Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1.1 The Controversiality of Corporate Social Responsibility

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), defined here as coordinated business actions aimed at a more sustainable world, has always been fairly controversial, both from the perspective of academic discourse and from the perspective of corporate practice. In its most basic terms, questions have been asked about whether corporations can and should actually have social responsibilities and, if so, to what extent? (cf. Davis 1973; Moon et al. 2005). Reflecting on the social responsibilities of business, a scholarly debate has developed that has given rise to a multitude of conceptions on the roles and responsibilities of business in society. These conceptions roughly vary from Friedman’s position that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits (Friedman 1970) to positions about CSR that reflect the principle of sustainable development as formulated in the well-known “Brundtland report” as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987: 204) and that now extend to and is operationalized through the Sustainable Development Goals . While different positions on the responsibilities of business in society remain to be held, partly motivated by political beliefs and worldviews, the question “what is a business for?” is nowadays answered in a way that aligns with a broader conception including taking into account the interests of and being accountable to a broader set of stakeholders than merely those with a financial or otherwise economic concern as well as society as a whole, nature and future generations. A survey among consumers from 10 of the world’s largest countries showed that some 81% thought that firms have responsibilities going (far) beyond creating shareholder value, with 31% thinking that firms should change the way they operate to align with greater social and environmental needs (Cone Communications/Echo 2013).

The concept of CSR has also given rise to widespread semantic controversy, leading to a plethora of definitions that emphasize different aspects related to stakeholder, social, environmental, economic and voluntariness dimensions (Dahlsrud 2008). CSR has been labelled an “eternally contested concept” (e.g. Matten and Moon 2008; Okoye 2009), implying that different meanings are attributed to the concept based on, for instance, dominant political beliefs, ethical convictions, personal values and the Zeitgeist. Okoye (2009) has argued from this perspective that there is no need to arrive at a “final” definition of CSR at all—in fact, a continuous sense-making process may be a good way to approach the concept (cf. Nijhof and Jeurissen 2006). However, this may also lead to CSR becoming an object of political preferences that are motivated strategically and opportunistically.

A third reason for claiming the concept of CSR as controversial can be found in the corporate scandals that have emerged over the past two decades and the apparent proliferation of greenwashing. This has led to plummeting levels of trust in business as an institution and the people leading companies. For instance, research by Edelman shows that business, as an institution, is actually on the brink of distrust (Edelman 2017). Research by GlobeScan (2012) illustrates a severe credibility gap for firms when it comes to CSR, with only around one in three Western Europeans thinking that firms communicate honestly about CSR. Especially in the context of CSR, the relative opacity of actual CSR-related activities and the consequent existence of information asymmetries between companies and their stakeholders, including consumers and authorities, aggravate this problem, compromising CSR even further (Moratis 2015; cf. Terlaak 2007). Fleming and Jones (2012) have even argued that CSR initiatives by firms are strategically motivated in a perverted way as they are used to create benevolent images of essentially malevolent corporate activity.

Looking from a performance perspective to CSR does not give rise to a lot of optimism for the concept either. While research on the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP) has been abundant (see Wang et al. 2016 for a recent overview with respect to contextual factors), it has been hard for scholars to find a relationship between the two that suggests that CSR indeed leads to superior CFP. In fact, the opposite may even be the case, indicating an earnings management strategy that may be meant to obfuscate certain less pleasant characteristics of companies rather than proving the case that CSR equals good business (cf. Lys et al. 2015). From a societal perspective, the story of the performance of CSR is not much better. Country-level data from the Footprint Network recurrently show that it has proven very hard not only to combine high levels of socio-economic development with a relatively modest ecological footprint, but that this is also the case when developing a country’s level of socio-economic development (WWF 2016). When one takes into account the proliferation of CSR initiatives by companies (and not even only those by companies) and the CSR infrastructure (including government policies, corporate standards and sectoral codes, for instance) that has taken place over the past decades, it is hard to deny that there is a problematic connection between CSR and a better world.

