Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation

Jawaria Shakeel a, b, Abbas Mardani c, Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh Chofreh d,
Feybi Ariani Goni d, *, Ji
rí Jaromír Kleme
s d
a
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b
COMSATS University Islamabad, 5400, Lahore Campus, Pakistan
c
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33813, United States
d 
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory e SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT Brno, Technicka
2896/2, 616 69, Brno, Czech Republic

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

Article history: The growing literature on Sustainable Business Model Innovation has received much attention, not of
Received 15 December 2019 academicians only but practitioners also. The concept and the theoretical rationalisation of its compo-
Received in revised form nents still need more elaboration. So far, more should be known about its philosophy of existence, which
18 February 2020
obstructs its development towards its literature. This study attempts to bridge this gap by revealing the
Accepted 17 March 2020
derived philosophy of Sustainable Business Model Innovation. It assesses the inclusion of Business Model
Available online 20 March 2020
components in Sustainable Business Model Innovation by identifying related 61 research papers and
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo qualitatively anatomise them. The study attempts to connect the analogy of Sustainable Business Model
Almeida Innovation with Business Model Innovation and Sustainable Business Model. The results identified
analogies between Business Model, Business Model Innovation, Sustainable Business Model, and Sus-
Keywords: tainable Business Model Innovation, and configures Sustainable Business Model Innovation based on
Business model (BM) sustainable value innovation. The research gap and questions have been identified. Based on the analysis,
Business model innovation (BMI) the research has proposed Sustainable Business Model Innovation components comprised of Sustainable
Sustainable business model (SBM)
Value Proposition Innovation, Sustainable Value Creation and Delivery Innovation, and Sustainable Value
Sustainable business model innovation
Capture Innovation. This study contributes to the Sustainable Business Model Innovation theoretical
(SBMI)
Review literature and would help the practitioner and researcher to develop concise and comprehensive sub-
components and metrics for Sustainable Business Model Innovation.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Industry 4.0 revolution is reshaping the economic landscape
by changing the drivers of competitiveness and growth (Schwab,
2017a). With the mounting challenges of environmental degrada-
tion (Chofreh et al., 2019) and disruption of the Industry 4.0 and
Circular Economy revolution (World Economic Forum, 2019),
relying on efficiency and cost-cutting is not viable rather innova-
tion is becoming an essential ingredient for success (Schwab,
2017b). A firm requires a radical, systematic, and holistic
approach towards business practices to compete with economic,
environmental, and social challenges (Bocken and van Bogaert,
2016). It has created pressure on businesses to link their models
with sustainable innovation (Boons and Ludeke-Freund, 2013). The
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: goni@fme.vutbr.cz (F.A.–M.P.Q.address.K.-g.symbol)
fme.vutbr.cz-feybi.ariani(atsymbol)gmail.comfurther.–>n. Goni).
terms Business Model (BM), Business Model Innovation (BMI), and
Sustainable Business Model Innovation (SBMI) have expanded in
the literature primarily concerning Industry 4.0 (Man and
Strandhagen, 2017) and implementation to Circular Economy
(Witjes and Lozano, 2016).
Despite an extensive literature on BM, BMI, and SBMI, the cat-
egorisation of SBMI concept is still in its infancy stage (Ludeke-
Freund and Dembek, 2017). In the literature, the term for SBMI
has not reached to the consensus, and they are interchangeable use
with the terms business model innovation for sustainability
(Schaltegger et al., 2016) or sustainable business model innovation
(Yang et al., 2017) with various definitions. BMI is clarified as a
drastic transformation of existing BM (Adams et al., 2016). Due to
the increasing tumult of environmental consciousness, sustain-
ability is becoming an essential aspect of BM in the exploration of
greener solutions (Bocken et al., 2014). The importance of creating
value with a triple-bottom-line approach fundamentally required
companies to transform the way using BMI (Clinton and Whisnant,
2019). The emerging concept of BMI and the emphasising demand

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121201
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
and opportunities to incorporate sustainability into BM led to the
field of SBMI. These required changes in the transformation of more
sustainable BM. To date, organisations are delaying in adopting
sustainable solutions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). The reason for
organisation hesitancy towards SBMI implementation is still not
completely understood.
The term SBMI has been coined a decade ago and has been
developing since that time (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Various
authors have elucidated the concept from different perspectives,
such as concept definitions (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), classifying
archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014), taxonomies (Ludeke-Freund et al.,
2018), and tools and techniques (Joyce and Paquin, 2016) for further
development of SBMI components. In recent years, there has been a
growing interest in the field of the SBMI concept, and it has linked
with other fields such as BM, BMI, and SBM. As this field may trap
into academic niche or silo, Ludeke-Freund and Dembek (2017)
postulated a hypothesis for locating SBMI either as a field itself or
a sub-field, divergent from other established field such as from BM.
Even though SBMI has the potential to become field, unfortunately,
the literature does not offer insight into how the field has emerged
through other closely related sub-fields such as BM, BMI and SBMI.
Recent studies have established the link between SBMI with other
field but that limited to definitional concept only (Geissdoerfer
et al., 2018). SBMI is an emerging field, but it does not have com-
ponents, definitions, and terms are analogous to other sub-fields.
The problem in conceptualising for SBMI is that all previous
frameworks have not been able to differentiate for SBM and SBMI.
Previous research has not been able to provide insight into which
components for SBMI have been analogue to other sub-field. The
research conducted by França et al. (2017) attempted to embrace
sustainability into BMI by integrating the business model canvas
and framework for sustainable strategic development. The arche-
types proposed by Bocken et al. (2014) focused on formalising the
categorisation for BMI based on the sustainability principle of the
triple bottom line approach. Joyce and Paquin (2016) extended a
business model canvas by adding two additional layers, i.e. envi-
ronmental and social layer. Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2018) categorised
45 patterns into 11 groups associated along with environmental,
social, and economic dimension. All these authors have developed
SBMI frameworks that have been linked with other sub-fields such
as BM, SBM and BMI and the frameworks are segregated from each
other. All of these framework have not differentiated the concept of
SBMI with SBM, BM and BMI. Some studies have utilised existing
components from BM, whereas others have focused on establishing
entirely new categorisations based on SBM and BMI. There is a need
to understand the underlying philosophy of SBMI with other fields
and practice-research gap in order to develop a unified framework.
