corporate sustainability,
corporate social responsibility or sustainable design in particular, started to explore whether
and how the business model concept can be used to investigate business-based solutions for
ecological and social problems. Practitioners are increasingly interested in the manifold forms
these solutions can take, ranging from business models for new technologies and social
innovations to hybrid and non-profit organisations and how their development can be
supported.

However, reviewing the related literature, which has been done in different articles, special
issues and research projects (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons et al., 2013; Boons & Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013; Dentchev et al., 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016),
shows that sustainable business model researchers and practitioners have a tendency to talk
mainly to their sustainability peers, e.g. in terms of how they frame and work on research and
practice problems, the journals and other outlets they publish in. This may indicate that we are
looking at a fragmented field that is either trapped in the niches in which it emerged, such as
the traditional business model and corporate sustainability fields, or that has already become a
new, isolated silo. In both cases, this field would not unfold its full potential and would
contribute to further fragmentation of sustainability research in terms of niche or silo building.
Furthermore, the notion of sustainable business model (SBM) is often used in an inconsistent
way, confusing “sustainable” as financially viable and “sustainable” as a form of triple bottom
line contribution to a sustainable development of the natural environment and society. Does
this mean that dealing with sustainable business models is maybe just a buzzword-driven
phenomenon and a passing fancy – or does this mean that a new field of research and practice
is emerging?

In its early days, some scholars treated the business model concept as a passing fancy and
labelled it “murky” and as an expression of “the Internet’s destructive lexicon”, inviting faulty
thinking and self-delusion in its attempt to replace advanced concepts such as strategy and
competitive advantage (Porter, 2001, 73). But the business model concept and the related field
of business model research have matured and the latter has entered into a phase of critical
self-reflection to better understand and define its “research programme” (Lakatos, 1970) in
terms of major topics, research methods and theories (e.g. Arend, 2013; Baden-Fuller &
Mangematin, 2013). According to Lecocq et al. (2010), the field went through stages of
concept emergence, concept definition, empirical studies and conceptual breakdown, while its
current stage can be characterized as theorisation stage (see also Wirtz et al., 2016). If we
2
accepted SBM research and practice as a field, we could argue that it is currently in a dynamic
state of iterating between the first four phases, preparing the ground for future theorisation.
Looking at seminal articles, such as Wells and Nieuwenhuis (2004) and Stubbs and Cocklin
(2008), we see that early works on SBMs (also referred to as “business models for
sustainability”; Lüdeke-Freund, 2009) deal with the organisational and cultural preconditions
of business models that contribute positively to ecological and social development. Analysing
business models is also seen as a means to overcome the technology bias of traditional eco-
innovation approaches and move towards system-level innovations, e.g. through product-
service systems (e.g. Hansen et al., 2009; Tukker, 2015). Others see SBMs as tools to re-scale
and re-localize monolithic industrial infrastructures such as automobile manufacturing (e.g.
Wells & Nieuwenhuis, 2004), while again others investigate the links between SBMs and
business success through deliberate corporate sustainability management and business model
innovation (e.g. Schaltegger et al., 2012). Research on SBMs is often rooted in ecological
sustainability, but some scholars see them also as a means to address social issues such as
inclusion and socio-economic development at the “base of the pyramid” (e.g. Michelini &
Fiorentino, 2012; Sánchez & Ricart, 2010; Seelos & Mair, 2005, 2007).

After one decade of SBM research we can see that a community is evolving in sectors such as
academia, business and government. It is time to step back and reflect on this community’s
state of development, the topics that are studied, the resources that are developed and used,
and the methods that are applied. Such a reflection is necessary for several reasons. For
example, the better we understand the current state of this field, the better we can define its
major topics, theories and methods and gaps therein (agenda setting). The clearer the specific
topics, theories and methods are defined, the easier we can set up research collaborations as
well as mutual transfer between research and practice with partners from other fields and from
industry (research collaboration). The more SBM research and practice are recognized as a
legitimate area, the better researchers and practitioners – in particular in the early stages of
their careers – can position themselves on their respective job markets (career development).
Therefore, we rephrase the above question and ask: Does research and practice on
sustainable business models show traits of a field in its own right?

In 2004, John Ehrenfeld published an article in the Journal of Cleaner Production, asking
“Industrial ecology: A new field or only a metaphor?” (Ehrenfeld, 2004). Ehrenfeld was
asking this question ten years after industrial ecology became a topic of academic interest. He
discussed four major traits to explore whether industrial ecology is a field or not. We will
follow his example and use these traits to discuss whether research and practice on SBMs is a
new field in section 2. Section 3 takes a closer look at current tendencies of institutionalising
SBM topics in academic research, business practice and through government efforts. As
Ehrenfeld (2004) argues, traits of a new field and its institutionalisation are required to
establish a new, rigorous and relevant field. In section 4, we discuss our observations and
explain what they mean for the current state and future development of research and practice
on sustainable business models. We finish by identifying limitations, offering possible ways
for future research in section 5 and providing some concluding remarks in section 6.

3
2 Sustainable business models – a field?
To discuss whether dealing with SBMs represents a field of research and practice we have to
ask for the specific traits of a field. A field has to be sufficiently different from related and
more established fields. The question thus is whether the research and practice emerging
around SBMs are unique enough to be considered a field. If this is the case, we have to
understand and develop the traits of this field to advance it further in the future and prepare
the ground for a consistent research programme as well as communities of practice. If this is
not the case, we will find that SBMs are rather an element of an already established field or
maybe even nothing but a buzzword or a temporary phenomenon.

We follow Ehrenfeld (2004) and ask: Is SBM research and practice …

1. … based on “foundational beliefs” and a “cohesive set of concepts” that provide a

common meaning among actors and allow communicating within and across the field?
2. … supported by “practical resources” including standard tools, textbooks and other
forms of practical guidance?
3. … cultivating an “authoritative structure” with regard to the quality and consistency
with which the potential field’s diverse topics are treated?
4. … building on a “community of actors” adhering to and contributing to the first three
traits?

We discuss these four aspects in the remaining part of this section. Following, in Section 3 we
will then discuss the issue of institutionalisation.

2.1 Major beliefs and concepts

The first aspect, following Ehrenfeld (2004, 826), is whether SBM research and practice build
a “well-rooted foundational idea”. Recent review articles and projects show a diversity of
“orientations” that SBMs can follow to contribute to solving ecological, social and economic
problems. Major orientations are e.g. to support the diffusion of new and clean technologies,
social innovations and organisational forms (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013), which can be
refined as archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014) or patterns aiming at improving the triple bottom
line performance of businesses and other forms of hybrid or non-profit organisations (e.g.
Bisgaard et al., 2012; Clinton & Whisnant, 2014; Jenkins et al., 2011). These orientations are
normatively grounded in the belief that concepts such as sustainable development and social
justice should guide the development and implementation of business models. That is, the
“well-rooted foundational idea” related to SBM research and practice is that SBMs are a
means to help solving ecological, social and economic problems by following normative
concepts such as sustainable development or social justice. This normative grounding leads to
the formulation of particular propositions and concepts associated with SBMs (Breuer et al.,
under review). We find different examples in the literature.

Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) suggest six propositions to characterize SBMs, beginning with an
organisational purpose that is defined in terms of ecological, social and economic outcomes.
In their view, financial profits are rather a means than an end and sustainability is “the right
thing to do”. This normative stance leads to valuing nature and putting the success of

4
stakeholders first, which is based on the assumption that an organisation’s success is directly
linked to the wellbeing of its various stakeholders. Nature, too, should be treated as a
stakeholder and negative effects on it should be minimised or eliminated. Their definition of
success for “stakeholders, including local communities, suppliers, partners, employees, and
customers” (ibid., 122) points to the need to propose and create value beyond mere customer
value. Such a business approach requires visionary leaders who motivate cultural and
structural change and a “sustainability mindset” throughout the organisation. This mindset has
to be supported by according performance measurement and management systems,
sustainability accounting and reporting. Finally, SBMs require both a systems perspective as
well as an organisational perspective (França et al., 2017).

While Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) propose overarching characteristics on the organisation and
systems levels, Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013) follow a component-based approach, using
the four pillars of Osterwalder and Pigneur’s (2009) “Business Model Canvas”, and derive a
set of four normative requirements. They argue that customer value propositions should
provide measurable ecological and/or social value in concert with customer value and that it
should balance customer and societal needs. It follows that the development of SBMs requires
an understanding of the value proposition that assumes a more complex meaning since the
forms of value being addressed are multiple and not only for customers. Instead, public goods
that are (or should be) freely available for everyone, such as clean air, as well as different
interests and values held by different stakeholder groups need to be respectfully accounted
for. This in turn leads to a broadened concept of organisational responsibility. The supply
chain, as a central business model component, should involve partners who take responsibility
for their own and the focal organisation’s stakeholders, and the focal organisation itself
should not shift its own socio-ecological burdens to its suppliers. The customer interface
should motivate customers to take responsibility for their consumption; in turn, the focal
organisation should not shift negative effects onto the natural environment and society.
Finally, these authors propose, organisations need to develop pricing models that include as
many customers as possible, instead of maximizing the price and profit margin of every
offering (a principle that can be found in so called “freemium” models, for example). This
might require patient investors who agree on a financial model that distributes costs and
benefits in a just way among an organisation’s stakeholders. The accounting systems used to
control and manage such models should also consider ecological and social impacts.

In another article that formulates propositions, Upward and Jones (2016), taking a “strongly
sustainable” perspective, formulate four formative propositions. A strongly sustainable
business model creates ecological, social and economic value and takes its embedding value
network into account, which implies an extended understanding of the value that is proposed,
delivered and finally created. The concept of value itself is broadened to forms of value that
meet the needs of actors in aesthetic, psychological, physiological, utilitarian and/or monetary
terms. This extended perspective on a business model’s value network and extended
understanding of value requires a systemic conception of business models as being embedded
within wider ecological, societal and economic contexts. Finally, Upward and Jones (2016)
propose a new kind of metric, “tri-profit”, which integrates all forms of value creation into

5
one single measure, instead of measuring these in parallel, as with traditional triple-bottom-
line approaches.

These three exemplary articles build on reviews of empirical and theoretical insights and have
been published across a long time span. Despite their different methodological approaches,
we can identify at least five features that represent major beliefs and concepts, and thus a kind
of foundational idea underlying SBM research and practice. These features are (i) an explicit
sustainability orientation, integrating ecological, social and economic concerns, (ii) an
extended notion of value creation, questioning traditional definitions of value and success,
(iii) an extended notion of value capture in terms of those for whom value is created, (iv) an
explicit emphasis on the need to consider stakeholders and not just customers, and (v) an
extended perspective on the wider system in which an SBM is embedded. Although these five
features might appear intuitively appealing and straightforward, they in fact call for a
grounding of SBMs that is deeply rooted in sustainability principles, in a way that ensures the
possibility of effective contributions to sustainable development. However, most conceptual
approaches and case examples are dealing with business model modifications, such as
improving green product features or process efficiencies, which are not fully aligned with
deep sustainability principles (cf. Broman & Robèrt, 2017). Examples of more fundamental
SBM conceptions or cases are rare (e.g. França et al., 2017; Upward & Jones, 2016).

2.2 Practical tools and resources

The second aspect refers to different kinds of practical resources that can support the
development and implementation of SBMs, including tools, textbooks and other forms of
practical guidance. These practical resources are needed to translate the above discussed
beliefs, propositions and concepts into business model designs that in turn inform
organisational development and operational activities in practice. The first kind of practical
support that comes to mind consists of tools that support SBM development. Since traditional
business modelling methods and tools are only of limited use here, new tools seem to be
needed (Breuer et al., under review; Joyce & Paquin, 2016). Again, we present selected
examples to illustrate this point.

Based on the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009), which can be seen as a
sort of “market standard” for traditional business modelling, some sustainability-oriented
canvas-tools were developed. For example, the “Strongly Sustainable Business Model
Canvas” developed by Upward (2013), which is a very thorough revision and extension of the
original Business Model Canvas (see also Kurucz et al., 2017; Upward & Jones, 2016). Its
coverage of business model elements and contents has been extended to not only include the
original elements but to also represent an organisation’s contexts (natural environment,
society and financial economy), its stakeholders and their needs. The most recent iteration of
this tool, the “Flourishing Business Canvas” (Elkington & Upward, 2016), is currently being
field-tested and additional resources, such as a toolkit containing instructions, examples and
design principles are currently under development. Another canvas-tool is proposed by Joyce
and Paquin (2016). Their “Triple Layered Business Model Canvas” makes use of Osterwalder
and Pigneur’s (2009) structured canvas approach to help organisations that wish to innovate
upon their business models and create, deliver and capture ecological, social and financial

6
forms of value in an integrated manner. The tool adds a second layer to the original canvas,
with nine ecological elements that follow a lifecycle approach, as well as a third layer with
nine social elements that follow a stakeholder approach.

As a third example, the “Business Innovation Kit”, a card-based facilitation tool, supports
teams in the exploration and co-definition of business models for new or existing
organisations (Breuer, 2013). A structured process guides interdisciplinary teams through
different aspects of business modelling, from initial vision development (“grounding”) to
defining complete models. The tool features two card decks to support an orientation towards
sustainability. The first deck of cards describes five sustainability innovation maturity levels,
ascending from incremental innovations (e.g. changes in existing products) to radical
approaches (e.g. developing new production networks), to help developing a strategic
roadmap for an innovation project. The second card deck describes eight business case drivers
as levers to improve a business model’s sustainability performance in concert e.g. with costs,
risks or reputation (Breuer & Lüdeke-Freund, 2017a, 2017b; Schaltegger et al., 2012).

Books and textbooks are another important type of practical guidance when they are accepted
by large parts of a community of practice, i.e. when they turn into standards. First textbooks
emerged already in the early 2000s in the traditional business model field, e.g. Afuah’s (2004)
“Business models: A strategic management approach”, and a constant stream of textbooks,
monographs and research anthologies has been published since then (e.g. Wirtz, 2016).
Recently, journals dedicated entirely to business model research were founded, such as the
Journal of Business Models. Books on sustainable business models are still rare, exceptions
are “Managing green business model transformations” by Sommer (2012), “Business models
for sustainability” by Wells (2013) or “New business models” by Jonker (2016); some
research anthologies are currently under development. To our knowledge, no textbook has
been published yet. So far, researchers and practitioners can find some more guidance in a
range of market and policy studies, e.g. on green business models (e.g. Beltramello et al.,
2013; Bisgaard et al., 2012; Diaz Lopez et al., 2014), social business models (e.g. Clinton &
Whisnant, 2014; Jenkins et al., 2011) or more specific topics such as business models for the
circular economy (e.g. Bakker et al., 2014; Kiørboe et al., 2015).

