International Business Research; Vol. 18, No.

1; 2025
ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

A Systems Thinking based Sustainable Business Model Framework –

An Appropriate Approach for the Design of Sustainable Business
Models in Start-Up Consulting
David P. Müller1, Michael Holzner2, & Siegfried G. Zürn1
1
Faculty of Management and Technology, University of Applied Sciences Esslingen, Germany
2
Ingolstadt, Germany
Correspondence: Siegfried G Zürn, Faculty of Management and Technology, University of Applied Sciences
Esslingen, D-73728 Esslingen, Germany. Tel: ++49-711-397-4460. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: October 28, 2024 Accepted: December 9, 2024 Online Published: January 22, 2025
doi:10.5539/ibr.v18n1p54 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v18n1p54

Abstract
The Business Model Canvas (BMC), originally developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur, has become a
well-established and widely utilised tool for the development, modification, and visualisation of business
models. While the Business Model Canvas provides an effective framework for designing business models, there
remains a need to enhance the understanding of cause-and-effect relationships within the system, as well as to
establish a holistic perspective on its impacts. This is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs and start-up
advisors, as start-ups typically have fewer financial resources to mitigate or adapt to unsuitable decisions taken
than established companies. Furthermore, many of today’s start-ups operate in highly complex and dynamic
sectors, such as the digital economy, and often strive for a holistic view of sustainability, balancing economic,
environmental, and social impacts.
This paper reviews the traditional Business Model Canvas and explores sustainable business models grounded in
the Triple Bottom Line approach. It then introduces a Systems Thinking based Sustainable Business Model
framework (STSBM) that offers a robust methodology for designing sustainable dynamic modern business
models. Specifically, impact networks are proposed to align mental models, while scenario simulation and
evaluation are presented as tools for managing complexity.
The paper outlines the process of model development, details the structural elements of the proposed framework,
and suggests its practical application. By integrating these principles, the proposed framework aims to support
the creation of sustainable business models that effectively address the intricate challenges faced by start-ups.
Keywords: Business model canvas, consulting, simulation, start-up, sustainability, systems thinking
1. Introduction
Operational business models play an essential role in the success of organisations. Companies must adapt their
business models flexibly and quickly to new conditions in order to survive in the ever-changing market
(Gassmann, Frankenberger & Choudury 2020). In practice, the innovation process, as well as the
conceptualisation of innovative new business models, is often challenging. Multi-layered digitally initiated
transformations and increasing environmental complexity significantly influence organisational actions. Digital
and/or sustainable business models and the accompanying changes challenge organisations in various ways.
However, mature, universally applicable frameworks remain scarce (Becker, 2019).
Start-ups face the challenge of completely rebuilding business models. Established procedures of pattern-based
business model development approaches, coupled with entrepreneurship research, provide tools for creating and
validating business models in a timely manner. Market benefits, products, services, or hybrid services must be
developed, value propositions must be shaped, customer segments and channels defined, and value creation
networks established (Bieger & Krys, 2011). Start-ups are often seen as innovative entities aiming to generate
profit, whether in the digital economy, classic services, or technology-oriented domains.
Social entrepreneurship, which focuses on addressing societal shortcomings for the common good, is becoming
increasingly significant. This trend extends beyond non-profit organisations to profit-oriented companies that

54
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

recognise the importance of social responsibility for long-term success. These companies' success is no longer
judged solely by financial profits but also by their contributions to social benefit. Nonetheless, economically
viable structures remain indispensable for such organisations.
Environmental and social changes affect organisations more rapidly and profoundly than earlier transformation
processes. Nosratabadi et al. (2019) define Sustainable Business Models (SBMs) as those integrating economic,
social, and environmental goals to provide competitive advantages and foster sustainability. Together with digital
transformation, such models can enhance business resilience (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken & Hultink, 2021).
The rising complexity in the economy, combined with growing organisational networking, restricts the ability to
control decisions effectively. The time lag between causes and effects and the non-linearities of dependencies
often result in highly dynamic behaviours. Numerous feedback loops and the isolated consideration of influences
in decision-making highlight the limitations of static business model approaches. A systemic, holistic view can
prevent fragmentary coverage, misdirected focus, and oversteering during business model analysis. (Tewes,
2020)
This paper aims to propose a systems thinking-based framework for sustainable business models (STSBM) by
integrating systems thinking into a modified version of the Business Model Canvas (BMC) based on Osterwalder
and Pigneur (2010). While the original BMC separates the areas that together form the business model, its
operational implementation remains a challenge. Key influencing variables were identified as representative
components of the domains and linked together to reflect their interactions. The resulting STSBM abstracts and
maps the complex real system of the organisation in a similar way as discussed by Kurti, Salavati and
Mirijamdotter (2021) for digital business models.
2. Business Model Frameworks
2.1 Business Model Canvas BMC according to Osterwalder and Pigneur
The Business Model Canvas (BMC) by Osterwalder and Pigneur focuses on comprehensively describing an
organisation's business model. It serves as a strategic tool for constructing, evaluating, and visualising business
models and is widely used across organisations of varying sizes and types. Their approach aimed to innovate
beyond traditional theoretical model concepts and transitions theoretical insights into user-friendly, visualised
frameworks. Existing business models can be categorised along dimensions such as customer interface,
infrastructure management, product/offering, and financing (Osterwalder, 2004). These dimensions are further
divided into nine sub-categories that serve as the fundamental building blocks, as depicted in figure 1
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).