Extending—and partly explaining—the idea that CSR is uneconomic, Visser (2011) has argued that the problem with CSR is that it is peripheral and incremental. CSR has particularly been the purview of marketing and communications departments and has tended to be uncoupled from the actual core business of companies, exemplifying the popular claims of CSR as a “bolt-on” or “plug-in”. The argument that CSR is incremental is based on the general observation that the practice of CSR is viewed from a quality management-like continuous improvement perspective rather than from the viewpoint of radical innovation on the interface of business and society. This has led to only piecemeal progress, usually by adjusting internal business processes instead of product innovation, experimenting with organizational architectures or rethinking value creation and strategic renewal.

However, in addition to CSR being peripheral, uneconomic and incremental, it may be argued that the fact that CSR is dominantly viewed as instrumental (i.e. implementing sustainability as a means to another corporate end) is part of the problematic nature of CSR. Literature tells us that such instrumental views on or business case approaches to CSR have dominated its discourse at the expense of, for instance, ethical or political views on CSR (Garriga and Melé 2004; Cochran 2007; Carroll and Shabana 2010; Porter and Kramer 2011). Although popular from a business perspective as well, it should be noted that profit-motivated CSR initiatives have inherent limitations as they may lead to cherry-picking the CSR agenda, an erosion of the intrinsic engagement of morally motivated employees, lower levels of corporate credibility and leaving current conceptions of value creation processes and institutional barriers towards sustainability intact (Nijhof and Jeurissen 2010; Moratis 2014).

In our view, these controversies surrounding CSR have led to surging criticism on the concept, requiring a reconceptualization that recouples business and society by integrating sustainability into architectures of economic organization in ways that actually benefit society and business through aligning their interests on a fundamental level. To be clear, we do not declare CSR “old-fashioned”, “outdated” or “dead” as other authors, both practitioners and academics, have done, since it remains perfectly legitimate to discuss the roles and responsibilities of business in society and since it signals that firms do have responsibilities towards society, nature and future generations. However, we do see and want to emphasize the need for framing the roles and responsibilities of business within organization, corporate strategy and even the level of a company’s purpose. It is this frame that leads to critically reinvestigating the creation, capture and delivery of value, both financial and non-financial, by firms (and, again, not only firms, but organizations in general), bringing us to the concept of sustainable business models.

1.2 Business Models: The Sustainable Way

Especially over the course of the past decade, the attention for sustainable business models has witnessed a notable increase. While on the one hand this increased attention has to do with the controversies surrounding the CSR concept we have noted here, it can also be explained by an increased attention for sustainability (and critical appraisals of institutional economic arrangements in contemporary society against this background) in general and the popularity of generic “business model thinking” within both corporate practice and academic literature. Before exploring the idea of sustainable business models, we will briefly introduce the general concept of business models in order to delineate some key characteristics.

1.2.1 Defining a Business Model

Although in common language the idea of a business model often seems to refer to organizational design, strategy, revenue models, operational processes or even the entire make-up and value chain of a company, the concept is more precise than that.Footnote 1 In its more simple definition, a business model “specifies how a firm is able to earn money from providing products and services” (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013: 9). According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), a business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates value, delivers value and captures value. Creating and capturing value is also the focus of Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu’s concept of a business model, which they define as the “search for new logics of the firm, new ways to create and capture value for its stakeholders, and focusing, primarily, on finding new ways to generate revenues and to define value propositions for customers, suppliers, and partners” (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu 2013: 464).

In their widely cited foundational contribution, Amit and Zott (2010a) define a business model as the bundle of specific activities that are conducted to satisfy the perceived needs of the market , including the specification of the parties that conduct these activities. According to them, this definition captures the essence of four aspects that are at the core of the concept (Amit and Zott 2010b: 2–3):

  • A focus on the how of doing business, as opposed to the what, when or where

  • A holistic perspective on how business is conducted, rather than a focus on any particular function such as product market strategy marketing or operations

  • An emphasis on value creation for all business model participants, as opposed to an exclusive focus on value capture

  • A recognition that partners can help the focal firm conduct essential activities within its business model

Teece (2010) notes that a business model not only articulates the logic of and provides data and other evidence that demonstrates how firms create and deliver value to customers but also outlines the architecture of revenues, costs and profits associated with the firms delivering that value (cf. Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002). A definition that is more conceptually abstract is provided by Al-Debei and Avison (2010: 362–363), defining a business model as “an abstract representation of an organization, be it conceptual, textual, and/or graphical, of all core interrelated architectural, co-operational, and financial arrangements designed and developed by an organization presently and in the future, as well all core products and/or services the organization offers, or will offer, based on these arrangements that are needed to achieve its goals and objectives.”