Research results, practice examples and resources such as publications and tools for
traditional business modelling can be found on a growing number of online platforms (e.g.
businessmodelcommunity.com). Such platforms have become major tools to disseminate up-
to-date knowledge among students, researchers and business practitioners. The largest online
platform that is currently available to disseminate information about SBMs is an online
network of 750 members convened by OCAD University’s “Strongly Sustainable Business
Model Group” (forum.ssbmg.com). This group brings together a broad range of disciplines
and industries to facilitate exchange e.g. about new research projects, conferences, case
studies and tools. A network with a focus on SBM research is evolving around a related blog
(sustainablebusinessmodel.org). And a new type of online platform has recently been
launched in the form of the first massive open online course (MOOC) on “New Business
Models” (iversity.org/en/courses/new-business-models).

7
Currently available practical resources that can support SBM research and practice consist of
a new generation of business modelling tools, a small but growing number of authoritative
publications and diverse online platforms. This development shows that specific and
dedicated support and knowledge infrastructures are increasingly available.

2.3 Emerging “authorities”

In his article, Ehrenfeld (2004) discussed the leading journal in the field of industrial ecology
(Journal of Industrial Ecology) and a major conference as “authorities”. We use the notion of
authority in a similar, very humble way; not to describe persons or groups who dominate (or
even dictate) particular interpretations and applications of SBMs, but to refer to those
institutions that actively facilitate research, discussions and other forms of exchange that are
necessary to develop the major beliefs and concepts (Section 2.1) further. Here, journals,
other publications and conferences can be seen as most important authoritative institutions.

In terms of journals, we found eight special issues featuring articles dealing with SBMs
(Table 1). These eight special issues were found in seven different journals. The Journal of
Cleaner Production published one issue on “Sustainable innovation and business models” in
2013 and will publish another one on “Embracing the variety of sustainable business models”
in 2017. The 2013 special issue can be seen as quite influential with 297 total citations in Web
of Science (398 in Scopus, 963 in Google Scholar, as of November 2016). The current special
issue will extend the journal’s central role as discussion facilitator. It is important to note that
the earlier special issues seem to apply a rather broad understanding of the notion of business
model and also deal with aspects such as strategy and organisation development, while the
more recent special issues have a clearer focus on the business model as a distinct concept.

Table 1. Sustainable business model special issues.

No. Year Special issue
Arevalo, J.; Castelló, I.; Colle, S. de; Lenssen, G.; Neumann, K. & Zollo, M. (Eds.) (2011):
1 Sspecial Issue: “Integrating Sustainability in Business Models”, Journal of Management
2011 Development, Vol. 30, No. 10.
Svensson, G. & Wagner, B. (Eds.) (2011): Special Issue: “Sustainable Business Models”,
2
European Business Review, Vol. 23, No. 4.
Boons, F.; Montalvo, C.; Quist, J. & Wagner, M. (2013): Special Issue: “Sustainable innovation
3 2013
and business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45.
Agafonow, A. & Donaldson, C. (Eds.) (2015): Special Issue: “Unveiling the economic rationale
4
behind the social business model”, Social Business, Vol. 5, No. 1.
2015
Pedersen, E. & Gardetti, M. (Eds.) (2015): Special Issue: “New Business Models for Sustainable
5
Fashion”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, No. 57.
Jabłoński, A. (Ed.) (2016): Special Issue: “Sustainable Business Models”, Sustainability, Vol.
6
7/8.
2016 Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E. & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (Eds.) (2016): Special Issue: “Business Models
7 for Sustainability: Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Transformation”, Organization &
Environment, Vol. 29, No. 1.
Dentchev, N.; Baumgartner, R.; Dieleman, H.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Jonker, J.; Nyberg, T.; Rauter,
8 2017 R.; Rosano, M.; Snihur, Y.; Tang, X. & van Hoof, B. (Eds.) (under development): Special Issue:
“Embracing the variety of sustainable business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production.

In a bibliographic analysis of journal articles published between 2003 and early 2015,
Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2016) found that the top three journals in terms of the number of
articles were Energy Policy (17 articles), Journal of Cleaner Production (15 articles), and
Business Strategy and the Environment (9 articles). Most journals in the sample contributed

8
one or two articles only, showing that the three top journals can be identified as the main
place for academic debates about SBMs (as of early 2015).

Besides academic publications, there is a growing number of market and policy reports that
may have an influence on business practitioners and policy makers. These include e.g. studies
by the European Union (Diaz Lopez et al., 2014), the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) (Beltramello et al., 2013), or the International Finance
Corporation/World Bank Group (Jenkins et al., 2011). These and further reports either target
companies, presenting best practices as well as advantages and disadvantages of modifying
existing and developing completely new business models, or policy makers, aiming to
motivate funding programmes and policies to support technologies and ways of producing
and consuming that can be taken up and better marketed by SBMs. These organisations and
their studies, including think tanks such as SustainAbility (Clinton & Whisnant, 2014), are
trying to support SBMs in practice and to give them a voice in the domain of public policy
making. Therefore, their publications can be seen as authoritative resources for practitioners.

Another way of stimulating and facilitating discussion and exchange are conferences. While
the wider sustainability community can draw on several specialised conferences such as the
Greening of Industry Network (GIN) conferences (established 1991) or the European
Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP) (established 1994),
dedicated conferences for SBM-related research and practice have been created only recently
with the “Next Generation Business Models” (established 2015, launched at the Hanze
University of Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands) and the “New Business Models”
conference series (established 2016, launched at Toulouse Business School, France). In
addition, a growing number of conferences from areas such as sustainable design, engineering
and manufacturing, entrepreneurship and management are increasingly calling for SBM
papers. Even the 2016 edition of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting featured a
dedicated SBM symposium.

2.4 The community

A field needs a community of actors – including e.g. academics, business practitioners and
policy makers – who adhere and contribute to the first three traits, argue about foundational
beliefs and concepts, create and use major resources and engage in the development of
authorities (Ehrenfeld, 2004). Different types of actors were mentioned above. The question is
whether they already form a community or have the potential to do so in the future.

We identified a range of authors, journals and practice-oriented institutions dealing with

fundamental questions of SBMs. These actors and institutions are often cross-referencing
their works, also beyond research-practice boundaries, which can be seen as a sign of mutual
interest, exchange and enrichment. A particular form of research-practice exchange occurs
around tools that were developed based on academic research and that explicitly target
business practitioners, e.g. the Flourishing Business Canvas (Elkington & Upward, 2016) or
the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (Joyce & Paquin, 2016). These tools are not only
showing the mutual and shared interests of academics and practitioners but also that

9
interdisciplinary work, bringing together sociologists, psychologists, business administrators,
natural scientists and designers, is a key feature of dealing with SBMs.