Figure 1. Business Model Canvas according to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010)

2.2 Review and Discussion of the Business Model Canvas: Is A Model Modification Necessary?
The BMC is widely regarded as an intuitive and flexible tool that can be promptly constructed and utilised
iteratively to refine and update business model strategies. Its primary purpose is to serve as a framework for
identifying and analysing the core components and building blocks essential for the development of business
models. The BMC achieves this by incorporating elements rooted in production and sales theory, framed within a

55
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

value-creation context. This framework facilitates an understanding of how roles, activities, and processes
interconnect, promoting a comprehensive perspective on organisational operations. With its strong emphasis on
customer orientation and value proposition, the BMC provides a robust foundation for business planning.
Developing a new business model necessitates defining critical elements such as value propositions, cost
structures, revenue streams, and customer and supplier relationships, which are then integrated into a cohesive
structure. Collaborative working is essential during this modelling process to accurately capture the complexity
of reality. While the impact of changes on adjacent components can often be understood, a clear representation
of the interdependencies among all business model building blocks is more challenging, frequently relying on
the subjective interpretation of the user (Becker & Bröcker, 2021).
It seems that the model represents the business model mentally on a single level. Although this is advantageous
from the perspective of model creation with as little complexity as possible, it constitutes an oversimplification,
because different levels of abstraction were chosen when selecting individual business model components. This
makes it harder to understand the model and to apply it in practice (Becker, 2019). The BMC tends to
conceptualise the business model on a single level of abstraction. Although this simplifies the modelling process,
it oversimplifies the complexity inherent in real-world systems, as different abstraction levels are often required
for selecting individual business model components. This can hinder the practical application and
comprehensibility of the model (Becker, 2018).
Furthermore, the BMC is inherently static, whereas strategies evolve over time in response to internal
adjustments and external changes. Therefore, the BMC is not fully suited to address the growing complexity and
dynamics of markets, sustainability considerations, and the influence of digitalisation on business models
(Schlimbach & Ashgari, 2020). This can result in short-term thinking detrimental to long-term organisational
success.
2.3 Sustainable Business Models (SBM)
Traditional business models often focus on maximising economic value derived from natural and social
resources, frequently prioritising short-term gains. In contrast, integrating sustainability into business models is
increasingly acknowledged as essential for long-term success. Organisations that focus on sustainable
innovations not only in their products and services but also in the processes underlying their development and
commercialisation enhance their economic resilience (Young & Gerard, 2021). Recent studies, such as those by
Lüdeke-Freund, Carroux, Joyce, Massa and Breuer (2019) and by Ferlito & Faraci (2022), emphasise the
importance of aligning profitability with social and environmental responsibilities through innovative
frameworks and stakeholder collaboration, adhering to the triple bottom line framework depicted in figure 2.

Figure 2. The Triple Bottom Line Concept according to Pufe (2017)

Additionally, Manninen, Laukkanen and Huiskonen (2023) emphasise stakeholder engagement and performance
management as critical to sustainable value creation. Schaltegger, Hansen and Lüdeke-Freund (2016) argue that
traditional business models also fail to capture the dynamic and systemic interdependencies required for
achieving sustainability. This underscores the necessity for integrating dynamic tools like systems thinking,
which facilitate iterative processes to navigate complex business environments. Integrating dynamic system
simulation with the BMC offers potential for better managing these dynamics, making a compelling case for
modifying the BMC framework (Kurti et al., 2021; Becker, 2019). The lack of established frameworks for
developing and deploying such dynamic SBMs led to the proposed STSBM.

