Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage:

Multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable
business models
Sandra Naomi Morioka a, b, *, Ivan Bolis a, Steve Evans c, Marly M. Carvalho a
a
Departamento de Engenharia de Produça ~o, Universidade de Sa
~o Paulo, Brazil
b
Departamento de Engenharia de Produça ~o, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil
c
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent tendency has been pushing organizations to rethink their role in society and making organization
Received 30 September 2016 reflect that profit may not be the only and foremost important business performance criteria. Thus recent
Received in revised form literature has been exploring the sustainable business models (SBM's), as a way to insert sustainability
21 June 2017
goals into the core of business decisions. This research aims to advance in this body of knowledge and
Accepted 14 August 2017
Available online 22 August 2017
proposes a theory and practice-based framework to support organizations towards more SBM, making
explicit main elements to align business to sustainability performance goals. To support the argument
^as de
Hanling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo that there is no unique solution to design SBM, this research performs a multiple case studies in eleven
Almeida organizations from diverse sectors, situated in Brazil and in the United Kingdom. Results show that SBM
is not an attempt to deny business-as-usual perspective, but rather it seeks to complement this view, by
Keywords: adding a more axiological and systemic approach. In particular, three convergent aspects were identified
Sustainable business model in the case studies as relevant efforts support the integration of sustainability into SBM's value creation
Sustainable value and delivery system: (1) the connection between business purpose and employees' values and believes;
Competitive advantage
(2) the pro-active and clear engagement in solving sustainability problems; and (3) the need for system-
Sustainable development goals
level changes to enable successful SBM's. This systemic thinking is highlighted by the concept emerged
Corporate sustainability
Value proposition from the research, the cascaded sustainable value captured, representing that, as SBM's are part of a value
network, value delivered by the organizations is captured not only by stakeholders to which they have
direct contact, but rather this is also deployed to stakeholders of focal company's stakeholders. This
distinction is not always trivial for companies, so the proposed concept can support advances in SBM
discussions. Further studies are called to the challenge of making explicit that SBM's are not only
companies that directly addresses a specific social and/or environmental problem, but rather is an
emerging paradigm on how to manage efficient businesses in any sector to add positive value to the
globe.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction current decisions and actions. Companies' efforts are expected to be

combined to other societal actors (governments, civil society, etc.)
Recent tendency has been pushing organizations to rethink towards the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's) for
their role in society and making organization reflect that profit may 2030 proposed by the United Nations, in substitution to the Mil-
not be the only and foremost important business performance lennium Goals (United-Nations, 2015). External and internal mo-
criteria. It is reinforced by the fact that global sustainable devel- tivations has been pushing companies to improve their corporate
opment and future generations depends also on companies' sustainability performance, in other words, their contribution to
global sustainable development. These motivations can be
explained by various theories, including institutional theory,
resource-based view of the firm to increase competitive advantage,
* Corresponding author. Departamento de Engenharia de Produç~
ao, Universidade
~o Paulo, Brazil.
de Sa stakeholder theory, amongst many others (Connelly et al., 2011;
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.N. Morioka). Engert et al., 2016; Lozano et al., 2015).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.118
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
724 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

In this sense, sustainable business models (SBM's) attempt to go based framework for integration of sustainability into organiza-
beyond isolated social and environmental initiatives and system- tions towards more SBM. Concluding remarks, together with
atically integrate sustainability into business (Bocken et al., 2014; research limitations and indication for future research are dis-
Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013), in which corporate sustainabil- cussed in Section 6.
ity concepts shape decision making processes (Stubbs and Cocklin,
2008). SBM can be seen as a construct to support deploying 2. Literature background
corporate sustainability strategies into sustainable operations and
processes. There is evidence of potential business opportunities by Sustainability principles, as discussed by Baumgartner (2014)
exploring SBM towards converting sustainable development chal- and França et al. (2017), indicate that a sustainable society seeks
lenges into business opportunities (Belz and Binder, 2017). Thus, to reduce concentration of substances extracted from Earth's crust,
sustainability laws, norms and market pressures can be seen by concentration of substances produced by society, degradation of
corporations not as obstacles, but rather as incentives for them to physical means; and, at the same time, seeks to mitigate obstacles
play an active role in global sustainable development (Sneirson, to society's access to health, influence (people's opportunity to
2009). However, developing SBM in practice can be challenging, contribute to societal system), competence (individual and collec-
as there are trade-offs in the attempt of achieving sustainability tive learning), impartiality (in terms of equity and fair opportu-
goals (Haffar and Searcy, 2017; Hahn et al., 2010; Morioka and nities) and meaning-making (towards creating individual meaning
Carvalho, 2016a). and co-creating collective meaning). In the organizational context,
Non-sustainability oriented business model has been addressed the present research considers that corporate sustainability prin-
by several publications and the most disseminated in practice is the ciples (as followed by Morioka and Carvalho, 2016a) as including:
Business Model Canvas (BMC), composed by nine building blocks: (i) multiple objectives including economic, but also environmental
value proposition, customer segment, customer relationship, dis- and social goals (Elkington, 1998); (ii) a proactive engagement with
tribution channel, key partners, key activities and key resources, organizations' various stakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002),
cost structure and revenue model (Osterwalder et al., 2005; such as shareholders/investors, customers, suppliers, employees,
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). This approach has the advantage community, government, environment, society, amongst others
to provide an overview of the company with a relatively small (Dentchev, 2007; Gadenne et al., 2012; Perrini and Tencati, 2006);
number of elements, which can be easily understood. SBM litera- and (iii) a broad view of the impacts for the short, medium and long
ture, on the other hand, is still theoretical (Randles and Laasch, term, in order to consider current and future generations (Bansal
2016) or is too embedded in the financial-driven paradigm, even and DesJardine, 2014; WCED, 1987). Defining corporate sustain-
though they include, at some extend, social and environmental ability principles can be used as guidelines for decisions conducted
concerns in business model discussions (Hart and Milstein, 2003; by organizations, giving a more tangible and, yet, holistic approach
Richter, 2013; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). One attempt to provide of corporate sustainability to analyse the integration of sustain-
a large variety of SBM's combining theory and practice are the eight ability into business. To deploy sustainability principles in busi-
SBM's archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014), enlarging the perception of nesses, Baumgartner (2014) indicates the need to address
SBM possibilities. However, this literature still lacks empirical pri- normative (including values, attitudes, beliefs and judgement as
mary data source, since the archetypes were developed from aca- basis for management), strategic (reflecting on long-term goals and
demic and grey literature. product-market combinations) and also operational (translating
Besides, the literature points out also that research about stra- strategic goals into corporate activities) levels. By following these
tegically integrating sustainability into business is still mainly principles, decisions tend to be less individual and short term-
theoretical or addresses specific aspects of corporate sustainability oriented and more aligned with collective values and motiva-
(Engert et al., 2016). Therefore, there is a need for further theo- tions, according to the axiological view of global sustainable
retical and empirical research on SBM's various approaches, chal- development (Bolis et al., 2014b). This section is dedicated in
lenges and contributions (Dentchev et al., 2015). There are previous delimiting the main aspects on how these principles can be sys-
attempts to frame SBM's, such as the Framework for Strategic tematically integrated into businesses for more SBM.
Sustainable Development (Broman and Robe rt, 2015) and the SBM
archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014), but the present research intends to 2.1. Sustainable business model concept and sustainable business
complement this literature by providing a more practical approach innovation
on SBM implementation. This is because delimiting what is a SBM
and how it is presented in practice is still open for discussion. Given SBM can be defined in various ways, including as a narrative of
this context, this research aims to propose a theory and practice- sustainability practices, a description of characteristics, a list of
based framework to support SBM implementation aligned with conditions, a representation of processes, a description at firm or
sustainability performance goals. To do so, we combine the dis- system-level (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Schaltegger et al. (2016a)
cussion based on literature analysis and eleven case studies con- highlight the application of the concept, indicating that a SBM can
ducted in two countries (Brazil and United Kingdom). support organization to describe, analyse, manage and communi-
The paper is structured in six sections, starting with the present cate its value proposition, how it creates and delivers this value and
one describing the research context and objective (Section 1). Next, the economic, social and environmental value captured. Retrieving
Section 2 brings the literature background, encompassing delim- also that business models connect corporate strategy to day-to-day
iting corporate sustainability principles, the main SBM elements, activities (Rauter et al., 2017), our work definition is that SBM is a
and the context factors that affect the integration of corporate representation of business elements, their interrelations and the
sustainability principles into SBM. Section 3 described the research systemic context that enable sustainable value exchange with
method resulting from companies inserted in a variety of fields. The stakeholders towards corporate sustainability performance, trans-
results are presented in the next encompassing an overview of each lating and providing feedback between corporate strategy and
case study followed by data analysis in terms of value proposition, operations.
value creation and delivery system and value captured (Section 4). Financially-oriented paradigm of value can be easily repre-
Combining field data and the literature background, we bring in sented in monetary measures. SBM are challenged to create and
Section 5 the research discussions, arriving at a theory-practice deliver not only financial value, but rather a so called sustainable
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 725