Within the concept of a business model, a proverbial infinite number of principled starting points, organizational architectures and strategic frameworks can hence accommodate the value creation, capture and delivery—including sustainability-oriented ones.

1.2.2 Defining a Sustainable Business Model

Defining the concept of a sustainable business model (SBM) logically builds on the generic business model concept. While our interpretation of what is a business model in principle includes all aspects and building blocks mentioned previously, the main focus, in our view, is on the way value is created, delivered and captured. In fact, when it comes to sustainability, the process of value creation may even be seen at the heart of what comprises a business model, since value delivery and value capture result from value creation and can only possess or integrate aspects of sustainability when the process of value creation (a) is in itself sustainable and (b) creates sustainable outcomes.

It is important to note that we thus argue that in order to characterize a business model as an SBM, it should meet conditions (a) and (b). A business model that is built on a process of value creation that in itself is sustainable without creating sustainable outcomes does not qualify as an SBM, nor does a business model that creates sustainable outcomes when it is not based on a process of value creation that in itself is sustainable. Reflecting on the latter case, it can be argued that any business model may—to a more or lesser extent, obviously—generate sustainable outcomes, for instance as a by-effect or even as an unintended consequence. In order to also meet condition (a) and hence qualify as an SBM, a business model should also have the intent or foundation to create sustainable outcomes and should be directed towards achieving those outcomes. In other words, an SBM can only qualify as such when the purpose of a company is build around contributing to a more sustainable world.

Relating to the condition of intent, Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) view SBMs as being underpinned by an ecological modernity perspective as an alternative worldview to the neoclassical perspective, which they, in line with Mol (2006: 33), define as the “[c]entripetal movement of ecological interests, ideas and considerations within the social practices and institutional developments of modern societies. This results in ecology-inspired and environment-induced processes of transformation and reform of those same core practices and central institutions, a process that began in earnest from the 1980s onwards” (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008: 105). Based on two case studies , the authors conclude that profits are a “means” to another end, namely sustainable outcomes. Firms that operate SBMs still must make a profit to exist but differ from other firms as they do not just exist to make a profit: “They pursue sustainability because it is ‘the right thing to do’ as well as the ‘smart thing to do’” (ibid., p. 121). Also, the authors conclude from their research that SBMs treat nature as a stakeholder and promote environmental stewardship and that SBMs encompass both a systems perspective and a firm-level perspective.

While essential, we think that intent alone does not suffice for meeting condition (a): at the same time, the way in which an SBM functions in practice (e.g. the operational logic of the business model, business practices, decision-making processes) should also herald sustainability principles. This idea aligns with a central principle of sustainable business in general, stating that business processes should be conducted in a sustainable way. Although this starting point, too, can take many shapes and forms in corporate practice, it has dominantly prompted companies to operate by the maxim of “do no harm” (cf. Wettstein 2010; Melissen 2016). Especially against the background of the need to tackle global sustainability challenges, oftentimes wicked and tangled in nature, such approaches will not suffice but are at the same time integral to SBMs.

Related to the sustainable outcomes that SBMs should create, Rauter et al. (2017) write that “[b]usiness models for sustainability must also add a positive social value and/or minimize negative environmental impacts.” In addition to economic profit, prosperity or progress, Wells (2013) notes that resource efficiency, social relevance, localization and engagement, longevity, ethical sourcing and work enrichment are principles underpinning SBMs. This implies that value should be redefined within the context of SBMs. In fact, SBMs do not only include both non-financial (e.g. ecological and social value) and financial value, nor do they even view non-financial value as at least equal to financial value, but accept non-financial and financial value as an integrated construct. Functioning in an integrated way, a principle that goes beyond connected or related is in our opinion the proverbial name of the game when it comes to SBMs.