In both cases, research-practice exchange and interdisciplinary work, communication and

exchange are crucial and an important function of community building. Several community
building mechanisms have already been implemented, mainly based on internet platforms and
social media. The above mentioned internet groups and blogs, but also the New Business
Model conference series and the leading role played by a small number of journals are
showing that a community – at least an informal network (cf. Wenger & Snyder, 2000) or an
informal network of networks – is emerging and actively organising itself. As shown, this
community also includes institutions with a focus on business practice and policy making.

The next phase would be the development of specialised communities of practice within the
informal network (ibid.). The importance of internet platforms and social media to enhance
the reflective capacities of communities of practice has been studied in different contexts (e.g.
teacher education, Yang, 2009). Since such channels are extensively used by those interested
in SBMs, there should be sufficient potential to strengthen the emerging informal networks in
the future and to help in developing communities of practice.

3 The institutionalisation of the SBM research and practice

As we indicate in the previous section, foundational beliefs and concepts, a base of practical
tools and resources, authorities and a community of actors are emerging around SBM research
and practice, operating in both digital and physical spaces. While these aspects are necessary
to define SBM research and practice as a field, it is necessary for these elements to be
institutionalised for the field to persist and develop over time (Ehrenfeld, 2004). Through
institutions and institutionalisation of knowledge the field not only establishes the interactions
between actors and the rules according to which these interactions happen, but also influences
the different spheres of societal life (Ehrenfeld, 2004; Freidson, 1986).

Drawing on institutional and stakeholder theories, it can be observed that institutionalisation

processes occur as actors within a field interact with one another, using and transforming the
knowledge existing in the field in relation to the issues of interest and their specific contexts
(Avetisyan & Ferrary, 2013; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Freeman, 1984; Hoffman, 1999;
Scott, 2008). Channels of dialogue and interest are established through these interactions
(Hoffman, 1999). In the case of SBMs, this happens distinctively across three interrelated
areas: academia, industry and government. Academia creates knowledge that can be translated
to industries and their specific contexts in which this knowledge can be applied according to
the policies and rules created by the government. Although we acknowledge that manifold
relations exist between these three spheres (e.g. industry or government may present problems
to academia, shifting the starting point of knowledge creation), we will rather concentrate on
the general roles of these spheres instead of their distinct relations. Such an analysis is beyond
the scope of this article, calling for dedicated studies on this issue.

10
3.1 Academia

The establishment of the SBM field in academia takes place through teaching, research and
initiatives that translate academic into practical knowledge. In teaching, SBMs constitute a
key element of numerous programmes delivered both in person and online. Sustainable
business model learning units form part of sustainability degrees at a growing number of
universities. Examples include the MBA in Sustainability Management offered by the Centre
for Sustainability Management (CSM) at Leuphana University (Germany), programmes at
Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands) and the University of Cambridge (UK), as
well as the above mentioned MOOC on New Business Models.

Similarly, a growing number of university-based research centres with different disciplinary

backgrounds deal with SBM issues. For example, The University of Cambridge’s Centre for
Industrial Sustainability, an interdisciplinary centre linking engineering and management,
conducts SBM research in the context of diverse industrial systems with the aim to generate
and disseminate practical knowledge (e.g. how to develop sustainable supply chains and
SBMs in the garment industry). The University of Melbourne Asia Pacific Social Impact
Centre (APSIC) uses SBMs as a lens to study solutions to complex social and environmental
problems. One part of this programme focuses on interventions that address poverty in South-
East Asia, for example in a project undertaken together with AGREA, a Filipino company
that aims to convert an entire island into a sustainable economy. Furthermore, Canadian
OCAD University hosts the “Strongly Sustainable Business Model Group”, facilitating
collaboration between industry practitioners, faculty members and graduate students. The
globally acting Network for Business Sustainability (NBS), located at Ivey Business School at
Western University (Canada), integrates SBMs into its research-based knowledge base that is
prepared and edited to serve as practical guidance for thousands of companies around the
globe that make use of NBS’s knowledge base. A study funded by NBS South Africa, hosted
by the Graduate School of Business at the University of Cape Town, reviews the state of the
art of “business models for shared value” (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016) and shows that a broad
range of academics, research institutions, political organisations, and different kinds of
companies are dealing with SBM issues. NBS and its branch NBS South Africa are using
different channels to share their knowledge and make it permanently available for researchers
and practitioners.1 This work aims to contribute to the institutionalisation of particular tools
and resources as well as building a research-practice community. Another example of
university-based research-practice transfer is the Institute for Manufacturing at the University
of Cambridge and its industrial sustainability research focus.2 SBM studies and tools as well
as systematic practice transfer are elements of this research focus, offering research-based
instruments such as the “Cambridge Value Mapping Tool” or the “Sustainable Value Analysis
Tool” to support SBM development (Vladimirova, 2016; Yang et al., 2017).

Another important form of long-term commitment and thus institutionalisation is the

dedication of professorships and chairs to SBM topics. We found different examples,
including a “Professor of Sustainable Business Models” at NHTV Breda University of

1
See http://nbs.net/topic/strategy/business-models-for-shared-value/
2
See http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/industrial-sustainability/

11
Applied Sciences (the Netherlands), a professorship focussing on transitions towards an
inclusive economy through new business models at Hanze University of Applied Sciences
Groningen (the Netherlands) as well as assistant professor positions at the Swedish KTH
Royal Institute of Technology dedicated to topics such as “Industrial Dynamics and
Sustainable Business Models” or “Resource Efficient Business Models for Recycling of
Materials”.

Finally, official events such as workshops and symposia that form an important part of
academic life provide further evidence of the institutionalisation of SBM topics in academia.
Examples, such as the SBM symposium at the 2016 Academy of Management Annual
Meeting or the New Business Models conference were already mentioned above.

In summary, the SBM field has found its place in every aspect of academia. Remarkably,
universities that embrace SBMs within their teaching, research and other activities do so from
diverse disciplinary perspectives, including corporate sustainability management, engineering
and design as well as industry-specific research foci. At the same time, however, SBM
research seems to form a clearly distinctive area within these disciplines, as for example
illustrated by the fact that professorships are being dedicated to SBM topics with the aim to
investigate solutions for a broad range of complex ecological and social problems.

3.2 Industry

The search for ways to implement SBMs in the industry is rapidly growing, driven on one
side by academia, as shown above, and by consulting companies of all sorts on the other. The
big consulting companies, such as KPMG and Deloitte, and smaller boutique consulting
companies, such as Finch & Beak or Root Cause, show interest and start applying SBMs in
their own practice, including master classes and advice to their clients.

Further, there are global, multi-sectorial movements and business groups where the pursuit of
SBMs is well established and forms the focal area of their activities. One such group is the “B
Team” founded by Sir Richard Branson. Another example is the integrated reporting
framework issued by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), where the
business model and organisational value creation (not just financial, but defined in relation to
six different capitals) are the key concepts on which the understanding and reporting of all
company activities is based (CIMA et al., 2013; EY & IIRC, 2013). The IIRC has recently
conducted a trial of changing the reporting with about one hundred multinational companies.
This business model-based reporting allows companies to understand and communicate their
broader impacts in relation to their business models instead of focusing separately on
ecological, social and economic aspects of their activities. Yet, another example of
implementation of SBMs across different industry sectors is the “Blue Economy” movement
founded by Professor Gunter Pauli. This initiative has developed over 200 successful projects
around the globe using ground-breaking innovations supported by potentially sustainable
business models. These projects range from agriculture to the paper industry and
petrochemicals.