value. For some, this concept is still tight related to financial value creation & delivery system (key activities, resources, tech-
shareholder value, achieved by addressing sustainable develop- nologies, etc.); and value capture (cost structure and revenue
ment challenges (Hart and Milstein, 2003), or is about translating streams) (Richardson, 2008). These elements of business model
social and environmental indicators in monetary cost analysis (Ang was first proposed for traditional approach rather than a sustain-
and Van Passel, 2010; Figge and Hahn, 2004). However, we intend ability one (Richardson, 2008). However, this approach has been
to extend this understanding and argue that SBM can deliver a successfully used for SBM and, besides, a value-based approach
sustainable value that goes beyond this approach. It has to do with tends to provide a more concrete definition of a business model
the organization's capacity to create satisfaction given a certain (Carayannis et al., 2015).
stakeholder need and also to destroy by not meeting this level of The first SBM element considered is the value proposition. It is
satisfaction, as briefly discussed by Upward and Jones (2016). Thus, directly associated to company's offerings, e.g., its products and
sustainable value can be seen as the delimitation of an economic, services (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). But more than that, the
environmental and/or social need for current and future genera- value proposition is the main foundation of SBM conceptualization
tions that, when it is met, provokes satisfaction of the corre- and implementation, since it represents the organization's eco-
sponding stakeholder. In other words, sustainable value is relative nomic, environmental and social added value (Carayannis et al.,
to each stakeholder and is aligned with sustainability principles 2015). Therefore, defining a sound value proposition is funda-
presented earlier in the section. mental for organization's existence, survival and prosperity
Variations of the term SBM (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons et al., (Carayannis et al., 2015). As mentioned before, addressing the triple
2013; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013) have been also used, such bottom line, TBL, economic, environmental and social goals only
as business model for sustainability (Schaltegger et al., 2016a), makes sense, when considering not only the short term, but also
sustainability business model (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008), flour- the medium and long term dimensions (Lozano, 2008). Yet, the
ishing/strongly sustainable business model (Upward and Jones, long term dimension for SBM tends to go beyond the timeframe for
2016), truly sustainable business models (Dyllick and Muff, 2016) strategy planning, but rather it implies considering also genera-
and also as normative business model (Randles and Laasch, 2016). tions still to come (Bansal and DesJardine, 2014; WCED, 1987).
Despite specific nuances that differentiate these concepts, the The second business model element is the value creation and
present research uses the term SBM to represent the common idea delivery system. It comprises the firm's resources, capabilities and
of these concepts of a business model that systematically integrates inter-organizational network, having strong connection with
corporate sustainability principles into organizational strategy and generating competitive advantage (Richardson, 2008). Initiatives
operations. for sustainability may be conducted in different areas of the orga-
Given sustainable development challenges, business-as-usual nization, such as operations and production, management and
and traditional business models paradigm tends to be insufficient. strategy, organizational systems, marketing and procurement,
This calls for new ways of perceiving and performing business. A set assessment and communication (Lozano, 2012). However, these
of interesting concepts and logics have been explored by the liter- initiatives need to be integrated into organization's systems
ature with potential to promote organization to contribute to global (Lozano, 2012) and organizations are invited to incorporate sus-
sustainable development. For instance, business models focused on tainability principles into their business processes and capabilities
solving problems of the bottom-of-the-pyramid (BOP) population (Morioka and Carvalho, 2016b). Thus, companies can implement
(Yunus et al., 2010), on enabling resource closed-loops by circular sustainability initiatives towards promoting sustainable supply
economy (Bocken et al., 2016; Witjes and Lozano, 2016), on pro- chain management (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Fritz et al., 2017;
moting the culture of sharing economy (Cheng, 2016), on exploring Scho€ ggl et al., 2016; Seuring et al., 2008), eco-design (Brones and
sustainability performance from product-service-systems, PSS, Carvalho, 2015; Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006; Scho € ggl et al.,
(Boo et al., 2016; Catulli, 2012; Hannon et al., 2015), on fostering 2017), sustainable operations management (Kleindorfer et al.,
value from industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis (Short et al., 2005), sustainability reporting (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Hahn
2014) and on promoting new ventures as sustainable start-ups and Kühnen, 2013), sustainable work design and ergonomics
(Bocken, 2015). The SBM archetypes bring an variety of opportu- (Bolis et al., 2014a), amongst many others. This shows that orga-
nities for organizations to innovate their business logics (Bocken nizations may use different mechanisms to implement their
et al., 2014). The archetypes include: maximize material and en- respective value creation and delivery systems to realize the value
ergy efficiency; create value from ‘waste’; substitute with renew- proposition.
able and natural processes; deliver functionality rather than The third component is the value capture, also known as value
ownership; adopt a stewardship role; encourage sufficiency; re- appropriation (Ghezzi et al., 2015). Traditional business model ap-
purpose the business for society/environment; and develop scale- proaches tend to restrict this business element to financial aspects
up solutions. These archetypes, however, can be criticized as they in terms of cost structure and revenue model (Osterwalder et al.,
do not guarantee that the business is systematically sustainable. For 2005). SBM's include other forms of non-monetary value capture.
instance, archetypes such as “maximize material and energy effi- In this sense, the company seeks to capture economic value for it-
ciency” and “create value from waste” do not guarantee the orga- self and, at the same time, reduces depletion and/or increases
nization is a SBM, as these initiatives can be conducted by natural, social and economic capital beyond its boundaries
organizations as isolated programs instead of being integrated into (Schaltegger et al., 2016a). To do so, various internal and external
core business. Innovations towards more SBM can be derived into stakeholders need to be addressed by SBM, including not only
elements to support critical analysis and improve understanding. customers and shareholders/investors, but also suppliers, em-
This is performed in the next in Section 2.2. ployees, natural environment, society, etc (Stubbs and Cocklin,
2008).
2.2. Sustainable business model elements
2.3. SBM expected outcomes and context
Following previous research (Bocken et al., 2014; Morioka et al.,
2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016a, 2016b), we consider a business The literature points out various theories to justify the strategic
model as a combination of three main components: value propo- approach for sustainability. We do not attempt to cover all of them,
sition (product/service, customer segments and relationships); but further readings are suggested (Bansal, 2005; Connelly et al.,
726 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

2011; Engert et al., 2016; Garriga and Mele , 2004; Lozano et al., factors.
2015). We use elements of the institutional theory, which in- The literature review on SBM presented in this section indicate
dicates that companies are influenced by coercive, mimetic and that traditional exclusive financial-oriented paradigm to reflect on
normative pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). United Nations' business models is expanding to address sustainability challenges
SDG's can be considered as a call for action to all societal actors, towards more SBM. These discussions on the literature are still in its
including the organizations. These seventeen goals can be influence early stages, as delimitation of what composes a SBM still have not
organizations, since they can serve to inform regulators and gov- found consensus. Thus, this section provide an attempt to converge
ernments towards new and/or improved legislations internalize previous publications for delimiting SBM's. Pragmatic performance
externalities in corporations, they can provide guidance to pio- results of SBM are still challenging and tend to be the next step for
neering organizations that will eventually be followed and/or they this literature to strengthen SBM potentials both for business and
can bring discussion and eventually some level of agreement be- for society/environment.
tween actors' opinions on sustainability. Independently from which
kind of pressure (coercive, mimetic or normative), the SDG's tend to 3. Research method
have potential to influence organizations. Therefore, following the
lead that corporate sustainability is associated with organizations' Given the lack of empirical research on sustainability integration
contribution to sustainable development, we propose that SBM are (Engert et al., 2016), case studies are an appropriate research
expected to be able to contribute to SDG's. Critiques on the method to build theory combining previous publications and pri-
seventeen goals proposed by the United Nations for 2015e2030, mary data collection about specific organizations. This method is
built from the Millennium goals, include the need for action- indicated to be suitable for investigating complex social phenom-
oriented guidelines for policy implementation (Ha k et al., 2016) ena (Yin, 2010), which is one strong characteristic of sustainability
and the limited explicit obligation for governments and none to issues (van Kerkhoff, 2014). Besides, case studies allows a holistic
business or consumer, failing at addressing root-causes for unsus- analysis of contemporary phenomenon in its specific context (Yin,
tainability (Spangenberg, 2016). Despite these critiques, the present 2010), bringing in-depth understanding of a specific topic
paper argues that SBM aligned with the SDG's, therefore, can be a (Simmons, 2009).
way for corporations to participate positively to the goals. The steps for the core case studies follows the sequence pro-
Synergies between corporate goals and sustainability goals have posed by the literature (Eisenhardt, 1989; Simmons, 2009) and are
been addressed by the literature in various forms over the years, described following to ensure replicability and to increase research
such as win-win solutions (Elkington, 1994), sweet spots (Savitz reliability (Yin, 2010). To get started, this research performed the
and Weber, 2007), and shared value creation (Porter and Kramer, literature analysis previously described, deriving research theo-
2011). These concepts can be associated, at some extend, to retical background.
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, since the literature shows
that by investing in resources and capabilities for corporate sus- 3.1. Sampling and data collection
tainability, companies tend to improve their competitive advantage
(Bansal, 2005). Initial discussions on the contribution of sustain- Multiple cases are chosen for theoretical reasons (Eisenhardt
ability to competitive advantage were conducted by Hart (1995), and Graebner, 2007); however, this kind of sampling is more
under the proposal of a natural-resource based view of the firm. complicated because the case selection relies on the contribution to
This link has been further explored by the literature, addressing the theory development and in our case on the variety of SBM and the
integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management need for express their diversity. Considering this research as a
(Engert et al., 2016). Alongside with other drivers (compliance, multiple-case study, specific criteria for selecting companies were
economic performance, social and environmental responsibility, defined. The core selection criteria were: explicit concern to social
innovation, risk and quality management, and reputation), and/or environmental issues in both in the short and long term and
competitive advantage has been shown as an important motivation incorporation of this concern into company's value proposition.
for more integration of corporate sustainability into business These criteria were verified in the corporate websites and
(Engert et al., 2016). confirmed during interviews. As recommended by the literature,
The literature indicates also contextual variable that affects the theoretical sampling is performed, rather than choosing a repre-
integration of sustainability into business (Engert et al., 2016; sentative sample of cases (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). In
Morioka and Carvalho, 2016b). Amongst external factors that particular, the present intention is to get a broad variety of business
affect the incorporation of corporate sustainability into business, models aligned to sustainability that can shows a kaleidoscope of
the literature points out issues such as natural environment and value proposition, creation and delivery towards a SD. Thus, sample
social general context (Kolk and Mauser, 2002), legislation (Griffith provides a considerable diversity of business models, encompass-
and Bhutto, 2008; Tan et al., 2014), industry-specific competitive ing companies B2C (business-to-consumer) and B2B (business-to-
dynamics and market (Grosvold et al., 2014; Siebenhüner and business); service providers and manufacturers; small, medium
Arnold, 2007), public opinion (Siebenhüner and Arnold, 2007) and large organizations. Besides, data collection included two
and technology level (Fan et al., 2014). The literature brings evi- countries (United Kingdom-UK and Brazil). Number of employees
dence, however, that not only external context influences business was the main criteria for classifying the company size into: small
models, but SBM can also proactively influence institutional (less than 10), medium (between 11 and 1.000) and large (more
structures towards behaviour in favour of sustainability (Pacheco than 1.000). Table 2 shows an overview of the organizations that
et al., 2010). The authors identified that organizations with a sus- participated in this research.
tainable entrepreneurship posture have conditions to alter and/or The next step is crafting the instrument for data collection
create norms, property rights, and government legislation to sup- (Eisenhardt, 1989; Simmons, 2009). Multiple data collection stra-
port better sustainability performance. tegies were performed by the present research, as recommended
Table 1 summarizes the main constructs used in the present by the literature to ensure construct validity (Yin, 2010). Main data
research to operationalize SBM, including sustainable value prop- sources are semi-structured interviews, which were combined
osition, value creation and delivery system, value capture, with analysis of documents published by the company itself or by
competitive advantage, contribution to SGD's and SBM's context third parties (grey literature).
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 727

Table 1
Literature synthesis.

