J Bus Ethics (2018) 149:267–284

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3044-7

Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation,

Corporate Sustainability, and Organisational Values within
the Fashion Industry
Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen1 • Wencke Gwozdz1 • Kerli Kant Hvass1

Received: 30 July 2015 / Accepted: 21 January 2016 / Published online: 5 February 2016
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract The objective of this paper is to examine the rather than social sustainability and environmental sus-
relationship between business model innovation, corporate tainability (Schaltegger et al. 2011). For instance, Stubbs
sustainability, and the underlying organisational values. and Cocklin (2008, p. 103) argued that the ‘‘(…) under-
Moreover, the paper examines how the three dimensions standing of sustainable business models and how sustain-
correlate with corporate financial performance. It is con- able development is operationalized in firms is weak (…)’’.
cluded that companies with innovative business models are Likewise, Lüdeke-Freund (2009, p. 11) argued that the
more likely to address corporate sustainability and that literature is still to tackle: ‘‘(…) the intersections of busi-
business model innovation and corporate sustainability alike ness models and corporate sustainability’’. In recent years,
are typically found in organisations rooted in values of however, there has been a growing interest in integrating
flexibility and discretion. Business model innovation and corporate sustainability into conventional business model
corporate sustainability thus seem to have their origin in the thinking (Schaltegger et al. 2016). Concepts like social
fundamental principles guiding the organisation. In addition, business models (Yunus et al. 2010), green business
the study also finds a positive relationship between the core models (Sommer 2012), triple bottom line business models
organisational values and financial performance. The anal- (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010), community development
ysis of the paper is based on survey responses from 492 business models (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008), inclusive
managers within the Swedish fashion industry. business models (Michelini and Fiorentino 2012), and
sustainability business models (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008;
Keywords Business model innovation
Corporate Birkin et al. 2009) have all been introduced to describe new
sustainability
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
business logics that benefit both business and society.
Organisational values
Financial performance Moreover, special issues on sustainable business models
are beginning to appear in international academic journals
addressing corporate sustainability and responsibility, e.g.
Introduction: The Call for Sustainable Business Journal of Cleaner Production (2013) and Organization &
Models Environment (2016).
The objective of this paper is to examine the relationship
Until recently, the business model literature paid only between business model innovation and corporate sus-
limited attention to the social and environmental challenges tainability, the mediating influence of organisational val-
facing the world today. Focus was on market sustainability ues, and the effect on corporate financial performance.
There is a rich, varied literature on examining the role of
various internal (organisational culture, management style,
& Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen organisational structure, etc.) and external factors (stake-
[email protected] holder pressures, environmental uncertainty, national cul-
1 ture etc.) in explaining corporate sustainability and other
Copenhagen Business School Centre for Corporate Social
Responsibility (cbsCSR), Porcelænshaven 18, related concepts (corporate social responsibility (CSR),
DK-2000 Frederiksberg C, Denmark corporate citizenship, etc.) (See e.g. Aragón-Correa and

123
268 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

Sharma 2003; Buysse and Verbeke 2003; Clemens et al. some of these initiatives can be challenged, there is little
2008; Menguc et al. 2010; Rueda-Manzanares et al. 2008). doubt that a number of fashion companies are experi-
However, less has been done to study whether and how the menting with new business models to tackle the sustain-
dominant business logic of an organisation is associated ability challenges. Therefore, the fashion industry is in
with corporate sustainability and financial performance. many ways an ideal industry to explore the linkages
The underlying assumption is that business model inno- between business models and sustainability.
vation and corporate sustainability are related, as these This paper begins with a short review of the business
types of organisational changes call for similar resources model construct and the formulation of relevant hypothe-
and capabilities. Moreover, it is expected that business ses. The context is then presented through a short presen-
model innovation as well as corporate sustainability is tation of the fashion industry and some of the recent
linked to the fundamental values/principles underpinning business model innovations within this sector. In the
the organisation (Denison and Spreitzer 1991). methodology section, we describe how we operationalised
The paper contributes to the emerging academic debate the concepts, designed the survey, and analysed the data.
regarding the relationship between business model inno- This is followed by the results from our study and a dis-
vation and corporate sustainability as well as the underly- cussion of the implications for both research and practice.
ing drivers and consequences. Corporate sustainability is Finally, in the conclusion, we revisit the main findings
often dealt with as a distinct type of innovation, where from the analysis, reflect on their limitations, and propose
there is less emphasis on exploring the linkages between future avenues for research that studies the intersections
the overall innovative capacity of an organisation and the between business models and sustainability.
specific level of activity regarding corporate sustainability
(Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Louche et al. 2010).
From a practitioner perspective, the results from the paper Literature Review
attempt to shed more light on when and how a company’s
business model is in sync with its sustainability mindset Business Models and Business Model Innovation
and the underlying organisational values. The point is not
that some companies should ignore social and environ- Business model thinking is fast becoming a mainstream
mental investments. However, it may be so that certain concept in both academia and practice. In general, we
business model configurations make it easier for a com- define a business model as the ‘‘(…) the rationale of how
pany to address the sustainability challenges. an organization creates, delivers, and captures value’’
The empirical focus of this paper is on the fashion (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010, p. 14). The business model
industry which is well documented for having significant concept emerged during the dotcom boom in the 1990s,
social and environmental impacts. The production of cotton when new internet start-ups with game-changing tech-
for instance uses extensive quantities of both pesticides and nologies began challenging conventional bricks-and-mortar
water, making it one of the world’s most polluting crops industries (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013). However, the
(Giesen 2008). Over the last few decades, we have seen a concept was quickly integrated in mainstream business
large number of prominent fashion companies being criti- language and is today used across industries as a popular
cised by the media, NGOs and other stakeholders for poor way to describe, analyse and communicate the architecture
social and environmental performance (Pedersen and of an organisation. The growing popularity of the business
Gwozdz 2014). However, despite these criticisms, the model concept is also reflected in academia where there has
fashion industry has also been among the frontrunners been as rapid growth in publications addressing business
when it comes to new sustainability initiatives. For models from a variety of perspectives (Zott et al. 2011).
instance, apparel and footwear companies were among the From its inception, the business model literature has been
first organisations to formulate supplier codes of conduct in interdisciplinary in nature and has found inspiration from a
the early 1990s. Today, we are also seeing how a number plethora of theoretical sources, which has occasionally led
of fashion companies have introduced new sustainability to calls for the development of a more solid theoretical
initiatives which challenge the conventional business foundation (Morris et al. 2005; Zott et al. 2011; Mitchell
models within the industry, whether it concerns new and Coles 2004; Teece 2010)
resources (e.g. new textile fibres) or new revenue channels Despite its popularity, the business model concept is still
(e.g. clothes leasing). As an example, a number of fashion characterised by an element of definitional ambiguity. The
brands have, individually or in partnership with other term ‘business model’ is used frequently in both academia
organisations, introduced various take-back, resell, reuse, and business, but it is generally acknowledged that there
and recycle programmes (e.g. Marks & Spencer, Patagonia, are multiple definitions for this term (Brettel et al. 2012;
Levi’s, Bestseller, and H&M). Although the scalability of Dahan et al. 2010; Morris et al. 2005; Osterwalder and

