Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Going one's own way: drivers in developing business models for

sustainability
Romana Rauter a, *, Jan Jonker b, Rupert J. Baumgartner a
a
Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/1, 8010, Graz, Austria
b
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO BOX 9108, 6500 HK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

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

Article history: Business models have received much attention in recent years due to their importance in the funda-
Received 25 September 2014 mental logic of every company. This paper is based on a qualitative, empirical research study conducted
Received in revised form in cooperation with 10 Austrian companies in 2014. It aims to investigate business models for sustain-
13 March 2015
ability in order to better understand how they operate and what the drivers for developing these
Accepted 18 April 2015
Available online 4 May 2015
business models are. This is a cross-industry sample covering companies showing notable sustainability
activities. In fact, half of the companies were founded with the intention of complying with sustainability
principles. The results show that business models incorporating aspects of sustainability do not differ
Keywords:
Business models
substantially from traditional business models. However, they do require specific adaptations and ex-
Business models for sustainability tensions. Furthermore, the findings highlight the significance of company leaders in organizing change
Sustainability processes so as to encompass sustainable business practices. The findings reveal that business models
Leadership undergo constant change, and that sustainability plays a central role, both internally and externally. The
Value creation results gained allow for a deeper understanding of the motivational aspects and drivers needed in
FSSD developing business models for sustainability, and serve as a solid basis for further research in this field.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction influence stakeholder behaviour and engagement. Depending on

In today's day and age, crises constantly prompt us to raise
fundamental questions about the sustainable development of our
world. Economic developments such as, for instance, the financial
crisis, environmental or climate change, the difference between the
North and the South, and global epidemics, need to seriously be
taken into account when attempting to devise sustainable solutions
for the future (Strange and Bayley, 2008). It is common knowledge
that a multitude of changes, on different levels, are necessary in
order to cope with such challenges, and it is clear that there is still
much more to do, not only on the individual level but also on the
organisational and societal level. Owing to its holistic nature, sus-
tainable development requires that environmental, social and
economic challenges be dealt with jointly and/or simultaneously
(Bocken et al., 2014). As influential global actors, companies, in
particular, are at the centre of attention (e.g., Harris and Crane,
2002). Companies have the ability to change their normative set-
tings and to generate concrete action. They can also actively
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ43 (0)316 380 3236.
E-mail addresses: romana.rauter@uni-graz.at (R. Rauter), j.jonker@fm.ru.nl
(J. Jonker), rupert.baumgartner@uni-graz.at (R.J. Baumgartner).
their specific attitude, companies may prove to be a catalyst or a
barrier with respect to sustainability. Generally speaking, corporate
contributions towards sustainable development are necessary and
considered as highly important (Moon, 2007). In recent years,
business models have received much attention due to their
importance in determining the fundamental logic of a company. A
business model “specifies how a firm is able to earn money from
providing products and services” (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013,
p. 9), which consequently means that business models define how a
company creates and captures value. It is the definition of these
values which determines whether sustainability issues are
considered to lie entirely within a firm or not. Research shows that
it is mainly the task of managers and leaders to decide which
values, besides economic values, are of strategic importance
(Duarte, 2010; Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004). Hence, it also falls
to them to design business models in such a manner that the
principles of sustainability are taken into account (or not) when
attempting to deal with expected change. The results of the annual
BSR and GlobeScan State of Sustainable Business Survey (2013)
underline this argument by showing that it is the integration of
sustainability into core business functions which remains the most
important leadership challenge. The McKinsey Global Survey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.104
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
(2014) and Kiron et al. (2013) come up with a similar result; sus-
tainability is seen as a top CEO priority. Since business models are at
the core of business activity, integrating sustainability in business
models is indeed an issue for top management. In addition, the
reconfiguration of business models may be seen as a prerequisite
“for holding onto market positions and sustaining revenues”
(Simanis and Hart, 2009, p. 83). Business models for sustainability
must also add a positive social value and/or minimize negative
environmental impacts.
Recent research by, for instance, Chesbrough (2010) and Zott
et al. (2011), has contributed profoundly to the clarification of the
concept of business models and has also stimulated discussion of
business models for sustainability (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014; Short
et al., 2013). In addition, while leaders as change agents has long
been a topic in management science, it still remains unclear what
specifically drives certain people to change business models or to
consider the integration of principles of sustainability or forms of
social engagement into their business actions (e.g., Sommer, 2012;
Schick et al., 2002). More research on topics “related to the pro-
cesses through which firms actually navigate the multiple change
requirements to identify, experiment with, and eventually realize
more sustainable models of the enterprise” (Zollo et al., 2013, p.
242) has yet to be conducted. A better understanding of the moti-
vational drivers as well as of the business models is crucial for
drawing conclusions, both in academia and in practice.
In accordance with the issues outlined above, the following
research questions are addressed in the present paper:
1) What drivers (on the individual as well as on the organisational
level) are required when changing business models into busi-
ness models for sustainability?
2) In which specifics ways do companies consider the economic,
environmental and social aspects of sustainability?
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section one provides a
theoretical overview based on recent research and aims to clarify
what business models for sustainability are, and the role leaders
play in transforming business models. Furthermore, the conceptual
framework underlying the empirical research is also discussed. In
section two, the multiple-case study method, as employed in the
present study, is discussed. In section three, the results gained from
analysing 10 Austrian companies are presented. The discussion and
conclusions in section four are meant to show the possibilities of
expanding existing research in the field of business models. The
outlook for future research on business models and sustainability is
also described here.
1.1. Business models
Almost no other topic in management research is discussed
more frequently than business models. Business models “have the
Principle plan for reaching overarching business goals in a
Business Strategy
Blueprint or logic of how to put the strategy into practice
Business Model
Actual implementation of the business model including
Operational Activities
Fig. 1. Relationship between Business Strategy, Business Model and the Operational Layer (Own description based on Sommer (2012) and Osterwalder (2004)).
145
potential to bridge the gap between radical and systemic sustain-
able innovation and firm strategies” (Boons et al., 2013, p. 3), they
may “span industry and firm boundaries” (Amit and Zott, 2001, p.
515) and they “serve [as] a positive and powerful role in corporate
management” (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 199). Whatever the specific
role business models play in specific situations, scholars agree that
in general an organisation's business model determines the way in
which the organisation is able to profit through the provision of
products and/or services. It also serves to identify the basic ele-
ments and relationships in company conduct (Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013; Osterwalder et al., 2005). Despite the increasing in-
terest in business models (e.g., Zott et al., 2011; Beltramello et al.,
2013) and the constant growth of publications on the topic, busi-
ness models still face considerable criticism, e.g. owing to their
perceived lack of a theoretical foundation. For the purposes of the
present paper we define the concept thus: “[a] business model is a
conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and their relation-
ships and allows expressing a company's logic of earning money. It
is a description of the value a company offers to one or several
segments of customers and the architecture of the firm and its
network of partners for creating, marketing and delivering this
value and relationship capital, in order to generate profitable and
sustainable revenue streams” (Osterwalder, 2004, p. 15). As defined,
the business model consists of four pillars: product, customer
interface, infrastructure management, and financial aspects
(Osterwalder et al., 2005). Each of these pillars consists of further
components which, according to Osterwalder et al. (2005), can be
divided into nine building blocks: value proposition, target
customer, distribution channel, relationship, value configuration,
core competency, partner networks, cost structure, and revenue
model. Furthermore, the business model is to be understood as a
layer which is embedded between strategy and operational activ-
ities. The purpose of the business model is to describe how strategy
is put into practice (see Fig. 1).