Similar to the integrated nature of financial and non-financial value SBMs create, Lüdeke-Freund (2009: 66–67) provides an encompassing working definition for a sustainable business model: “A business model for sustainability is the activity system of a firm which allocates resources and coordinates activities in a value creation process which overcomes the public/private benefit discrepancy.” According to him, this can be achieved by “extending value propositions to integrate public and private benefits (product/value proposition pillar), making customers involved and responsible partners in value creation processes (customer interface pillar), taking advantage of partnerships which enhance resources and activities (infrastructure pillar), evaluating combined measures like Environmental Shareholder Value and Environmental/Social Business Model Value (financial aspects pillar), and dedicating resources and activities to secure free, legitimate and legal behaviour and to explore currently neglected opportunities in non-market spheres (non-market pillar)”.

This definition of SBMs aligns with Melissen’s concept of fourth-generation SBMs (Melissen 2016). Fourth-generation SBMs, in his view, aim to spur sustainability transitions and contribute to a more sustainable course of our society by incorporating mechanisms that challenge existing governance regimes and can change “the rules of the game”. A first central mechanism is tapping into human behaviour, exploiting ingrained psychological tendencies in a way that elicits behaviour that automatically leads to sustainable consumption. A second mechanism that these SBMs incorporate is linked to “a focus on and the means to set up collaborations with other businesses, policy makers and public authorities, civil movements and all other people that are involved in producing and consuming the products and services that these models deliver, and defining and redefining the needs that they satisfy” (Melissen 2016: 20; cf. Doane 2005). The picture of fourth-generation SBMs thus is one of networked, community-oriented business models. One should note that, while this may suggest that fourth-generation SBMs represent the current state of development of SBMs, all generations of SBMs are actually operational when one looks at corporate practice. Still, Melissen argues that earlier generation SBMs will become obsolete and that the fourth generation should be seen as the ideal type, incorporating all aspects into the business model that will lead to actual sustainability.

To sum it up briefly, the general conditions under which a business model qualifies as an SBM can be viewed as dimensions of purpose, process and performance, dissolving distinctions between the public sphere and private sphere, and integrating partners in value creation processes. In our view, this is the basis of many, if not all, types of SBM that can be discovered in practice, including social enterprises, B corps, circular economy business models and business models that are anchored in the sharing economy (cf. SustainAbility 2014).

1.3 Chapters in This Book

The chapters in this book, each in their own way and from their distinctive point of view, address the previously mentioned dimensions of SBMs. From these contributions, it becomes clear that the authors do not only recognize the importance of developing SBMs and want to share their knowledge and enthusiasm about the concept but also have the ambition to further explore the concept of SBMs in order to arrive at a better understanding of the various ways SBMs are manifested in practice. Some of them take an explicit conceptual and reflective perspective to address the principles and academic underpinnings of the concept and seek to advance theoretical knowledge about SBMs; others empirically investigate (aspects of) SBMs to draw conclusions from and for a more practice-oriented viewpoint and offer toolkits for business (and educational) practice.

Taking a bird eye’s view, we can conclude that this book brings together a variety of perspectives, subjects, strands of literature and methodological approaches that provide a kaleidoscopic picture of an emerging topic that has relevance for theory and practice. What makes this picture even more interesting, in our view, is that the contributions span different geographies and different sectors and include a large number of practical cases and examples.

So, is this book complete in terms of perspectives and approaches towards SBMs? Is this the definitive guide to SBMs? It is not—and it has never been the intention of this book either. This book should better be seen as a collection of contemporary works by engaged, respected and leading scholars in the field of SBM that both brings together existing work and explores the principles, promise and practice of SBMs. It provides founded and thought-through indications of how the discourse on SBMs is developing and in which directions research on SBMs is and should be going. As the interested reader will find many suggestions and inducements for further investigation in the chapters, the book is also an invitation for other scholars to further expand the knowledge on SBMs.

In order to categorize the chapters in a logical way, this book has been divided into four distinctive parts.