The literature still needs more exploration on how SBMI compo-
nents are linked with other sub-fields. The question is remained
unanswered: where the SBMI components aggregates and segre-
gate from the other field of research.
Previous studies have focused only on incorporating sustain-
ability components but fail to tap the intrinsic nature of SBMI
components with other sub-fields. These studies lack clarity
regarding the components of SBMI, its link with BM, BMI, and SBM.
Thus far, the theoretical convergent of SBMI from BM, BMI, and SBM
has not been comprehensively examined. This research will fill this
gap by understanding the underlying philosophy of SBMI based on
its link with other related fields. These research questions are still
unanswered:
i) Where the literature of SBMI congregates on the nexus of
BM, BMI, and SBM?
ii) What configures SBMI components?
iii) What are the theory-practice gaps in the SBMI literature?
These questions can be answered once the derivative philoso-
phy for SBMI is thoroughly understood based on the review of the
literature. The present study aims at the comprehensible under-
standing of SBMI components with a detail investigation of the
underlying foundation of the concept with already establishing
fields such as BM, BMI, and SBM. This investigation will lead to
explore the theory-practice gap in the SBMI literature and pertinent
research questions.
The paper is structured into five sections. Section 1 provides a
detail research background. Section 2 identifies the literature re-
view by segregating into four sub-sections, namely BM, BMI, SBM,
and SBMI. Section 3 elaborates on the methodology of collecting
and screening publications based on their inclusion of BM com-
ponents. Section 4 elaborates on analysis. Section 5 described the
results, research gaps, question and conclusion.
2. Literature review
To better understand the configuration for SBMI, the term has
been dissected into four parts: BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI. This sec-
tion instigates with the understanding of the term BM and ap-
proaches towards the transition of BM to BMI, SBM, and SBMI. This
linkage will elucidate on how the research paradigms for BM to
SBMI has evolved.
2.1. Business model
BM is described as the logic of how firms do business and able to
create, deliver, and capture value (Teece, 2010). Till to date, there is
no general agreement on its constructs and dimensions are still
unclear (Foss and Saebi, 2018). Scholars have tried to identify the
BM concept from a different mind-set. BM is not just a theory,
rather its tacit knowledge of the way aggregated activities of a
company are represented and create value when joined together
(Wirtz et al., 2016). Zott et al. (2011) analysed that value is the most
prevalent component of the BM. The significance of the concept
“value” in the BM literature is evident in the areas around e-busi-
ness (Fleisch et al., 2015), innovation (Wirtz et al., 2016), and
strategy (Massa et al., 2017). It has been acknowledged as a tool to
analyse and describe the ways how organisations operate that lead
them to perceive BM as an activity orientated framework, including
its external and internal stakeholders (Zott et al., 2011). It should
not be only considered an organisation’s operational strategy, but
rather a tool designed to understand, decode, and link strategies
not only within the organisation but also throughout its eco-
systems. BM reflects the structural design of an organisation’s
objective to achieve a purpose, generally value creation, as it fa-
cilitates value unlocking, capturing, and leveraging.
Early definitions of BM are dated back to two decades ago
(Timmers, 1998). Shafer et al. (2005) found twelve definitions that
fit into four major themes: creating value, strategic choices,
capturing value and value networks. Apart from value creation,
networks, and capturing, the strategic choice is debated over its
confounding emergence from the strategic management field
(Massa et al., 2017). It means that BM is the logic of the firm that
aids in developing propositions, delivering value, and generates
viable cost and revenues (Teece, 2010). This definition only simply
implies firm activities. Several studies have acknowledged BM ac-
tivities and components at the discretion of the organisation while
others have restricted by defining specific boundaries for the firm
through the identification of activities and components.
De Reuver et al. (2013) highlighted the concept that differenti-
ates between American and Europeans scholar’s approaches to BM
research: the prior one focused on classifying and establishing a
relationship with innovation whereas the latter approach to
 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
developing design approaches and causal modelling. The concept
has the potential to provide the holistic perspective of the firm’s
activities and goes beyond simple storytelling of how a firm does
business (Spieth et al., 2014). The literature represents various ar-
guments on this concept, but various scholars have established the
fact that it describes “how a firm does business” (Wirtz et al., 2016).
It has been described as a series of components by (Wells, 2013)
contains the value proposition including product/service offering,
customer relationships and segments, value creation and delivery
incorporating decisions regarding activities, partners, resources,
distribution channels, and value capture mechanism through rev-
enue model and cost structure. Richardson (2008) offered a
consolidated view of its components, including value proposition,
value creation, and delivery system, and value capture system. BM
does not only have a company focus but rather involves a broader
perspective of value networks in the transformation and innovation
of a BM (Sommer, 2012). This viewpoint is in line with Beattie and
Smith (2013), who defined it as the entity of a company, its
shareholders and customers, and include value captured for
stakeholders such as suppliers.
Several authors have proposed various elements pertinent to
BM, which have been used by various scholars in different research
areas. Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) identified a conceptual
framework for the BM and divided it into six components as a value
proposition, value chain, segments, value networks, competitive
strategy, and cost structures and profits potentials. Shafer et al.
(2005) argued that the essence of a BM is generally linked to
value creation and value capture in a company. They discussed the
lack of conceptual design for BM and categorise its components into
four elements, namely as the firm’s strategic choices, create value,
value networks, and value capture.