1.2. Business models for sustainability
Since the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987 it has
been widely known that sustainable development is “develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED,
1987, p. 43). In the context of businesses, sustainability can be
defined as “the adoption of business strategies and activities that
meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholder today while
protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural re-
sources that will be needed in the future” (IISD, 1992). Changing
the business model provides one way of implementing such a
sustainability strategy. It may also be a suitable response when
dealing with shifts in competition, fending off low-end disruptors
(Johnson et al., 2008), declining consumer numbers or critical
economic situations. Moreover, the concept of value, as related to
competitive and dynamic business environment
and how to create and capture economic value
structure and processes
146 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
the sustainable development movement, can be a further reason
for changing the business model. Conventional business models
also have to change in order to allow for organisations to become
sustainable (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). In this particular case, the
business model has be changed so as to accommodate additional
social and environmental issues which are perceived to be rele-
vant (Le
le

, 1991; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Changing and
balancing a number of diverse values is one of the primary pur-
poses of a business model (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). As
this may entail no more than mere adjustment to conventional
business logic one could argue that “merely” redefining business
models in order to adjust to the demands of sustainable devel-
opment may be inadequate in that no fundamental change in the
way business is conducted is necessary. Where new value prop-
ositions are generated, they remain within the boundaries of
existing frames or paradigms. Any more fundamental innovation
with respect to the business model calls for a change in the basic
logic of value creation, i.e. for a redefinition of values and value
creation underlying such models (e.g., Jonker, 2015; Jonker et al.,
2015). The present study focuses on understanding the reasons
for changing and re-balancing (existing and future) business
models with respect to sustainability. One notion used in the
literature to describe such changes in business models is the
concept of business model innovation (Chesbrough, 2007, 2010).
This “represents a significant opportunity for established firms”
(Koen et al., 2011, p. 52) and is seen as “especially valuable in times
of instability” (Lindgardt et al., 2009, p. 2). Business model inno-
vation is “about creating fundamentally new kinds of businesses,
or about bringing more strategic variety into the businesses you
are already in” (Skarzynski and Gibson, 2008, p. 111). The change
towards business models for sustainability has already partly
taken place (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Numerous organisations
today take the views of their stakeholders as well as their share-
holders into consideration. There may be a focus on reducing the
ecological footprint of their products, on providing service-based
products, or on incorporating wider social issues into business
strategy (Gouldson and Murphy, 1997; Hart, 1997; Jacobs, 1997;
Matos and Silvestre, 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2012). Attempts to
design for remanufacture and circular value systems, to adopt
open source innovation and network value creation systems are
also further components commonly found in business models
addressing sustainability (Wells, 2013). Furthermore, organisa-
tions are beginning to realize that the creation of a win-win sit-
uation for those involved is essential for successful business
transactions; cooperative collaboration should be a central prin-
ciple within their business model (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
Resource efficiency, social relevance, localisation and engagement,
longevity, ethical sourcing and work enrichment are the major
principles underpinning business models for sustainability, ac-
cording to Wells (2013). Since such business model innovations
comply with the idea of sustainable development, such issues are
often discussed in the context of “green” or “sustainable business
models” (e.g., Short et al., 2013; Bocken et al., 2014). To conclude,
business models for sustainability within the context of the pre-
sent study are deemed to consist of pillars and building blocks,
whereby building blocks are defined such that they corresponding
to the central aspects of sustainable development. To answer the
research questions, we used the conventional building blocks of
the business model for our analytical framework in empirical
analysis since it is a widely used and accepted approach. In order
to consider sustainability issues in a more comprehensive fashion,
the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was
additionally used to analyse which barriers and which drivers
companies face when attempting to integrate sustainability into
their business (Robe rt et al., 2002).
1.3. The role of leaders in changing business models towards
sustainability
In principle, the question of why business models are being
changed, and why principles of sustainable development are being
considered, is closely related to the general question of “why
companies go green” (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Is it based on the
perception of ‘new business’, or is it driven by other factors such as
personal values, or the desire of entrepreneurs to make a differ-
ence? There is evidence that individual concerns and values do in
fact play an important role in the decision-making process (Bansal,
2003). The key finding in Bansal's (2003) study is that two condi-
tions underlie the response of decision makers to environmental
issues: first, their individual concern, and second, the degree of
alignment between the issue at hand and organisational values. If
either one of these factors is missing, no appropriate response can
be expected. In particular, this means that if the issue does not
address entrepreneurs' personal values and emotions, and if this
does not lead to tension (often referred to as “cognitive disso-
nance”) strong enough to jolt action, then the issue is not consid-
ered as relevant or important. Of course, it is not only about
prompting individual feelings e there must also be a clear business
case for sustainability (Hockerts, 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2012) in
order to justify new policies. Nevertheless, organisations in which
organisational and individual agendas are closely aligned seem to
be more successful in responding to environmental issues,
compared to organisations with very disparate agendas (Bansal,
2003). Eccles et al. (2012) also point in this direction by arguing
that employee engagement and simultaneous leadership commit-
ment are crucial in generating a change towards sustainability.
Leadership commitment provides a strong basis for employee
engagement and consequently employee engagement allows for
stronger stakeholder engagement. According to the authors,
leaders in sustainable companies (compared to traditional com-
panies) exhibit the following characteristics (Eccles et al., 2012, p.
45ff.): they adopt a long-term view when making decisions; have a
clear direction in mind; are more willing to tolerate risk in pursuing
their visions; are willing to integrate sustainability considerations
into basic business decisions; they demonstrate a high degree of
personal commitment to sustainability which is sufficient to inspire
others throughout the organisation; they recognize that trans-
formational change requires taking on a large number of smaller-
scale change initiatives.
Duarte (2010) examines how values contribute to CSR perfor-
mance in a sample of Brazilian companies. Referring to Hemingway
and Maclagan (2004) she states that “CSR performance can be the
result of championing by a few managers, due to their personal
values and beliefs” (Duarte, 2010, p. 357). In practice, numerous
business models for sustainability already exist. These are either
the result of the transformation of existing models or are the result
of taking a new direction. Whatever the case, people with ambi-
tious goals and concrete ideas on how to contribute to societal
transitions towards sustainability play a key role (e.g., Jonker, 2012;
Rauter et al., 2013). Recent research also indicates that leadership
involvement is a prerequisite in order to diffuse and implement
sustainability within the organisation (Stoughton and Ludema,
2012). “Senior leaders have infused a sustainability culture within
their organization by expressing a commitment to sustainability in
communications and sustainability reports; adopting sustainability
into their companies' missions; and developing priorities to pro-
vide a framework for sustainability” (Stoughton and Ludema, 2012,
p. 511). These efforts might then lead in the end to what is some-
times called a “green” or “sustainable” organisational culture (e.g.,
Harris and Crane, 2002; Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). The
awareness of achieving a fit between the organisational culture and
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
sustainability activities is considered to be crucial (Baumgartner,
2009). The process of implementing sustainability issues in a way
that is aligned with a company's business activities and its culture is
driven by the values and actions of its leaders.