SBM aspect Example of elements from the literature Synthesis for SBM

Value Represents the expected economic, environmental and social value added by the SBM's value proposition summarizes the organizations' meaning of
proposition organizations (Carayannis et al., 2015) existence in terms of the sustainable value it aims to create and
Value proposition includes products and services (Osterwalder and Pigneur, deliver, includes offerings (products and services) and seeks to
2010) address short, medium and long term aspects
Addresses short, medium and long term aspects of sustainability (Bansal and
DesJardine, 2014; Lozano, 2008)
Value creation Firm's resources, capabilities and inter-organizational network (Richardson, SBM's value creation and delivery system represents how the
and delivery 2008) organization manages its resources, capabilities and partners to
system Sustainability initiatives can be incorporates into operations/production, enable its sustainable value proposition
management, strategy, organizational systems, marketing and procurement,
assessment and communication (Lozano, 2012).
These initiatives include: sustainable supply chain management (Carter and
Rogers, 2008; Seuring et al., 2008), eco-design (Brones and Carvalho, 2015;
Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006), sustainable operations management (Kleindorfer
et al., 2005), sustainability reporting (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013), sustainable work design and ergonomics (Bolis et al., 2014a),
amongst many others.
Value capture Companies' value capture include cost structure and revenue model (Osterwalder Each stakeholder captures sustainable value created and delivered by
et al., 2005) the focal organization
SBM's enable financial value captured by the organization, but also depletion and/
or increases natural, social and economic capital beyond its boundaries
(Schaltegger et al., 2016a).
Competitive There are win-win solutions (Elkington, 1994), sweet spots (Savitz and Weber, SBM have potential to promote competitive advantage and, at the
advantage of 2007), and shared value creation (Porter and Kramer, 2011), by exploring same time, contribution to SDG's
SBM corporate sustainability to build competitive advantage
SBM can be a strategic choice to increase competitive advantage (Engert et al.,
2016)
Contribution to Institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) can serve to justify firms'
SDG's engagement to sustainable development, given laws and regulations (coercive
pressure), competitors imitation (mimetic pressure), or ethical motivations
(normative pressures)
Context factors Factors include: Natural environment and social general context (Kolk and The organization is a node of a complex system, so outside of its
Mauser, 2002), legislation (Griffith and Bhutto, 2008; Tan et al., 2014), industry- boundaries affects the inside.
specific competitive dynamics and market (Grosvold et al., 2014; Siebenhüner
and Arnold, 2007), public opinion (Siebenhüner and Arnold, 2007) and technol-
ogy level (Fan et al., 2014).

Table 2 model. Besides, it seeks also to promote further engagement of

Overview of selected organizations for case studies. interviewee to the interview itself, as recommended by the prin-
# Case B2B B2C Type Size Employees Country ciple of stakeholder engagement in the context of research in
1 #A ✕ Service S 3 Brazil
sustainability (van Kerkhoff, 2014).
2 #B ✕ Services S 4 UK One key-informant of each case study was interviewed. The
3 #C ✕ ✕ Service S 4 Brazil foremost relevant criterion for choosing the interviewee included
4 #D ✕ ✕ Service S 4 Brazil high knowledge of the business as a whole (not only on her/his
5 #E ✕ Manufacturing S <10 UK
department). For small-sized companies, the CEO/entrepreneur
6 #F ✕ Manufacturing S 11 UK
7 #G ✕ Services M 14 UK was interviewed. As this was not possible for the other companies,
8 #H ✕ ✕ Services M 35 UK besides the previous-mentioned criterion, interviewees were
9 #I ✕ Services M 50 Brazil selected given his/her proximity to either social or environmental
10 #J ✕ Manufacturing M 800 UK
matters in the organizations and given his/her leadership position
11 #K ✕ Product L >10.000 UK
as managers. The interviews were recorded, once agreed by the
interviewee, and transcribed for further analysis.

The interviews were divided into two parts. The first was related
to the business models elements (in terms of value proposition, 3.2. Data analysis
value creation and delivery system and value capture) and context
factors that affect the organizations, while the second part related In multiple case studies, such ours with 11 cases, the researchers
these issues to two aspects: competitive advantage and contribu- face the challenge of mitigating the bias through the triangulation
tion to SDG's. This research instrument was tested in a pilot inter- of multiples data sources (Yin, 2010) and the tradeoff between
view with a researcher that took part of an academic project about “better stories vs. better theories” (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007)
SBM conducted in partnership with a large UK retailer. After this and so the data analysis is driven to distinct propositions.
pilot, adjustments in some aspects were performed, such as the The content analysis was performed on the transcribed in-
phasing of some questions to clarify the meaning. After defining the terviews that pass through the coding process, the analysis of
instrument for data collection, the next step was to enter the field content (frequency counts and cross-tabulations) and interpreta-
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Simmons, 2009). For the interviews, the ques- tion of results (Duriau et al., 2007). A computer-aided approach was
tions displayed visually in A3 size sheet form, as an illustrative applied, using a software called MAXQDA (Kuckartz, 2010). This
diagram. This sheet was fulfilled, as the interview is conducted. This software was useful for coding and analyzing interview data,
process was useful to get an overview of each company's business amongst other applications. This stage was fundamental to provide
728 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

a deeper understanding of the data set collected, which enabled the 4.1. Case studies' value proposition
aggregation of this data into the most relevant aspects underneath
this variety of companies studied. Results show that the value proposition is composed by two
The coding of data followed the stages of the interviews and levels, a tangible and an intangible one. The tangible level is rep-
included six blocks of parameters, following Table 1 derived from resented by the products and services offered by the organization.
literature background. It initiated with each SBM element (value Meanwhile, the intangible level of value proposition represents the
proposition, value creation and delivery system and value business purpose, as a combination of, entrepreneurial dream and
captured) and, in sequence, the perception of contribution to vision, uneasiness and personal values and believes. Data collection
competitive advantage and to SDG's. The last block is related to showed many times personal narratives and perceptions to build
context aspects that affects business models, which was obtained the company's value proposition in terms of economic, environ-
from specific questions to the interviewee and also captured mental and social value in the short, medium and long term.
throughout the previous questions of the semi-structured in- In terms of economic, environmental and social value, the
terviews. Each SBM element is analyzed and discussed in Section studied companies indicated their value proposition focused at one
4.1e4.5. Finally, a framework is proposed combining both case of the TBL pillars or at a combination of them. Some of the case
studies and literature analysis to represent the integration of sus- studies expressed clear alignment to environmental goals (#B, #K),
tainability into organizations towards more SBM (Section 5). while others found closer connection to social ones (#A, #C, #G, #J).
As previously indicated by Belz and Binder (2017), a sustainable
business opportunity can derive from an environmental problem,
4. Research results to which a social and economic solutions are added or, similarly,
from a social problem, to which an environmental and economic
Table 3 presents a brief overview of each organization studied, solution are integrated. Some case studies are very clear on their
highlighting the main aspects on how they are aligned with TBL value proposition, such as #F, #E, #H, and #D. However, others
corporate sustainability principles presented in Section 2. This are still based on two pillars, combining environmental or social
brings initial support to the justification of companies' selection as goals with economic ones. They indicated, however, their intention
cases of SBM. Deep intra- and inter-cases analysis of studied SBM's to explore a TBL approach in the medium and long term.
are discussed in Sections 4.1e4.5 in terms of value propositions, When investigated about short, medium and long term di-
value creation and delivery system, value capture, as well as in mensions of their value proposition, it was challenging for the
terms of SBM's connection to competitive advantage and to SGD's, companies to delimit their proposition for the next generation. In
and of external context variables. general, this question was interpreted as regarding their strategic

Table 3
Overview of case studies and their alignment to corporate sustainability principles.

# Triple bottom line goals Engagement with stakeholders Timeframe

#A Promotion of community-based tourism that fosters Development of local community to provide service Incentivizing local culture can awake interest of
local economic value generation, culture and nature with quality and security for the tourist young population, preventing it to fade with time
#B Promotion of culture eco-efficiency and sustainability Awaking SME's interested in increasing in Availability of information is the first step to enable
accountability by providing free web scalable tool for environmental performance and eco-efficiency that every financial transaction considers also
SME's to disclosure environmental performance. In the environmental and social indicators.
future: introduce social performance
#C Financially viable business with purpose to awake Showing private and public schools the importance of These students tend to have a more complete
young people's protagonism, entrepreneurship and paying attention to education that complements education and provide solutions for society
problem-solving skills. traditional approaches
#D Development and dissemination of knowledge and Dissemination of culture on entrepreneurship and risk Preparation of businesses that aim to have a
networking to enable successful businesses with social reduction to foster people's will to develop businesses positive social and/or environmental impact
and/or environmental purposes. with purpose
#E Interior office design solutions with remanufactured Proactively talking and influencing to customers about Preparation of current logistics and other industrial
furniture to foster local economy, create semi-skilled the value of remanufactured goods infrastructure on how to operate for the circular
jobs and reduce material to landfill economy
#F Design, manufacturing and sale of luxury accessories Promotion of culture of slow fashion amongst Promotion of circular economy by repurposing
produced from end of life fire hoses consumers of high living standards material waste and fostering responsible
consumption.
#G Support with written materials, courses and networking Provoking reflection on people by showing that there is Expectation that happier people at work are more
people to find jobs that are more aligned with their an alternative way of working than traditional corporate productive and propose themselves to solve
personal values and aims jobs. problems more efficiently
#H Retrieve people's connection to nature for innovation Reconnecting people affectively with nature and Promotion of people's environmental awareness
and entrepreneurship promotion through adventure providing young students or business men and women and sensibility towards current and future
activities, outdoor clothing, business courses, the opportunity to be more sensible and more actively generations
partnership with universities and schools, etc. to solve problems
Promotion of cycling culture in Brazil, where it is not Contribution to the vision that people should have
#I Bike sharing service to improve people's quality of life as
an environmental friendly alternative for urban traditional alternatives for urban transportation that is not
transportation based on fossil fuel
#J Development, production and sale of high quality and Food representing care for people, enabling customers Community development of local production sites,
healthy food with ingredients from local, organic and to save time from cooking for other activities, stores and suppliers to enable solid business today
trustworthy suppliers disseminating traditional and international tastes, with #J, but also preparing them for other
employing vulnerable populations, as ex-convicts, etc. businesses
#K Flat rolled aluminium with much higher recycled High investment in technological innovation to ensure Development of culture, industrial infrastructure
content, compared to other players, reducing carbon product quality and also in developing infrastructure and technology for aluminium recycling to enable
emission and mitigating price volatility of raw material (local collection centres) and environmental recycling further development of better solutions
from international market awareness around the globe
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 729