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 269

Pigneur 2010). The challenge is that the term ‘business until it is commercialized in some way via a business
model’ is a multidimensional construct that cuts across model’’.
several academic disciplines and functional areas and A continuum exists between minor, incremental
cannot easily be captured in a single, all-encompassing improvements of existing business models to more radical
definition. Despite this ‘fuzziness’, the concept of ‘value’ advances that fundamentally challenge predominant busi-
plays a pivotal role in most discussions on the fundamental ness models within the industry (Davenport et al. 2006;
characteristics of a business model. Central in business Schaltegger et al. 2011). For instance, the introduction of a
model thinking is how organisations capture, create and new green product line is likely to be considered as an
deliver value (Chesbrough 2007; Johnson et al. 2008; incremental innovation, whereas a total transformation of
Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010; Roome and Louche 2016). the organisation from an asset- to an access-based business
The mainstream business model literature has historically model is an example of a more radical innovation (Keskin
focused on value from the perspective of the customer and et al. 2013; Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012). Lindgren and
the company, whereas there has been less focus on value Taran (2011, p. 232) have proposed a model which outlines
for a broader set of stakeholders. the main differences between the two types of business
The importance of value in business model thinking is model innovation. Incremental business model innovation
also manifested in the various models, which outline the involves continuous improvements of existing offerings
main building blocks of a business model (see e.g. Brettel without major changes in internal competences and exter-
et al. 2012; Kiron et al. 2013; Morris et al. 2005; Oster- nal partner relationships, whereas radical business model
walder 2004). For instance, Johnson et al. (2008) discuss innovation involves new types of offerings and the redesign
four elements in a business model: customer value propo- of existing organisational characteristics and stakeholder
sition, profit formula, key resources, and key processes. networks (Ibid.). However, incremental and radical busi-
Moreover, Hamel (2000) distinguishes between core ness model innovation represents two ends of a continuum
strategy, strategic resources, customer interface, and value between which a number of combinations can be observed.
network. Finally, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) have
become popular exponents of business model thinking by
The Inclusion of Corporate Sustainability
developing a business model canvas comprising nine basic
in Conventional Business Model Thinking
building blocks (Customer segments, Value proposition,
Channels, Customer relationships, Revenue streams, Key
In recent years, discussions on corporate sustainability
resources, Key activities, Key partnerships, and Cost
perspectives are finding their way into business models.
structure).
Corporate sustainability in this context can be understood
Related to the concept of the business model is business
broadly as: ‘‘(…) meeting the needs of the firm’s direct and
model innovation which has experienced a growing interest
indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees,
in recent years (Aspara et al. 2010; Spieth et al. 2014).
clients, pressure groups, communities etc.), without com-
Business model innovation is essentially about developing
promising its ability to meet the needs of future stake-
new ways to capture, create and deliver value and moves
holders as well. Towards this goal, firms have to maintain
beyond more narrowly defined categories, such as product,
and grow their economic, social and environmental capital
service, and process innovation (Preuss 2011; Wells 2008).
base while actively contributing to sustainability in the
Business model innovation can be important to the success
political domain’’ (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002, p. 131). In
of an organisation as well as a valuable organisational
line with this definition, corporate sustainability perspec-
capability (Aspara et al. 2010; Lindgardt et al. 2009;
tives on business models often depart from a critique of the
Chesbrough 2010; Amit and Zott 2012). Failing to be
conventional business model thinking, which is seen as
innovative implies that competitors may enter the scene
being too narrow and simplistic when it comes to bound-
with new offerings that make prevailing business models
aries and focus. As noted by Bocken et al. 2015, p. 70):
redundant (Chesbrough 2010; Schlegelmilch et al. 2003;
Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). A distinguishing character ‘‘Business models are often perceived from a value
of business model innovation is that it cannot be reduced creation perspective that focuses on satisfying cus-
to, for example, a technological innovation but concerns tomer needs, economic return and compliance. For
the entire ‘architecture’ of a company (Teece 2010). The sustainability thinking, this focus is too narrow and
value of a new technology depends on how it is produced, raises the need for a more holistic view of value that
priced, and distributed it. To quote Chesbrough (2010, integrates social and environmental goals, to ensure
p. 354): ‘‘Technology by itself has no single objective balancing or ideally alignment of all stakeholder
value. The economic value of a technology remains latent interests to deliver ‘sustainable value’ creation’’.

123
270 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

The emerging literature on sustainable business models economy. Most recently, a triple-layered business model
shares a number of common characteristics. For instance, has been proposed by Joyce et al. (2015) which add an
the literature has identified a common frame of reference in environmental life cycle canvas and a social stakeholder
stakeholder theory, which has played a pivotal role in canvas to the conventional (economic) business model
corporate sustainability discussions over the past decades canvas. While the above-mentioned alternatives highlight
(Freeman and McVea 2001; Parmar et al. 2010). While gaps in current business model thinking, they also seem to
mainstream business model thinking tends to give primacy acknowledge the fundamental business model components
to customers, corporate sustainability literature expands the proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010).
organisational boundaries to include a wider set of stake-
holders (e.g. nongovernmental organisations, local com- The Relationship Between Corporate Sustainability
munities, and the environment). In the words of and Business Model Innovation
Schaltegger et al. (2016, p. 6): ‘‘(…) a business that con-
tributes to sustainable development needs to create value Corporate sustainability has also permeated discussions of
to the whole range of stakeholders and the natural envi- business model innovation. Scholars and practitioners alike
ronment, beyond customers and shareholders’’. Another increasingly recognise the value creating potential of
distinguishing character is the move from a single (finan- business models to generate positive or eliminate negative
cial) bottom line towards to triple bottom line perspective, societal impacts (Bocken et al. 2014; Hall and Wagner
which means that business models move from being the 2012; Nidumolu et al. 2009; Sharma and Henriques 2005).
logic for making money to becoming a logic for creating The concept of sustainable business model innovation
economic, social, and environmental value for all relevant reflects this view by acknowledging a broader set of
stakeholders (Joyce et al. 2015). To give a concrete stakeholders and integrating triple bottom line thinking in
example, Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) broadened the focus the business model. Formally, sustainable business model
of the business model and integrated business model and innovation can be defined as ‘‘(…) innovation to the way
corporate sustainability thinking, where the purpose of the business is done by creating a competitive advantage
firm was to cover economic, social, as well as environ- through superior customer value while contributing posi-
mental dimensions and take into account the needs and tively to the company, society, and environment while
wants of all stakeholders. This perspective is echoed in minimizing harm’’ (Bocken et al. 2015, p. 68). Sustainable
more recent attempts to redefine the value construct in the business model innovation is not an entirely new phe-
business model thinking to capture value exchanges for nomenon, as various types of innovative approaches to
stakeholders, society, and the natural environment (Ab- corporate sustainability have been addressed under various
delkafi and Täuscher 2016; Bocken et al. 2014, 2015). headings such as sustainability innovation, CSR innova-
Moreover, existing emphasis on value creation, value tion, systemic CSR, eco-innovation, cleaner production,
delivery, and value capture is now broadened to cover sustainable entrepreneurship, cradle-to-cradle, cleantech,
value destroyed (e.g. negative social impacts) and value sustainable entrepreneurship, product service systems, and
missed (e.g. under-utilised resources) for individuals, collaborative consumption. (See e.g. Bocken et al. 2015;
organisations, networks, and systems (Bocken et al. 2013; Klewitz and Hansen 2014; Louche et al. 2010; Preuss
Joyce et al. 2015; Upward and Jones (2015). Therefore, 2011; Adams et al. 2015; Seelos and Mair 2005, 2007;
from a sustainability perspective, the narrow view of value Visser 2010; Johnson and Suskewicz 2009).
in business model thinking is expanded to approximate the Although corporate sustainability can be an important
broader concept of impact. component in business model innovation, it is worth noting
The critique of conventional business model thinking that companies with sustainability activities are not inno-
has led to the development of alternative models, which vative per se just as innovative companies are not auto-
better capture stakeholder theory and triple bottom line matically sustainable. Evidence indicates that the dominant
thinking. For instance, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) approach to corporate sustainability is conformity rather
argue that sustainability could be integrated in conven- than opportunity-seeking (Pedersen and Gwozdz 2014).
tional business model thinking by adding social costs and For instance, a company adopting a corporate sustainability
benefits. Lüdeke-Freund (2009) also proposes an extended standard (Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative
business model, which address nonmarket factors, e.g. the etc.) is not necessarily innovative, and neither is a company
positive and negative externalities from the business model experimenting with new revenue channels necessarily
on the wider society and the environment. Bocken (2013) effective at corporate sustainability. Therefore, the con-
takes an alternative approach by suggesting that the value cepts of business model innovation and corporate sustain-
proposition of the conventional business model canvas ability are distinct in theory and practice, although they
should be divided into society, environment, and the merge in cases of sustainable business model innovation,