Another aspect of implementing SBMs in the industry is the incubation of new companies.
We can observe the emergence of business incubators dedicated to creating companies

12
addressing complex ecological and social problems. Sustainable business models form a key
aspect of these incubators’ work, as for example in the case of “The Difference Incubator”
based in Melbourne, Australia. The Difference Incubator collaborates closely with one of
Australia’s major banks, The National Australia Bank.

The idea of using business models to support business and sustainability performance seems
to be widely accepted in the industry (which does not mean that it is widely realised). The
involvement of major banks and consulting companies indicates that the interest in SBMs is
certainly not just an academic niche and that the search for SBMs transcends sectorial
boundaries. The critical question is whether the acceptance of the SBM idea will be followed
by implementation and realisation in the years to come. One indicator of this development can
be found in the results of a recent investing survey conducted by Impact Investing Australia
and the University of Melbourne.3 Over two thirds of the surveyed investors, who represent
A$333 billion of Australia’s A$2 trillion funds under management, “expect impact investing
to become a more significant part of the investment landscape in the coming years“ (Dembek
et al., 2016a, 6). Impact investing should drive interest in SBMs by calling investors’ attention
not only to financial returns but also to the ecological and social outcomes of investments.

3.3 Government

The uptake of SBMs in governments’ policy making appears to be slower than in academia
and industry. Positive signs come from Europe, where the Horizons 2020 research funding
programme explicitly addresses SBMs in contexts such as the “circular economy” (European
Commission, 2016). Sustainable business models also form part of the European Union’s
focus on the so called “social economy” and are at the forefront of the “Green New Deal” of
European Greens who aim to change policies in favour of ecological and social value creation
(Bland, 2012). Outside of Europe, the South African government made integrated reporting
mandatory for companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) on an “apply or
explain” basis (Hoffman, 2012). Due to the aforementioned central role the business model
plays in integrated reporting, as it is directly linked to the ability of companies to create and
sustain value, one could expect that companies engaging in integrated reporting are more
likely to analyse and revise their business models. However, this effect remains to be studied.
Meanwhile, a current study looking into the effects of integrated reporting on South African
companies’ disclosure practices finds that the top 25 JSE listed companies “adopt symbolic
management as a legitimation strategy” and that “these findings lead us to question whether
corporate behaviour has improved due to integrated reporting or has it added to the empty
rhetoric endemic in annual reporting” (Setia et al., 2015, 417). Understanding whether
business models are really changing because of integrated reporting is an important aspect to
be studied as an element of changing corporate behaviour. Also, the OECD has recently used
SBMs for water supply and sanitation in collaboration with governments from countries like
Moldova and Kazakhstan, aiming to select the adequate business models for sustainable for
sustainable operation, maintenance and financing of water and sanitation systems (OECD,
2016).

3
See https://impactinvestingaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Impact-Investing-Australia-2016-Investor-
Report.pdf

13
For the moment, it looks like policies and programmes to support SBMs can rather be found
on the level of inter- and supranational organisations and institutions such as the International
Finance Corporation (see section 2.3), the OCED or the European Union. Governmental
initiatives in terms of national support programmes or legislation are yet not visible, or at best
indirectly as in the case of integrated reporting, but they might of course exist within broader
policies on ecological and social issues of business. More detailed policy studies are needed to
understand the state of the art in this area.

4 Summary and discussion

This article discusses the current state of the emerging and dynamically growing research and
practice on sustainable business models (SBMs). This discussion was motivated by the
question whether dealing with SBMs, often also referred to as “business models for
sustainability” (BMfS) (e.g. Wells, 2013), is just a passing fancy or whether it shows traits of
an emerging field. We follow Ehrenfeld (2004), who asked a similar question with regard to
the field of industrial ecology in the Journal of Cleaner Production. He proposed major traits
that characterise a field: its specific underpinning beliefs and concepts, practical resources to
guide research and practice, authorities that motivate and facilitate the discourse as well as a
community of researchers and practitioners. Furthermore, Ehrenfeld (2004) argued that a field
also requires some form of institutionalisation in academia, industry, and government.
Therefore, we also discuss current institutionalisation tendencies.

Starting from the latter, field characteristic discussed above, the emerging community, we find
that a growing number of academics, practitioners and policy makers are dealing with SBM
issues. These actors are also beginning to exchange their knowledge across research-practice
and disciplinary boundaries. This community is dealing with issues that are partly formulated
and spread by emerging authorities in the field; mainly a handful of academic journals and
institutions such as the OECD, International Finance Corporation or think tanks such as
SustainAbility. Recently, this community has also found new platforms, besides several
online channels, to meet on a regular basis and define and discuss relevant topics, namely the
“Next Generation Business Models” and the “New Business Models” conference series. An
important and widely discussed topic is SBM tools, some of which were described here and
elsewhere (Breuer et al., under review; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016). Further practical
resources the community can use are books and online resources such as expert and interest
groups and blogs, although we note that standard textbooks are currently missing. These
resources are used, among others, to facilitate discussions about the major beliefs and
concepts of the field. These major beliefs and concepts are often formulated as normatively
grounded propositions about what SBMs are, or more precise, should be. These aspects are
explored and debated from conceptual and empirical perspectives, indicating that the field is
iterating back and forth between concept emergence, concept definition, empirical studies and
conceptual breakdown (cf. Lecocq et al., 2010). The final stage of theorisation has not been
reached yet, but its seeds seem to be planted in current research. Further, a field needs
institutionalisation processes in order to last and develop over time (Ehrenfeld, 2004) and to
be substantially more than a passing fancy. To this end, we discuss how SBM topics have
already penetrated the institutions in academia, practice and, to a lesser extent, government.
We find exemplary indicators of early institutionalisation processes, strengthening the field in

14
the near future, in particular in academia. But we also see practical forms of
institutionalisation, e.g. through increasing social impact investments that in turn may lead to
a growing attractiveness of companies implementing SBMs.

In summary, our observations lead to a clear answer to our initial question whether traits of an
emerging field can be identified. The answer is: Yes, based on our observations and following
Ehrenfeld’s (2004) criteria, we see that SBM research and practice show essential traits of an
emerging field, or at least sufficient momentum and potential to become a field in the very
near future.

If we accept this finding, another question immediately arises, asking for the positioning of
the SBM field in relation to existing fields. While it might indeed be too early for a definitive
decision about the positioning of the SBM field, different potential scenarios can be
identified. To this end, it seems natural to consider the SBM field in relation to the traditional
business model and corporate sustainability fields. Although we argue that there are clear
signs of SBM research and practice as an emerging field, some might reply that it is rather a
sub-field, or a niche, within the traditional business model or the corporate sustainability
fields, while again others might point out that it is an independent field in itself. We will
discuss both perspectives and then propose a third, integrative, position that we think is more
appropriate to describe the current and future state of the emerging SBM field.