outlook. They pointed out possibilities to improve delivery of value engagement, creativity and entrepreneurial approach to solve
proposition with current products or by adding new ones. Table 4 problems. As pointed out by #H and #K, it is critical that all em-
summarizes the discussion presented by this section. ployees are engaged to the cause, especially the ones with direct
contact to clients. Therefore, associated management processes,
4.2. Value creation and delivery system such as attracting, retaining, training and developing people are
critical for the cases studied. The companies also associated em-
Despite the variety of value propositions, case studies provided ployees' engagement with shared responsibility for decision mak-
common aspects regarding respective resources, capabilities and ing (such as in #D, #F, #I), with family work environment (#F, #G)
inter-organizational network. These are expected to encompass the and with having fun at work (#B, #J). Data showed that organiza-
companies' value creation and delivery systems (Richardson, 2008). tional culture is also associated to the alignment between discourse
At this part of the interview, a set of corporate aspects were brought and action. Also referred to with the expression “walk the talk”, the
in advance to guide this question and enable cross-case analysis. companies indicated the need for transparency in every decision to
These aspects were: supply chain and logistics, operations, mar- ensure accountability of their action. That includes admitting bad
keting and sales, research and development/innovation/design, decisions, as pointed out by #J.
corporate governance and organizational culture. It was open for Employees' engagement seems to be associated to high capa-
the interviewees to add other processes that they found to be bility of companies related to pro-active problem solving orientation.
missing. Table 5 brings an overview of the three main aspects that The cases studied indicate the relevance of developing a work
were convergent from the case studies: people-work connection, environment, where business processes enables people to
problem-solving orientation and systemic thinking. These di- constantly pursue, test and implement new and better solutions to
mensions were derived from content analysis, including codifica- create and deliver the value proposition. This can be associated
tion of interviews' transcriptions and code categorization by sense- with innovation capability, including development of new tech-
making. The following parts of the interviews were used for this nologies internally or in partnership with other organizations. The
aspect: (1) human resources, corporate governance and organiza- ideas for these innovations come from the vision of an entrepre-
tional culture for “people-work connection”; (2) research and neur that needs to be deployed into a financially stable product
development, innovation and design for “problem-solving orien- (#H), from listening to the stakeholders (#C, #G, #D) and/or from
tation”; and (3) supply chain/logistics, operations and marketing trial-and-error logic to dynamically validate hypothesis (#D).
for “systemic thinking”. Each of these common relevant aspects of Inter-organizational network, as in the traditional business
the SBM's studied are further discussed in the next paragraphs. models, are critical in SBM's. Facing sustainability challenges, the
One of the main aspect mentioned by the interviewees was the need for systemic thinking and engagement was previously indicated
strong people-work connection, relating personal values and busi- by the literature (such as Hopwood et al., 2005) and reinforced by
ness purpose. This connection is reinforced by empowering em- the case studies. Their success in terms of positive impact depends
ployees to be protagonists, which can be associated with open, on the respective stakeholders' network as a complex system with
flexible and innovation-driven organizational culture. Even with various societal actors and interrelationships. Therefore, businesses
wage being sometimes not the top one compared to the labour aiming for sustainability are pushed to think beyond their border
market, but at least in a minimum level to sustain living costs, the and provoke system-level changes. Being a hub of stakeholders is a
main motivation for companies' employees is to believe in the critical issue for #D, whose competitive advantage lays in the ca-
purpose of the business (explicitly mentioned by #B, #D, #E, #I). pacity to articulate between different societal actors (local com-
From this motivation, the companies perceive employees' munities with social needs, large corporations, other social

Table 4
Sustainable value proposition for case studies' SBM's.

Main aspects Description Example of evidence

Alignment to business-as-usual Tangible level of value proposition as Case studies' products and services pointed out from the interviews are the translation
products and services of the companies' purpose
Intangible level of value proposition Connected to entrepreneurial dream and "Our focus is that people can choose how to move from one place to the other … " (#I)
vision, uneasiness and personal believes "We want people to love what they do. This will make the world a better place " (#G)
, but we want to make good practice a common sense" (#H)
" This sounds like a cliche
TBL goals Social purposes Purpose of #A is to: "offer experience to individuals and communities reconnecting
values and nearing realities"(*)
Purpose of #C is to: "inspire a new way to think and transform the quality of education
in our country" (Brazil) (*)
Environmental purposes Purpose of #B: "We're committed to removing the barriers to environmental
management and to guiding as many companies as possible on their journey to
building a greener business and supply chain" (*)
"The whole purpose of the business is an environmental one" (#B)
TBL synergies and interdependence "We propose to bring to the world is to ally financial value creation with social and
environmental value" (#D)
"It [the TBL approach] is like a milk stool that is always going to fall down, if you're
missing one of your legs and no one's ever going to be able to sit on it" (#F)
Long term perspective as strategic view With current offerings Expanding reports from environmental performance to include social aspects (#B)
to improve delivery of value Better resource efficiency in food delivery (#J)
proposition Expanding the impact to other countries (#G)
By adding new offerings Entering the field of rail transportation as another alternative for sustainable urban
mobility (#I)
Exploring other materials' end of life potentials (#F)
Developing new solutions for promoting businesses with purpose according to
context changes and demands (#D)

(*) Note: Extracted from corporate websites, while the other evidences were from the interviews.
730 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

Table 5
Sustainable value creation and delivery systems for case studies' SBM's.

Main aspects Description Example of evidence

Alignment to business- Companies organized in processes Division in supply chain and logistics, operations, marketing and sales, research and development/
as-usual innovation/design, corporate governance and organizational culture was well accepted during interviews
both with service providers and manufacturers
People-work Protagonist role of employees " It is a hard market, so we need to be passionate about what we are doing" (#B)
connection "The staff is really passionate and qualified" (#H)
#J's "probably main areas of expertise is investment in personal development, excellent training and a
culture of internal promotion and investment in people"
"we [the employees] are taking over 51% of shares by the end of 2016. (…) It has to do with promoting
employees' engagement for the long term" (#H)
Organizational culture Transparency, following B-Corporation certification (#A, #B, #C, #F, #G, #H, #J)
Family feeling (#J, #G, #F)
Having fun at work (#B, #J)
Responsibility and commitment (#I, #J, #H)
Decentralized decision making process (#D, #G, #I)
Alignment between employees' and "Walk the talk" (#A, #G, #H)
organizations' values " We [the employees] share our love of nature" (#H)
"We have strong alignments amongst our [the employees'] values" (#D)
" If we don't have the sales guys into this boat, we will struggle" (#K)
"The person do not need to have previous knowledge, the important is to have people engaged in the cause,
we can train them in-house" (#I)
Proactive problem- Impact and outcome orientation " Our job is to train people that can have the impact" (#H)
solving orientation " The industry is still training people to do the task and not the outcome. We need more outcome-based
jobs" (#H)
Companies' problem delimitation Each case study pointed out its purpose, indicating the problem it aims to solve. This may be connected to
community development (#A), reduction of carbon emission (#B, #K), education (#C, #H), entrepreneurship
(#D, #G), landfill (#E, #F), urban mobility (#I) and food (#J).
Technology and new product " We want to increase from a 30% recycled content to an 80% recycled content by 202000 by developing
development technology (#K)
"We also have in our DNA to take another approach or view on things (…) We also need to have strong social
entrepreneurship vein" (#B)
"Need a new mindset (incremental not enough)" (#E)
Systemic thinking and Inter-dependence to current and "We need to show the appeal. (…) Cities do not see it [bike sharing systems] as something the municipalities
engagement potential clients/users need to subsidize" (#I)
" Mostly, we are word of mouth", in contract with marketing costs (#G)
" We are working with customers to deliver innovation in their products" (#K)
" [We need to have the] ability to demonstrate quality on remanufacturing, education about
remanufacturing" (#E)
Inter-dependence to suppliers/ Vertical integration to guarantee all processes are aligned with company's values (#E, #F, #I, #J)
partners Work with local and small suppliers and partners (#E, #G, #J)
" We have developed a long term relationship with all our suppliers"(#J)
"We do open book accounting with them [suppliers]" (#F)
Also transactions with non-purpose-driven partners (#B, #I)
Inter-dependence to competitors #H shares kayaks with their competitors, since it is an expensive good, which is used only during the season
(activities located in Wales)
Inter-dependence to government #C municipalities as clients for services in public schools
Government representatives as partners of #H in discussions on public policy
#I dependency on public subvention

businesses, etc.), and for #H, which uses its network to find like- ethical behaviour throughout the value chain, ensuring margins in
minded stakeholders to develop new activities together. each stage, and delivering high quality end-products. #E, #F, #I, #J
Following, this systemic thinking of SBM's is further discussed internalized responsibilities instead of outsourcing certain stages of
regarding customers, suppliers and competitors. their production and delivery processes. For instance, #I finds
There is direct systemic inter-dependence between customers critical that the bicycles are robust for intense use and easy to
and focal companies. There are situation in which companies need repair, so they decided to manufacture these products in-house to
to foster social and environmental awareness in order to instigate extend the bicycle usage stage to its maximal level possible. Close
market demand. That is the case, for example, of #B, #E, #F, #K. partnership with small growers were mentioned by #J and devel-
Partnership for technology development of low carbon aluminium opment of local infrastructure in different countries for aluminium
for automotive applications has been conducted by #K, in the recovery was pointed out by #K. By relying a certain responsibility
attempt to promote demand for this product. #E finds a relevant to to other organizations, #H and #G find important to ensure that the
foster communication skills to demonstrate product quality also set of values and believes of these partners are aligned to their own
when it is remanufactured, e.g., fostering education and culture and #J mentioned their long term and trustworthy relationship also
about remanufacturing and circular economy. #B knows that their with small suppliers. Despite this, some case studies mentioned
role is to make environmental information available. But how they are many times supplied by companies with lower alignment
companies and respective clients will use this information available to sustainability issues, such as #I's supplier for bicycle parts and
is of smaller influence of #B. #B's partner responsible for developing environmental data bases.
Given high systemic dependence of suppliers and partners, Another relevant actor in the system-level is the government,
vertical integration seems to be also an important to increase which has been currently influenced by #H through participation in
control of the processes towards guaranteeing transparency and advisory for sustainability-based legislation development and by
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 731