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 271

which can be seen as an advanced form of corporate sus- Hypothesis 2 Companies with organisational values
tainability (Halme and Laurila 2009). characterised by flexibility and discretion are more likely to
It is likely, though, that in terms of implementation, demonstrate high levels of business model innovation and
business model innovation and corporate sustainability corporate sustainability.
share a number of common threads. At least, there are
striking similarities between the two streams of the litera- Business Model Innovation, Corporate
ture when it comes to internal barriers and success factors, Sustainability, and Performance
which highlight the fact that innovation as well as corpo-
rate sustainability is very much about change. Commitment A substantial amount of research assumes a number of
to corporate sustainability necessitates a transformation of positive benefits from innovation (first mover advantages,
existing business practices. As a result, new business adaptation to market uncertainties, improved stakeholder
models become difficult to realise in organisations that relationships etc.), which can be expected to influence the
favour stability over change (Schaltegger et al. 2011; bottom line (Busch et al. 2011). In relation to business
Haanaes et al. 2012). Therefore, we hypothesise that models, the results from a decade-long study of 100 com-
comprehensive sustainability efforts are more likely to take panies indicate that continued business model innovation
place in organisations that demonstrate high levels of improves the competitive position and financial results
business model innovation (Hypothesis 1). The point is not (Mitchell and Coles 2004). Likewise, a survey among 765
that business model innovation automatically initiates CEOs concluded that financial outperformers put twice as
comprehensive sustainability activities (or vice versa), but much emphasis on business model innovation compared to
rather it is suggested that companies with innovative underperformers (IBM 2006). The literature on corporate
business models possess resources and capabilities which sustainability also ascribes a number of internal and
facilitate the adoption of proactive corporate sustainability external benefits to social and environmental initiatives
strategies. (such as enhanced image, better customer relationships,
improved efficiency, reduced risks of fines and lawsuits,
Hypothesis 1 Companies demonstrating high levels of
etc.) which can eventually be expected to have a positive
business model innovation will also demonstrate high
impact on the bottom line (see e.g. Branco and Rodrigues
levels of corporate sustainability.
2006; Weber 2008). This result is also echoed in a number
At the most fundamental level, we hypothesise that of management surveys (Carroll and Shabana 2010; Lee
business model innovation and corporate sustainability call 2008). For instance, a survey by McKinsey concluded that
for similar organisational values (Hypothesis 2). The 76 % of executives believe that sustainability creates long-
transformational nature of business model innovation and term shareholder value (McKinsey 2010). In a similar vein,
corporate sustainability is difficult to accomplish in a global study conducted by Accenture report that 93 % of
organisations relying heavily on formal rules and proce- CEOs consider sustainability as critical for the future
dures, while downplaying creativity and out-of-the-box success of their companies (Accenture 2010).
thinking (Prajogo and McDermott 2011). For instance, a Although business model innovation is often treated as a
culture allowing organisation members to question existing positive organisational trait, innovation may come with a
norms, rules, and routines has been identified as an cost (higher R&D costs, product failures, employee turn-
important precondition for business model innovation, over etc.) with the net result that it is sometimes more
which often break with the prevailing mindset and business attractive to adopt a follower strategy (Aspara et al. 2010;
models (Johnson et al. 2008, Schlegelmilch et al. 2003). Naranjo-Valencia et al. 2011; Simpson et al. 2006).
Similarly, Abdelkafi and Täuscher (2016) stress that sus- Therefore, in some cases, business model innovation may
tainability necessitates a transformation of the dominant result in lower financial performance (Aspara et al. 2010).
business logic which is unlikely to happen in organisations Looking at corporate sustainability, there are decades of
dominated by stability and continuity. Overall, the corpo- inconclusive evidence regarding the relationship between
rate sustainability literature over the years highlighted a corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial
diverse set of internal characteristics that influence organ- performance (CFP), and a great deal of conceptual and
isational approaches to sustainability, including creativity, methodological debate exists regarding the proper meaning
open dialogue, debate, experimentation, and learning and measurement of these concepts (Busch et al. 2011;
(Hahn and Aragón-Correa 2015; Medeiros et al. 2014). Carroll and Shabana 2010; Margolis and Walsh 2003;
While these dimensions arguably differ, they all circle Vogel 2005). Even though most studies report a positive
around the propensity towards fundamental organisational relationship between CSP-CFP, it is still surrounded by
traits regarding learning, adaptation and flexibility. In sum, considerable uncertainty if, when, and how corporate sus-
we hypothesise the following: tainability pays off (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Orlitzky

123
272 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

et al. 2003; Surroca et al. 2010). Therefore, the relationship The current fashion industry with extensive use of
between business model innovation and corporate sus- resources, short product life-cycles, and over-consumption
tainability on financial performance may be more complex are generating a large number of negative societal impacts.
and less straightforward than assumed. The major environmental challenges are associated with
However, based on the mainstream literature of business excessive use of water, pesticides, chemicals, and energy
model innovation and corporate sustainability alike, it is during the different phases of the fashion supply chain
reasonable to assume a business case for both business model (Allwood et al. 2006). Social problems include unfair
innovation and corporate sustainability. As for business labour practices such as child labour, low salaries, and
model innovation, evidence from a global CEO survey occupational health issues due to price pressures and labour
indicates that companies emphasising business model intensive manufacturing (Ibid.). The long, complex supply
innovation yield higher operational margins (IBM 2006). By chains also limits transparency and visibility, which makes
changing the architecture of business, for example, forming it difficult for consumers and other stakeholders to know
new strategic partnerships, the company can reduce costs, where the garments come from and how they are produced
improve flexibility, and exploit new market opportunities (Pedersen and Andersen 2015). However, the challenges
(Ibid.). The conclusion is supported by Zott and Amit (2008) are not only associated with the upstream supply chain, but
who conclude that companies with novelty-centred business downstream activities related to consumers’ buying, using,
models under some conditions demonstrate higher firm and disposal behaviour also have considerable environ-
performance. The ability to innovative is not least important mental impacts (Hvass 2014; Pedersen and Andersen
in the fashion industry which is infamous of fast-changing 2015). The availability of cheap, low quality clothes has
styles, quick turnaround times, and flexible manufacturing increased consumption resulting in a throwaway fashion
systems (Fletcher 2008; Fletcher and Grose 2012). As for culture (also called fast fashion) (Fletcher 2008; Moore and
corporate sustainability, it is suggested that social and Birtwistle 2004). Studies show that over 90 million items
environmental initiatives can be instrumental in improving of clothing end up in landfills globally each year and in the
stakeholder satisfaction and building intangible assets (e.g. UK alone consumers produce yearly 1.5–2 million tons of
reputation) which will eventually influence financial per- textile waste of which 1.2 tons end in landfills (DEFRA
formance (Orlitzsky et al. 2003; Surroca et al. 2010). This 2007).
hypothesis is also in line with a recent survey which indicates Many fashion companies are trying to address the neg-
that companies are more likely to gain profits from sustain- ative social and environmental impacts by getting better
ability if several business model components are changed control over their supply chain. For instance, a large
(Kiron et al. 2013). Therefore, we propose the following number of fashion brands are adopting standards and are
hypothesis: introducing codes and conduct to better manage the social
and environmental dimensions of the supply chain (Ashby
Hypothesis 3 There is a positive relationship between the
et al. 2013). Moreover, new materials and processing
level of business model innovation as well as sustainability
techniques are introduced to lower the environmental
performance and corporate financial performance.
impacts. Examples include Levi’s Water \ LessTM jeans
and Puma’s InCycleTM line of biodegradable or recyclable
products. Established fashions brands and retailers have
Context: The Fashion Industry and the Emergence also experimented with new types of recycling, reusing, or
of Sustainability Business Models reselling alongside their conventional, possession-based
business models. For instance, Marks and Spencer has
The fashion industry has evolved from artisan tailors to collaborated with Oxfam on collecting discarded clothes
multinational global corporations, spread over different and transforming them into new garments (Morgan 2015).
departments, locations, countries, and continents, while the Moreover, Swedish Filippa K and American Eileen Fisher
manufacturing process has largely remained the same. are offering customers an opportunity to bring back used
(Hilger 2008). The fashion industry today is highly com- garments, which they resell through second-hand stores
plex and characterised by very long and global supply (Hvass 2014, 2015). Moreover, online resell business
chains with a large number of agents (Dickson et al. 2012; models are also emerging which provides a channel for
Kozlowski et al. 2012). Moreover, globalisation and new consumers to resell their used clothing. A good example is
communication technologies have implied that fashion has outdoor company Patagonia’s online resell platform in
become faster and less expensive (Black 2010). Speed and collaboration with eBay.
change have become synonyms with the fashion industry, There are also companies which have created entire
and companies’ survival is determined by flexibility and business models to address the negative impacts of the
quick responsiveness (Christopher et al. 2004). conventional fashion industry. An example is upcycling