1.4. Conceptual framework
The goal of the present empirical study is to gain a deeper
understanding of the drivers and motivational aspects in devel-
oping business models for sustainability. Given the interest in both
organisational and individual drivers of organisational change
towards sustainable development, the conceptual framework is
grounded on the assumption that the business model is the
mechanism for putting strategy into practice and generating value
creation (see Fig. 1). In addition, a conceptual framework for the
empirical study was used to examine the phenomena described.
This conceptual framework is related to the study of Zollo et al.
(2013). Based on the theoretical assumptions, the framework in-
dicates that there must first be a reason for change (explains the
“why” of change). These sources of change entail individual and
organisational factors, which can be either internally or externally
driven. Second, there is an object of change (the “what” of
change). In this study the examined object of change is the busi-
ness model and its building blocks. Third, there is the question of
how the business model may be changed so as to incorporate
aspects of sustainability and enhance the sustainability perfor-
mance. Sustainability performance refers to concrete actions and
changes in the environmental, economic and social performance
of the firm. However, it needs to be remarked that sustainability
performance is not assessed quantitatively within the present
study.
For the study, it was also assumed that sustainability issues are
linked to values, norms, and beliefs and not only to issues related to
explicitly rational considerations (Bansal, 2003). Furthermore, it is
expected that companies which have developed their business
models towards greater sustainable development, are companies in
which sustainable development itself is an issue for all those
involved in the core organisational activities. In order to monitor
sustainability, the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Develop-
ment and its principles was used (Robe rt et al., 2002). This
framework is a multi-level framework employed in strategic
planning with respect to an intended and sustainable objective and
has recently been augmented by the addition of five criteria for
social sustainability (Missimer, 2013).
2. Method
The paper is based on a multiple case study, whereby the unit
of analysis is the company (Yin, 2009). This research design al-
lows for comparative analysis of the individual case studies. The
choice of this research method was determined by the current
knowledge of business models for sustainability, which implies
research questions as those previously presented above. In the
present exploratory study, the Austrian companies chosen do not
constitute a representative sample (Birkin et al., 2009), but serve
rather to illustrate the connections between sustainability activ-
ities and business models (see Table 1). It also needs to be noted
that half of the companies selected were explicitly founded with
the goal of enhancing sustainability, i.e. in terms of offering
products and services in a more social and environmentally
friendly way. The study was conducted between March 2014 and
June 2014.
As a first step in the selection process, available information on
those companies who had received some kind of award for
147
sustainability was used to create a list of potential firms. In a second
step, the information available on the Internet was used to check
upon the companies' activities in detail. Final company selection
was based on this, as well as on the expected contribution of the
company to theory building (Yin, 2009). Once the selection had
been completed the CEOs of the companies were contacted and
their agreement to participate in the study led to them receiving a
questionnaire (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was used to gain
further detailed information about the companies' sustainability
activities. This questionnaire was based on Bansal (2005) and
extended to include items specifically referring to the principles of
the FSSD, such as “We try to deploy our employees according to
their skills”. In order to better understand the motivations, per-
ceptions and drivers behind the development of business models
for sustainability within the chosen companies, data collection was
followed by an interview with a chosen representative of the
company (see Appendix B). In case 4 and 6, two representatives
were interviewed. Three out of ten interviews were conducted
personally; the rest were conducted via telephone. An interview
guideline was used to ensure that similar topics were addressed
and discussed in all interviews. This was based on the research
questions and the theoretical framework and included items such
as business model, organisational structure, product/service port-
folio, business strategy, sustainability, stakeholders or general
conditions.
The interviews, together with the relevant information on the
companies' websites, provided all necessary information for the
case study. As a last step the data thus collected (i.e. the publicly
available information, such as sustainability reports, together with
the interview data) was coded and qualitatively analysed (Mayring,
2003) using MAXQDA software. The coding process entailed a
mixed deductive and inductive coding process (Strauss and Corbin,
1998), whereby codes relating to the following were identified:
business model, leadership, stakeholder, innovation, organisational
culture, sustainable development, strategy, vision, and mission.
2.1. Quality measures
2.1.1. Reliability
Case study research is reliable if the researchers are able to
demonstrate that the study can be repeated such as to generate
similar results (Yin, 2009). The data collection process was carefully
documented and interviews were highly structured (see Appendix
B). In addition to the recordings of the interviews, notes referring to
the interviews were taken and all data was collected together
within a suitable database.
2.1.2. Validity
Three tests for validity are relevant (Yin, 2009). These tests are
necessary in order to construct internal and external validity. Val-
idity was measured by combining two different data collection
sources (individuals and organisation) and by further using mul-
tiple sources of evidence (reports and documents available at the
companies' websites, questionnaires, and interviews), which
allowed for data triangulation (Patton, 2002). Further this conver-
gence of evidence helped to avoid single source bias, even though
the research questions required interviews (mainly) with CEOs.
Furthermore, some of the interviewees checked the interview
transcripts for the accuracy of data collected. Internal validity was
ensured as two researchers were involved in coding and analysing
the relevant data and pattern matching was employed (Yin, 2009).
Finally, concerning external validity, replication logic was
employed. The results of the study, however, still remain limited in
terms of their generalizability.
148 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
Table 1
Sample (Own source).
Case studies and affiliations of interviewees
Branch/Industry Number of employees
1 IT Services 4 CEO/Founder
2 Consulting 20
3 Fashion Industry 25
4 Bank 28
5 Food Industry 50
6 Cosmetics 54
7 Construction Industry 117
8 Construction Industry 210
9 Food Industry 360
10 Manufacturing Industry 370
3. Results
When interpreting the results of this study one needs to note
that this particular sample includes highly innovative companies
who are committed to acting as leaders within their respective
fields. This probably goes some way towards explaining why their
managers are relatively amenable to the potential of internal and
external change.
The case study results are presented in the following section. A
general overview concerning the sustainability activities within the
ten companies provides the basis for the analysis of the connection
between business model and the identified reasons for change.
3.1. Sustainability activities
In order to evaluate the companies' sustainability activities and
to allow for data triangulation, a questionnaire, based on Bansal
(2005) and the FSSD (Robe rt et al., 2002) was sent to the selected
companies. There were 13 items covering environmental integrity
(environmental sustainability) for manufacturing companies, 7
items relating to service providers, 6 items concerning economic
prosperity (economic sustainability) and 7 items relating to social
equity (social sustainability). The interviewees were asked to assess
their companies' sustainability activities on a scale ranging from
“1 ¼ fully agree” to “5 ¼ fully disagree” (see Appendix A). Even
though this questionnaire cannot be used for quantitative data
analysis, it nevertheless is representative of the situation pertaining
within the selected companies. The information so gleaned was
interesting in itself, and also provided a basis for subsequent
interviews.
Concerning environmental integrity, all respondents (fully)
agree with item 1 and item 2. These two items aimed to test
whether the companies were offering products and services with a
lower (negative) environmental impact (item 1) and whether the
companies had been able to reduce the overall negative environ-
mental impact of their organisations up to the time of the interview
(item 2). The responses to these two items were sufficiently
favourable and enabled us to assume that the companies selected
were indeed appropriate for the case study at hand. Regarding the
other items describing environmental integrity, unfortunately no
clear tendency is exhibited by the results. While there are mixed
results per criterion (for instance, not all companies reduced the
amount of waste), all companies, apart from two, identified a
specific form of environmental improvement. While the two ex-
ceptions in this respect claim to have perceived an improvement in
the environmental performance of their organisation and product/
service, they were not able to relate this to a specific form of
environmental impact.