#C through direct contact while selling their services performed in superficial financial-based transaction was also a relevant aspect of
public schools. Interestingly, the intension to increase influence on case studies' business models.
government processes and practices were mentioned during all Another case study result in terms of value capture is the
interviews, at some extend. identification of direct and cascated sustainable value capture.
The system level concern of case studies also included inter- Direct sustainable value captured is caused directly by business
dependence with competitors (#H shares kayaks with their com- operations such as reduction of material to landfill (as #F and #K)
petitors, since it is an expensive good, which is used only during the and improved education for young people (as #H, #C). In turn,
season, for activities located in Wales), and with government (#C cascaded value is captured when the focal companies' stakeholders
municipalities as clients for services in public schools, government are enabled to create value to their respective stakeholders. For
representatives as partners of #H in discussions on public policy example, by pointing out the need for environmental performance
and #I's dependency on public subvention). improvement, #B's clients may foster the market for renewable
energy solutions; people that participated in the training offered by
4.3. Value capture #G and #D tend to have more chance to create successful busi-
nesses with social and environmental impact; or cars with #K's low
Various stakeholders capture value created by case studies' carbon aluminium tend to consume less fuel given weight reduc-
SBM's: shareholders/investors, clients, employees, suppliers/part- tion, etc.
ners, society, environment, government, competitors, universities, The main convergent aspects from the case studies are sum-
like-minded organizations and indirect stakeholders. The last two marized in Table 6.
are further explained, since they are not as straightforward as the
others. Like-minded organizations represent those that share the 4.4. Connecting competitive advantage to sustainable development
same values and have aligned purposes for the world, even if they goals
are not from the same market or industry. Some of the companies
studied are certified as a B-Corporation (#B, #J, #G, #F and #H), When asked about their respective company's contribution to
providing network that enables high level conversations about SDG's, the interviewees found connection to the SBM elements, as
sustainability. The indirect stakeholders represent a person or a described in Table 7. As one can see, the companies' relation to
group of people that are affected by one of the stakeholder directly SDG's can be based on the value proposition, e. g., products and
addressed by the focal organization, as consequence of interaction services are capable of contributing to one of the SDG's (even if it is
with the latter. In other words, these indirect stakeholders capture in a small scale). The value creation and delivery system can also be
a cascaded value created by the organization. connected to the goals, since decisions on how the business is
Empirical evidences indicate different types of value that can be conducted also have potential to generate sustainability benefits.
captured by stakeholders. In terms of financial value captured by For instance, by assuming the B-Corporation certification (such as
the studied companies, revenue is seen as a requirement to enable #B, #F, #G, #H and #J), companies are expected to use certain
the business viability, ensure positive impact and scale up the so- guidelines to support decisions that maximize benefits for all
lution and its cascaded positive impacts. In other words, profit is an stakeholders, rather than individual financial short term return.
enabler for social and/or environmental purposes, rather than the The value captured by all stakeholders is directly related to the
ultimate goal for the company. As mentioned by both #H and #D, value proposition and also to the value creation and delivery sys-
there is a need to combine high efficient business management tem. To avoid repeating the same aspects pointed out in the first
skills with authentic dedication to a social and/or environmental two SBM elements columns, the third column of Table 7 indicates
cause. A variety of mechanisms were mentioned to be used by the cascaded value captured that are related to each SDG.
businesses to ensure financial resource: (1) compensation between The competitive advantage pointed out by the case studies
offerings (a set of products and services are revenue source, so that depend, as expected, of the sector they are inserted in. Despite this,
others can be offered free of charge) (#B, #G); price policy ac- the most frequent competitive advantage amongst the case studies
cording to people's purchase power (#C); government-funded (#I, #J, #G, #F, #H and #K) has to do with being authentic to the
projects (#C, #H), crowdfunding (#G), awards for start-ups with environment and/or social cause, with strong DNA in believing in
purpose (#A, #B). Some stakeholders capture the same economic the organization, supported by a past aligned with the discourse.
value as business-as-usual configurations would do, such as divi- This means that their sustainability vein is not superficial, but
dends for shareholders and revenue from purchasing inputs for rather it is embedded into the organizations, and that is their
business operation, such as the database supplier of #B. source of differentiation. The other competitive advantages
Non-financial value is also captured by SBM's stakeholders, mentioned include: network of contacts (#D, #H), employees (#H),
going beyond a trading transaction. By promoting deeper engage- innovative approach in solving problems (#B), family-atmosphere
ment with suppliers, there is opportunity for further development (#J), and knowledge (#D).
and higher awareness on environmental and social concerns. The The connection between contribution of companies to SDG's
same can happen with products and clients. #F's clients are not and their competitive advantage is analyzed following. Fig. 1 il-
only buying a purse, as any other luxury purse, but rather they are lustrates the connections perceived by interviewees in terms of
buying a purpose-driven product from a material with previous SBM elements' contribution to SDG's and to competitive advantage.
valuable narrative. This is a more intangible value captured. Other The connections between the nodes in Fig. 1 represent that they
examples are investors and clients capturing the radiation of social were indicated as being related to both competitive advantage and
businesses (#B), employee feeling proud, motivated and aligned contribution to SDG's by the same interviewee. Thicker lines
with company's values (#B, #D, #G, #F amongst others) and clients' represent that the relation was more frequently pointed out. It is
satisfaction for using more sustainable products (#K, #F). Besides, interesting to note that the strongest connection between SDG's
the focal company captures non-financial value, such as a com- and competitive advantage is the value proposition, indicating the
mercial relationship based on trust and long term commitment relevance in defining organization's purpose and offerings that can
(#A, #J), or knowledge exchange on specific matters that the provide synergies between individual and collective goals. This
partner is more familiar with (#D, #H). This two-way value ex- synergy can also be fostered by managing operations, supply chain
change between focal company and stakeholder beyond a and human resources towards sustainability. Other aspects seems
732 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

Table 6
Sustainable value captured for case studies' SBM's.

Main aspects Description Example of evidence

Alignment to Revenue source from products and services All case studies are for-profit organizations
business-as- Traditional stakeholders Shareholders and customers were pointed out as relevant stakeholders by the case studies during
usual interviews
Complementary Financial resource as a mean to achieve "Profit is like an enabler to help us sustain and grow our impact on people" (#G)
aspects impact, rather than business goal "It is a for-profit organization, so if we do not sell ( …), we do not pay rent or salary. We have to
generate economic value to exist" (#D)
Mechanisms to ensure financial resource Compensation between offerings a set of products and services are revenue source, so that others can
beyond traditional revenue be offered free of charge (#B, #G)
Price policy according to people's purchase power (#C)
Government-funded projects (#C, #H)
Partnership between government and private initiatives
Crowdfunding (#G)
Awards for start-ups with purpose (#A, #B)
Other stakeholders to be addressed by the Employees, suppliers/partners, society, environment, government, competitors, universities, like-
organization minded organizations and indirect stakeholders were also pointed out as relevant stakeholders by the
case studies during interviews
Cascaded sustainable value "If the company also changes [due to environmental reporting and management culture], its supply chain
can also create market and be more competitive in the longer term, because they have less embedded
externalities" (#B)
"In the long term, we want to enable more people working for a common good" (#D)
" By the time they leave school, they are confident and have an idea on ways to find solutions" (#H)

also to contribute to corporations' competitive advantage, such as mentioned by #B, which is starting stronger effort in the Indian
organizational culture, corporate governance, marketing & sales, market given new legislation on investment in project with social
innovation and like-minded organizations. Analysing the SDG's and/or environmental impact. This factor can also come in form of
connections in Fig. 1, it is interesting to note the high relevance of subsidies that affects business viability. As pointed out by #I, all
clients' value capture, indicating that the contribution to SDG's are urban transportation alternative (cars, buses, trains, underground,
so embedded into business that this contribution is performed by cab, etc.) is at some extend subsidized by the government. In Brazil,
clients themselves capturing value. there is not yet the culture that it belongs to public agents' role to
support the bike sharing system. Therefore, their contribution to
4.5. External context variables the dissemination of this practice is still very limited.
Case studies show also that technology is also an enabler of SBM,
During data collection, various contextual aspects were pointed even if it is not enough to ensure business success. Technological
out to affect the business model. The first is the material supply innovation was mentioned to be crucial mainly for Nov, enabling
market, which have large potential to affect business decisions. That low carbon application and high quality production process, and for
is the case for #K, which found in the recycled material less risk of #B, providing information technology to put their main product in
supply in the medium and long term, since most alumina from the web and ensure scalability of their business.
mining comes from one country (China). By deciding which ma- Independent associations also seem to affect business models
terial to work with, #F is critical, since it represents a strong decisions. For instance, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been
commitment to ensure the best value is generated from it. On the intensively campaigning for circular economy, promoting logics
other side of the value chain, the second relevant context factor is such as the remanufacturing and recycling. Business such as #E can
the potential demand market. Some of the organizations have clear be fostered by the dissemination of the importance of circular
view of their market potential, even if they are not able to reach it at business models, as one possible alternative to tackle sustainability
the moment. For instance, #G is confident about the number of challenges. The B-Corporation network is another way of positively
people around the globe that aims to align their believes to the influencing SBM, since this certification reinforces the commitment
work activities; and #B mentioned the number of SME's that so far of the organization in terms of governance, workers, environment
do not provide environmental reports. Being comfortable market and community. The network formed by businesses that think alike
size and potential gives further confidence on the business model. to exchange ideas, solutions and challenges was also found valuable
The market size is also dependent on client's awareness and, by the case studies.
therefore, their preferences for more sustainable solutions. #E and An interesting aspect that came during the interviews was the
#K mentioned the need for intense marketing and sales effort to soft boundaries between stakeholders and their role to and within the
show the value of remanufactured and recycled products. This organization as a collaborative network (rather than hierarchical
effort is needed given indifferent position to environmental solu- relations). Some examples are: previous attendees of #G's courses
tions or even expectation of less quality associated with lower price can become supplier or vice-versa; #D's partners can be demanded
of these products. The companies indicated that the presence of to enable a certain project and demand #D's services for others,
competitors increases market awareness and understanding of the depending on the origin of the business contact; work colleagues
solution proposed by the SBM and, consequently, can increase can transform professional relations into friendship and family-
market demand (#D, #I). Explicit efforts to cooperate with com- type relations (#G, #H); and companies promoting cooperation
petitors were mentioned by the case studies to enable and increase with competitors, that can serve as partners for sustainability goals
business positive impact (#D and #H). (#H, #D).
Another crucial context factor is government affairs and public When discussing about context, it is expected a discussion about
policies. Although some companies are able to influence them the difference of business models located in two different coun-
directly (as #H), this is not the case for most companies studied. tries: United Kingdom and Brazil. Interestingly, data analysis shows
However, legislation decisions can affect the market size, as that, despite different location, no significant discrepancy in terms
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 733

Table 7
Examples of how SDG's are embedded into SBM elements.