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 273

companies, which convert pre- or post-consumer waste into centred and novelty-centred business models. Their work
new garments (e.g. Junky Styling, Worn Again, From later inspired Brettel et al. (2012) to develop a survey
Somewhere, and Globe Hope) (see. e.g. Cassidy and Han instrument that was tested among small- and medium-sized
2013; Pedersen and Andersen 2015). Moreover, new types enterprises (SMEs) in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany.
of leasing, sharing, and swapping have emerged based on Moreover, Aspara et al. (2010) tested business model
current market trends towards collaborative consumption innovation and business model replication in a survey
(Botsman and Rogers 2010). As an example, a number of among approximately 500 Finnish CEOs and marketing
clothing libraries have emerged which offer consumers a directors. This paper proposes a new model to map busi-
fee-based opportunity to share an extended wardrobe ness model innovation which is based on Osterwalder and
(Pedersen and Netter 2015). In addition, there are attempts Pigneur’s (2010) business model canvas combined with
to rediscover local manufacturing and local materials as a Lindgren and Taran’s (2011) distinction between incre-
response to the drawbacks from the long, global supply mental and radical innovation. Business model innovation
chains. is considered as a matter of degree rather than an either-or.
Instead of aiming for a clear-cut separation between
innovative and noninnovative firms, we propose a contin-
Methodology uum between exploiting existing competences and
exploring new business opportunities. For instance, if a
Sample and Data Collection company changes its products, resources, and channels, it
will be perceived as more innovative than an organisation
An external data provider conducted interviews with a which only makes changes in one business model com-
sample of 540 managers (marketing manager, logistics ponent. More specifically, the respondents are asked if the
manager, financial manager, or other) between July and company’s focus is on existing or new activities within
September 2012. The interviews were conducted as CAWI each of the nine components of the business model can-
(Computer Aided Web Interview), which means that vas:—Value proposition, customer segments, key resour-
respondents were recruited by phone and completed the ces, key activities, key partnerships, customer
interview online. Only main company units were included relationships, channels, cost structure, and revenue streams
in the sample to avoid larger fashion chains to be repre- (see Appendix 1).
sented more than once. After conducting the interviews, the Little consensus has emerged on the meaning of cor-
data provider removed 48 respondents from the survey as porate sustainability (and related concepts such as CSR
they did not work in the fashion industry. In total, the and corporate citizenship) and multiple measures have
analysis is based on 492 completed interviews which been introduced to capture this phenomenon empirically.
equates to a response rate of 31.4 %. Instead of adding to the complexity by developing an
With regard to the profile of the respondents, the entirely new scale to measure corporate sustainability, this
majority (78 %) represented small companies of 1–4 study uses an adapted version of the items developed by
employees. The sample profile represents the fashion Murillo-Luna et al. (2008, p. 1233–1234). In short, the
industry, in general, which is characterised by a few major respondents were asked to what extent they agreed on 10
brands and a large number of smaller players. Moreover, statements about your company’s social and environmental
due to the global outsourcing of the clothing and textile activities? (1 = Totally disagree, 10 = Totally agree),
industry, 71 % of the respondents are involved in fashion ranging from corporate sustainability policies to monitor-
retail compared to 17 % in fashion manufacturing. 18 % of ing, reporting, and reward systems (see Appendix 1).
the respondents are engaged in fashion design, whereas Organisational values also easily escapes precise defi-
17 % of the companies are fashion wholesalers. Last, the nition and measurement. At the most general level, values
majority of companies deal with women’s wear (58 %) can be defined as ‘‘(…) the principles by which both
and/or men’s wear (43 %), whereas only a smaller group of individuals and organisations live’’ (Sullivan et al. 2002,
companies are in the market for children’s wear (17 %) and p. 248). To operationalise the concept, we draw on the
outdoor/sport (17 %). work of Prajogo and McDermott (2011) who adopt the
competing values framework to distinguish between two
Measurement of Variables types of contrasting cultural orientations relating to struc-
ture (flexibility/control) and focus (internal/external). This
To date, there have only been few attempts to empirically study emphasises the measurement of the structural
map dominant business models within an industry, country, dimension of the competing values framework which bears
or region. An exception is Zott and Amit (2007, 2008) who similarities with the work on organic/mechanistic organi-
have developed a framework for measuring efficiency- sational structures (Denison and Spreitzer 1991). More

123
274 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

specifically, respondents were asked to what extent they regarding the associations between the latent variables and
agree with 16 statements about the behaviour and attitude (b) measurement models that specify the associations
of people in the organisation (1 = Strongly disagree, between the latent and the manifest variables. The latent
3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly agree) (see Appendix 1). The variables reflect the theoretical concepts, while the mani-
boundaries between the values of the individual fest variables are the observed variables from the surveys.
owner/manager and the organisational values may in some For the analyses, we used the software package SmartPLS
cases be blurred as the Swedish fashion industry is domi- (Ringle et al. 2005).
nated in numbers by small companies. Poor factor loadings The estimated model is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. In
(\.4) implied that three items were subsequently deleted terms of process, we separated the statistical analysis into
from the analysis (Control and centralisation, Routinisa- two steps. First, we examined the link between business
tion, formalisation and structure, and Expansion, growth, model innovation, corporate sustainability, and financial
and development). Therefore, only 13 values items are performance (Fig. 1). Second, we added organisational
included in the final analysis. values to the analysis (Fig. 2) in order to test whether
The measurement of financial performance is based on business model innovation and corporate sustainability can
the respondents’ self-reported information on the devel- be traced back to deeper organisational structures, focusing
opment in sales, earnings, and market share in the past on the dichotomy between flexibility and control values.
3 years, compared to their closest competitors (1 = Much The quality of the structural and measurement models is
worse, 10 = much better). This type of data on self-eval- evaluated using different criteria. Because structural mod-
uation of financial performance has been adopted by a els are nonparametric, classical inferential statistics cannot
number of other scholars (see e.g. Aspara et al. 2010; be applied. The path coefficients can be interpreted as the
Menguc et al. 2010). standardised coefficients in a traditional regression analy-
Size is included as a control variable since corporate sis. For the t-statistics, we calculated the standard errors
sustainability performance is believed to be affected by using nonparametric bootstrapping that treats the original
company size (Jackson and Apostolakou 2010). Large sample as the population and, as recommended for the
companies are more visible in the business landscape, and estimation of standard errors (Efron and Tibshirani 1993),
thus more likely to be in the public limelight, and they have draws 500 independent random subsamples with replace-
more resources to hire sustainability experts, establish ment (subsample size = original sample size = 492). The
sustainability departments, and develop the technological reliability of the measurement models is ascertainable
infrastructure to manage sustainability. In addition, large using Cronbach’s alpha or composite reliability, both of
companies often possess more power in their relationship which signal reliability when the value is above .7
with suppliers, giving them a better opportunity to address (Bagozzi and Baumgartner 1994). For validity, the average
sustainability issues in the different parts of the supply variance extracted (AVE) should be above .5 (Hair et al.
chain. Therefore, it is assumed that corporate sustainability 2011), and the factor loading from each manifest variable
activities on average increase with the size of the company. on its construct must be higher than .4. Discriminant
validity is tested by comparing AVE of a latent variable to
its largest squared correlation with any other latent vari-
Statistical Analysis and Results able, and is given if AVE is larger (Fornell and Larcker

The hypotheses regarding business model innovation,

corporate sustainability, organisational values, and finan-
cial performance were tested using structural equation Controls:
modelling (SEM) which allows for the analysis of complex Size
theoretical structures (Mackenzie 2001). We implemented
the nonparametric partial least-squares (PLS) regression, Business
developed by Wold (1985), because its minimal require- model
innovaon
ments for residual distributions, sample size, and mea- Financial
surement scales make it highly robust (Hair et al. 2013). performance
Such a model, in contrast to the covariance SEM models,
uses a variance-based iterative approach based on multi-
Corporate
variate regressions that employ the least-squares algorithm sustainability
(Fornell and Cha 1994). The structural equation modelling
technique employs two different model types: (a) a struc- Fig. 1 The relationship between business model innovation, corpo-
tural model that mirrors the theory-driven hypotheses rate sustainability, and financial performance (model 1)

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 275

Fig. 2 An extended model

adding organisational values
into the analysis (model 2)