Parts of the literature suggest that SBMs may rather be a sub-field within existing fields, such
as the traditional business model and the corporate sustainability fields (Figure 1). We find
articles dealing with social (Yunus et al., 2010; 2015), non-profit (Dahan et al., 2010) and
green business models (Johnson & Suskewicz, 2009) in the first and ground-breaking Long
Range Planning business model special issue and in several Harvard Business Review issues.
Here, green, social and other alternative topics can be found in a niche within the traditional
business model field. On the other hand, we also find several pointers to the importance of
SBMs in corporate sustainability publications (e.g. Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011). This could provide arguments for the assumption that SBMs are a sub-field
within the traditional business model and the corporate sustainability fields. Another example
supporting the sub-field hypothesis is design science. Works such as Upward and Jones’
(2016) or Joyce and Paquin’s (2016) proposals for SBM tools build on principles of design
research, in addition to traditional business model concepts, focusing on the development of
useful artefacts, their practical application, critique, and improvement. Here, one could argue
that SBMs are a topic amongst others in design science and practice. This observation is
reflected, inter alia, by the fact that conferences such as the Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management or established sustainability conferences (e.g. ERSCP, GIN) feature SBM
topics more or less pronounced, sometimes as a mere niche. Figure 1 illustrates the sub-field
hypothesis by locating the SBM field within the established business model, corporate
sustainability, and design field, adding an “X field” to indicate that the sub-field hypothesis is
not limited to these fields only. These fields are of course not isolated, but communicate and
co-operate with each other as indicated by the dashed arrows.

15
Figure 1. Sub-field hypothesis: Locating the emerging sustainable business model field as a niche
within already established fields.

From an opposing perspective, the SBM field may be seen as an independent, stand-alone
field in itself (Figure 2). The stand-alone hypothesis assumes that the field shows beliefs and
concepts, tools and resources, authorities and communities of practice that are sufficiently
developed to delineate its boundaries and independence from other fields. This hypothesis
may build on the particular ontological (i.e. how business models describe and represent
certain aspects of business reality), theoretical and methodical extensions that are needed to
integrate and deal with the manifold ecological, social, cultural and further non-economic and
non-business aspects addressed by SBMs (e.g. Schoormann et al., 2016). The most obvious
deviations from traditional ontologies and theories are the extended and multidimensional
concepts of value creation and the central role played by diverse stakeholders beyond firm
owners, business partners and customers (e.g. Dembek et al, 2016b; Jonker, 2016; Schaltegger
et al., 2016; Upward & Jones, 2016). While these extensions require knowledge from the
natural sciences, sociology, psychology, and many more non-economic and non-business
disciplines (as e.g. shown by the “Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development”;
Broman et al., 2017; Broman & Robèrt, 2017; França et al., 2017), one may argue that the
corporate sustainability field, itself closely related to classic management, entrepreneurship
and organisation theory, and the traditional business model and design fields are not yet
prepared to develop these extensions and integrate them with the business model concept in a
meaningful and practically useful way. Testimony to this assumption may be the fact that the
majority of SBM publications found in the corporate sustainability field are still building their
analyses on the classic Business Model Canvas (e.g. Rauter et al., 2017), which is by default
not suited to address more complex issues at the business, ecology, and society nexus. There
are, of course, ambitious extensions of the classic business model framework, but these are
mostly developed from a design science (e.g. Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Kurucz et al., 2017;
Upward & Jones, 2016) or deep sustainability science perspective (e.g. França et al., 2017).
One may thus conclude that the SBM field is merging these different strengths of the

16
traditional business model, corporate sustainability, design, and other fields and synthesizing
these as a new and independent field. Further, the fact that some authorities, online and offline
communities, and conferences do exist and develop tools and other resources, building on an
exponentially growing number of publications (see literature review in Lüdeke-Freund et al.,
2016) sharing major beliefs and concepts, supports the assumption that the SBM field left its
initial niche positions within other fields (Figure 1) and may have emerged as a stand-alone
field (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Stand-alone hypothesis: Locating the emerging sustainable business model field as a field in
itself, distinct from established fields.

While support can be found for both hypotheses – SBMs as a sub-field of existing fields or as
a stand-alone field – we also see the possibility that it is not about strictly arguing for or
against one of these two positions, but maybe more about different phases on an evolutionary
path of the emerging SBM field. Taking an evolutionary perspective, the sub-field hypothesis
may be adequate to describe the field’s initially multi-disciplinary roots, whereas the stand-
alone hypothesis may be adequate to describe the fully matured SBM field with clearly
distinguishable beliefs and concepts, tools and resources, authorities, and communities of
practice at some point in the future.

This brings us to an alternative interpretation, namely that the emerging research and practice
on SBMs will form an integrative field that depends on and at the same time goes beyond
established fields. We think that this integration hypothesis is best suited to describe the
field’s current and possibly most desired future positioning (Figure 3). As an integrative field,

17
SBM research and practice are challenged to mediate and moderate the inevitable discussions
and controversies about its characteristic underlying beliefs and concepts, which are (i) an
explicit sustainability orientation, integrating ecological, social and economic concerns, (ii) an
extended notion of value creation, questioning traditional definitions of value and success,
(iii) an extended notion of value capture in terms of those for whom value is created, (iv) an
explicit emphasis on the need to consider stakeholders and not just customers, and (v) an
extended perspective on the wider system in which an SBM is embedded. These beliefs and
concepts show differing and only partial overlap with the traditional business model and
corporate sustainability fields, thus requiring intensive exchange and mutual understanding
among these fields. In terms of practical tools and resources, SBMs, as an integrative field,
facilitate exactly what the name suggests: the integration of frameworks and methods from
different scientific and practical disciplines. Recent work combining different tools from
different fields, such as value mapping and design thinking (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016), or the
Business Model Canvas and sustainability concepts (Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Tiemann &
Fichter, 2016; Upward & Jones, 2016), are good examples. Here, for instance, design science
with its ability to create useful artefacts comes into play. Although the business model and the
corporate sustainability fields are themselves multi- and interdisciplinary fields, dealing with
SBM issues requires new combinations of disciplines and skills; and these combinations are
not yet available in any of the established fields, because they are not actively called for in
academic and practice education and by institutions such as leading journals or policy makers.
Therefore, it is crucial to reflect on and identify the necessary disciplines and skills of which
combination appears promising and to develop and apply them within an explicit SBM
research programme and community of practice. The SBM field could thus function as an
operationalization interface that translates and integrates theories, research methods, and
practical tools from different fields. Resulting experience and new knowledge from merging
these elements from different fields could then be fed back to these fields. This could provide
ideas for stimulating and refreshing discussions in these fields. An important challenge on the
path to becoming such a truly integrative field is to identify or develop correspondingly
integrative authorities and communities. Apart from the Journal of Cleaner Production there
are very few outlets that truly combine different disciplines and attract equally both academics
and practitioners. Developing and growing an outlet like this is without doubt a formidable
task. Similarly, new on- and offline platforms are needed that bring the different authorities
and communities together. But as discussed before, several initiatives and groups, formats
such as conferences, and alternative communication channels are currently being developed
and established.