Value proposition Value creation & delivery system Value captured

1 No poverty #J: Employment of vulnerable #D: Cascated value from social entrepreneurs fostered by
population offered courses
#H: Training on land use to less fortunate people in local
community
2 No hunger #J: Donation of food produced above the necessary to local
shelter
3 Good health and #J: Healthy frozen food as main product
well-being #G: Promoting alignment between
personal values and work activity
#E: Interior design to increase well being
and productivity
#H: Mainly from the adventure service
4 Quality education #H: Engagement with schools for do- #J: High concern in people's #G: Improvement of network members' level of education and
learning development potential to deploy this knowledge to their respective
#F: Apprenticeship program networks
5 Gender equality #H: Adventure aligned also to profile of #J, #F: gender equality amongst
pregnant and female-only groups employees
6 Clean water and #B: Offering of easily accessible water #F: Treatment of water output from
sanitation footprint reports factory
7 Affordable and #H: Solar energy generation for the
clean energy office
#F: Investment in projects for
renewable energy
8 Decent wok and #E: Promotion og semi-skilled job op- #I, #J, #G, #F, #H: Good work
economic growth portunities by offering remanufactured conditions with opportunity for
goods development
9 Industry innovation #B: Nudging SMEs towards investment in #B: Expected improvement with increased environmental
and infrastructure environmental solutions awareness
#I, #F, #K, #E: Innovative offerings
demands innovation from other
stakeholders
#G: Promotion of new entrepreneurial
businesses with purpose in the market
#H: Services related to foster business
innovation and problem-solving expertise
10 Reduced #J: Employment of vulnerable
inequalities population
#D: Direct contact with low-income
population as part of their offered
courses
11 Sustainable cities #I: Additional alternative for urban #E: Promotion of circular economy #B, #H: Expected improvement with increased environmental
and communities transportation awareness
#K: Various applications for low carbon #G, #D, #C: Expected improvements with qualification and
aluminium (transportation, construction, information on entrepreneurship
etc.)
12 Responsible #B: Making environmental information #E, #F: Impact in increasing #B, #H: Expected improvement with increased environmental
consumption and available to improve purchase decisions production aligned with circular awareness
production #I: Sharing instead of owning a bicycle economy #G, #D, #C: Expected improvements with qualification and
#F: Sustainable product (from recycled information on entrepreneurship
material and with longer usage stage)
13 Climate action #B: Making environmental information #E, #F, #K: Reduction of material to #B, #H: Expected improvement with increased environmental
available to improve purchase decisions landfill awareness
#G, #D, #C: Expected improvements with qualification and
information on entrepreneurship
14 Life below water #B: Making environmental information #J: Initiative with ethical fish sourcing
available to improve purchase decisions #H: See is crucial to operate services
related to adventure
15 Life on land #B: Making environmental information #J: Partnership with small farmers for
available to improve purchase decisions sustainable production
#E, #F, #K: Reduction of material to
landfill
16 Peace justice and #J: Partnership with B-Corporations to increase influence of
strong institutions government
#G: Expected contribution to governments with making
information available
#H: Current partnership with government level discussions
17 Partnerships for the #D: Partnerships are critical to provide #F: Partnership with societal
goals better networks for clients representatives to enable material
supply
#H: Partnership to foster a resilient
business
734 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

Fig. 1. Connection between SGD's and competitive advantage through SBM elements.

of companies' perception on the integration of sustainability into distinction to business-as-usual. Following, we indicate the main
business was perceived. Legislation is the most critical issue aspects regarding each business model element towards more SBM.
regarding the country difference, but this discussion was covered in Starting with the value proposition of SBM, the case studies
previously in this section, under the debate about the influence of shows the crucial relevance of this element to the business model,
government affairs and public policies on SBM. as previously noted by the literature (Carayannis et al., 2015). It
represent the reason of existence of the organization (Richardson,
2008). Thus, we propose that the basis of SBM's is the business
5. Discussions: framework proposal
purpose, which represents the intangible level of value proposition
previously mentioned in Section 4.1. It represents the organiza-
The combined discussion of case studies and literature analysis
tion's vision and mission on how it understands it makes difference
provide insights for SBM, as summarized in the proposed frame-
to the world. The sustainability purposes tend to come from an
work showed in Fig. 2. With a deep understanding of a variety of
axiological and collective perspective, as noted by the case studies,
SBM's in practice (case studies) aligned with the literature analysis,
reinforced in Table 4 and previous literature (Bolis et al., 2014b).
this research developed this framework highlighting the main
These purposes translate the set of moral values and believes
convergent characteristics of these business models, bringing
embedded into organizational culture that guides the organiza-
indication for academics and practitioners on relevant aspects on
tion's decisions. The case studies found evidence that individual
how to implement more SBM's. The proposed framework, amongst
values of entrepreneurs in smaller companies tend to be decisive in
other aspects, indicates that SBM is rather a continuum than a plain
terms of defining business purpose, corroborating with previous
literature (Spence et al., 2011). Case studies in larger companies
pointed out to the same direction, since advisory board's and top
management's personal vision also to influence organization's
alignment to sustainability purposes, as mentioned by #K. By
arguing this business purpose in a central position of a SBM, we
corroborate with the normative business model proposed by
Randles and Laasch (2016). To support companies defining the
sustainability purpose of their SBM, organizations may find
guidelines and influences in the SDG's, as shown by the present
case studies (Section 4.4 and Table 7).
From this business purpose based on moral values and believes,
the other SBM's components are derived. This research is aligned
with previous research (Rauter et al., 2017) and also found evidence
that SBM do not completely denies traditional business-as-usual
settings, but criticizes it with adaptations and extensions. As rep-
resented in Fig. 2, the business value proposition of business-as-
usual need to extend its focus aiming not only customer satisfac-
tion, but also other stakeholders. To make this business purpose
tangible, SBM's are called to offer a set of products and services that
the customers are willing to pay and, at the same time, considers
sustainability aspects. There is more than one unique solution to
Fig. 2. Framework to support SBM implementation of organizations aligned with cope with the business purpose and this can be volatile, demanding
sustainability performance goals. constant updates and validations in certain markets, as is the case
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 735