1981). All quality criteria regarding reliability and validity performance ((b = .249, p \ .01). Therefore, the analysis
are fulfilled as can be seen in Table 1. provides support for Hypothesis 2. The results may indicate
The statistical analysis document a positive relationship that organisations characterised by flexibility and discre-
between business model innovation and sustainability (see tion are more likely to reap commercial benefits from
Figs. 3, 4; Table 2). Innovate companies also tend to be business model changes and corporate sustainability com-
more active on the sustainability agenda regardless of pared to organisations rooted in values of stability and
whether the organisational values concept are included in control. The findings bear similarities with previous inno-
the analysis or not (Model 1: b = .200, p \ .001), Model vation research which highlights, e.g. organisational cul-
2: b = .105, p \ .01). Therefore, the study provides strong ture as a strategic resource that links to both innovation and
support for Hypothesis 1. In addition, corporate sustain- corporate performance (Naranjo-Valencia et al. 2011;
ability seems to have a positive impact on financial per- Prajogo and McDermott 2011; Surroca et al. 2010). In
formance, whereas this is not the case for business model terms of corporate sustainability, the conclusions are sim-
innovation. Apparently, fashion companies are not able to ilar to a recent study among financial professionals which
reap financial benefits from their innovation efforts. How- conclude that people working in organic organisations
ever, in model 1 (Fig. 3), the total effect of business model (characterised by trust, creativity, openness, collaboration
innovation on financial performance is significant etc.) report higher levels of ethical behaviour, CSR, and
(b = .114, p \ .01). This result could indicate an interre- organisational performance (Jin et al. 2013). Russo and
lationship between sustainability, business model innova- Fouts (1997) also conclude that the relationship between
tion, and financial performance which bears similarities corporate sustainability and economic performance is par-
with other recent research results (Busch et al. 2011; Kiron ticularly strong in high-growth industries, which may be
et al. 2013). However, the relationship is no longer sig- caused by the fact that these industries are populated with
nificant when organisational values are added into the organisations characterised by flexible structures which
equation (see Fig. 4). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is only facilitates beyond-compliance environmental strategies. In
partially supported. The conclusion runs contrary to the conclusion, a comprehensive transformation is dependent
notion that business model innovation and corporate sus- on supportive organisational values which facilitate these
tainability automatically enhance profit. The results instead changes.
support previous research which indicates that innovative
organisations are not always rewarded by the markets, e.g.
due to higher costs, development failures, lack of customer Discussion: The Limitations of Corporate
demand, imitation, etc. (Simpson et al. 2006). Sustainability and Business Model Innovation
The inclusion of organisational values into the analysis
brings important new insights into the analysis of the The results from this study indicate that business model
linkages between business model innovation, corporate innovation, corporate sustainability, and financial perfor-
sustainability, and financial performance (see Fig. 4). The mance are associated with more deeply rooted values in the
results show that organisational values are linked to busi- organisation. From a managerial perspective, the main
ness model innovation (b = .274, p \ .001), corporate lesson from this study is that the execution of business
sustainability (b = .312, p \ .01), as well as financial model innovation and corporate sustainability strategies

123
276 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

Table 1 Quality of the measurement models

Dimension item Range Mean SD Factor loading AVE Composite reliability Alpha AVE [ Corr2

Financial performancea .841 .941 .907 .841 [ .066

Sales 1–10 5.72 1.803 .943
Earnings 1–10 5.34 1.830 .881
Market share 1–10 5.58 1.798 .927
Business model innovationb .456 .882 .853 .456 [ .075
Value proposition 1–10 5.86 2.073 .679
Customer segments 1–10 6.04 2.191 .746
Key resources 1–10 5.38 2.105 .613
Key activities 1–10 5.40 2.334 .735
Key partnerships 1–10 5.75 2.217 .621
Customer relationships 1–10 5.91 2.360 .623
Channels 1–10 5.66 2.596 .659
Cost structure 1–10 5.14 2.399 .640
Revenue streams 1–10 4.80 2.383 .750
c
Corporate sustainability performance .629 .944 .935 .629 [ .116
The company has clearly defined social and 1–10 5.18 2.607 .789
environmental objectives
The company allocates substantial resources 1–10 3.93 2.454 .844
to social and environmental improvements
The company regularly measures and reports 1–10 3.16 2.407 .828
social and environmental performance
The company always tries to substitute 1–10 5.48 2.814 .742
polluting materials/products with less
polluting ones
Managers and employees receive training 1–10 3.41 2.437 .757
and education in social and environmental
responsibility
Management always considers social and 1–10 4.95 2.760 .783
environmental impacts when making
important business decisions.
The company recognises and rewards 1–10 3.90 2.616 .840
managers/employees who contribute to
social and environmental improvements
The company is open. honest. and 1–10 5.66 2.811 .781
transparent in its internal and external
communication of social and environmental
impacts.
The company works hard to ensure high 1–10 4.86 2.754 .742
social and environmental standards in the
supply chain
The company actively promotes social and 1–10 5.53 2.734 .819
environmental-friendly customer/consumer
behaviour
Organisational valuesd .405 .897 .878 .405 [ .116
Participation. Open discussion 1–5 4.27 .871 .569
Empowerment of employees to act 1–5 4.29 .803 .600
Assessing employee concerns and ideas 1–5 4.22 .826 .660
Human relations. Teamwork, cohesion 1–5 4.14 .876 .651
Flexibility, decentralisation 1–5 3.93 .920 .593
Innovation and change 1–5 3.70 .870 .633
Creative problem-solving processes 1–5 4.02 .834 .677
Stability, continuity, order 1–5 3.59 .986 .553

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 277

Table 1 continued
Dimension item Range Mean SD Factor loading AVE Composite reliability Alpha AVE [ Corr2

Predictable performance outcomes 1–5 3.31 .891 .509

Task focus, accomplishment, goal 1–5 3.56 .904 .645
achievement
Direction, objective setting, goal clarity 1–5 3.48 .878 .689
Efficiency, productivity, profitability 1–5 3.90 .818 .726
Outcome excellence, quality 1–5 3.96 .874 .722
Control
Size No of employees 1–9 1.36 .865
All factor loadings are significant at the p \ .001 level
AVE average variance explained, Corr2 highest squared correlation between the model constructs
a
Answer categories: 1 ‘much worse’, 10 ‘much better’
b
Answer categories: 1 ‘existing’, 10 ‘new’
c
Answer categories: 1 ‘totally disagree’, 10 ‘totally agree’
d
Answer categories: 1 ‘strongly disagree’, 5 ‘strongly agree’

Controls: which goes beyond individual company efforts and

Size includes multiple actors in different sectors and at different
levels (Rohrbeck et al. 2013; Preuss 2011). As noted by
Business .075 Bocken et al. (2015, p. 67): ‘‘(…) collaboration across a
model .091
innovaon
wider set of stakeholders in the industrial system is nec-
Financial essary to deliver sustainability. A sustainable society
.200***
performance cannot be achieved if individual agents advance their own
interests independently’’. Therefore, the success of com-
.115** prehensive sustainability efforts is expected to be depen-
Corporate
sustainability dent on complementary competences and a facilitating
infrastructure (Johnson and Suskewicz 2009; Schaltegger
Fig. 3 The relationship between business model innovation, corpo- et al. 2011; Stubbs and Cocklin 2008).
rate sustainability and financial performance (model 1). Note The business model concept has been presented as the
standardised path coefficients. Legend: *p \ .05; **p \ .01; bridge between company level and system level changes
***p \ .001
(Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Boons et al. 2013).
However, to date the business model literature remains lar-
also identifies the need to be working with the values in the gely dominated by organisational level analyses and exam-
organisation. Fundamental changes in the organisation are ples. For instance, the literature often lends itself towards
likely to come to an abrupt halt unless management is able illustrative case examples of successful business models,
create a climate which facilitates this transformation (see such as Amazon, Dell, Apple, SouthWest Airlines, Gillette,
e.g. IBM 2006, p. 32). The findings from this study provide and WalMart (Chesbrough 2007; Johnson 2009; Johnson
support to the literature, highlighting soft factors (values et al. 2008; Lindgardt et al. 2009; Schlegelmilch et al. 2003;
and culture) as key for innovation (see e.g. Schlegelmilch Teece 2010). This organisational level focus also seems to
et al. 2003; Tellis 2009). Moreover, the study also res- dominate research linking corporate sustainability and
onates well with recent research efforts emphasising the business models (Hvass 2014, 2015; Pedersen and Netter
values, norms, and logics underpinning business models 2015; Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). While highlighting the
(Randles and Laasch 2016). collaborative ties between actors, the business model liter-
From a broader perspective, however, the question ature emphasises the merits of individual firms while
remains if company efforts to develop sustainability focusing less on the context in which these firms are
through business model innovation are enough to address embedded (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). Therefore, there is
the fundamental challenges facing an industry and the still a need for more knowledge on how the business model
economy more generally. Research in sustainability inno- concept can bridge company level corporate sustainability
vation has long stressed the importance of systemic change and system level sustainability innovation.