Part I explores different forms and types of SBMs. Focusing on what makes a transformative business model , Chap. 2 discusses the role of business models in system-wide sustainability transitions . Its authors, Antonia Proka, Pieter Jelle Beers and Derk Loorbach, offer a framework to advance our understanding of how the business model concept can contribute to sustainability transitions as well as how transition thinking supports the prospects of sustainable business models to unlock their transformative potential. The authors argue that the reflexive dynamics that play out between the innovative businesses and the regimes in which they emerge play a critical role in determining whether the emerging transformations will over time lead to fundamental systemic change and offer a framework that enables a systematic analysis of these dynamics. Analysing the case of a Dutch energy cooperative , the authors conclude that transformative business model s have a broad value orientation , a broad stakeholder network and a reflexive orientation.

In Chap. 3, Maria Aluchna and Boleslaw Rok provide an analysis of SBMs based on the logic of the collaborative economy. The authors propose that this type of SBMs follows principles of building stakeholder capital through inclusiveness, fostering innovation to address social or environmental challenges and focusing on at least one of the Sustainable Development Goals . In addition, companies that embrace this SBM type adopt an ethical infrastructure to assure high integrity while improving social, environmental and financial performance. Several companies operating in four different sectors addressing these five dimensions are analysed.

Chapter 4, by Wendy Stubbs, explores B Corps as a specific manifestation of SBMs. B Corps are viewed as a hybrid form of organization, blending traditionally for-profit practices with traditionally non-profit practices to address sustainability challenges. Drawing on interviews with 15 B Corps from Australia, this chapter provides insights into how this type of SBMs integrate market and social logics. The author finds that social and market logics are strongly integrated in several organizational functions, but that balancing these two logics creates tensions and conflict in others. In her analysis, Stubbs emphasizes the importance of creating a common organizational identity that strikes a balance between the logics to moderate conflict and one logic dominating over another.

The final chapter of Part I, Chap. 5, focuses on SBMs from a circular economy perspective. However, instead of merely addressing SBMs that are based on principles of circularity, author Mateusz Lewandowski addresses roles of public sector organizations and aims to further the understanding about these roles in shifting towards circular business models . Contributing to the debate on SBMs in several ways, the chapter outlines the facilitating role of the public sector through six types of interventions and attempts to provide a conceptualization of a public sector circular business model.

Part II of this book includes various theoretical and conceptual approaches towards SBMs. Chapter 6, by Katariina Koistinen, Minttu Laukkanen, Mirja Mikkilä, Janne Huiskonen and Lassi Linnanen, aims to deepen the understanding of the ways how companies create and capture sustainable value through business models in a larger operation system. Using transition theory and the concept of strong sustainability, they focus on companies’ dualistic role in pursuing sustainability targets, assisting the broader systemic change through new sustainable business models. Their chapter also addresses the external factors that either enable or hinder companies to transform their existing business models towards sustainability. Based on a literature review, the authors develop a tentative framework combining the approaches of transition management, sustainable value creation and corporate sustainability levels.

Setting out a vision about what sustainable value creation entails, Wayne Visser, the author of Chap. 7, develops a conceptual framework of “integrated value”. Taking a systems science perspective, he argues that societal value is destroyed by economic activity when it causes fragmentation or disintegration. Identifying five forces of fragmentation (disruption, disconnection, disparity, destruction and disease), this chapter contends that innovations occurring in five emerging economic spheres (the resilience, exponential, access, circular and well-being economies) can reverse this destruction of societal value through breakthrough business models, practices, products and services. He calls these the five pathways to innovation that lead to a desired future in which society is more secure, smart, shared, sustainable and satisfying. Integrated value is considered to be the ideal strategic value-creation option to achieve this. The chapter includes several illustrative cases and delineates seven steps of a methodology to implement integrated value.

Chapter 8, by Marek Ćwilicki and Linda O’Riordan, takes the perspective of reverse innovation. Their chapter systematically examines a selection of key concepts related to what they call new business models (NBMs) and reverse innovation (RI) via a qualitative, theoretical approach. The authors critically investigate the potential effects of RI as a mechanism for enabling pathways and solutions to achieve sustainable value creation . By defining the relevant key terms, by conceptualizing the RI process derived from a base of the pyramid context and by presenting case study examples of RI in action, the authors investigate the characteristics and critical success factors of successful NBMs. This highlights the prospects of NBMs and RI for optimally leveraging organizations as catalysts for positive change in society. They tentatively conclude that this theoretical study of the SVC potential of RI strategies furnishes initial evidence to indicate that RI can play a valuable role within an NBM context.