With regard to economic prosperity, 7 out of 10 companies
stated that profit maximization is not their primary objective.
Interviewee(s) Year of establishment
2009
CEO 2008
CEO/Co-founder 2007
Chairman and Sustainability Manager 1900
Marketing Manager 1988
CEO and CFO 1996
CEO/Owner 1886
CEO 1971
Department Manager 1926
CEO/Co-Founder 1994
Furthermore, there is also some evidence to indicate that cus-
tomers are aware of the companies' environmental performance.
Concerning social equity, there seems to be a tendency for all
companies to be actively engaged in informing the public about the
companies' environmental impact and in supporting local initia-
tives. It is also true that companies are concerned about the
external appearance of their facilities and operations, and that
employees carry out activities according to their specific
competencies.
As indicated in the questionnaire, sustainability activities can be
clustered around an economic, an environmental and a social
dimension. Since the results from the questionnaire already indicate
that the companies implement sustainability-related activities,
listing the numerous examples of such activities mentioned is not
necessary. The results from the questionnaire and the interviews
reveal that all companies contribute to the four principles of the
FSSD. However, as there is no common understanding and definition
of sustainability, the ability to exploit all opportunities relating to
sustainability is somewhat dampened. In general, the respondents
indicate that sustainability itself is a loose or difficult concept as it
encompasses a wide variety of definitions and interpretations. Some
of the respondents emphasize the long-term and/or cross-
generational aspects of sustainability. For example, in interview 9
it was stated that sustainability entails “running the business in a
way which still allows the following generations to profit from it;
this means that humans, animals and nature as a whole should be
treated respectfully and responsibly”. Interestingly, several in-
terviewees pointed out that in the context of sustainability, long-
term financial aspects should not be forgotten. Interviewee under-
standing of the economic aspects of sustainability was reflected in
several typical comments. For example: sustainability is about
investing in developments from which we profit in the long-term
(interview 2); sustainability means that a company needs to be
economically successful in the long run (interviews 1, 4, 8), but with
a business model which allows the following generations to enjoy
the same standards that we have today (interview 8); making profit
is not bad per se, the question is for which purpose the profit is used
(interview 10); sustainability entails a long-term relationship with
the customer instead of short-term profit maximization (interview
4). In stating that sustainability is based on giving and receiving and
on achieving balance, i.e. only extracting an amount of resources
which can be replaced within a certain period of time, one inter-
viewee highlighted the environmental dimension of sustainability
(interview 10). The answers provided indicate that one central
aspect of social sustainability is providing work environments that
are meaningful (interview 7, 10). In addition, social responsibility
was mentioned as being a key aspect of social sustainability.
Furthermore, the results indicate that sustainability is seemingly
considered as a ‘way of life’, as ‘an individual ethical stance’, and that
it is grounded in personal values and beliefs. Two further factors
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154 149

mentioned were the emotional connection to the company location
and the wish to see children grow up in a healthy, natural envi-
ronment. Sustainability is ‘common sense’ and a ‘matter of the
heart’. How the concept of values may be linked to leadership is
discussed in Section 3.3.
3.2. Aspects of business models for sustainability
With regard to the research questions it is of particular interest
to analyse and understand what the business models entail and
whether they make any specific demands concerning sustainabil-
ity. While business model form remains relatively invariant, busi-
ness model content is adjusted to comply with new needs. Table 2
provides examples from interviews and sustainability reports
related to the business model building blocks.
It appears that half of the companies (n ¼ 5) were founded with
the goal of sustainability in mind, while the others have managed to
transform their existing business models over time (n ¼ 5). How-
ever, it has to be noted that the definition and understanding of
sustainability is subject to discussion since it changes not only ac-
cording to personal opinions but also according to industry stan-
dards or legal requirements. For example, considering that only one
in five companies globally report significant levels of sustainability
integration across their businesses and operations (BSR and
GlobeScan, 2013) the companies in our sample appear to provide
numerous examples of active engagement in sustainability issues.
However, it is more than likely that this is largely a result of our
process of sample selection. The latter clearly needs to be taken into
account when interpreting the results.
In contrast to our initial expectations common expectations that
business models remain relatively stable for some considerable
period of time, the interviewees argued that a business model is a
dynamic concept and is subject to continuous alteration. While the
core logic of revenue creation might not change, all other compo-
nents tend to be adapted frequently in order to corresponding to
actual needs (interviews 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10). This does not mean that
the business model itself is overhauled or replaced monthly, but
merely that it is subject to adaptation in the face of internal or
external pressures. As a concrete example, interviewee 9 points out
that the principles of the business model employed are clearly
defined, but that continuous change is needed for the company to
continue to thrive on the market. The evidence suggests that the
transformation of business models is based on inspiring or strong
leadership and that it is an emergent development based on
continuous change processes and second order learning (Argyris
and Scho € n, 1978). Furthermore, cooperation with external part-
ners and networks is a central aspect of the business models.
Literature on this particular topic suggests that the business
model layer is embedded between business strategy and opera-
tional activities (see Fig. 1). Our study revealed evidence for the
connection between these three components, e.g. the business
strategy comprises mid-term and long-term business plans with
5e7 year budgets; the business model is based on long term
cooperation and partnership, with respect to networks and to in-
ternal and external transparency; on the operational level, fair
trade coffee for employees, transparent communication with sup-
pliers and customers, and fair prices, are concrete examples of
actual implementation of the business model.
3.3. Drivers of business models for sustainability
Drivers in developing business models for sustainability are
theoretically grouped into external and internal drivers. Interest-
ingly, the data gathered here indicates that competition and
customer preferences are not primary external drivers. While they
appear to be important in exploiting the potential of business
models for sustainability, they do not initiate the transformation
towards sustainability. This contrasts with the results of other
studies (e.g., Ernst & Young and GreenBiz, 2013; Grant Thornton,
2014) which show that customer and supply chain demands are
drivers of the move towards more sustainable business practices.
For some companies in the present sample, legal regulations were
an issue, e.g. ISO standards or certificates in the food sector. This led
to some of the companies to voluntarily make use of specific labels
and certificates. Opinions on whether sustainability in business
models pays off or not were found to differ widely. Only a few of the
interviewees were of the opinion that sustainability is of help when
attempting to enter new markets, or that it leads to a competitive
advantage on the market. In fact, two interviewees took the
opposite stance and stated that sustainability is not helpful at all in
their daily business. The findings, to a certain extent, indicate that
the motivating factors behind the pursuance of business models for
sustainability are personal, and value-based. This complies with the
findings of Williams and Schaefer (2013) who asked managers of
small businesses about their pro-environmental engagement. One
needs to remember, however, that just because sustainability

Table 2
Business Model Building Blocks (Own source based on Osterwalder et al., 2005).