123
278 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

Controls:
Size
Business
model .108
.274*** .030
innovaon
.105**
Organisaonal .249*** Financial
values performance

.038
.312*** Corporate
sustainability

Fig. 4 An extended model adding organisational values into the analysis (model 2). Note standardised path coefficients. Legend: *p \ .05;
**p \ .01; ***p \ .001

Table 2 Path coefficients

Path Model 1 (base model) Model 2 (including organisational culture)

Business model innovation - [ financial performance .091 .030

(1.664) (.580)
Business model innovation - [ financial performance (total effect) .114** .034
(2.156) (.662)
Business model innovation - [ corporate sustainability .200*** .105**
(4.731) (2.166)
Corporate sustainability - [ financial performance .115** .038
(2.504) (.847)
Values - [ business model innovation .274***
(7.288)
Values - [ corporate sustainability .312***
(5.630)
Values - [ financial performance .249***
(4.977)
Values - [ financial performance (total effect) .270***
(6.008)
Control variable
Size: no employees - [ financial performance .075 .108
(1.443) (2.266)
R2 (financial performance) .03 .08
2
R (corporate sustainability) .04 .13
R2 (business model innovation) .08
Standardised path coefficients; bootstrapping t values in parentheses
Legend: * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

The limitations of a company level focus on sustainable 2015; Pedersen and Netter 2015). Despite innovative
business model innovation are visible in the context of company attempts to address sustainability, the fashion
fashion. New business models for recycling, upcycling, and industry continues to have a negative impact on both
sharing are still to transform the predominant fast fashion people and planet (Dickson et al. 2012; Poldner et al. 2011;
business models within the fashion industry (Hvass 2014, Kozlowski et al. 2012). Moreover, evidence indicates that

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 279

only a minority of fashion companies move beyond con- organisational values underpin business model innovation
formance when it comes to corporate sustainability (Ped- as well as proactive corporate sustainability strategies.
ersen and Gwozdz 2014). Therefore, we are still far from a Moreover, both business model innovation and corporate
sustainable fashion industry which: ‘‘(…) does not sustainability were expected to be related to financial
adversely impact people or the planet in its production, performance, as the ability to make fast changes is seen as
manufacture, transport, retail or end of life management’’ an important organisational capability in an increasingly
(DEFRA, 2010, p. 5). The lack of progress towards sus- competitive environment. This similarly applies to the
tainability in the fashion industry can also be seen in other fashion industry where the ability to identify and respond
industries. It is increasingly acknowledged that existing to new market trends is key to survival and success.
approaches to corporate sustainability and CSR lack speed Survey responses from 492 Swedish fashion companies
and scale in order to promote more systemic changes were used as the empirical basis for testing the relationship
towards sustainability (Visser 2010). For instance, the between business model innovation, sustainability and
World Economic Forum (WEF 2010) argues that current underlying organisational values. As hypothesised, fashion
sustainability initiatives fail to challenge the prevalent and companies demonstrating high levels of business model
unsustainable models of consumption. Most industries are innovation are also more likely to be proactive on the
still rooted in a linear production system and the ‘‘dig it up, sustainability agenda. The study also shows that organisa-
use it, throw it away’’ approach to business makes it dif- tional values influence all variables in the model: business
ficult to achieve sustainable development in any mean- model innovation, sustainability performance, and financial
ingful way (Wells, 2008, p. 85). performance. The findings indicate that the organisational
Even companies dedicated to sustainability will find it ability to successfully change both business models and
difficult to become sustainable unless the system sur- sustainability are shaped by the underlying values in the
rounding them becomes sustainable as well (Stubbs and organisation.
Cocklin 2008). For instance, new collaborative consump- The paper has implications for managers. Most impor-
tion business models (e.g. car sharing) will remain a niche tantly, the conclusions from the paper indicate that man-
phenomenon unless it is possible to transform the current agers working with corporate sustainability also have to
individualistic, possession-based consumer culture (Bots- address organisational values. Without this, it will be dif-
man and Rogers 2010; Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012). Large- ficult to bring the organisation beyond a compliance-based
scale transformations therefore necessitate a systemic per- approach to corporate sustainability (Russo and Fouts
spective that looks at the whole rather than the parts 1997). The findings thus highlight the importance of
because isolated activities of individual organisations will avoiding silo-thinking, where the planning and imple-
not fix fundamental flaws in the dominant business models mentation of corporate sustainability become a technical
and systems (Johnson and Suskewicz 2009). In the words exercise detached from more fundamental transformations
of Birkin et al. 2009, p. 278): within the organisation. From a broader perspective, the
results show that a corporate sustainability is not only
‘‘(…) questions remain as to whether there are still
about finding the intersections between corporate goals and
unavoidable structural inhibitions in contemporary
societal needs, but corporate goals also have to be in sync
business models that mean that even exemplar cor-
with more deeply rooted organisational values.
porations that exhibit state-of-the-art environmental
Likewise, it is concluded that business model innovation
management and CSR may be unable to become
is related to the organisational values which indicates that
sustainable’’ (Birkin et al. 2009, p. 278).
management decisions on business models need to be
aligned with the organisational culture. These results may
also inspire scholars and practitioners to look more at the
Conclusion actual content of the individual business model compo-
nents. For instance, the original business model canvas
There is a growing literature on the relationship between developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) makes little
business model thinking and sustainability (Kiron et al. reference to values when describing the key resources
2013; Lüdeke-Freund 2009; Michelini and Fiorentino necessary for the business model to work. However, the
2012; Roome and Louche 2016; Schaltegger et al. 2016). results from this study indicate that business model inno-
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this debate by vation is correlated with the cultural assets within the
systematically exploring the relationship between business organisation.
model innovation and sustainability performance and Finally, the study has identified a correlation between
linking these findings to performance and organisational organisational values and financial performance. These
values. The paper was based on the assumption that certain findings indicate that companies characterised by flexibility

123
280 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

and discretion perform better than those emphasising sta- resources and competences (technology, people, IT
bility and order. The scale for organisational values, as systems, etc.).
used in our interview (Appendix 1), may not only be a • 1 = Focus is on improving EXISTING core processes
useful measure but also a guide to managers on some of the and activities (design, logistics, marketing, etc.).
organisational traits which have to be developed and nur- 10 = Focus is on developing NEW core processes
tured in order to be successful in the market place. and activities (design, logistics, marketing etc.).
The paper of course has limitations. For instance, the • 1 = Focus is on deepening relationships with EXIST-
paper does not make any claim to have included all vari- ING strategic business partners (suppliers, distributors,
ables which potentially mediate the relationship between end users, etc.). 10 = Focus is on establishing rela-
organisational values, business model innovation, corpo- tionships with NEW strategic business partners (sup-
rate sustainability, and financial performance. Moreover, pliers, distributors, end users, etc.).
the analysis only covers companies from a single industry. • 1 = Focus is on improving EXISTING tools for
Evidence indicates that companies operating within the building customer relationships (personal service,
same industry may adopt similar patterns of corporate memberships, bonus systems, etc.). 10 = Focus is on
sustainability (Clemens and Douglas 2005; Jackson and developing NEW tools for building customer relation-
Apostolakou 2010). In the case of fashion, the industry is ships (personal service, memberships, bonus systems
also characterised by a myriad of small companies which etc.).
may have influenced the results. The results may also be • 1 = Focus is on selling products and/or services
influenced by geographical location. At least, there have through EXISTING channels (own stores, partner
been talks about a Nordic/Scandinavian sustainability stores, online, etc.). 10 = Focus is on selling products
model where companies in general demonstrate relatively and/or services through NEW channels (own stores,
high levels of social and environmental performance (Al- partner stores, online, etc.).
bareda et al. 2007; Gjølberg 2010). As a recent example, • 1 = Focus is on minimising EXISTING costs incurred
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway are ranked 1–4 on when operating the company. 10 = Focus is on making
the Global Sustainable Competiveness Index (SolAbility MAJOR changes in the combination of costs incurred
2013). Another limitation concerns the explanation of the when operating the company.
apparently strong influence of organisational values on • 1 = Focus is on improving sales from EXISTING
business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and revenue streams (products, services, leasing, sponsor-
organisational performance. While the findings from this ships etc.). 10 = We have developed NEW ways of
study clearly highlight the role of values for value creation, generating revenue (products, services, leasing, spon-
more qualitative, in-depth analyses are needed to better sorships etc.).
explain how these values are put to work in everyday
Source: Osterwalder & Pigneur combined with Lindgren
company processes and practices to promote innovation
and Taran (2011.
and sustainability.
Organisational Values