One great benefit of succeeding in developing such outlets and platforms is a rupture of the
current tendency of silo-building and potentially substantial innovation outcomes. Indeed,
given the current stage of development of the SBM field, it may evolve into a stand-alone
field in the future (Figure 2) or remain a sub-field within other established domains (Figure
1). None of these situations would actually allow for developing the field’s full potential. As a
field in itself, SBMs would run the risk of forming another academic silo. From a practice
perspective, it could easily become a niche where managers would see themselves confronted
with a choice of whether to pursue traditional or sustainability-oriented business models. As a
sub-field of either the traditional business model or corporate sustainability field, SBM issues

18
would be likely to become locked in specific contexts, as one of many tools in the box. In
view of the fact that ecological and social issues affect all types of organisation and that wide
collaboration across sectors and disciplines is required to address these issues effectively, we
argue that the SBM field would be much more impactful if it develops a strong position as a
bridge, as an integrative force, between established fields that should co-operate, such as
corporate sustainability and design research, but are yet not inclined to do so. In such an
integrative position, instead of being a niche or a silo, SBMs would be more likely to become
widely-used vehicles to respond to the world’s increasing ecological and social problems,
help all type of businesses (not just a few) to function sustainably, develop alternative types of
organisation that create value for multiple stakeholders, independent of an organisation’s
profit or non-profit orientation or sector of activity (e.g. Jonker, 2016; Waddock &
MacIntosh, 2011).

Figure 3. Integration hypothesis: Locating the emerging sustainable business model field as a field
that depends on but at the same time goes beyond established fields.

5 Limitations

Although we offer a comprehensive overview and discussion of important cornerstones of

SBM research and elements of related communities of practice, our overview is limited with
regard to its methodology. Ehrenfeld’s (2004) approach is helpful to structure general
observations of a new or emerging field. However, it does not provide explicit guidelines for
conducting a field review, how and where to gather relevant information, or how to evaluate
qualitative and quantitative data, such as the amount of new tools or the minimum community
size required to justify a field. We acknowledge these limitations and see this overview as a
first step in a more comprehensive effort to reach more breadth and depth in SBM research
and practice reviews. Future reviews, or better a series of reviews, should take a systematic
and also quantitative look at the aspects discussed above, maybe including the development of

19
benchmarks for these aspects that have to be met to reach field status. We see our article as a
first stepping stone and overarching framing for such an effort.

6 Conclusions

After one decade of discussing SBM research and practice it is time to step back and reflect
on the topics that were studied, the theories used or maybe even developed and the methods
that were applied. We should also ask, who, from inside and outside the SBM community, can
help with the problems researchers are studying and that practitioners are trying to solve?
Obviously, this requires multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary efforts. Therefore, the different
fields involved require joint research programmes and mutual exchange. Furthermore, as both
researchers and practitioners agree that businesses need to become sustainable and that the
time for business as usual rapidly approaches its dawn, SBMs emerge as vehicles to deliver
the necessary change. It is therefore of particular importance to establish and maintain a
strong link and communication not only within but also between academia, industry and
government.

Establishing SBMs as vehicles of this change requires a careful stocktake to better understand
the development of this emerging field and its future potential – but also to acknowledge what
is still missing. This has been done in this article. While the choice between a sub-field and a
stand-alone positioning are two traditional options, we suggest that a better way forward may
be to see and develop SBM research and practice as an integrative field. In this position, the
SBM field both depends on and goes beyond established fields. As an integrative field it may
not only help avoid the risks of becoming yet another academic niche or silo, or just another
tool in the management box, but also provide a more powerful vehicle for making business
sustainable. To do so, the SBM field may borrow and merge the required ingredients from
existing fields, linking these in new ways and feeding the resulting experiences back to renew
and inspire researchers and practitioners across various fields. The integration hypothesis thus
seems most appropriate and promising as a description of the SBM field’s current and future
positioning. To further establish SBM research and practice as an integrative field we need to
identify and develop correspondingly integrative beliefs, concepts, tools, resources and
authorities, provide suitable platforms, such as on- and offline communities, and
institutionalise strong research and practice communities that interact and exchange their
knowledge and experience.

References

Afuah, A., 2004. Business models. A strategic management approach. McGraw-Hill/Irwin,

Boston.

Alt, R., Zimmermann, H.-D., 2014. Status of business model and electronic market research:
An interview with Paul Timmers. Electronic Markets 24, 235–241.

Arend, R., 2013. The business model: Present and future--beyond a skeumorph. Strategic
Organization 11, 390–402.

20
Avetisyan, E., Ferrary, M., 2013. Dynamics of stakeholders’ implications in the
institutionalization of the CSR field in France and in the United States. Journal of Business
Ethics 115, 115-133.

Baden-Fuller, C., Mangematin, V., 2013. Business models: A challenging agenda. Strategic
Organization 11, 418–427.

Bakker, C., den Hollander, M., van Hinte, E., Zijlstra, Y., 2014. Products that last: Product
design for circular business models. TU Delft Library, Delft.

Beltramello, A., Haie-Fayle, L., Pilat, D., 2013. Why New Business Models Matter for Green
Growth. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Bisgaard, T., Henriksen, K., Bjerre, M., 2012. Green Business Model Innovation -
Conceptualisation, Next Practice and Policy. Nordic Innovation, Oslo.

Bland, A., 2012. Re-defining capitalism? A role for social enterprise. Green European Journal
2, 51-56.
Bocken, N., Short, S., 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.

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business
models and economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 1–8.

Breuer, H., 2013. Lean Venturing: Learning to Create New Business Through Exploration,
Elaboration, Evaluation, Experimentation, and Evolution. International Journal of Innovation
Management 17, Article 1340013 (22 pages).

Breuer, H., Fichter, K., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Tiemann, I., under review. Sustainability-Oriented
Business Model Development: Principles, Criteria, and Tools.

Breuer, H., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2017a. Values-based innovation management – Innovating by

what we care about. Palgrave, Houndmills.

Breuer, H., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2017b. Values-Based Network and Business Model
Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 21, Article 1750028 (35 pages).

Broman, G., Robèrt, K.-H., 2017. A framework for strategic sustainable development, Journal
of Cleaner Production 140, 17–31.

Broman, G., Robèrt, K.-H., Collins, T., Basile, G., Baumgartner, R., Larsson, T., Huisingh,
D., 2017. Science in support of systematic leadership towards sustainability, Journal of
Cleaner Production 140, 1–9.

21
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), International Federation of
Accountants (IFAC), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 2013. Business model: Background
paper for <IR>. IIRC, London, UK.

Clinton, L., Whisnant, R., 2014. Model Behavior – 20 Business Model Innovations for
Sustainability, London.

Dahan, N., Doh, J., Oetzel, J., Yaziji, M., 2010. Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-creating
New Business Models for Developing Markets. Long Range Planning 43, 326–342.

Dembek, K., Madhavan, D., Michaux, F., Potter, B., 2016a. Impact Investing Australia 2016
Investor Report. Impact Investing Australia, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Dembek K., Singh, P., Neville B., 2016b. Activities and Value: Framework for Sustainable
Business Models, Paper presented at the 2016 Academy of Management Annual Meeting:
Making Organizations Meaningful, Anaheim, 5-9 August 2016.