Sharing some links with the concept of reverse innovation , Chap. 9 presents emerging work on mapping collaborative activities specifically related to circular business model (CBM) implementation, seen as a subcategory of SBMs. Phil Brown, Nancy Bocken and Ruud Balkenende argue that collaboration is essential to simultaneously ensure economic, environmental and social performance throughout a product’s life cycle(s). They address the following question: “What types of collaboration are presented by companies pursuing CBMs”? The required system change is beyond individual companies and requires transition towards inter-organizational collaborative networks. Although vital, collaboration is also described as opaque, an amorphous meta-concept and a black box. To investigate this topic, the chapter deploys a literature study combining research fields of CBMs and collaboration within sustainable supply chain management and delineates specific types of collaboration crucial to CBMs. These are applied through a framework to describe eight Dutch companies pursuing CBMs. Their collaborative processes are analysed through pattern matching and cross-case analysis. Based on this, initial characteristics of the collaborative activities that are linked to CBMs are proposed. The authors find that particular types of collaboration are important when pursuing CBMs and highlight future research areas to explore potential impacts of collaboration upon CBMs.

Chapter 10, by Vincent Blok, presents the most theoretical contribution to this book. In this chapter, the author argues that the concept of SBMs contains a fundamental paradox, because sustainability involves the reduction of information asymmetries, whereas entrepreneurship involves enhanced and secured levels of information asymmetries. Blok therefore proposes a new and integrated theory of sustainable entrepreneurship that overcomes this paradox. The basic argument is that environmental problems have to be conceptualized as wicked problems or sustainability-related ecosystem failures. Since all actors involved in the entrepreneurial process are characterized by their epistemic insufficiency regarding the solving of these problems, the role of information in the sustainable entrepreneurial process changes. On the one hand, the author contends that the reduction of information asymmetries primarily aims to enable actors to become critical of sustainable entrepreneurs’ actual business models. On the other hand, the epistemic insufficiency of sustainable entrepreneurs guarantees that information asymmetries remain as a source of new sustainable business opportunities. Three further characteristics of sustainable entrepreneurs are then identified: sustainability and entrepreneurship-related risk-taking, sustainability and entrepreneurship-related self-efficacy and the development of satisficing and open-ended solutions, together with multiple stakeholders.

Chapter 11, as the final chapter of Part II, addresses the topic of leadership in the context of SBMs. Starting from the observation that the way in which SBMs are triggered by managers or entrepreneurs who act as leader of an organization has not yet been deeply investigated, Mara Del Baldo investigates the role of entrepreneurial and managerial leadership style. Having a particular focus on servant leadership , her chapter includes literature on influencing strategies, organizational culture and stakeholder engagement of companies, orienting them towards SBMs. Having traced the theoretical background, the empirical research helps to shed light on corporate sustainability management and sustainable innovation in daily business and to inquire the extent to which servant leadership enables SBMs’ implementation. Two cases of Italian firms are presented, led by managers and entrepreneurs with common traits in their servant leadership styles and characterized by the implementation of distinctive SBMs. The findings emphasize the role of the values and ethical-based conducts of the managers/entrepreneurs in forging the sustainable and servant leadership model and affecting the SBMs adopted by the companies.

The contributions in Part III address SBMs from sectoral and country perspectives. Chapter 12, by Jorna Leenheer and Marco Kuijten, investigates Internet-based sharing platforms in the travel industry to see whether these platforms can be considered sustainable (business models) and how they impact hotels that have always offered stable supply to travellers. They employ a survey methodology based on 2591 consumers to examine the use, perceived value and market position of both sharing platforms and hotels. Among other conclusions, it appears from their research that social value and not so much economic value is the main driver for travellers to choose for a sharing alternative and perceived sustainable considerations play a minor role. Also, as the price attractiveness of sharing platforms may increase travel consumption, sharing platforms may well be unsustainable from an ecological point of view. The authors suggest that hotels should innovate their business models rather than compete on price, for instance through partnerships with local business, local communities and even Airbnb landlords.