56
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

2.4 Systems Thinking to Explain and Visualise Business Models

Business models are inherently complex systems with numerous interconnected components characterised by
non-linear interdependencies, significantly influencing organisational performance in market environments.
These systems exhibit emergent properties that surpass the sum of their parts, and their behaviour is challenging
to predict due to dynamic interactions within and beyond the organisation. (Massa, Gianluigi & Tucci, 2018)
Systems thinking has proven effective in addressing such complexity, particularly in sustainable business models.
It provides a holistic approach, using tools and language to identify fundamental patterns and structures in
mental models and relationships (Kurti et al., 2021). Bocken, Short, Rana and Evans (2013) highlight its
importance in evaluating trade-offs across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. However, networks
cannot be fully predicted over time in practice, even with good knowledge of their elements and interactions.
Monat et al. (2020) attribute many business failures to the lack of systems thinking. Tools such as causal loop
diagrams (CLDs) effectively visualise feedback loops, identify leverage points (Sterman, 2002), and map value
creation processes (Pereira, Medina, Gonçalves & da Silva, 2017). These models also serve as shared learning
tools, representing actors’ mental abstractions of reality.
Despite the recognised complexity of business models, research remains limited, especially concerning
additional challenges from digital innovation. Systems thinking facilitates deeper insights into business realities
by uncovering patterns, system structures, and mental models, thereby supporting the implementation of
sustainable business models. Integrating components and interactions into frameworks is crucial for building
cohesive, interconnected systems. This systemic approach offers a holistic perspective, enabling better
management of the dynamic nature of business models. (Kurti et al., 2021)
3. The System Thinking based Sustainable Business Model (STSBM)
As previously discussed, a static framework with varying levels of abstraction is not an ideal foundation for
business model development. Nevertheless, the absence of dynamic, system-based models for sustainable
business development leaves the traditional BMC as the predominant tool for design and visualisation.
Integrating dynamic capabilities into business models is essential for navigating uncertainty and adapting to
changing environments. Teece (2012) emphasises the importance of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring
resources to maintain a competitive advantage. Consequently, the BMC requires enhancement with a stronger
operational focus, particularly for guiding the implementation of innovative business models developed by
start-ups. Specialised approaches are also necessary for not-for-profit organisations and sustainable business
models based on the triple bottom line. By incorporating these considerations, a Systems Thinking Sustainable
Business Model (STSBM) can better reflect the demands of modern markets while keeping the model simple
and closely aligned with the well-established BMC.
3.1 Business Model Canvas & Systems Thinking
In the BMC, the business model is not merely presented as an outcome or value proposition but also includes the
necessary enablers. In this sense, a systems thinking approach is inherently embedded within the canvas although
not immediately obvious. However, the traditional BMC incorporates multiple levels of abstraction, such as
stakeholders (partners and customers), processes, relationships, and financial aspects. While these collectively
define the overall business model, they are difficult to compare and cannot easily be integrated into a unified
system model.
To address this, a systems model has been developed where elements are identified as representative components
of the building blocks, all aligned on a single level of abstraction to facilitate interlinking. For instance, in the
classic BMC, customer channels might explicitly list distribution, marketing, and sales methods. In contrast, the
systems thinking model defines elements that reflect the goals necessary for achieving the business model’s
objectives. Within the BMC's "Channels" building block, the focus shifts from merely naming specific channels
to evaluating their effectiveness in supporting the realisation of the business model. The success of these
channels depends on their optimal, efficient, and effective alignment with other building blocks and their
suitability for the chosen customer segments. The specific design of these elements varies depending on the
organisation.
Linkages exist between key resources and key activities, both of which connect to value propositions and are
shaped by customer segments. Different customer segments influence the nature of the value propositions, while
resources and activities are employed to deliver these services. These value propositions, in turn, affect the
revenue streams of the business model, while the efforts required within these building blocks determine the cost
structure.