Appendix 1: Survey Questions QUESTION Please assess the extent to which the following
statements characterise the behaviour and attitude of peo-
Business Model Innovation ple in you organisation (1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neu-
tral, 5 = Strongly agree):
QUESTION: Over the past three years, how would you
• Participation, open discussion
assess the strategic focus of your company along the fol-
• Empowerment of employees to act
lowing dimensions:
• Assessing employee concerns and ideas
• 1 = Focus is on improving EXISTING products and/or • Human relations, teamwork, cohesion
services. 10 = Focus is on developing radically NEW • Flexibility, decentralisation
products and/or services. • Expansion, growth, and development
• 1 = Focus is on serving EXISTING markets and • Innovation and change
customer segments. 10 = Focus is on identifying and • Creative problem-solving processes
serving entirely NEW markets and customer segments. • Control and centralisation
• 1 = Focus is on nurturing EXISTING resources and • Routinisation, formalisation and structure
competences (technology, people, IT systems, etc.). • Stability, continuity, order
10 = Focus is on developing and/or acquiring NEW • Predictable performance outcomes

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 281

• Task focus, accomplishment, goal achievement Accenture, (2010). A new era of sustainability: UN global compact-
• Direction, objective setting, goal clarity accenture CEO study 2010, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/
docs/news_events/8.1/UNGC_Accenture_CEO_Study_2010.
• Efficiency, productivity, profitability pdf. Accessed Jan 20, 2016.
• Outcome excellence, quality Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P.
(2015). Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review.
Source: Prajogo and McDermott (2011) International Journal of Management Reviews. http://hdl.handle.
net/10871/14285.
Corporate Sustainability Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., & Ysa, T. (2007). Public policies on
corporate social responsibility: The role of governments in
Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 391–407.
QUESTION To what extent do you agree with the fol- Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., De Rodrı́guez, C. M., & Bocken, N.
lowing statements about your company’s social and envi- M. P. (2006). Well dressed. The present and future sustainability
ronmental activities? (1 = Totally disagree, 10 = Totally of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom. University of
Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University.
agree):
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model
• The company has clearly defined social and environ- innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41–49.
Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-
mental objectives. based view of proactive corproate environmental strategy.
• The company allocates substantial resources to social Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.
and environmental improvements. Ashby, A., Smith, M. H., & Shand, R. (2013). From principle to
• The company regularly measures and reports social and practice: embedding sustainability in clothing supply chain
strategies. In M. A. Gardetti & A. L. Torres (Eds.), Sustainability
environmental performance. in fashion and textiles (pp. 61–81). Sheffield: Greenleaf
• The company always tries to substitute polluting Publishing.
materials/products with less polluting ones. Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2010). Business model
• Managers and employees receive training and educa- innovation versus replication: Financial performance implica-
tions of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
tion in social and environmental responsibility. 18(1), 39–56.
• Management always considers social and environmen- Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of
tal impacts when making important business decisions. structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In R.
• The company recognises and rewards managers/em- P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles in marketing research (pp.
386–422). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.
ployees who contribute to social and environmental Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption:
improvements. The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4),
• The company is open, honest, and transparent in its 881–898.
internal and external communication of social and Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for
sustainable development: An exploratory study using the theory
environmental impacts. of contstraints in nordic organizations. Business Strategy and the
• The company works hard to ensure high social and Environment, 18(5), 277–290.
environmental standards in the supply chain. Black, S. (2010). Ethical fashion and ecofashion. Berg encyclopedia
• The company actively promotes social and environ- of world dress and fashion, Vol 10—global perspectives.
Bocken, N. (2013). Sustainable business modelling. http://nancy
mental-friendly customer/consumer behaviour. bocken.com/sustainable-business-modelling/. Posted October 9,
2013. (Accessed 27 Oct 2015).
Bocken, N., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for
Financial Performance sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Pro-
duction Engineering, 32(1), 67–81.
QUESTION Over the past 3 years, how would you evaluate Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping
tool for sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance,
the financial performance of the company compared to
13(5), 482–497.
your closest competitors? (1 = Much worse, 10 = much Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and
better): practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65(February), 42–56.
• Development in sales Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business modes for
• Development in earnings sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a
• Development in market share research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(April),
9–19.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable
innovation, business models and economic performance: An
overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(April), 1–8.
References Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. London:
Collins.
Abdelkafi, N., & Täuscher, K. (2016). Business models for sustain- Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social
ability from a system dynamics perspective. Organization & responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Busi-
Environment, 29(1), 74-96. ness Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

123
282 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T. C. (2012). Improving the Freeman, R. E. & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to
performance of business models with relationship marketing strategic management. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman & J.
efforts—an entrepreneurial perspective. European Management S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic
Journal, 30(2), 85–98. Management (pp. 189–207). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Busch, T., Stinchfield, B. T., & Wood, M. S. (2011). Rethinking Giesen, B. (2008). Ethical clothing—new awareness or fading fashion
sustainability, innovation, and financial performance. In A. trend. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Marcus, P. Shrivastava, S. Sharma, & S. Pogutz (Eds.), Cross- Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility
sector leadership for the green economy (pp. 81–105). New (CSR): CSR meets the ‘‘nordic model’’. Regulation & Gover-
York: Palgrave Macmillan. nance, 4(2), 203–229.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strate- Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., Velken, I., Audretsch, M., Kiron, D., &
gies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Man- Kruschwitz, N. (2012). Sustainability nears a tipping point.
agement Journal, 24(5), 453–470. North Hollywood: MIT Sloan Managmeent Review.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate Hahn, T. & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2015). Toward cognitive plurality
social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. on corporate sustainability in organizations: The role of orga-
International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. nizational factors. Organization & Environment, 28(3), 255–263.
Casssidy, T. D., & Han, S. L.-C. (2013). Upcycling fashion for mass Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver
production. In M. A. Gardetti & A. L. Torres (Eds.), Sustain- bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
ability in fashion and textiles (pp. 148–163). Sheffield: Greenleaf Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Editorial: Partial
Publishing. least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applica-
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it’s not just about tions, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan-
technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17. ning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities Hall, J., & Wagner, M. (2012). Integrating sustainability into firms’
and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363. processes: Performance effects and the moderating role of
Christopher, M., Lowson, R., & Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile business models and innovation. Business Strategy and the
supply chains in the fashion industry. International Journal of Environment, 21(3), 183–196.
Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 367–376. Halme, M., & Laurila, J. (2009). Philanthropy, integration or
Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. (2005). Understanding strategic innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes of
responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business different types of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business
Research, 58(9), 1205–1213. Ethics, 84(3), 325–339.
Clemens, B., Bamford, C., & Douglas, T. (2008). Choosing strategic Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business
responses to address emerging environmental regulations: Size, School Press.
perceived influence and uncertainty. Business Strategy and the Hilger, J. (2008). The apparel industry in west europe. Frederiksberg:
Environment, 17(8), 493–511. Copenhagen Business School, Department of Intercultural
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate- Communication and Management (ICM),
NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for Hvass, K. K. (2014). Post-retail responsibility of garments—a fashion
developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 326–342. industry perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Man-
Davenport, T. H., Leibold, M., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Strategic agement, 18(4), 413–430.
management in the innovation economy. Erlangen: Publicis Hvass, K. K. (2015). Business model innovation through second hand
Corporate Publishing. retailing. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 57, 11–31.
DEFRA. (2007). Maximising reuse and recycling of UK clothing and IBM. (2006). Expanding the innovation horizon: Global CEO Study,
textiles, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, IBM Business Consulting Services.
London. Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsi-
DEFRA. (2010). Sustainable clothing action plan (update Feb 2010), bility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute?
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 371–394.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and Jin, K. G., Drozdenko, R., & DeLoughy, S. (2013). The role of corporate
organizational development: A competing values approach. value clusters in ethics, social responsibility, and performance: A
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 1–21. study of financial professionals and implications for the financial
Dickson, M. A., Waters, Y., & López-Gydosh, D. (2012). Stakeholder meltdown. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 15–24.
expectations for environmental performance within the apparel Johnson, M. W. (2009). Seizing the white space: Business model
industry: The urgency of business response. Journal of Corpo- innovation for growth and renewal. Boston, Massachusetts:
rate Citizenship, 45(Spring 2012), 37–51. Harvard Business Press.
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008).
corporate sustainability. Business Strategyand the Environment, Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review,
11(2), 130–141. 86(12), 51–59.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Johnson, M. W., & Suskewicz, J. (2009). How to jump-start the clean-
New York: Chapman & Hall. tech economy. Harvard Business Review, 87(11), 52–60.
Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design Joyce, A., Paquin, R., & Pigneur, Y. (2015). The triple layered
journeys. London: Earthscan. business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable
Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Fashion & sustainability: Design for business models. Nancy, France, ARTEM Organizational
change. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Creativity International Conference.
Fornell, C. G., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R. P. Bagozzi Keskin, D., Diehl, J. C., & Molenaar, N. (2013). Innovation process of
(Ed.), Advanced methods of marketing research (pp. 52–78). new ventures by sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Cambridge: Blackwell. 45(April), 50–60.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Two structural equation Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., & Goh, E. (2013). The
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. benefits of sustainability-driven innovation. MIT Sloan Manage-
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50. ment Review, 54(2), 69–73.