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) suggested the modular
perspective of BM based on the logic of how an organisation cre-
ates, delivers, and captures value by incorporating nine compo-
nents into BM including value proposition, key resources, customer
relationships, segments, partners, key activities, channels, revenue
streams, and cost structure. Richardson (2008) provided a more
consolidated view by dividing the BM components from a value
perspective, namely value propositions, value creation, and de-
livery system, and value capture. These components were organ-
ised to create the core of a strategy that intended to create value for
customers and capture more value than competitors. A framework
proposed by Richardson (2008) has been used by different scholars
to enlighten how the activities of a company work together to
execute its strategy, consequently bridging strategy implementa-
tion with its formulation (Massa et al., 2017).
In summary, the literature has two research paradigms for BM.
The first paradigm identified the logic of the firm, what are the
objectives and pertinent essential value creation purposes,
including value creation, proposition, delivery, and capture
(Richardson, 2008). The second paradigm focused on identifying its
components that make up its activities and processes and its
impact on its performance (Wells, 2016). However, discrepancies
still exist, but both research paradigms converged towards the
definitional and articulation of its components.
2.2. Business model innovation
Despite the extensive literature on BM, what makes BMI is still
ambiguous (Foss and Saebi, 2017). BM is considered as a tool to
innovate to gain competitive advantage and to increase perfor-
mance (Teece, 2010). It suggests that to maintain a competitive
edge in a fluctuating business environment, a BM needs not to be
stagnant and modification of the firm’s activity systems essential
for continuous improvement of it. The company are continuously
3
adapting, adjusting, and redefining their businesses to be
competitive in today’s dynamic global market (Kuratko et al., 2011).
The need for transformation in the company structure for a value
proposition, creation, delivery, and capture, is the underpinning
towards BMI (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Teece (2010) suggested that
the design of BM enables the firm to develop capabilities to adapt to
a changing business environment. The BM has seen as a tool for
innovation and commercializing high-tech innovation and
considered a part of copyrights. As stated by Girotra and Netessine
(2013), BMI is ingrained in the regulations of operation manage-
ment and economics and is imperative in both the manufacturing
and service industries (Ireland et al., 2001). The concept of BM and
consequently BMI has its underpinning in strategic management,
corporate practices, industrial economies (Aspara et al., 2010),
technology management, corporate strategy, entrepreneurship,
and innovation (Spieth et al., 2014). The BMI literature frames a
more specific value proposition from the perspective of change for
the customers. BMI involves altering “the way you do business”
than “what you do” and should go beyond products and processes
(Amit and Zott, 2012) and go beyond just changing the offerings. As
Johnson and Suskewicz (2009) advocated that BMI signifies the
emphasis away from a breakthrough to new technologies to
develop new structures. Cavalcante et al. (2011) explained four
categories of BM changes as BM Creation (new processes/activities),
BM extension (adding new processes/activities), BM revision
(changing existing processes/activities), and BM discontinuation
(discontinue existing processes/activities).
BMI literature currently has two research streams emerged to
the BM change: the first one requires a complete reinvention of BM
to dynamically transform to BMI (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), and
other consider incremental adaption and fine-tuning of BM to bring
the change and innovation (Girotra and Netessine, 2014). Various
authors have acknowledged different kinds and elements for BMI
recognised. Koen et al. (2011) suggested three types of BMI
comprising value networks, financial obstacles, and technology.
The challenges BMI encountered are usually by the target and scope
of its innovation. Johnson et al. (2008) considered successful BMI
with three components: a customer value propositions, essential
resources and process, and profit formula. Innovations to develop
new products and processes are expensive, need investment and
time consuming, and the return of all these efforts is ambiguous.
Amit and Zott (2012) stated that BMI revolves around questioning
continuously about the value provided to its customer and the re-
turn to the firm. BMI provides not only financial value but also
benefits other components value chain, organisational structure,
and infrastructure (Comes and Berniker, 2008). It finds new and
different ways of doing business that have the ability to changes
existing industry competitiveness, leading to the progress towards
new BM (Ireland et al., 2001). BMI is related to a situation where the
existing offering reframed, emerging changes foreseen, and op-
portunities are exploited to outperform competitors (Francis and
Bessant, 2005). It is vital to identify diverse approaches to value
creation and to go beyond product and process amendments in
BMI. The literature lacks clarity regarding diversified BMI defini-
tions, and yet the true essence of BMI within the nexus of BM has
not been fully recognised.
2.3. Sustainable business model
Sustainability-related issues have surged during the last ten
years (Goni et al., 2017). Problems concerning resource depletion,
the land air and water pollution, low human development indexes,
low economic growth, and climatic change have perturbed
everyone alike, including policymakers, practitioners, and acade-
micians (Chofreh et al., 2018). Out of these issues, related
4 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
environmental issues affect public health (Lu et al., 2017). For
instance, in 2016, land, air, and water pollution instigated 9 M
premature death, in other words, 16 % of all deaths worldwide
(World Bank, 2017). Most alarmingly, the industrial sector con-
sumes about 54 % of the world’s total energy delivered
(International Energy Agency, 2016), making it imperative to
develop policies for energy efficiency in businesses. Consumers are
seeking out sustainable products, and that is how sustainability is
transforming the competitive landscape that would force com-
panies to change their products, processes, technologies, and BM
(Nidumolu et al., 2009). The investors are considering external is-
sues such as emission, water consumption, and waste management
to be a part of the performance of a company and stakeholder
demands for disclosing information pertinent to such issues (Lubin
and Esty, 2010). Sustainability for a business case has been defined
as “voluntary activity to contribute to the solutions of societal or
environmental problems through creating profits” (Schaltegger
et al., 2012).
Governments are bound in response to such problems to impose
through regulations on organisations to move their businesses to-
wards sustainability (Chofreh et al., 2014). Moving the landscape of
competition has further fuel these megatrends by changing their
BM towards sustainability. This realisation could have seen a
decade ago, when firms have started to integrate sustainability into
their businesses (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008), and the notion of SBM
developed. The trend of sustainability has encouraged emerging
literature on BM to incorporate sustainability aspects, particularly
for low-income customers (Gebauer and Saul, 2014).
The definition in the literature perceive SBM as a modification
concept related to specific characteristics and goals and either
(1) incorporates goals, conceptions, and principles aiming at
sustainability or
(2) include sustainability aspects into value propositions, crea-
tion and delivery, and capture (Evans et al., 2017).