Dentchev, N., Baumgärtner, R., Dieleman, H., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T.,
Rauter, R., Rosano, M., Snihur, Y., Tang, X., van Hoof, B., 2016. Embracing the variety of
sustainable business models: social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity,
innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production
113, 1–4.

Diaz Lopez, F., Becker, J., Berkers, F., Eris, B., Koers, W., van Vliet, H., Bastein, T., 2014.
New business models that support resource efficiency. Policy Options for a Resource-
Efficient Economy (POLFREE), London, UK.

DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective ratinality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147-160.
Dyllick, T., Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a
Typology From Business-as-Usual to True Business Sustainability. Organization &
Environment 29, 156–174.

Ehrenfeld, J., 2004. Industrial ecology: a new field or only a metaphor? Journal of Cleaner
Production 12, 825–831.

Elkington, R., Upward, A., 2016. Leadership as enabling function for flourishing by design.
Journal of Global Responsibility 7, 126–144.

Ernst & Young (EY), International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), 2013. Value creation
– Background paper for <IR>. IIRC, London, UK.

European Commission, 2016. European Commission decision C (2016)4614 of 25 July 2016

Horizon 2020 Work programme 2016-2017, Brussels.

Faber, N., Jorna, R., van Engelen, J., 2005. The sustainability of “sustainability” – A study
into the conceptual foundations of the notion of "sustainability". Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management 7, 1–33.

22
França, C., Broman, G., Robèrt, K.-H., Basile, G., Trygg, L., 2017. An approach to business
model innovation and design for strategic sustainable development, Journal of Cleaner
Production 140, 155–166.

Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.

Freidson, E., 1986. Professional powers: a study of the institutionalization of formal

knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N., Hultink, E.J., 2016. Design thinking to enhance the sustainable
business modelling process – A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of
Cleaner Production 135, 1218-1232.

Hansen, E., Große-Dunker, F., Reichwald, R., 2009. Sustainability Innovation Cube - A
Framework to Evaluate Sustainability-Oriented Innovations. International Journal of
Innovation Management 13, 683–713.

Hoffman, A., 1999. Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S.
chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42, 351-371.

Hoffman, M., 2012. Integrated reporting in practice: The South African story. KPMG, South
Africa.

IBM, 2015. Redefining Boundaries – Insights from the Global C-suite Study. IBM Global
Business Services, Somers, NY.

Jenkins, B., Ishikawa, E., Geaneotes, A., Baptista, P., Masuoka, T., 2011. Accelerating
Inclusive Business Opportunities: Business Models that Make a Difference, Washington, DC.

Johnson, M., Suskewicz, J., 2009. How to jump-start the clean tech economy. Harvard
Business Review 87, 52–60.

Jonker. J. (Ed.), 2016. New business models: Working together on value creation. Academic
Service, The Hague.

Joyce, A., Paquin, R.L., 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to design more
sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production 135, 1474-1486.

Kiørboe, N., Sramkova, H., Krarup, M., 2015. Moving towards a circular economy –
Successful Nordic business models. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

Kurucz, E., Colbert, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Upward, A., Willard, B., 2017. Relational
leadership for strategic sustainability: practices and capabilities to advance the design and
assessment of sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 189–204.

Lakatos, I., 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs, in:
Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (Eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91-196.

23
Lecocq, X., Demil, B., Ventura, J., 2010. Business Models as a Research Program in Strategic
Management: An Appraisal based on Lakatos. M@n@gement 13, 214–225.

Lélé, S.M., 1991. Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Development 19, 607–
621.

Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2009. Business model concepts in corporate sustainability contexts. From
rhetoric to a generic template for 'business models for sustainability'. Centre for Sustainability
Management, Lüneburg.

Lüdeke-Freund, F., Massa, L., Bocken, N., Brent, A., Musango, J., 2016. Business Models for
Shared Value – Main Report. Network for Business Sustainability South Africa, Cape Town.

Michelini, L., Fiorentino, D., 2012. New business models for creating shared value. Social
Responsibility Journal 8, 561–577.

OECD, 2016. Sustainable business models for water supply and sanitation in small towns and
rural settlements in Kazakhstan. OECD Studies on Water, Paris.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business model generation. A handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers, Amsterdam.

Porter, M., 2001. Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review 79, 63–78.

Rauter, R., Jonker, J., Baumgartner, R., 2017. Going one's own way. Drivers in developing
business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 144–154.

Sánchez, P., Ricart, J., 2010. Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-
income markets. European Management Review 7, 138–154.

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2016. Business Models for Sustainability:
Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organization & Environment 29, 3–10.

Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E., 2012. Business cases for sustainability: the
role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovation and
Sustainable Development 6, 95–119.

Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2011. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability

innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment 20, 222–237.

Schoormann, T., Behrens, D., Kolek, E., Knackstedt, R., 2016. Sustainability in business
models – A literature-review-based design-science-oriented research agenda. ECIS 2016
Proceedings, Research Papers 134, 1–18.

Scott, W., 2008. Institutions and organizations, 3 ed. Sage, Los Angeles.
Seelos, C., Mair, J., 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the
poor. Business Horizons 48, 241–246.

Seelos, C., Mair, J., 2007. Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of
Deep Poverty: A Strategic View. Academy of Management Perspectives 21, 49–63.

24
Setia, N., Abhayawansa, S., Joshi, M., Huynh, A., 2015. Integrated reporting in South Africa:
Some initial evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6(3), 397–
424.

Sommer, A., 2012. Managing green business model transformations. Springer, Heidelberg,
Lüneburg.

Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a 'sustainability business model'.

Organization & Environment 21, 103–127.

Tiemann, I., Fichter, K., 2016. Developing business models with the Sustainable Business
Canvas: Manual for conducting workshops, Oldenburg and Berlin.

Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review.
Journal of Cleaner Production 97, 76–91.

Upward, A., 2013. Towards an Ontology and Canvas for Strongly Sustainable Business
Models: A Systemic Design Science Exploration. York University, Toronto.

Upward, A., Jones, P., 2016. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models:
Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science.
Organization & Environment 29, 97–123.

Vladimirova, D., 2016. The Cambridge Value Mapping Tool. IfM Review, 5, 24.

Waddock, S., McIntosh, M., 2011. Business Unusual. Corporate Responsibility in a 2.0
World. Business and Society Review 116, 303–330.

Wells, P., 2013. Business Models for Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Wells, P., Nieuwenhuis, P., 2004. Business models for relocalisation to deliver sustainability.
Greener Management International 47, 89–98.

Wenger, E., Snyder, W., 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard
Business Review, 78(1), 139–146.

Wirtz, B., 2016. Business Model Management - Design, Process, Instruments. Self-published,
Speyer.

Wirtz, B., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., Göttel, V., 2016. Business Models: Origin, Development
and Future Research Perspectives. Long Range Planning 49, 36–54.

Yang, S.-H., 2009. Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and Community of Practice.
Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11–21.

Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Rana, P., 2017. Value uncaptured perspective for
sustainable business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1794–1804.

Yunus, M., Dalsace, F., Menascé, D., Faivre-Tavignot, B., 2015. Reaching the Rich World’s
Poorest Consumers. Harvard Business Review 93, 46–53.

25
 Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010. Building Social Business Models:
Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning 43, 308–325.

Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future
Research. Journal of Management 37, 1019–1042.

26

View publication stats