Pillar Business Model building Examples from the case studies

block

Product Value Proposition Product-service-system with a strong focus on re-use; sustainable products which for example help to lower CO2-
emissions; products which are produced fairly; locally produced products; consulting which considers ethical standards;
products with fewer environmentally harmful ingredients; products (partly) consisting of recyclable materials; system
solutions;
Customer Target Customer Mainly customers aware of sustainability-related issues; customers who are willing to pay not only for the product/service
Interface itself but also for the underlying philosophy;
Distribution Channel Different ways of distributing products and services, e.g., direct distribution, online, shops, distribution partners;
Relationship Importance of having direct contact to the customers; transparent information and communication; importance of
awareness raising and informing the public that is not directly linked to specific customer segments;
Infrastructure Value Configuration Importance of partnerships with suppliers and partners, this allows for concentration on core competencies, ensures
Management sustainable products based on fair value chains and/or helps communicate the sustainable features of a product to
customers by using own distribution channels as well as specialized distributors;
Core Competency Concentrating on core competencies and organizing all other relevant processes together with partners;
Partner Network Expressing appreciation for partners, e.g., by changing relevant wording or by talking about partners instead of
competitors; actors see themselves as system suppliers, thus making co-operation with partners even more necessary;
Financial Revenue Model Besides generating revenue, the companies create additional value, e.g. by being active in the region or by offering further
Aspects education for customers buying a new product;
Cost Structure Cost structure is adapted in such a way that suppliers (for example) are able to both fulfil their requirements and make
profit;
150 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
projects are driven by strong personal beliefs, does not necessarily
mean that pursuit of cost efficiency is not relevant. Personal values
and economic exigencies can often harmonize quite well, as in the
case of solar power installation. In addition, factors such as
employee satisfaction, and the availability of an interesting work
environment can also be seen as internal drivers. According to
Kiron et al. (2012) internal drivers are related to operating cost
benefits, revenue growth, brand integrity, effective internal cham-
pions, and organisational structures that help embed sustainability
into business processes.
With regard to the question of how leadership influences
business models for sustainability, the data provides the following
insights: in line with the initial assumption, the results show that
leaders (leadership) play a central role in defining the business
model in general, and in initiating sustainability-related activities
in particular. All interviewees, except those from the banking
sector, confirmed that they had a strategic impact on company
activities regarding sustainability. The interviewees mentioned
that, for instance, their idealism and their belief in the project were
important; that they wanted to be role models in the sustainable
development of their organisation; that they were the ones who set
the agenda and who were responsible for sustainability, for the
innovation process and for the corporate culture. One interviewee
pointed out that he saw himself as being responsible for creating a
positive environment for employees (interview 10). However, the
results also indicate that management relies on its employees in
general and on opinion leaders specifically, and furthermore, on the
employees' willingness to implement ideas. This means that
collaborative efforts are needed in order to implement relevant
change. In addition, the availability of sufficient time (for change) is
a factor that should not be forgotten. However, not only are leaders'
actions important. The personality and values of respective leaders
(Duarte, 2010; Kiron et al., 2012) also seem to have an effect on the
organisation. Evidence for this can be found in the interviews 5, 6
and 9, where the interviewees speak about the founder of their
organisation.
With regard to organisational culture as an internal driver, it
appears that employees and the interpersonal relationships occupy
centre place. In seven cases, employees are explicitly mentioned as
being the key factor. The representative of one start-up company
emphasized that the number of employees had to be increased
recently, and indicated that employees were key for the existence
of the company and that employee collaboration was essential.
Leadership was also seen to be central in generating employee
commitment, specifically in terms of supporting employee gener-
ation of new ideas, and in contributing to the maintenance of an
‘open’ and transparent organisational culture. Both large and small
companies indicated that they aimed to foster participative deci-
sion making, transparency, and open communication. However, the
case study also showed that it is the values and ideas of manage-
ment, which are the main driving factors behind the formation of
organisational culture. Schein (1997) distinguishes three levels of
organisational culture (artefacts, values and basic assumptions).
Such factors differ regarding the degree to which they are visible to
an outside observer. They range from the very tangible overt
manifestations that one can directly see and feel, to the deeply
embedded, unconscious basic assumptions that Schein defines as
the essence of culture. Between these two extremes are various
forms of values, norms, and rules of behaviour that members of the
culture use as a means of demonstrating the culture to themselves
and others. Regarding such artefacts in a sustainability-related
culture, the interviewees mentioned such things as the in-
struments and systems employed to improve sustainability; for
example, the monthly health and safety audits, or customer and
supplier feedback. In addition, factors such as open and trustful
cooperation within the organisation, flat and transparent hierar-
chies, satisfying relationships, and space for individual develop-
ment, were all identified as being examples of a sustainability-
orientation within the company. Characteristics associated with
such artefacts are self-responsibility among employees, ability to
take criticism, commitment to continuous improvement, or open-
ness to innovation and risk taking. Although identifying basic as-
sumptions is in principal possible by conducting interviews
(Baumgartner, 2009) it was not part of the initial interview focus in
the present case study. Nevertheless, the interview results allow us
to identify three basic categories: in some organisations sustain-
ability is inherent in corporate strategies and activities; in other
organisations, courage is a key catalyst needed in initiating change,
and in other cases, the wish to remain true to oneself is a key factor.
Low labour turnover was mentioned as being one positive effect of
a sustainability-oriented organisational culture.
Business models are the link between corporate strategies and
operational activities. In this sense strategies are drivers, and it is
this which makes understanding company sustainability strategies
of interest in the present case study. The interviews produced
several results regarding the nature of strategies in general, and of
sustainability strategies, in particular. Most of the interviewees
were aware of the importance of strategy, but they dealt with the
topic in different ways. While the bigger companies use key figures
and monitoring tools to check upon their sustainability perfor-
mance, one interviewee from a mid-sized company specified that
no written documents regarding sustainability strategy were used
in his company since sustainability was difficult to standardize.
Another respondent stated that strategic issues remained within
the purview of the CEO. Managers of the small companies pointed
out that strategic thinking and planning are of course important but
it was not the case that they were in possession of formal strategic
documents.
It was found that company strategic direction was clearly
communicated in seven out of ten cases. Statements such as “We
aim to take a forerunner role” (interview 9), or “We are faster, more
competent and more effective” (interview 7), indicate the visionary
strategies of the respective companies (Baumgartner and Ebner,
2010). In addition, several interviewees state that acting as a role
model or benchmark, or assuming thematic leadership, were
important for them. Two managers explicitly described their stra-
tegic focus concerning sustainability (interview 4 and 10). Their
strategic approaches are based on three pillars, whereby ‘contri-
bution to local development’ is the one pillar they have in common.
Again, one can conclude that there are external and internal stra-
tegic issues, e.g. being an important strategic partner within the
region versus implementing a ‘health strategy’ for the employees.
Overall, evidence was found which tended to corroborate the
theoretical assumption that the business model is a layer that links
strategy and operational activities, i.e. which changes to strategy
consequently lead to changes in the business model and in business
processes. Such strategic reorientation may entail factors such as
companies actively supporting public discourse and raising
awareness with regard to sustainability, companies working
together with NGOs or universities to promote the idea of sus-
tainability, companies demanding greater transparency with re-
gard to environmental and social topics along the supply chain, and
companies being willing to take the suggestions of the Global
Reporting Initiative into consideration. In contrast to the above, one
interviewee explicitly mentioned that the business model itself had
led to sustainability being embedded in corporate policy. This
would imply the presence of an active bottom-up process. Inter-
estingly, growth and strategic sustainability were mentioned
several times; two managers explicitly mentioned that their com-
pany still needs to grow in order to remain competitive. However,
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
this was seen as a need for growth in order to generate flexibility,
and not merely to maximize profit for its own sake. Growth was
also rejected where it conflicted with underlying business
philosophy.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The goal of this study was to increase understanding concerning
the drivers in developing business models focussing on sustain-
ability and to throw light upon the way in which sustainability
principles are integrated into such business models. The present
study is based on the results of 10 interviews with Austrian man-
agers. The findings presented contribute to research in the field of
business models for sustainability by enhancing our understanding
of how and why leaders commit themselves to supporting sus-
tainability in their business activities.