The literature streams seem too diverse to the conceptualisation
of SBM. One stream focuses on defining it (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018)
while others are struggling to align it with the strategic organisa-
tional architecture of value proposition, creation and delivery, and
capture (Boons and Ludeke-Freund, 2013). One aspect is evident
from the literature that SBM research does not last for too long to
the sphere of the conceptualizing phase and quickly move to the
agenda of incorporating innovation into its sustainability agenda.
The reason could be innovation on the BM level is vital to support
revenue mechanisms and sustainability issues to leverage sus-
tainable solutions (Abdul-Rashid et al., 2017). It has escalated
another subconcept of SBM, i.e., SBMI.
2.4. Sustainable business model innovation
Organisation commitment towards sustainable development is
still not as high as it should be (Kiron et al., 2013). Even though BMI
has emerged as a potential mechanism to incorporate sustainability
into business (Jolink and Niesten, 2015) and there is a general un-
derstanding that sustainability cannot be embraced fully without
innovation (Aghion et al., 2009). A survey study conducted by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston Consulting
Group (Kiron et al., 2013) on sustainability and innovation of BM
has identified barriers that the company faces when it comes to
integrating sustainability-driven innovation into their BM. This
conception has observed BMI as a tool towards creating sustain-
ability cases. The sustainable products/services and processes in-
novations (Boons and Ludeke-Freund, 2013) are connected with BM
adoption, redesign, adjustment, and improvement (Schaltegger
et al., 2012). These definitions combine BMI elements with sus-
tainability aspects as BMI considered to be a process of BM explo-
ration, improvement creation, adoption, transformation,
redesigned, and revision. SBMI defines the processes through
which new BM developed, and companies transform their existing
BM aim for sustainable development (Roome and Louche, 2016). It
deals with the ways to predicts societal changes and respond to
sustainability issues (Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013). However, these
solutions should be created innovatively, that would be able to
contribute to significant positive impacts and reduce negative im-
pacts at the environmental and societal levels (Bocken et al., 2014).
The dominant belief about creating SBMI is rooted in the idea that it
can be used as a means to aid in solving environmental, economic,
and social problems (Evans et al., 2017). The conception of SBMI has
emerged as an evolving field (Ludeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017),
that is diverting all communities towards its potentiality for sus-
tainable business development.
3. Methodology
The existing literature identifies two kinds of research methods
for data analysis, including secondary and primary resources for the
analysis of SBMI. Current sources such as published articles and
reports are known as secondary sources in the literature review of
SBMI (Bocken et al., 2014). Concept mapping through a case study is
primary source of data (Joyce and Paquin, 2016).
As primary data collection has limited potential to general-
isability, mainstream published articles rely on existing available
frameworks for components such as business model canvas (Joyce
and Paquin, 2016) as the objective of the paper is to classify com-
ponents of SBMI and create analogically based on the current
literature review. This paper will utilise a comprehensive literature
review to classify components for SBMI to achieve the clarity of the
components of SBMI (Schaltegger et al., 2016). The method has
been adopted by Igarashi et al. (2015), as illustrated in Fig. 1. This
method used for the anatomy for the inclusion of environmental
benchmark for supplier selection. For the present study, the se-
lection criteria for components consists of data collection and data
analysis.
Two steps followed for data collection. First, publish article
criteria was chosen. As in SBMI, there are various kinds of research
articles are available such as a conceptual paper based on the
literature review conducted by Nosratabadi et al. (2019), a con-
ceptual paper based on literature review and case studies con-
ducted by Bocken et al. (2019), a case study paper performed by
Abdelkafi and Taeuscher (2016), and empirical analysis performed
by Ritala et al. (2018). Since the focus of the present study is on
classifying components of SBMI, the only method chosen for
research articles is conceptual papers classifying components based
on either literature review or case studies and literature review.
Web of Science and Scopus databases were used to select papers
related to BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI. Literature search performed
with various keywords including the terms “business model” that
hit 22,889 articles, “business model innovation” that hit 1,493 ar-
ticles, “sustainable business model” that hit 608 articles, “sustain-
able business model innovation” that hit 46 articles, “innovative
business model” that hit 384 articles, “sustainable business model”
and “innovation” that hit 224 articles, and “business model for
sustainability” that hit 27 articles. In the first step, a total of 25,287
scholarly articles was found pertinent to these mentioned key-
words and extracted.
The next step is searching for each kind of business model pa-
pers, which were published and checked for any duplicated papers.
After this, for BM 301, BMI 109, SBM 67, and SBMI 49 papers were
remaining. After removing papers due to duplication and further
 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201 5

Fig. 1. Research method flowchart.

screening was performed based on the title and abstract and
irrelevant papers removed. This process is resulting in 104 papers
for BM, 68 papers for BMI, 46 papers for SBM, and 30 papers for
SBMI. In total, 248 papers remained for articles eligibility.
As a next step, the manuscripts were independently reviewed for
their eligibility. Only papers that focused on classifying components
and conceptualise definitions for BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI were
selected in the present study. In the last step, articles related to book
chapters, textbooks, doctoral thesis, master dissertation, working
papers, and non-English papers were excluded. As a result, a total of
61 papers, including 30 papers for BM, 24 papers for BMI,15 papers for
SBM, and ten papers for SBMI from scholarly journals, were selected.
4. Analysis
All selected 61 articles were thoroughly read and assessed for
the proposed definitions and inclusion of components for BM, BMI,
SBM, and SBMI. The definition and components of each article are
analysed for a comprehensive examination of the proposed
frameworks. Each framework was further segregated based on
proposed definitions, components, and associated analogical terms.
A more in-depth analysis was performed to scrutinise the link be-
tween BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI. All the proposed components in
BM were mapped in the articles of BMI, SBM, and SBMI, and they
have been validated through experts.
