Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 168, 1 December 2017, Pages 1668-1678
Journal of Cleaner Production

Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This article discusses sustainable business model research and practice as an emerging field.

  • Summarises the field's beliefs and concepts, tools and resources, authorities and community.

  • Identifies institutionalisation tendencies of sustainable business model research and practice.

  • Offers a starting point for a critical self-reflection of the field and its future development.

Abstract

This article reflects on the current state of the dynamically growing research and practice related to 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.

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 and 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 and 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 and 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 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 and 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 and Fiorentino, 2012, Sánchez and Ricart, 2010, Seelos and Mair, 2005, Seelos and Mair, 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.

Section snippets

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

The institutionalisation of 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 required to define SBM research and practice as a field, they must also be institutionalised for the field to persist and develop over time (Ehrenfeld, 2004). Through institutions and institutionalisation of knowledge, the

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

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

Conclusion

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

References (81)

  • A. Joyce et al.

    The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to design more sustainable business models

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • E. Kurucz et al.

    Relational leadership for strategic sustainability: practices and capabilities to advance the design and assessment of sustainable business models

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • R. Rauter et al.

    Going one's own way. Drivers in developing business models for sustainability

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • C. Seelos et al.

    Social entrepreneurship: creating new business models to serve the poor

    Bus. Horizons

    (2005)
  • A. Tukker

    Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2015)
  • B. Wirtz et al.

    Business models: origin, development and future research perspectives

    Long. Range Plan.

    (2016)
  • M. Yang et al.

    Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • M. Yunus et al.

    Building social business models: lessons from the grameen experience

    Long. Range Plan.

    (2010)
  • A. Afuah

    Business Models. A Strategic Management Approach

    (2004)
  • R. Alt et al.

    Status of business model and electronic market research: an interview with Paul Timmers

    Electron. Mark.

    (2014)
  • R. Arend

    The business model: present and future–beyond a skeumorph

    Strateg. Organ.

    (2013)
  • E. Avetisyan et al.

    Dynamics of stakeholders' implications in the institutionalization of the CSR field in France and in the United States

    J. Bus. Ethics

    (2013)
  • C. Baden-Fuller et al.

    Business models: a challenging agenda

    Strateg. Organ.

    (2013)
  • C. Bakker et al.

    Products that Last: Product Design for Circular Business Models

    (2014)
  • A. Beltramello et al.

    Why New Business Models Matter for Green Growth

    (2013)
  • T. Bisgaard et al.

    Green Business Model Innovation - Conceptualisation, Next Practice and Policy

    (2012)
  • A. Bland

    Re-defining capitalism? A role for social enterprise

    Green Eur. J.

    (2012)
  • H. Breuer

    Lean venturing: learning to create new business through exploration, elaboration, evaluation, experimentation, and evolution

    Int. J. Innov. Manag.

    (2013)
  • Breuer, H., Fichter, K., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Tiemann, I., in press. Sustainability-oriented business model development:...
  • H. Breuer et al.

    Values-based Innovation Management – Innovating by what We Care about

    (2017)
  • H. Breuer et al.

    Values-based network and business model innovation

    Int. J. Innov. Manag.

    (2017)
  • Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)

    International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)

    (2013)
  • L. Clinton et al.

    Model Behavior – 20 Business Model Innovations for Sustainability

    (2014)
  • K. Dembek et al.

    Impact Investing Australia 2016 Investor Report. Impact Investing Australia

    (2016)
  • K. Dembek et al.

    Activities and value: framework for sustainable business models

  • F. Diaz Lopez et al.

    New Business Models that Support Resource Efficiency. Policy Options for a Resource-efficient Economy (POLFREE)

    (2014)
  • P. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective ratinality in organizational fields

    Am. Sociol. Rev.

    (1983)
  • T. Dyllick et al.

    Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability

    Organ. Environ.

    (2016)
  • R. Elkington et al.

    Leadership as enabling function for flourishing by design

    J. Glob. Responsib.

    (2016)
  • Ernst & Young (EY) et al.

    Value creation – Background paper for <IR>

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text