First, the results of the questionnaire revealed that according to
the respondents the concept of sustainability was taken into
consideration in the selected companies in 9 out of 10 cases.
However, caution is required when interpreting this result since
there is likely to be a serious difference between merely perceiving
the significance of sustainability issues and implementing relevant
policies (Kiron et al., 2013). A comparison of the survey and the
interview results with FSSD principles reveals two point of interest.
First, the selection of the cases for analysis appears to be quite
correct, since the chosen companies do in fact attempt to balance
economic, environmental and social values in their business
models. This conclusion is based on the fact that all interviewees
referred to environmental as well as social values and reported that
relevant activities for improvement in these areas were carried out.
Second, the cases show that a strong focus is also placed on aspects
of social sustainability and not just on environmental aspects.
However, since we relied solely on data and answers provided by
the companies (interviews, website, sustainability reports), and
since we did not assess product or service impact, this observation
needs to be interpreted within the context of our explorative
research setting. It is also interesting to observe that although all
case companies are forerunners in terms of integrating sustain-
ability issues into their business, clear definitions of sustainability
could not be identified. This implies that improvements in sus-
tainability occur despite the rather fuzzy understanding of the
concept of sustainable development. If anything, this appears to
underline the significance of personal values in guiding leadership
behaviour towards sustainability. It is also likely that a more
guided, or more strategic approach, based on a clear vision of
sustainable development, would lead to deeper and more trans-
formative organisational change towards sustainability.
Second, legal regulations, leadership, organisational culture, and
coherence between corporate strategy and the business model for
sustainability were identified as being relevant drivers in devel-
oping business models for sustainability. The need to maintain
competition and competitive strength were not primary drivers in
creating business models for sustainability. While improving
competitiveness and customer satisfaction are clearly relevant for
companies, the desire for corporate sustainability is a primary
driving force in this respect, consequently leading (again) to eco-
nomic benefits. This may be interpreted as an extended form of the
resource based view of business activity (Barney, 1991). The ability
of the company to produce in a sustainable fashion attracts specific
customers. This also indicates that profit maximization is not the
sole or overall goal of the companies in the present case study. This
appears to be a reasonable assumption since some of the com-
panies specifically address sustainability issues and/or are clearly
also driven by the value concepts of their founders or managers.
However, in the one company in our sample which was owned by
151
an international company, the personal values of the managers
played a more subsidiary role. Naturally, all results have to be seen
in the light of other empirical studies addressing the business case
for sustainability, for example, those by Hockerts (2014) or Hall and
Wagner (2012).
Third, the strong role played by leadership in moving business
models towards greater sustainability, or in securing their exis-
tence, is also of interest. Given that leadership and values are
known to be important aspects in any process of organisational
change, this result is not very surprising. However, the fact that
leadership played such a significant role in the sample, regardless of
the size or the age of the company, was something that exceeded
expectations. This opens up space for further research into the
relationship between leadership styles, organisational learning and
change processes in attempts to develop more sustainable orga-
nisations (Siebenhüner and Arnold, 2007).
Fourth, regarding the question of how companies integrate
sustainability into existing processes, the results show that while
conventional business models are still used they need to be adapted
or extended so as to incorporate notions relating to sustainability.
This becomes evident, for example, when companies no longer
follow the sole goal of profit maximization and also act to balance
economic, social and environmental goals. Furthermore, new
building blocks, for instance, attempt at stakeholder integration
may also be put in place. Bocken et al. (2014) in their research show
that there are different areas of sustainable activity. Clearly, there is
a need to discuss what business models for sustainability means at
all, since in terms of sustainability there is no absolute goal to be
reached. This lack of a specific goal in this respect is what makes the
assessment of sustainability activities so challenging. Use of the
FSSD e as in this study e is essential in any attempt at greater
clarity in this area. Theoretical discussion concerning sustainable
business models or business models of sustainability is an on-going
process. The present authors made the decision to use the concept
of business models as an analytical framework for guiding the
empirical study. In practice, business models appear to be much
vaguer entities than they are made out to be in theory. It seems that
practitioners do not perceive business models in the same way as
researchers do. Nevertheless, two principal ways of adapting
business models for sustainability remain; either 1) (re-)defining
an existing model in such a way that it corresponds to the principles
of sustainability, for instance with respect to dematerialisation,
source labelling, supporting local or regional value creation etc., or
2) subjecting the business model to radical change, for instance, by
increasing stakeholder participation, entering new markets, or
changing the products and services offered. Whatever the case, the
situation for decision makers e in terms of creating a business case
for sustainability e remains risky as long as sustainability is mainly
seen as an ‘add-on’ within the existing economic system. Perhaps a
fundamental transformation of the existing system towards sus-
tainability would be more appropriate. Furthermore, it has to be
considered that business models are the link between corporate
strategy and day-to-day activities. Thus, integration of sustain-
ability into business models requires integration of sustainability
issues into corporate strategy, i.e. the development and imple-
mentation of a corporate sustainability strategy (Baumgartner and
Ebner, 2010; Baumgartner, 2014). This integration of sustainability
issues into the strategy and the business model requires that ex-
ecutives clearly understand the meaning and relevance of sus-
tainable development for their company. Sustainable development
as defined by the Brundtland Commission is too general to be
operationalized by executives, but comprehensive and generic
sustainability principles, like FSSD, offer a solution for this chal-
lenge (Robe rt et al., 2002). The interviews revealed that executives
find it hard to deal with the fuzziness of the sustainable
152 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
development concept. Improving knowledge and awareness con-
cerning the application of concepts described in the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development could thus improve the ability
of decision makers to integrate sustainability issues into strategies
and business models. Finally, survey results were rather mixed with
regard to the amount of external support needed to fruitfully
continue company sustainability initiatives. While some companies
reported that no special support is needed, others mentioned the
problem that corruption and unethical behaviour hinder moves
towards business models for sustainability. In contrast, the poten-
tial benefits of tax incentives were mentioned several times. Others
also saw a need to lobby for additional regulations in support of
sustainable development. In addition, the inclusion of sustainabil-
ity criteria in public procurement processes, public tenders, and
product labelling were also seen as important.
To summarise, the results of the present study show that the
“how” and “‘why” of attempts to change business models towards
greater sustainability may be approached from different perspec-
tives. The leadership aspect was emphasized here. In fact, we
believe this to be the first empirical study to investigate the indi-
vidual and organisational drivers underlying the development of
business models for sustainability. In particular, the results provide
evidence that leadership clearly plays an important role, especially
in small and medium sized companies, where leaders or founders
may be in a position to set the strategic agenda based on their
knowledge and values.