6 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
The result revealed that out of 61 selected reports, more than 80
% had used value as a major theme for all selected articles. The
papers for the BM analysis show three converged research streams.
First, proposing definitions and most cited definitions dated back
by Timmers (1998) and as latest as by Geissdoerfer et al. (2018).
Second, proposing a framework and minimum segregation can be
seen in its break down as a value proposition, creation, delivery, and
capture (Richardson, 2008), while other researchers identify it
differently as value architecture and value finance (Al-Debei and
Avison, 2010). The analysis revealed that most cited frameworks
are proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) not only for BM
(Batocchio et al., 2017) and BMI but also for SBM (Lozano, 2018) and
SBMI (Joyce and Paquin, 2016). Lastly, the role of BM for further
business model context has been explored through differentiation
phases (Wirtz et al., 2016), such as BM for e-business (Gordijn and
Akkermans, 2001), BM for innovation (Chesbrough and
Rosenbloom, 2002), BM for sustainability (Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013).
For BM, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) proposed a framework
that includes nine key components for value creation, delivery, and
capture. Wirtz et al. (2016) provided a detailed exploration in the
review of BM components used by various authors based on the
intensity and spectrum of the components used. Based on their
analysis, only 30 % of studies have demonstrated comprehensive
utilisation of the BM components. Most interestingly, BMI is
considered no different from BM. It has been considered as adap-
tation/changing existing BM through innovation and aims at
revamping BM through such changes (Johnson et al., 2008). The
concept of BMI entirely originated from BM, and the literature
seems to converge to the concept of innovation when researchers
illustrated as most imperative to organisations (Johnson et al.,
2008). However, comparing the papers of BM and BMI, no signifi-
cant differences in components and sub-components are found.
According to the analysis, the BMI concept fully based on the
concept of BM (Chesbrough, 2010) and the only exception is that of
newness (Clauss, 2017) to any or all components of BM
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). So far, the research stream on BMI has
been focused on the development (Foss and Saebi, 2017), review
research (Schneider and Spieth, 2013), taxonomy (Remane et al.,
2017) and measurement scale (Clauss, 2017). The taxonomy pro-
posed by Remane et al. (2017) divided into four meta-components
as a value proposition, creation, delivery, and capture, whereas
Clauss (2017) unified these components into three components
namely value proposition, creation, and capture. Both of these
studies have an emphasis on innovation.
Analysis of SBM and SBMI literature revealed that the field is
more segregated in terms of defining its sustainable components
such as archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014), patterns (Ludeke-Freund
et al., 2018), and components (Joyce and Paquin, 2016). In SBM
and SBMI research areas, the most cited value elements/compo-
nents are proposed by Richardson (2008) as a value proposition,
value creation and delivery, and value capture. The most cited are
the archetypes of Bocken et al. (2014). SBM and SBMI are an over-
lapping concept, and wherever authors discuss SBM, innovation
incorporated. Various scholars have defined SBMI, and all concepts
stimulated with value, innovation, and sustainability issues from
social, economic, and environmental aspects. The more holistic
definitional interrelated concept of BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI is
provided by (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Despite differences in
components selection, sustainability, value, and innovation are
seen to be vital in two-third of papers. Anatomy for the concept of
BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI has been identified based on the literature
analysis. The theory-practice gap has been identified and future
research questions have been developed.
5. Results and discussion
This section illustrates findings from the comprehensive anal-
ysis by classifying the components for BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI that
are overlapped and used by other authors for further con-
ceptualisation. This section also shows how analogous definitions
and terms of each concept are distinguished based on the compo-
nents. Furthers previous literature on SBMI tools and approaches
has been scrutinised for developing a research gap and future
research questions.
5.1. Anatomy of SBMI
The term “Sustainable Business Model Innovation (SBMI)” has
been anatomised into four concepts: BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMI. In
this study, the most holistic conception connecting BM, BMI, SBM,
and SBMI provided by Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) has been re-
synthesise to clarify the basic underlying principles for SBMI. The
definitional breakdown consists of three constituents, including
components, definitions, and related analogies based on various
conceptual definitions offered by different scholars.
5.1.1. Value: derivative philosophy of BM
BM has been described as the architecture of the product, in-
formation flow, description of business roles and actors, probable
benefits for numerous actors, and a source of revenue. BM concept
allows generalizing value from customers and value chain aids for
the required structure and implementation of the BM sub-
components, including channels, activities, and processes
(Osterwalder et al., 2014). Other factors assess the planning and
operational potential of an organisational entity, such as resources,
capabilities, and strategic intent of the organisation (Casadesus-
Masanell and Ricart, 2010). The definitional concept for BM has
been clearly defined with some extant to the agreements on the
partial characteristics (Wirtz et al., 2016). However, the essential
components are proposed and acknowledged by various authors as
a value proposition, value creation, value delivery (also used as
value network), and value capture (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).
The majority of the definitions demonstrated the structural
nature of BM through essential components from a static point of
and dynamic point of view. The distinction between both of these
point of view is that the former consider the BM as an absolute
conception based on its essential components, and the latter
scrutinise it from the conception of constant change and innova-
tion. These existing studies have utilised the essential components
differently. The most common framework to BM is introduced by
(Richardson, 2008) as a value proposition, value creation and de-
livery, and value capture. Various others studies have introduced
multiple value forms from different perspectives such as corporate
strategy (Yip, 2004), network view model (Voelpel et al., 2004) and
material or non-material resources (Demil and Lecocq, 2010). The
literature has two research paradigms for BM. The first paradigm
identified the logic of the firm, objectives and pertinent essential
value creation purposes, including value creation, proposition, de-
livery, and capture (Richardson, 2008). The second paradigm
focused on identifying its components that make up its activities
and processes and its impact on its performance (Wells, 2016). The
review study conducted by Wirtz et al. (2016) differentiated BMs
into three components based on customer and markets, strategic
and value creation. This differentiation might be useful for the
firm’s strategic objectives, yet they did not promulgate the true
essence of any BM. Based on the definitions and concepts proposed
by various authors, the “value” has been deduced as a basic facet of
any BM, and without it, no BM can inculcate and achieve its
objective in true essence.