57
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

3.2 Elements of the System Thinking based Sustainable Business Model

In the STSBM presented in Figure 3, 9 building blocks with 22 elements have been detailed across the various
fields of the BMC, providing a comprehensive framework for analysis and application:
CS: Customer Segments – Identification of distinct groups that an organisation aims to serve or reach.
VP: Value Propositions – Solutions offered by the organisation to address customer needs or problems.
CH: Channels – Methods through which value propositions are communicated, distributed, and delivered.
CR: Customer Relationships – Strategies for acquiring, retaining, and nurturing relationships with customers.
KR: Key Resources – Essential assets required to develop and deliver the components outlined above.
KC: Key Competencies – Critical knowledge and expertise necessary to provide the described building blocks.
KPr: Key Processes – Execution of the core processes integral to the organisation's operations.
KPa: Key Partnerships – Collaboration with external entities for outsourcing activities and acquiring resources.
I: Impact – A holistic consideration of returns alongside environmental and social dimensions

Figure 3. Modified Business Model Canvas: Building Blocks and Elements

3.3 Model Development Process
Initially, the BMC was used as a conceptual framework to identify the building blocks operating at the same
level of action. Core elements of the business model were then refined into meaningful components that
represent specific goals and can be aligned with corresponding areas, enabling subsequent interlinking.
Indicators were defined to measure the achievement of these goals, functioning as Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) within the system, providing a basis for evaluation.
Next, all relevant direct relationships between individual system elements were mapped to visualise cause-effect
relationships. The resulting chains of effects were analysed for plausibility. The underlying principle is that any
change in the state of a system element propagates as an impulse through the relationship to a target element.
The cumulative effect of these relationships drives the system's dynamics over time. For each relationship, the
maximum influence of the source element on the target element was estimated using predefined characteristic
curves, with potential time delays in the effect also accounted for.
System elements may also undergo changes independently of external impulses, driven by inherent dynamics.
These inherent behaviours were estimated and formulated to ensure the model's accuracy. To facilitate robust
analysis and evaluation of the relationships, continuous plausibility checks were conducted on the entire effect

58
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

chains, including feedback loops. This iterative validation process ensures the system model accurately reflects
the dynamics and interdependencies of the business model.
An impact circle can be illustrated as shown in the example of figure 4: when an investor contributes funds, the
element "access to finance" receives an impulse, improving its condition — let us assume by 15%. This
enhancement in "access to finance" affects the element "technical infrastructure" through their relationship,
enabling the acquisition or leasing of new machinery. The improved technical infrastructure (e.g., the new
machines) facilitates the creation or enhancement of products or services, thereby improving outcomes. The
increased result positively impacts income, with the additional revenue providing new financial resources that
support further activities. This example highlights the indirect effects of interventions or actions within the
system, demonstrating the value of using a system model to identify interactions and uncover critical
connections that inform decision-making.

Figure 4. Example of an impact circle

Competitiveness and welfare orientation were mapped as resources, while events were formulated to represent
interventions in the system that influence the state of elements and the availability of resources. These events can
be either exogenous, originating from outside the organisation, or endogenous, resulting from changes within the
organisation itself. Common triggers for events include time, chance, prior actions, or the condition of an
element. Events can also lead to subsequent events, enabling the mapping of system dynamics through event
cascades.
Goal-oriented interventions by stakeholders or interest groups, referred to as actions, can also be defined within
the system. To describe an action, its prerequisites must first be outlined, followed by its effects on the specified
resources and system elements. Any resulting events are linked to the action. For evaluating alternatives, actions
are assigned to stakeholders and related events, and these are summarised into evaluation scenarios. A
simulation-based comparison of various alternative actions and scenarios — comprising bundles of events and
actions — is then conducted, enabling data-driven decision-making to improve outcomes.
3.4 Using the System Thinking based Sustainable Business Model
In the start-up scene, where the BMC is widely used, there is a clear demand for its operational evolution into a
dynamic model that covers also sustainability aspects. The proposed STSBM is capable to introduce users
familiar with the BMC to systemic thinking. This is achieved through a system model that closely mirrors the
structure of the BMC, presenting a coherent overall framework. Users can easily navigate the model, recognising
familiar aspects and transitioning seamlessly from the BMC to a systemic approach. The BMC serves as an
initial framework, offering a structured way to analyse individual elements. The next step is to understand that