However, some limitations are worth noting. These limitations
mainly concern single source bias (Campbell and Fiske, 1959) and
the fact that the respondents, who were asked to comment on past
activities, might tend to overemphasize their own impact and
control in terms of their ability to direct organisational change
(Bansal, 2003). In hindsight, they may tend to make themselves
appear more rational than they actually were ‘on the job’. Another
limitation is the fact that in this study company business models
were investigated in which monetary value creation played a cen-
tral role. While the creation of other kinds of value (be it tangible or
intangible) was taken into consideration by the companies, in most
cases any impact on sustainability is measured in terms of con-
ventional economic metrics. Whether this, often implicit, approach
is appropriate in any attempt at embedding sustainability concepts
within the leadership, processes and culture of an organisation
remains open to doubt. Here again, the use of robust sustainability
principles supports the integration of sustainability into corporate
processes, values and leadership styles. The results thus leave room
for future research. First, it would be useful to gain a deeper un-
derstanding of the development of business models, i.e. an un-
derstanding of how and to what extent companies need to evolve in
order to implement new business models characterized by multiple
value creation and not simply monetary gain. This would be of
particular interest to businesses in which a profit orientation is of
declining or relatively little importance. Second, a comparison with
non-sustainable business models, also in an international context,
could help to broaden our understanding, especially regarding
external, market-related drivers of change in business models. In
such a context, the critical examination of management systems as
drivers of sustainability is also of considerable interest. Third,
designing business models for sustainability links in with theories
of entrepreneurship; thus, focussing on newly established firms
and their business models is likely to be a fruitful source of
knowledge in this field of research.
Acknowledgements
We are particularly thankful to all interviewees for sharing their
experience with us. We would also like to thank all of our
colleagues at the Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and
Sustainability Research for providing us with feedback and helping
us to further improve the quality of our paper. Special thanks are
due to Petra Gsodam and Martina Zimek for supporting us during
this research study. Initial results of the study were presented at the
20th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Con-
ference 2014 in Trondheim. Thank you to all the participants who
provided us with feedback. Finally, we would like to thank our
three anonymous reviewers.
References
Amit, R., Zott, C., 2001. Value creation in E-business. Strategic Manag. J. 22 (6e7),
493e520.
€n, D., 1978. Organisational Learning. A Theory of Action Perspective.
Argyris, C., Scho
Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Bansal, P., 2003. From issues to actions: the importance of individual concerns and
organisational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organ. Sci.
14 (5), 510e527.
Bansal, P., 2005. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development. Strategic Manag. J. 26 (3), 197e218.
Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological respon-
siveness. Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4), 717e736.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17
(1), 99e120.
Baumgartner, R.J., 2009. Organisational culture and leadership: preconditions for
the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustain. Dev. 17 (2), 102e113.
Baumgartner, R.J., 2014. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual
framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sus-
tainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 21, 258e271.
Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability
profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 18 (2), 76e89.
Beltramello, A., Haie-Fayle, L., Pilat, D., 2013. Why New Business Models Matter for
Green Growth. OECD Green Growth Papers, 2013-01. OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k97gk40v3ln-en.
Birkin, F., Polesie, T., Lewis, L., 2009. A new business model for sustainable devel-
opment: an exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic orga-
nisations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18 (5), 277e290.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65 (15),
42e56.
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation:
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business
models and economic performance: an overview. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 1e8.
BSR and GlobeScan, 2013. State of sustainable business survey. October 2013.
Retrieved from. http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_GlobeScan_Survey_2013.pdf
[18-02-2015].
Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D., 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56 (2), 81e105.
Chesbrough, H., 2007. Business model innovation: it's not just about technology
anymore. Strategy & Leadersh. 35 (6), 12e17.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long.
Range Plan. 43 (2e3), 354e363.
Duarte, F., 2010. Working with corporate social responsibility in Brazilian com-
panies: the role of managers' values in the maintenance of CSR cultures. J. Bus.
Ethics 96 (3), 355e368.
Eccles, R.G., Miller Perkins, K., Serafeim, G., 2012. How to become a sustainable
company. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 53 (4), 43e50.
Ernst & Young and GreenBiz, 2013. Six Growing Trends in Corporate Sustainability.
April 2013. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Six_
growing_trends_in_corporate_sustainability_2013/$FILE/Six_growing_trends_
in_corporate_sustainability_2013.pdf, [19-02-2015].
Gouldson, A., Murphy, J., 1997. Ecological modernisation: restructuring industrial
economies. Political Q. 68 (B), 74e86.
Grant Thornton International Business Report, 2014. Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility: Beyond Financials. August 2014. Retrieved from. http://www.
grantthornton.at/files/GTI%20IBR/corporate-social-responsibility-beyond-
financials.pdf [19-02-2015].
Hall, J., Wagner, M., 2012. Integrating sustainability into firms' processes: perfor-
mance effects and the moderating role of business models and innovation. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 21, 183e196.
Harris, L.C., Crane, A., 2002. The greening of organisational culture. Management
views on depth, degree and diffusion of change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 15 (3),
214e234.
Hart, S.L., 1997. Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harv. Bus. Rev.
75 (1), 66e76.
Hemingway, C.A., Maclagan, P.W., 2004. Managers' personal values as drivers of
corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 50 (1), 33e44.
Hockerts, K., 2014. A cognitive perspective on the business case for corporate sus-
tainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1813.
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154 153

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Deloitte&Touche, World Stoughton, A.M., Ludema, J., 2012. The driving forces of sustainability. J. Organ.
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 1992. Business Strat- Change Manag. 25 (4), 501e517.
egy for the 90s. IISD, Manitoba. Strange, T., Bayley, A., 2008. Sustainable Development. Linking Economy, Society,
Jacobs, M., 1997. The quality of life: social goods and the politics of consumption. Environment. OECD Insights. Retrieved from. http://www.
Polit. Q. 68 (B), 47e61. worldresourcesforum.org/files/file/Full book.pdf [12-09-2014].
Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., Kagermann, H., 2008. Reinventing your business Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Pro-
model. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86 (12), 57e68. cedures for Developing Grounded Theory, second ed. Sage Publications, Thou-
Jonker, J., 2012. New Business Models. An Exploratory Study of Changing Transactions sand Oaks et al.
Creating Multiple Value(s). Working Paper. Nijmegen School of Management, Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “Sustainable business model. Organ.
Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, ISBN 978-90-8119-793-9. Environ. 21 (2), 103e127.
Jonker, J., 2015. The future of corporate sustainability: towards an ecology of or- World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our Common
ganisations focused on sustainability. In: O'Riordan, L., Zmuda, P., Heinemann, S. Future. University Press, Oxford.
(Eds.), New Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility: Locating the Wells, P.E., 2013. Business Models for Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Missing Link. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden 23e48. Cheltenham, Northampton.
Jonker, J., O'Riordan, L., Marsh, N., 2015. The art of balancing: enabling the real- Williams, S., Schaefer, A., 2013. Small and medium-sized enterprises and sustain-
isation of multiple and shared values through a new generation of business ability: managers' values and engagement with environmental and climate
models. In: O'Riordan, L., Zmuda, P., Heinemann, S. (Eds.), New Perspectives on change issues. Bus. Strategy Environ. 22, 173e186.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Locating the Missing Link. Springer Gabler, Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods. In: Bickman, L., Rog, D.J.