 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
5.1.2. Innovation and value: derivative philosophy of BMI
Various authors have acknowledged different definitions and
components for BMI. But to date, the scholar is still struggling to
provide a consolidate conceptualisation of BMI (Foss and Saebi,
2017). BMI literature diverges into two research streams: the first
one requires a complete reinvention of BM to dynamically trans-
form to BMI (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), and others consider incre-
mental adaption and fine-tuning of BM to bring the change and
innovation (Girotra and Netessine, 2014). Both research streams are
dominated by the term “innovation” that is analogous to the terms
such as advancement, change, replacement, technology, trans-
formation, and creating new mechanisms. Our results are aligned
with the review of Foss and Saebi (2017) that the BMI definitions
are dominated by the BM components. Based on the above dis-
cussion, the true essence of BMI is comprehended based on
“innovation”, which is analogue to the terms as “new” or “change”.
Those firms seeking to adapt, innovate, reinvent and transform
their BM, needs to bring the new changes to each of their compo-
nents for the successful implementation of BMI. Therefore, the
concept of BMI has been deduced as the extension of BM concept of
“value” and “innovation”. BMI has been proposed with the com-
ponents of value proposition innovation, value creation, and de-
livery innovation and value capture innovation.
5.1.3. Sustainability and value: derivative philosophy of SBM
The BM in the context of sustainability underpins by the term
“value creation” logic of the firm. It has been argued to address
social and environmental damage by designing a BM that creates
value (Carayannis et al., 2015) as all sustainability issues have a
substantial impact on the function of BM (Gorissen et al., 2016).
When the SBM concept originated, its purpose was to transform
into a sustainable economic structure and as a means to achieve
sustainability issues (Wells, 2013). However, with time, the SBM
concept has been acknowledged as a means to create value for all
key stakeholders and possess a long-standing view to sustainability
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018) and generating value at an economic,
environmental and social level (Evans et al., 2017). Increasingly,
SBM is seen as a source to create a competitive edge (Porter and
Kramer, 2019). It is being argued that the concept could ulti-
mately supplant BM concept the way sustainable competitive edge
has supplanted competitive edge (Grant, 2016). Its definitional
parts integrate different characteristics such as stakeholders
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), social and environmental priorities
(Joyce and Paquin, 2016), and economic value, resource efficiency,
and responsible consumption (Bocken et al., 2014).
As far as SBM concerned, the literature streams seem too diverse
to the conceptualisation of SBM. One stream focuses on defining it
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), while others are struggling to align it
with the strategic organisational architecture of value proposition,
creation and delivery, and capture (Boons and Ludeke-Freund,
2013). SBM integrates sustainability as an essential element of
their value proposition, creation, and delivery and capture
(Abdelkafi and Taeuscher, 2016). It is argued that they go beyond
the nexus of creating economic benefits and embrace other forms
of value, such as environmental and social for a wide range of
stakeholders (Bocken et al., 2013). The SBM concept generally en-
compasses a triple bottom line approach that is the true essence of
SBM, but the scholars seem to be overly indulged with the sus-
tainability concept that the true essence of BM has not been fully
recognised. The researchers need to be cautious while designing
conceptual frameworks, taxonomies and measurement ontologies
for SBM, as the concept should be within the nexus of BM essence,
i.e., “value”. SBM incorporates sustainable value, which can be
segregated into three components of BM, namely as a sustainable
value proposition, sustainable value creation, and delivery and
7
sustainable value capture. When the term SBM coined, the under-
lying purpose was to transform BM into a sustainable economic
system and to integrate sustainability considerations to their
business entities and to help companies to achieve sustainability
goals (Wells, 2013).
5.1.4. Sustainability, value and innovation: derivative philosophy of
SBMI
One aspect is evident from the literature that SBM research does
not last for too long to the sphere of the conceptualizing phase and
quickly move to the agenda of incorporating innovation into its
sustainability agenda. The reason could be innovation on the BM
level is vital to support revenue mechanisms and sustainability
issues to leverage sustainable solutions (Abdul-Rashid et al., 2017).
It has escalated another sub-concept of BM, i.e., SBMI. In literature,
the SBM concept seems to originate within the boundary of BM.
However, the literature lacks in the categorisation of a truly SBM
concept. One research paradigm persistently focusing on the future
of SBM (Schaltegger et al., 2016), while others do not segregate it
with innovation (Bocken et al., 2014). The reason might be re-
searchers are delusional on the fact that SBM cannot achieve sus-
tainability without innovation.
SBMI deals with the transformation towards SBM. As a subset of
the SBM and BMI field, this concept has started recently. The defi-
nition in the literature deals with the modification of the traditional
BM with specific goals and objectives added aiming at sustain-
ability and focus of value proposition, creation and delivery, and
capture. Corresponding to the discussion on BMI, Geissdoerfer et al.
(2018) explained four types of SBMI:
i. New SBM start-ups: these are new organisations with SBM
elements into it.
ii. SBM modification: the components of existing BM changed
according to sustainability parameters.
iii. SBM diversification: for this, without changing in the exist-
ing BM, the additional SBM established with sustainable
value into it.
iv. SBM acquisition: for such models, sustainable businesses
identified, acquired and integrated into the organisations.
SBMI is underpinned with sustainability and innovation and
incorporates into major components of the value of BM (see
Table 1). As shown in Table 1, it can be inferred that SBMI innova-
tion is a subset and overlapping concept which is fundamentally
based on the BM concept and takes its characteristic of the SBM and
BMI. The philosophy of SBMI has fundamentally derived its com-
ponents from BM, and metrics stems from an SBM and BMI.
The above anatomy represented in Fig. 2 demonstrates all
possible logical relations between different subsets of BM. Ac-
cording to the literature classification, it has been concluded that
SBMI based on the core principles of BM and company logic
grounded on bases of BM components as this fact apprised by
various scholars. The basic framework elements for any BM include
a value proposition, creation and delivery, and capture mechanism.