59
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

these elements are interdependent — customers are connected to partners, activities are linked to revenue
streams, and resources are consumed in the process.
In the presented STSBM, the BMC’s areas are divided into individual elements, each logically linked to other
elements across the framework. This enables users to immediately see how components interact, providing an
entry point to consider cause-effect chains and understand the multi-layered interactions within the system. This
sets the stage for discussions with entrepreneurs about whether planned activities align with their goals and
whether their business model is viable. By incorporating scenarios with varying constraints and environmental
influences, the model also supports the assessment of business model resilience, helping to establish robust risk
management.
The STSBM serves as both a decision-making tool and a guide. Its greatest value is realised when start-ups
engage with the entire modelling process from the outset. During later stages, such as those supported by a
Design Thinking process, parallel entries can be made into the model. While events and actions are initially
grouped and broadly defined, they are refined during the simulation phase, with greater detail added to account
for decision points and time delays. Previous steps can be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted or removed from
the model.
What was once practiced with the traditional BMC is now enhanced by the addition of relationships and system
dynamics, delivering greater value. Scenarios can be created and tested to identify events or combinations of
events that may hinder planned activities from achieving desired outcomes. New action combinations can be
evaluated and compared against the original system model. With each application, the system model evolves,
incorporating the strategies envisioned by the founding organisation as bundles of measures for subsequent
testing. These strategies can be revised at each step, guided by insights from the simulation. Evaluations of new
simulations provide data-driven conclusions about whether and when strategies should be adapted, ensuring the
model remains responsive and effective.
4. Conclusion and Outlook
While the traditional Business Model Canvas (BMC) provides a proven framework for innovating and
constructing business models, its static nature necessitates critical evaluation. Successful implementation of a
business model requires not only theoretical understanding but also practical validation under real-world
conditions. Furthermore sustainability becomes an increasingly critical aspect of business strategy. Neglecting
these practical dimensions, especially in the early stages, risks losing valuable learning opportunities and insights
crucial for assessing future developments, such as the impact of specific events or actions within a system. This
highlights the need for a framework that holistically incorporates sustainability into a dynamic business model
design and evaluation.
The proposed modification of the BMC into a Systems Thinking based Sustainable Business Model (STSBM)
addresses the limitations of static frameworks. By enabling dynamic analysis and visualisation, it facilitates
iterative discussions on refining and evolving a business model. Shifting the focus from merely listing building
blocks to assessing the achievement of specific goals introduces a new perspective, offering more actionable
insights. Additionally, the integration of the triple bottom line — balancing economic, environmental, and social
dimensions — responds to growing stakeholder demands for sustainability-oriented business practices.
The STSBM also aligns well with the flexibility required by start-ups. Its ability to simulate interactions and
adapt to changing market conditions makes it particularly useful for navigating uncertainties. Start-ups benefit
from its agile framework, which supports iterative adjustments and scenario testing to validate assumptions and
ensure resilience under various conditions. By visualising feedback loops and interdependencies, the model
fosters a shared understanding among stakeholders, enhancing strategic alignment and informed
decision-making. Furthermore, it aids in evaluating long-term impacts, ensuring strategies are sustainable across
economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
Despite its advantages, the STSBM comes with some constraints and limitations. The iterative nature of systems
thinking requires significant time and effort. The model’s effectiveness also depends on the ability of users to
accurately identify and prioritise key system elements and feedback loops. Subjective biases in this process may
lead to variability in outcomes, affecting decision consistency (Maani & Cavana, 2007). The dependence on
sound data and realistic assumptions poses a further challenge. Misleading assumptions or incomplete data can
affect the validity of the results, especially for complex systems such as business models (Sterman, 2002).
Additionally, effective use of the model requires substantial expertise in systems thinking, which may create
barriers for small organisations or start-ups with limited resources or experience.