123
Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and… 283

Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innova- Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why
tion of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard
Production, 65, 57–75. Business Review, 87(9), 56–64.
Kozlowski, A., Bardecki, M., & Searcy, C. (2012). Environmental Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social
impacts in the fashion industry: A life-cycle and stakeholder and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Stud-
framework. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 45(Spring), ies, 24(3), 403–441.
17–36. Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition
Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social in a design science approach. Switzerland: Universite de
responsibility: Its evolutionary parth and the road ahead. Lausanne/Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales. http://www.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73. hec.unil.ch/aosterwa/PhD/Osterwalder_PhD_BM_Ontology.pdf.
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Accessed 3 Feb 2016.
Business model innovation: When the game gets tough, change Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation.
the game, Boston Consulting Group. Hobroken, NJ: Wiley.
Lindgren, P., & Taran, Y. (2011). A Futuristic outlook on business Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell,
models and business model innovation in a future green society. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the
Journal of Green Engineering, River Publishers, 229–239, http:// art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.
riverpublishers.com/journal/journal_articles/RP_Journal_1904- Pedersen, E. R. G., & Andersen, K. R. (2015). Sustainability
4720_131.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan, 2016. innovators and anchor draggers: A global expert study on
Louche, C., Idowu, S. O., & Filho, W. L. (2010). Innovative CSR: sustainable fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Man-
From risk management to value creation. Sheffield: Greenleaf agement, 19(3), 315–327.
Publishing. Pedersen, E. R. G., & Gwozdz, W. (2014). From resistance to
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2009). Business model concepts in corporate opportunity-seeking: Strategic responses to institutional pres-
sustainability contexts, centre for sustainability management, sures for corporate social responsibility in the nordic fashion
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany, http:// industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 245–264.
pure.leuphana.de/ws/files/1174317/Luedeke_Freund_Business_ Pedersen, E. R. G., & Netter, S. (2015). Collaborative consumption:
Model_Concepts_in_Corp._Sust._Contexts.pdf. Accessed 20 Business model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries.
Jan, 2016. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(3), 258–273.
Mackenzie, S. B. (2001). Opportunities for improving consumer Poldner, K., Branzei, O., & Steyaert, C. (2011). Shecopreneuring:
research through latent variable structural equation modeling. Sticthing global ecosystems in the ethical fashion industry. In A.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 159–166. Marcus, P. Shrivastava, S. Sharma, & S. Pogutz (Eds.), Cross-
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: sector leadership for the green economy (pp. 157–173). New
Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science York: Palgrave Maxmillan.
Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2011). The relationship between
Mckinsey, (2010). McKinsey global survey results: How companies multidimensional organizational culture and performance. Inter-
manage sustainability. McKinsey & Company. http://www. national Journal of Operations & Production Management,
mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how_companies_manage_ 31(7), 712–735.
sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results. Accessed 3 Feb Preuss, L. (2011). Innovative CSR. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
2016. 42(Summer 2011), 17–32.
Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Randles, S. & Laasch, O. (2015). Theorising the Normative Business
Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innova- Model. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 53–73.
tion: A systemaic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Produc- Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3)
tion, 65(February), 76–86. Beta.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Ozanne, L. (2010). The interactive effect of Rohrbeck, R., Konnertz, L., & Knab, S. (2013). Collaborative business
internal and external factors on a proactive environmental modelling for systemic and sustainability innovations. International
strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance. Journal of Journal of Technology Management, 63(1/2), 4–23.
Business Ethics, 94(2), 279–298. Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models
Michelini, L., & Fiorentino, D. (2012). New business models for creating for sustainability: A conceptual model found inside the black
shared value. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 561–577. box of organisational transformation. Organization & Environ-
Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, C. B. (2004). Establishing a continuing ment, 29(1), 11–35.
business model innovation process. Journal of Business Strategy, Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2008). The
25(3), 39–49. influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service
Moore, C. M., & Birtwistle, G. (2004). The Burberry business model: firms: The moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and
Creating an international luxury fashion brand. International munificence. British Journal of Management, 19(2), 185–203.
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 412–422. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on
Morgan, E. (2015). Plan a: Analysing business model innovation for corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy
sustainable consumption in mass-market clothes retailing. Jour- of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
nal of Corporate Citizenshop, 57, 73–98. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future
business model: Toward a unified perspective. Journal of avenues. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 3–10.
Business Research, 58(6), 726–735. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2011). Business
Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do cases for sustainability and the role of business model innova-
patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure tion—developing a conceptual framework, centre for sustain-
approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240. ability management, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménz, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Diamantopoulos, A., & Kreutz, P. (2003).
(2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational Strategic innovation: The construct, its drivers and its strategic
culture. Management Decision, 40(1), 55–72. outcomes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(2), 117–132.

123
284 E. R. G. Pedersen et al.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new Upward, A. & Jones, P. (2016). An ontology for strongly sustainable
business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), business models: Defining an enterprise framework compatible
241–246. with natural and social science. Organization & Environment,
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2007). Profitable business models and market 29(1), 97–123.
creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Visser, W. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 49–63. DNA of business. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on Ethics, 5(3), 7–22.
sustainability practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of
Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180. corporate social responsibility. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Innovation Institution Press.
orientation outcomes: The good and the bad. Journal of Business Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsi-
Research, 59(10–11), 113–1141. bility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR.
SolAbility. (2013). The global sustainable competitiveness index European Management Journal, 26(4), 247–261.
2013. SolAbility, Ilsan, South Korea. http://www.solability.com/ WEF. (2010). Redesigning business value: A roadmap for sustainable
pdfs/Sustainable_Competitiveness_Index_Executive_Summary. consumption, World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva.
pdf. Wells, P. (2008). Alternative business models for a sustainable
Sommer, A. (2012). Managing green business model transformations. automotive industry. In A. Tukker, M. Charter, C. Vezzoli, E.
Berlin: Springer. Stø, & M. M. Andersen (Eds.), System innovation for sustain-
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model ability I (pp. 80–98). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
innovation: State of the art and future challenges for the field. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building
R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247. social business models: Lessons from the grameen experience.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a ‘‘sustainability Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.
business model’’. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127. Zott, C. & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the
Sullivan, W., Sullivan, R., & Buffton, B. (2002). Aligning individual performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,
and organisational values to support change. Journal of Change 18(2), 181–199.
Management, 2(3), 247–254. Zott, C. & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic
responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.
resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innova- developments and future research. Journal of Management,
tion. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. 37(4), 1019–1042.
Tellis, G. J. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The preem-
inence of corporate. Culture, 73(January), 3–23.

123