of #D. Besides, the present research indicates the sustainable value derived from the combination of both competition and collabora-
proposition as key aspect also in promote synergy between com- tion with competitors to develop and implement solutions for
pany's contribution to SDG's and its competitive advantage, as SDG's, as well as, support organization's existence in the market
shown previously (Table 7 and Fig. 1). context.
Following Fig. 2, to represent the main efforts of SBM's value Aligned with previous research (Engert et al., 2016; Morioka and
creation and delivery, the present research found evidence to Carvalho, 2016b), the proposed framework indicate also contextual
support the following dimension: people-work connection, pro- variables that affect businesses aiming sustainability goals. The
active problem solving, and systemic thinking and engagement, most critical ones identified in the present research were: supply
as presented in Section 4.3. These dimensions are interlinked and market, consumer market, government and public policies, tech-
the SBM depends on the balance of all of them, since the lack of nology, sustainability organized initiatives and global societal ten-
performance in one can ham the others. These dimensions were dencies. We found evidence from the field study that these
previously addressed by the literature, but in general, they are variables not only affects SBM's, but rather SBM's have also po-
discussed separately. For instance, the problem-solving approach to tential to develop an entrepreneurial posture to proactively influ-
sustainability identified in the case studies has been addressed by ence their contexts to increase positive impact of business (Pacheco
the sustainability entrepreneurship literature, pointing out the et al., 2010; Randles and Laasch, 2016).
environmental and/or social problems call for solutions that can be In summary, the variety of SBM can be derived from decisions
developed into a TBL business opportunity (Belz and Binder, 2017). related to organization's sustainability purpose (which problem is
The three dimensions emerged from the case studies have also the company aiming to solve?), to pro-active problem-solving (how
relation to the need for organizational culture aligned with sus- are products and services designed and operationalized to address
tainability to successfully implement a more sustainable business, sustainability challenges?), to people-work connection (how peo-
as previously discussed by the literature (Baumgartner, 2009; Melo, ple's potentials can be developed in favour of business sustain-
2012). The case studies corroborate with the literature, as the ability purpose?), to systemic thinking and engaging (how does
above-mentioned dimensions can be translated into artifacts business decisions affect within and outside organization's
(visible structures and processes), but are tight connected to the boundaries?), to organization's financial health (how does the
organizational and employees' personal values as well as to basic revenue stream compensate expenses?), and to direct and cascaded
assumptions as sources for values and artifacts (Baumgartner, sustainable value captured by stakeholders (what economic, envi-
2009). ronmental and social benefits does the organization enable to the
The sustainability purpose of SBM can address sustainable value stakeholders in a systemic sense?). This research found evidence
capture by the organizations' direct and indirect stakeholders, as also that these SBM's decisions are affected by and have potential to
discussed in Section 4.3. Fig. 2 represents that financial solidity is a affect the organization's coopetitive advantage, the contribution to
requirement for business existence, also if they have sustainability achieve SDG's and the contextual variables.
orientation (Morioka and Carvalho, 2016a). Yet, business-as-usual
corporations are mainly focused on measuring financial profit 6. Conclusions and future research
and many times lack performance in term of sustainability goals.
Under a system's perspective, the value captured by the stake- The present research studied SBM combining both literature
holders can also deploy into other indirect stakeholders, as pointed analysis and case studies. Four main contributions are following
out by the case studies (Section 4.3). SBM should not be restricted described. The first, and most relevant one, is the framework to
to niche market, but rather it should address the mass market support implementation of more SBM's (Fig. 2), as an attempt to
(Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011), intensifying business' direct and provide deeper understanding of what makes a business more
cascaded value. The net combination of the value captured by the sustainable in practice. For this, we used literature analysis as a
stakeholders and the value that they contribute to the organization background to describe SBM from the theoretical point of view and
results can be simplified as the organizations' contribution to verified the most relevant ones by conducting eleven case studies in
SDG's. two countries (Brazil and United Kingdom). The novelty of this
Fig. 2 shows the term “coopetitive advantage”, proposing an framework is that it is both theory and practice-based and that it
evolution of competitive advantage. The research indicates that the provides relatively concrete indications on how to implement more
term competitive advantage does not seem to match well SBM SBM. It is worth noting that this research argues that SBM is not an
approach, since it implies that concurrency needs to fail to enable attempt to deny business-as-usual perspective, but rather it seeks
business success. SBM's success is about solving a social and/or to complement this view, by adding a more axiological and sys-
environmental problem and there are situations in which conjoint temic approach. The proposed framework has the advantage to
effort with competitors catalyses or enables the success of a certain bring a certain level of tangibility and, at the same time, also flex-
sustainability solution (Volschenk et al., 2016). Çoopetition litera- ibility to be applied in a large variety of industries. Moreover, the
ture indicates the strategic benefit of cooperating with competitors framework represents case studies that indicated the viability of,
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1995; Dagnino and Rocco, 2009; simultaneously, being sustainable and competitive.
Rusko, 2011), but reviews on this concept failed in pointing out The second contribution is on the concept of cascaded sustain-
the need to further investigate this to tackle sustainability chal- able value, resulting from a combination of corporate sustainability
lenges (Bengtsson and Kock, 2014; Walley, 2007). However, recent and systemic thinking lenses over data analysis. It represents that,
literature (Luo et al., 2016; Rusko, 2011; Volschenk et al., 2016) and as SBM's are part of a value network, value delivered by the orga-
the present case studies support that coopetition concept has po- nizations is captured not only by stakeholders with direct contact,
tential to contribute to SBM, since sustainability performance of but this is also deployed to stakeholders of focal company's
one organization depends on the system in which it is inserted stakeholders. Considering that data collection process was suc-
(Bansal and DesJardine, 2014), and that includes the competitors' cessfully supported by United Nations' SDG's, the third contribution
sustainability performance. Successful initiatives to collaborate is on the explicit use of these SDG's as a framework to critically
with competitors were also pointed out by the case studies #D and analyse SBM's contribution to sustainable development.
#H. In summary, we propose that coopetitive advantage is critical The forth and last contribution is the use of the term coopetitive
to business survival and it implies a broader view of advantages advantage, instead of competitive advantage, to address SBM's. This
736 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

can be justified by collected evidence of potential advantages believes of the focal organization and the one of its stakeholders,
derived from a combination of competition and cooperation with with special attention to alignment with employees' values. This
competitors. Besides, this term is more aligned with the episte- calls for more engaged transdisciplinary approach of sustainability-
mological complex concept of sustainable development, which per related researches, as previously indicated by the literature
se is an embedded in the need for collaboration, since a system is (Schaltegger et al., 2013; van Kerkhoff, 2014). In particular, this
sustainable only if all its nodes are in harmony. research points out the need for further research from disciplines
This research provides indication that SBM is not restricted to such sociology and psychology, since current positivits and prag-
specific situations, but rather the paradigm based on organization's matic approach of business management and engineering para-
purpose aligned with sustainability principles that can be applied digm seems to be limited to address the complexities of
independently of the organization size, country or offering. sustainability challenges. Future studies can validate the proposed
Within research limitations, we point out that our framework is framework with an action-research, further investigating the as-
a static picture of the organization and do not open discussion on pects of the proposed SBM framework in more detail. This has
how it can or should evolve over time. It brings recommendations potential advance in the field of sustainable business modelling, e.
on aspects of SBM that are relevant, but do not explicitly provide a g, into the process of evolving a SBM. In summary, further studies
detailed evolutionary guideline for organizations. This dynamic are called to the challenge of making explicit that SBM's are not
approach on SBM has been addressed by another approach of the only companies that directly addresses a specific social and/or
literature, as SBM innovation or as sustainable business modelling environmental problem, but rather is an emerging paradigm on
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; Girotra and Netessine, 2013; Roome and how to manage efficient businesses in any sector to add positive
Louche, 2016). Besides, there are other SBM mechanisms for value value to the globe.
creation and delivery that were not addressed by the case studies,
representing another research limitation. Even though we bring Acknowledgements
case studies aligned with circular economy (Bocken et al., 2016),
sharing economy (Cheng, 2016), social enterprise (Grassl, 2012), This research was supported by the Brazilian institutes: National
they did not comprise logics such as product-service systems Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq),
(Ceschin, 2013) and bottom-of-the-pyramid solutions (Yunus et al., 207089/2014-0 and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
2010). Additionally, it is relevant to mention the non-respondent Education Personnel. We greatly thank them for supporting this
bias. Even though this aspect is usually mentioned for quantita- research.
tive studies, this also has influence in qualitative approaches. By
agreeing to offer their time for the interviews, the companies show
that they tend to be more keen in collaborating with non- References
commercial partners (in this case, the university). It is not
Ang, F., Van Passel, S., 2010. The sustainable value approach: a clarifying and
possible to be sure, whether other non-successful contacts would constructive comment. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2303e2306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
also provide the same results as the ones shown in this paper. j.ecolecon.2010.05.016.
Therefore, research results need to be interpreted also in light of Bansal, P., 2005. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 197e218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.441.
this research limitation. Bansal, P., DesJardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strateg.
The literature on SBM is still incipient and exploratory. The Organ 12, 70e78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265.
present research is an attempt to provide more tangible under- Baumgartner, R.J., 2014. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual
framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sus-
standing of what SBM means in practice. To address SBM chal- tainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 21, 258e271.
lenges, there is a need to be aware of sustainability trade-offs and http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1336.
tensions between aspects such as TBL performance goals, different Baumgartner, R.J., 2009. Organizational culture and leadership: preconditions for
the development of sustainable corporation. Sustain. Dev. 17, 102e113. http://
time frame and stakeholder conflicts (Haffar and Searcy, 2017;
dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.405.
Hahn et al., 2010; Morioka and Carvalho, 2016a), as it is not al- Belz, F.M., Binder, J.K., 2017. Sustainable entrepreneurship: a convergent process
ways viable to reach a win-win solution. To address this, in some model. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1887.
Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., 2014. Coopetition-Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and
cases, deeper structural modifications are demanded (Hopwood
future challenges. Ind. Mark. Manag. 43, 180e188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
et al., 2005), leading many times to business redesign, as new j.indmarman.2014.02.015.
regulations and politics can support these trade-offs to transform Bocken, N.M.P., 2015. Sustainable venture capital e catalyst for sustainable start-up
into a win-win situation. For instance, regulatory legislation can success? J. Clean. Prod. 108, 647e658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.05.079.
internalize what was previous a company externality. Thus, future Bocken, N.M.P., Bakker, C., Pauw, I. De, 2016. Product design and business model
studies are challenged to keep on the search of promoting more strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 1015, 20. http://dx.doi.org/
SBM's, exploring also how they can tackle sustainability trade-off 10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
and tensions. to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
Another reflexion that this research indicates is about the need http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
for a SBM which presents coherent SBM elements. For instance, Bolis, I., Brunoro, C.M., Sznelwar, L.I., 2014a. Mapping the relationships between
work and sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Appl.
commercializing a sustainable product is not enough to indicate a Ergon. 45, 1225e1239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.02.011.
SBM, as the other elements of this business also need to be aligned Bolis, I., Morioka, S.N., Sznelwar, L.I., 2014b. When sustainable development risks
to sustainability principles. Following this lead, another reflexion losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature
review and a conceptual model. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 7e20.
emerges: can all business become sustainable? As far as this Boo, E., Dallamaggiore, E., Dunphy, N., Morrissey, J., 2016. How innovative business
research is concerned, with current theory and practice, this models can boost the energy efficient buildings market. Int. J. Hous. Sci. Its Appl.
question is still open. Contributions from following researches can 40 (2), 73e83.
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation:
also address this dichotomy between sustainable product and
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.
sustainable process and how one can support the other. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007.
Besides, for future studies, this study reinforces the need for Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business
more axiological approach to develop and implement solutions for models and economic performance: an overview. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 1e8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013.
sustainable development (Bolis et al., 2014b), given the high Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J., 1995. The right game: use game theory to shape
emphasis at the alignment between the set of moral values and strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73, 7e71.
 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738 737