Chapter 13 investigates the tea sector by looking at the global supply chain . Author Andrew Mzembe is critical about the effectiveness of traditional business models in achieving sustainable value creation in this sector. Recent scandals suggest that the dominant form of maintaining their supply chain’s integrity which largely places some form of liability on upstream suppliers for social and environmental risks may not be as effective as many scholars and practitioners may have initially contended. He argues that firms may need to re-evaluate their business models and experiment with new generations of SBMs: models that call for the direct involvement of networks of stakeholders—including suppliers—in the co-creation of sustainable value. This chapter focuses on a case study showing a company attempting to do this by developing and implementing a code of conduct based on the combined liability and shared responsibility approach with a network of its direct suppliers. The chapter concludes by drawing implications for SBMs within a developing country context.

Risa Bhinekawati and Asgha Banguning in Chap. 14 clarify the linkages between value proposition, value creation and delivery and value capture through the integration of a social capital concept into an SBM. Using an exploratory qualitative case study approach including two of Indonesia’s largest public listed companies, the authors investigate why and how a firm translates its sustainability strategy (value proposition) into corporate foundations that generate social capital (value creation and delivery) and sustainability performance (value capture). The study emphasizes the importance for companies to incorporate “hybrid” roles as profit and non-profit institutions in building an SBM. The corporate foundations, which are the non-profit arm of the corporations, deal with social issues that intersect with business needs. Stakeholder relations and resource allocation through the foundations have developed social capital, which enables a company and its stakeholders to co-create value to achieve sustainability performance for both.

Chapter 15, by Ayça Hızarcı Payne and Berna Kirkulak, taps into the recent inception of the BIST (Istanbul stock exchange) Sustainability Index, the first such index in Turkey. The index aims to encourage Turkish companies and investors to give careful consideration to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues for sustainable wealth creation. The authors investigate business models of the leading sustainability-driven companies in the BIST Sustainability Index through analysis of sustainability report contents. Investigating this can help to develop understanding about how companies with different backgrounds adopt SBMs in a way that enables them to capture economic value through delivering social and environmental benefits.

Chapter 16, by Justyna Szumniak-Samolej, is the final chapter of Part III. It has the objective to identify, describe and compare the basic assumptions and most important elements of the companies’ business models that categorize them as SBMs. Based on interviews with young Polish entrepreneurs who built their business models on a social and/or environmental mission, the author analyses methods of engaging stakeholders, the role of social media in their development, the motivations of their leaders and experiences related to setting up projects based on a social or environmental mission. From this empirical research, a conceptual framework is developed.

In Part IV, containing the two final chapters of this book, the focus is on frameworks and toolkits for developing SBMs. In Chap. 17, Alex Hope observes that while there is much research presenting case studies of companies who utilize SBM designs, only recently has attention turned to the development and application of tools and techniques which can assist business leaders in developing models to apply to their own organizations. His chapter first discusses SBM design before reviewing a range of toolkits designed to integrate sustainability principles into business strategic planning and assessing their applicability to sustainable and responsible business model design . The aim of this chapter is to identify and review some of the key tools available for firms to utilize when developing new SBM pathways.

Authors Henning Breuer and Florian Lüdeke-Freund argue in Chap. 18 that the reconsideration of values—such as ecological sustainability or social justice—may provide the required sense of direction and offer a widely untapped source of innovation. They present a framework for values-based innovation management that offers a refoundation of management in general and innovation in particular in that it emphasizes the importance of values for normative, strategic and operational innovation and its management. The authors develop a methodology and toolkit (called the Business Innovation Kit and Sustainability Innovation Pack) to realize values-based and sustainability-oriented business model innovation in practice. This toolkit builds on a didactic approach that supports self-guided ideation and innovation processes in mixed teams through the definition of values providing a “common ground”, exemplification through cases and business model patterns, ideation for single business model components and modelling relations across components and models. This final chapter of the book also offers a reflection of practical experience that has been gained with this toolkit.