The notion of BMI and SBM is the subset of any BM. For instance, not
all kind of BM are suitable changes/adaptability, and they might be
context-specific depends on the innovation and sustainability
aspect they incorporate into their value components. In such cases,
they merely stand as a traditional prototype of a BM.
On the contrary, BM is the representation of the organisational
strategy and the way they put a strategy into practice (Casadesus-
Masanell and Ricart, 2010), as a result of the decisions to either
innovate (Teece, 2010) or incorporate sustainability perspective
(Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008), is merely a strategic choice. It can be
argued that whatever the firm’s modus operandi for achieving its
8 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201

Table 1
Anatomy of the sustainable business model innovation.

Research field Component Definition Analog

BM Value proposition, A business model is a characterization Resources, capabilities, and strategy

value creation, and and interaction between its (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010)
delivery, and value components for a value proposition,
capture (Wirtz creation, delivery, and capture to create
et al., 2016) a competitive advantage.
SBM Sustainable values A business model that integrates multi- Stakeholder (Boons and Ludeke-Freund, 2013),
(Bocken et al., stakeholder view aims at the creation of social and environmental priorities (Stubbs and
2013) based on the monetary and non-monetary value for Cocklin, 2008), and economic value (Evans et al.,
value proposition, stakeholders and holds a long-term 2014).
value creation, and perspective.
delivery, and value
capture (Abdelkafi
and Taeuscher,
2016).
BMI New/change value The transformation of one business Technology (Chesbrough, 2010), advancement
proposition, new/ model to another to inculcate (Chesbrough, 2007), replacement (Mitchell and
change value innovation and can affect either the Coles, 2003), respond to environmental change,
creation, and entire business model or individual or a creating new mechanisms (Osterwalder and
delivery, and new/ combination of its components. Pigneur, 2010), transformation (Geissdoerfer
change value et al., 2016), and incremental and radical
capture (Lindgardt changes.
et al., 2012)
SBMI New/change It deals with the modification of a New/changes ways for reduced environmental
sustainable value business model to a more sustainable and social impact (Schaltegger et al., 2016),
through value business model. This comprises either societal and sustainability issues (Loorbach and
proposition, value the creation of an exclusively new Wijsman, 2013), stakeholders, and sustainable
creation, and business model or changes the existing development (Roome and Louche, 2016).
delivery, and value business model to innovatively address
capture sustainability issues for its stakeholders
(Geissdoerfer et al., for creating a long term sustainable
2018). competitive advantage. The change
involves modification to its
components.

desired objectives, it cannot be designed outside the nexus of BM.
Even if the choice is to innovate a BM through transformation,
diversification, entirely new start-up or/and acquisition
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), the essence of BM purpose would be the
same, namely to propose, create, deliver and capture value. As
previously discussed, BMI components are based on the notion of
value innovation and further elaborated through value proposition
innovation, value creation innovation and delivery, and value cap-
ture innovation (Clauss, 2017).
SBM is designed by integrating a sustainability perspective
(Schaltegger et al., 2012). Existing literature on this topic
entrenched in the concept of BM, yet the different approaches used
by authors in an attempt to incorporate sustainability management
Fig. 2. A derivative philosophy of Sustainable Business Model Innovation.
into their strategy, have common grounds for value creation
(Schaltegger et al., 2016), and sustainability issues that can change
the competitive business environment. As a result, SBM cannot be
designed without incorporating BM components and sustainability
issues. SBM components are based on the sustainable value and can
be deliberated through the components of sustainable value
proposition, sustainable value creation and delivery, and sustain-
able value capture.
SBMI is an overlapping conception of BMI and SBM. The theo-
retical grounds for SBMI are based on underpinning BM value
creation logic but incorporate sustainable value and value innova-
tion. This rationale based on the analogies between BMI and SBM,
such as environmental concern and incremental change, economic
value and creating a new mechanism, and incorporating stake-
holders and environmental changes. For instance, the firm strategic
intent to align environmental, social, and economic value demands
to adapt their BM accordingly. To develop SBMI, it does not take all
of what constitutes an ideal BMI or SBM. SBMI based are either
some of the BMI or SBM concepts. From the viewpoint of
Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), BMI was defined either a process of
alteration from one BM to another, or merger or acquisition, or
entirely new BM. While SBM was described as incorporating social,
economic and environmental value, the inclusion of stakeholders,
value network with a new design, governance, and purpose and
enable innovation towards SBM (Yang et al., 2017). From the above
conception, SBMI has emerged through BMI and SBM. It depends
on the firm’s strategy on how to balance between innovation and
sustainability aspects. Technological firms might be able to give
more weight to their innovation capabilities, whereas agriculture
food products and manufacturing firms focused on generating
environmental value and economic value would tilt more towards
sustainability. Creating a balance between innovation and
 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
sustainability is the key to success to respond to the dynamic
environment.
5.2. SBMI components
Scholars have scrutinised the components of BM, BMI, and SBM.
Various tools and approaches have been developed to conceptu-
alise SBMI components. As from the previous section, it has been
clarified that SBMI derives its philosophy from BM, BMI, and SBM.
The most cited framework for BM is proposed by Osterwalder et al.
(2005) named as Business Model Canvas (BMC). Based on this
framework following tools and approaches have been discussed to
select components and sub-components for SBMI.
1. A significant contribution in SBMI literature has been made by
Joyce and Paquin (2016), who introduced Triple-Layered Busi-
ness Model Canvas (TLBMC), an extension to the original BMC of
Osterwalder et al. (2005). They have used nine sub-components
for conceptualizing SBMI that are originally based on three
components, namely: value proposition, value creation & de-
livery and value capture. They added two layers of environ-
mental layers based on the lifecycle perspective and social layers
grounded on a stakeholder perspective. They have extended
components based on the original components for the social
and environmental layers. The three layers explicitly generate
multiple values, i.e., economic, social, and environmental. This
approach provides a more holistic and integrated view that
supports a more sustainable BM. However, the components
have only been scrutinised from the sustainability perspective
and excluded the value and innovation aspect.