Wiesbaden 229e246. (Eds.), Applied Social Research Methods Series, fourth ed., vol. 5. Sage
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., von Streng Velken, I., 2012. Sustainability Publications.
nears a tipping Point. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 69e74. Zollo, M., Cennamo, C., Neumann, K., 2013. Beyond what and why: understanding
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Rubel, H., Reeves, M., Fuisz-Kehrbach, S.-K., 2013. Sus- organisational evolution towards sustainable enterprise models. Organ. Envi-
tainability's next Frontier. Walking the talk on the sustainability issues that ron. 26 (3), 241e259.
matter most. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 3e26. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The business model: recent developments and
Koen, P.A., Bertels, H.M.J., Elsum, I.R., 2011. The three faces of business model inno- future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019e1042.
vation: challenges for established firms. Res. Technol. Manag. 54 (3), 52e59.

le
Le
, S.M., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev. 19 (6),
607e621.
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., Deimler, M.S., 2009. Business Model Innovation: Appendix A. (Questionnaire)
When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game. The Boston Consulting Group.
Retrieved from. https://www.bcg.com/documents/file36456.pdf [12-09-2014]. What is your current position within the company?
Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate sustainability and organisational
culture. J. World Bus. 45 (4), 357e366. In which year was your company founded?
Matos, S., Silvestre, B.S., 2013. Managing stakeholder relations when developing How many people are working in the company?
sustainable business models: the case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. How has the number of employees changed since 2005?
Prod. 45, 61e73.
Mayring, P., 2003. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, eighth ed.
What have been the three greatest challenges that the company
Beltz Verlag, Weinheim. has had to face in the last few years?
McKinsey&Company, 2014. McKinsey Global Survey Results. Sustainability's Stra-
tegic Worth. Retrieved from. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/
sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results [04-03-2015].
Missimer, M., 2013. The Social Dimension of Strategic Sustainable Development, 1 ¼ fully agree, 2 ¼ partly agree, 3 ¼ neutral, 4 ¼ partly disagree, 5 ¼ fully
Blekinge Institute of Technology. Licentiate Dissertation Series No. 2013:03. disagree n.a. ¼ no answer ¼ I have no opinion on that.
Moon, J., 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable 1 We are offering products and services, which have a less harmful
development. Sustain. Dev. 15 (5), 296e306.
environmental impact e compared to existing products/services or
Osterwalder, A., 2004. The Business Model Ontology. A Proposition in a Design
compared to products and services from our competitors.
Science Approach. Dissertation 173. University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
2 We have been able to reduce the negative impacts of our company.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Clarifying business models: origins,
present, and furture of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Sci. (CAIS) 16, 1e25. 3 We have eliminated or reduced operations in environmentally sensitive
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, third ed. Sage, locations.
Thousand Oaks, CA. 4 We have reduced waste by streamlining processes.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (1/2), 5 We have reduced emissions into the air by streamlining processes.
80e87. 6 We have reduced the volume of sewage by streamlining processes.
Rauter, R., Gsodam, P., Nguyen, T.D., Stabauer, P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2013. New 7 We have reduced emissions into the soil by streamlining processes.
business models in Austria. Forerunners in sustainable economics. In: R. J., *Questions 8e13 for manufacturing companies only
Winiwarter, W., Gelbmann, U., Baumgartner, R.J. (Eds.), ISIS reports #4, ISSN 8* We use waste and recycled material as input for own processes.
2305e2511 (print), ISSN 2308-1767 (online). ISIS, Graz, Austria. Retrieved from. 9* We dispose of waste responsibly.
http://static.uni-graz.at/fileadmin/urbi-institute/Systemwissenschaften/ISIS_ 10* We have attempted to reduce the likelihood of environmental accidents
Reports/ISIS_reports_4_rauter.pdf [12-09-2014].
through process improvements.
Robert, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R.,
11* We are offering more and more services (combined with or instead of
Price Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., Wackernagel, M., 2002. Strategic
products).
sustainable development d selection, design and synergies of applied tools.
J. Clean. Prod. 10 (3), 197e214. 12* We are using more and more input from cleaner and renewable sources.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustain- 13* We have reduced the environmental impact of production processes.
ability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. 14 We have managed to reduce the cost of input for the same level of
Innovat. Sustain. Dev. 6 (2), 95e119. output.
Schein, E.H., 1997. Organisational Culture and Leadership, second ed. Jossey-Bass, 15 We have managed to reduce the cost of waste management for the same
San Francisco. level of output.
Schick, H., Marxen, S., Freimann, J., Summer 2002. Sustainability issues for start-up 16 Our customers are aware of the environmental performance of our
entrepreneurs. Greener Manag. Int. 38, 59e70. products.
Shafer, S.M., Smith, H.J., Linder, J.C., 2005. The power of business models. Bus. 17 We sell waste products to generate revenue.
Horizons 48 (3), 199e207. 18 Profit maximization is still the most important goal.
Short, S.W., Rana, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Evans, S., 2013. Embedding sustainability in 19 We have managed to reduce our costs through improved environmental
business modelling through multi-stakeholder value innovation. In:
protection.
Emmanouilidis, C., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D. (Eds.), Advances in Production Man-
20 We engage in a formal process of dialogue in order to take the interests
agement Systems. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin 175e183.
Siebenhüner, B., Arnold, M., 2007. Organisational learning to manage sustainable of stakeholders into account.
development. Bus. Strategy 16 (5), 339e353. 21 We communicate the firm's environmental impacts and risks to the
Simanis, E., Hart, S., 2009. Innovation from the inside out. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 50 general public.
(4), 77e86. 22 We have improved our employee health and safety.
Skarzynski, P., Gibson, R., 2008. Innovation to the Core: a Blueprint for Transforming 23 We protect the claims and rights of the local community/region.
the Way Our Company Innovates. Harvard Business Press, Boston. 24 We are aware of the visual impact of the firm's facilities and operations.
Sommer, A., 2012. Managing Green Business Model Transformations. In: 25 We support local initiatives (in monetary and non-monetary ways).
Herrmann, C., Kara, S. (Eds.), Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and 26 We try to deploy our employees according to their skills.
Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
154 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 144e154
Appendix B. (Interview Guideline)
(1) Your company operates in the field of XYZ. Have you always
been active in this field? If yes, why? If not, why not?
(2) What is the structure of your company?
(3) How would you describe your business model?
(4) When did you start developing your business model?
(5) At what stage is the business model in its development e in
its initial stages, halfway through, or completed?
(6) What is your understanding of the term ‘sustainability’?
(7) How does sustainability affect you personally?
(8) Why is it important for you to act sustainably?
(9) What forms the basis of your understanding of
sustainability?
(10) Which types of sustainability strategies are you pursuing in
your company? Can you name them or give examples?
(11) To what extent do the sustainability activities in your com-
pany depend on your personal leadership or initiative?
(12) Concerning value creation in your company: who benefits
from the companies' activities?
(13) Above, you gave some examples of those groups benefitting
from your activities. Referring to those examples, can you
specify the way in which they profit from your activities?
(14) Does the business model generate value other than profit? If
so, what kind of value?
(15) How is sustainability embedded within your business
model? Which processes and/or activities are related?
(16) Did you start new collaborations or strengthen previous
collaborations for the business model? (If so, with whom?)
(17) Has the business model improved access to new products or
markets?
(18) Concerning the modifications needed for sustainability: how
do you manage such organisational changes, internally and
externally (in the value chain)?
(19) Which framework conditions would you regard as important
in promoting your future sustainability-related activities?