60
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

The calibration and validation of cause-effect relationships and feedback loops also present difficulties.
Non-linear interactions and emergent properties in real-world systems can result in discrepancies between
simulated and actual outcomes. Simplified predefined characteristic curves may further limit the accuracy of
long-term predictions.
To address these limitations, future research could explore the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and
machine learning into dynamic business models. These technologies have the potential to enhance the model’s
ability to adapt to complex, real-world scenarios and improve the accuracy of simulations (Brynjolfsson &
McAfee, 2017). In addition, adopting frameworks like the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) could enrich the
STSBM by analysing interactions between niches, regimes, and landscapes in the context of sustainability
transitions (Geels, 2002). This would provide deeper insights into the systemic changes required for sustainable
business innovation.
Further studies should also focus on improving accessibility for users and reducing the barrier of expertise. The
development of user-friendly interfaces and training programmes could facilitate the application of systems
thinking models and make them more accessible to start-ups and small businesses. Finally, comparative studies
could investigate the practical implementation of the model in different industries and provide empirical
evidence to refine its functionality and applicability.
By addressing these avenues, the proposed STSBM could evolve into a robust and versatile tool, supporting not
only sustainable business development but also fostering innovation and resilience in a dynamic and uncertain
world.
Acknowledgments
Not applicable
Authors’ contributions
David Müller and Prof. Dr. Siegfried Zürn were responsible for the study design. Dr. Michael Holzner supported
in the application of the systems thinking modelling and revision of the study design.
David Müller was responsible for the literature review, the modeling and drafted the manuscript. Prof. Dr.
Siegfried Zürn and Dr. Holzner revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Not applicable
Competing interests
Dr. Michael Holzner is affiliated with iCONDU GmbH, the company that had developed and distributes the
development software simcision that was used to visualize the model framework.
Informed consent
Obtained.
Ethics approval
The Publication Ethics Committee of the Canadian Center of Science and Education.
The journal’s policies adhere to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Provenance and peer review
Not commissioned; externally double-blind peer reviewed.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data
are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Data sharing statement
No additional data are available.
Open access
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyrights

61
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
References
Becker, M., & Bröcker, J. O. (2021). Business Model Canvas-Wesentliche Vor-und Nachteile im Überblick (No.
5/2021). IUCF Working Paper.
Becker, W. (2019). Digitale Transformation von Geschäftsmodellen–Ein konzeptioneller Bezugsrahmen.
Geschäftsmodelle in der digitalen Welt: Strategien, Prozesse und Praxiserfahrungen, 15-33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22129-4_2
Bieger, T., & Krys, C. (2011). Einleitung–Die Dynamik von Geschäftsmodellen. Innovative geschäftsmodelle,
1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18068-2_1
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling.
Corporate governance, 13(5), 482-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. WW New York:
Norton & Company, 564.
Ferlito, R., & Faraci, R. (2022). Business model innovation for sustainability: A new framework. Innovation &
Management Review, 19(3), 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-07-2021-0125
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Choudury, M. (2020). Geschäftsmodelle entwickeln: 55 innovative
Konzepte mit dem St. Galler business model navigator. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG.
https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446467620.fm
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new
sustainability paradigm? Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Kurti, E., Salavati, S., & Mirijamdotter, A. (2021). Using systems thinking to illustrate digital business model
innovation. Systems, 9(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9040086
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable business model
pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 15, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.004
Maani, K. E., & Cavana, R. Y. (2007). Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing change and complexity.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Manninen, K., Laukkanen, M., & Huiskonen, J. (2023). Framework for sustainable value creation: a synthesis of
fragmented sustainable business model literature. Management Research Review, 47(1), 99-122.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2022-0177
Massa, L., Gianluigi, V., & Tucci, C. (2018). Business models and complexity. Journal of Business Models, 6(1),
59-71. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jbm.v6i1.2579
Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Rakotonirainy, A., & Chau, K. W. (2019).
Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability, 11(6), 1663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061663
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers,
and challengers. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology a proposition in a design science approach (Doctoral
dissertation, Universitéde Lausanne, Facultédes hautes études commerciales).
Pereira, S. G. M., Medina, F. A. D. S., Gonçalves, R. F., & da Silva, M. T. (2016). System Thinking and Business
Model Canvas for Collaborative Business Models Design. In: Nääs, I., et al. Advances in Production
Management Systems. Initiatives for a Sustainable World. APMS 2016. IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology, vol 488. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51133-7_55
Pufe, I. (2017). Nachhaltigkeit (Vol. 3667). UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Konstanz
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present
research, and future avenues. Organization & environment, 29(1), 3-10.

62
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 18, No. 1; 2025

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806
Schlimbach, R., & Asghari, R. (2020). Das Digital Canvas: Ein Instrument zur Konzeption digitaler
Geschäftsmodelle. HMD Praxis Der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 57(4), 866-878.
https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-020-00624-9
Sterman, J. D. (2002). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. ESD Working
Papers; ESD-WP-2003-01. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of management
studies, 49(8), 1395-1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x
Tewes, S. (2020). Geschäftsmodelle neu denken. In: Tewes, S., Niestroj, B., Tewes, C. (eds) Geschäftsmodelle in
die Zukunft denken. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27214-2_2
Young, D., & Gerard, M. (2021). Four steps to sustainable business model innovation. BCG. Retrieved from
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/four-strategies-for-sustainable-business-model-innovation

63