Brones, F., Carvalho, M.M. de, 2015. From 50 to 1: integrating literature toward a Girotra, K., Netessine, S., 2013. Business model innovation for sustainability. Manuf.
systemic ecodesign model. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 44e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Serv. Oper. Manag. 15, 537e544.
j.jclepro.2014.07.036. Grassl, W., 2012. Business models of social enterprise: a design approach to hy-
Broman, G.I., Robe rt, K.-H., 2017. A framework for strategic sustainable develop- bridity. ACRN J. Entrep. Perspect. 1, 37e59.
ment. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 17e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121. Griffith, A., Bhutto, K., 2008. Improving environmental performance through inte-
Brown, N., Deegan, C., 1998. The public disclosure of environmental performance grated management systems (IMS) in the UK. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 19,
information: a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. 565e578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777830810894247.
Acc. Bus. Res. 29, 21e41. Grosvold, J., Hoejmose, S.U., Roehrich, J.K., 2014. Squaring the circle: management,
Carayannis, E.G., Sindakis, S., Walter, C., 2015. Business model innovation as lever of measurement and performance of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain
organizational sustainability. J. Technol. Transf. 40, 85e104. http://dx.doi.org/ Manag. An Int. J. 19, 292e305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0440.
10.1007/s10961-013-9330-y. Haffar, M., Searcy, C., 2017. Classification of trade-offs encountered in the practice of
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage- corporate sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 140, 495e522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38, s10551-015-2678-1.
360e387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816. Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of
Catulli, M., 2012. What uncertainty? Further insight into why consumers might be results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research.
distrustful of product service systems. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 23, 780e793. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 5e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381211253335. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., 2010. Trade-offs in corporate sustainability:
Ceschin, F., 2013. Critical factors for implementing and diffusing sustainable you can't have your cake and eat it. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 19, 217e229. http://
product-service systems: insights from innovation studies and companies' ex- dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.674.
periences. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 74e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ k, T., Janouskova
Ha , S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable development goals: a need for
j.jclepro.2012.05.034. relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 60, 565e573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
Hosp. Manag. 57, 60e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003. Hannon, M.J., Foxon, T.J., Gale, W.F., 2015. “Demand pull” government policies to
Connelly, B.L., Ketchen Jr., D.J., Slater, S.F., 2011. Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for support product-service system activity: the case of energy service companies
sustainability research in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39, 86e100. http:// (ESCos) in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 900e915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0199-0. j.jclepro.2015.05.082.
Dagnino, G.B., Rocco, E., 2009. Coopetition Strategy, Coopetition Strategy: Theory, Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20,
Experiments and Cases. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203874301. 986e1014.
Dentchev, N., 2007. Corporate social performance: business rationale, competi- Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B., 2003. Creating sustainable value. Acad. Manag. Exec. 17,
tiveness threats, and management challenges. Bus. Soc. 46, 104e116. 56e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2003.10025194.
Dentchev, N., Baumgartner, R., Dieleman, H., Jo  hannsdottir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T., Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., O'Brien, G., 2005. Sustainable development: mapping
Rauter, R., Rosano, M., Snihur, Y., Tang, X., van Hoof, B., 2015. Embracing the different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 13, 38e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.244.
variety of sustainable business models: social entrepreneurship, corporate Kleindorfer, P., Singhal, K., van Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations
intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to sustainability management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14, 482e492.
challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 4e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Kolk, A., Mauser, A., 2002. The evolution of environmental management: from stage
j.jclepro.2015.10.130. models to performance evaluation. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11, 14e31. http://
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphis dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.316.
and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147e160. Kuckartz, U., 2010. Realizing Mixed-methods Approaches with MAXQDA. Philipps-
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., Pfarrer, M.D., 2007. A Content analysis of the content Universitaet Marburg.
analysis literature in organization. Organ. Res. Methods 10, 5e32. Lozano, R., 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies' systems:
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 14e26. http://
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11, 130e141. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.060.
Dyllick, T., Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: intro- Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
ducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. 1838e1846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008.
Environ. 29, 156e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176. Lozano, R., Carpenter, A., Huisingh, D., 2015. A review of “theories of the firm” and
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. their contributions to corporate sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 430e442.
Rev. 14, 532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.007.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities Luo, Z., Chen, X., Wang, X., 2016. The role of co-opetition in low carbon
and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 25e32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ manufacturing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253, 392e403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
AMJ.2007.24160888. j.ejor.2016.02.030.
Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J., 2006. Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice
21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 37e51. for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean. Prod. 14,
Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business 1396e1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.022.
strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manage. Rev. 36, 90e100. Melo, T., 2012. Determinants of corporate social performance: the influence of
Engert, S., Rauter, R., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Exploring the integration of corporate organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Soc.
sustainability into strategic management: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 112, Responsib. J. 8, 33e47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111211196557.
2833e2850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031. Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., 2016a. Measuring sustainability in practice:
Fan, L.-C., Ho, Y.-C., Fan, L.-C., 2014. Achieving quality performance and environ- exploring the inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance systems in
mental sustainability through the genius loci of quality management systems. Brazilian case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 123e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 31, 144e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11- j.jclepro.2016.01.103.
2011-0147. Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., 2016b. A systematic literature review towards a
Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2004. Sustainable value added: measuring corporate contribu- conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business.
tions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 48, 173e187. http:// J. Clean. Prod. 136, 134e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.005. Morioka, S.N., Evans, S., Carvalho, M.M. de, 2016. Sustainable business model
França, C.L., Broman, G., Robe rt, K.-H., Basile, G., Trygg, L., 2017. An approach to innovation: exploring evidences in sustainability reporting. Procedia CIRP 40,
business model innovation and design for strategic sustainable development. 659e667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.151.
J. Clean. Prod. 140, 155e166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.124. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Vi-
Fritz, M.M.C., Scho € ggl, J.P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Selected sustainability aspects for sionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
supply chain data exchange: towards a supply chain-wide sustainability Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Clarifying business models: origins,
assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 587e607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 1e28,
j.jclepro.2016.09.080. 10.1.1.83.7452.
Gadenne, D., Mia, L., Sands, J., Winata, L., Hooi, G., 2012. The influence of sustain- Pacheco, D.F., Dean, T.J., Payne, D.S., 2010. Escaping the green prison: entrepre-
ability performance management practices on organisational sustainability neurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. J. Bus.
performance. J. Acc. Organ. Chang. 8, 210e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ Ventur 25, 464e480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.006.
18325911211230380. Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and Stakeholder Management: the need
Garriga, E., Mele , D., 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strateg.
territory. J. Bus. Ethics 53, 51e71. Environ. 15, 296e308.
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2016. Design thinking to enhance the Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism -
sustainable business modelling process e a workshop based on a value map- and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89, 62e77.
ping process. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1218e1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Randles, S., Laasch, O., 2016. Theorising the normative business model. Organ. En-
j.jclepro.2016.07.020. viron. 29, 53e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592934.
Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M.N., Frank, A.G., 2015. Strategy and business model design Rauter, R., Jonker, J., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Going one's own way: drivers in
in dynamic telecommunications industries: a study on Italian mobile network developing business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 144e154.
operators. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 346e354. http://dx.doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.104.
10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.006. Richardson, J., 2008. The business model: an integrative framework for strategy
738 S.N. Morioka et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 167 (2017) 723e738

execution. Strateg. Chang. 17, 133e144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821. bse.579.

Richter, M., 2013. Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German util- Simmons, H., 2009. Case Study Research in Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
ities and renewable energy. Energy Pol. 62, 1226e1237. http://dx.doi.org/ Sneirson, J.F., 2009. Green is good: sustainability, profitability, and a new paradigm
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.038. for corporate governance. Iowa Law Rev. 94, 987e1022.
Roome, N., Louche, C., 2016. Journeying toward business models for sustainability: a Spangenberg, J.H., 2016. Hot air or comprehensive progress? a critical assessment of
conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation. the SDGs. Sustain. Dev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.1657.
Organ. Environ. 29, 11e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615595084. Spence, M., Gherib, J.B.B., Biwole, V.O., 2011. Sustainable entrepreneurship: is
Rusko, R., 2011. Exploring the concept of coopetition: a typology for the strategic entrepreneurial will enough? A northesouth comparison. J. Bus. Ethics 99,
moves of the Finnish forest industry. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 311e320. http:// 335e367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0656-1.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.10.002. Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model.
Savitz, A.W., Weber, K., 2007. The Sustainability sweet spot. Environ. Qual. Manag. Organ. Environ. 21, 103e127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042.
17, 17e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem. Tan, K.H.K.H., Shi, L., Tseng, M.L.L., Cui, W.J.W.-J., Chiu, A.S.F., Cui, W.J.W.-J., 2014.
Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., Hansen, E.G., 2013. Transdisciplinarity in corporate Managing the indirect effects of environmental regulation and performance
sustainability: mapping the field. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 22, 219e229. http:// measurement. Asian Pac. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst. 13, 148e153.
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1772. United-Nations, 2015. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2016a. Business models for sus- September 2015.
tainability: origins, present research, and future avenues. Organ. Environ. 29, Upward, A., Jones, P., 2016. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models:
3e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806. defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science.
Schaltegger, S., Lu deke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016b. Business models for sus- Organ. Environ. 29, 97e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592933.
tainability: a co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, inno- van Kerkhoff, L., 2014. Developing integrative research for sustainability science
vation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29, 264e289. http://dx.doi.org/ through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustain. Sci. 9, 143e155.
10.1177/1086026616633272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y.
Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2011. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability Volschenk, J., Ungerer, M., Smit, E., 2016. Creation and appropriation of socio-
innovation: categories and interactions. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 20, 222e237. environmental value in coopetition. Ind. Mark. Manag. 57, 109e118. http://
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.682. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.026.
Scho€ggl, J.P., Baumgartner, R.J., Hofer, D., 2017. Improving sustainability perfor- Walley, K., 2007. Coopetition: an introduction to the subject and an agenda for
mance in early phases of product design: a checklist for sustainable product research. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 37, 11e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/
development tested in the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1602e1617. IMO0020-8825370201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.195. WCED, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development :
Scho€ggl, J.P., Fritz, M.M.C., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Toward supply chain-wide sus- Our Common Future Acronyms and Note on Terminology Chairman’ s Fore-
tainability assessment: a conceptual framework and an aggregation method to word. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
assess supply chain performance. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 822e835. http://dx.doi.org/ Witjes, S., Lozano, R., 2016. Towards a more circular economy: proposing a
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.035. framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business
Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Müller, M., Rao, P., 2008. Sustainability and supply chain models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 112, 37e44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
management e an introduction to the special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 16, j.resconrec.2016.04.015.
1545e1551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.002. Yin, R.K., 2010. Estudo de Caso: Planejamento e Me todos, fourth ed. Bookman, Porto
Short, S.W., Bocken, N.M.P., Barlow, C.Y., Chertow, M.R., 2014. From refining sugar to Alegre.
growing tomatoes: industrial ecology and business model evolution. J. Ind. Ecol. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010. Building social business models:
18, 603e618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12171. lessons from the grameen experience. Long. Range Plann. 43, 308e325. http://
Siebenhüner, B., Arnold, M., 2007. Organizational learning to manage sustainable dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005.
development. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 16, 339e353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/