2. One of the high cited work for SBMI has been offered by Bocken,
N.M. et al. (2014) as archetypes. These archetypes have been
developed based on a value proposition, value creation & de-
livery and value capture. Eight archetypes have been proposed,
several of which are rooted in the perspective of optimization.
Though all archetypes have been defined based on BMC com-
ponents, yet only limited examples have been provided on how
each component helps to integrate sustainability innovation.
These archetypes might be a good starting point on how to
integrate sustainable value innovation, but the detailed guiding
framework for incorporating sustainable value innovation hav-
ing been missing.
3. The study conducted by Rauter et al. (2017) developed a con-
ceptual framework aiming to increase the understanding of
concerning drivers in developing SBM and shedding light on
how sustainability principles can be integrated into a BM. the
framework used four-building components as product,
customer interface, infrastructure management, and financial
aspects. These components are further divided into nine com-
ponents. The framework for Strategic Sustainable Development
(FSSD) was utilised to explore the drivers that companies may
encounter when incorporating sustainability innovation into
their BM. The framework has linked components with sustain-
ability and innovation concept through ten case analysis.
However, this study missed the opportunity to develop detail
guidelines based on components.
4. Upward and Jones (2016) provides a visual template based on
the “strongly sustainable business model ontology”. It proposes
a modelling technique-oriented towards stakeholders to enable
‘flourishing’ living ecosystems and organised social systems. It
has identified Value proposition, value creation and delivery and
value capture as main components. The sub-components are
conceptualised based on BMC components. These components
have not been discussed how sustainability and innovation
could be integrated into these sub-components.
9
5. Another study conducted by Schaltegger et al. (2012) identified
four SBMI pillars: value proposition, customer relationship,
business infrastructure, and financial aspects. They also
acknowledged the business case drivers for sustainability as
costs and cost reduction, risk and risk reduction, sales and profit
margin, reputation and brand value, attractiveness as an
employer, and innovative capabilities. The pillars define the
logic of companies in more general terms. Though these SBMI
components map the same as the BMC sub-components com-
ponents, yet the sustainability aspect has been taken as a more
voluntary activity.
6. França et al. (2017) developed a Framework for Strategic Sus-
tainable Development (FSSD). This framework explores how the
FSSD could inform business model innovation and design by
combining it with the BMC and supplementary concepts such as
creativity techniques, value network mapping, life-cycle
assessment, and product-service systems. The frameworks
have also used nine sub-components and conceptualise it with
sustainability and innovation. The study was conceptualised for
qualitative assessment.
7. Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013) specified normative re-
quirements for successfully marketing sustainable innovations
based on four elements of BM components, i.e., value proposi-
tion, supply chain, financial model, and customer interface. The
framework only links sustainable innovation with four compo-
nents, thus providing the limited view of SBMI.
8. One of the detailed taxonomy to consolidate the domain of SBMI
practices and research was presented by Lüdeke-Freund et al.
(2018) for theory development. They synthesised and consoli-
dated literature and provided a more detailed, broader, and
more comprehensive taxonomy than any classification of SBM.
Their classification based on sustainable value creation
demonstrated that SBM could solve problems related to
ecological, social, and economic issues. The classification is more
tiled towards social innovations and does not specify the sub-
components for each classification.
The Table provides an overview of the components being ana-
lysed in previous frameworks. These frameworks predominantly
used components, and sub-components that can be grouped into
three main components, namely value proposition, value creation
and delivery, and value capture. All these components have been
examined with the other concepts such as value, sustainability and
innovation (detailed has been provided in Appendix A).
From the above anatomy, SBMI can be configured on the bases of
sustainable value innovation and comprised of components: Sus-
tainable Value Proposition Innovation (SVPI), Sustainable Value
Creation, and Delivery Innovation (SVC&DI) and Sustainable Value
Capture Innovation (SVCI), as illustrated in Fig. 3. From the litera-
ture review, the definition for each component of SBMI has been
proposed based on sustainable value innovation and sub-
components (see Table 2) as followed:
1. Sustainable Value Propositions Innovation (SVPI) is defined as a
firm’s promise to its customers by tapping into new opportu-
nities and creating long term relationships with its customers
and society.
2. Sustainable Value Creation & Delivery (SVC&DI) is defined as
the firm’s capability to organises value chain networks by
managing resources, capabilities, activities, and partnerships
relative to customers, competitors, and collaborators.
3. Sustainable Value Capture Innovation (SVCI) is illustrated as a
firm’s ability to capture environmental, social, and economic
value by designing new sustainable revenue models and cost
structures.
10 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
Fig. 3. Framework for sustainable business model innovation.
5.3. Research gaps
In this section, a research gap in the following areas of SBMI that
requires to be addressed for further development in the
theoretical-implementation gap:
(1) Metrics for SBMI;
(2) Interdependent nature of SBMI components; and
(3) Feedbacks loops from the external environment.
1. Due to the mounting challenges related to global warming
and the revolution of industry 4.0, the firms need to develop
their guidelines based on a green strategy that contributes to
green innovation (Song and Yu, 2018). The scholars have
acknowledged the positive linkage between value, innova-
tion and sustainability. The conceptualisation for SBMI is
merely based on BMC and other frameworks. These tools
have been developed to address the sustainability aspect, but
most of these frameworks don’t provide detail guiding
principles for practitioners to develop their BM based on
sustainable value innovation. Therefore, literature still lacks
in developing metrics for SBMI that drive its philosophy from
BM, BMI and SBM.
2. The interdependent nature of BM components is undisputed,
and changes in one BM component will bring the change into
another component (Teece, 2010). These interdependencies
can easily become so complex that a minor event in one
component may amplify into serious unintended conse-
quences elsewhere in the organisation. These components
have to be coherent and internally aligned (Ritter, 2014)
concerning sustainability, innovation and value. For instance,
change in a value proposition for sustainability would have
to be amplified with the creative content. However, in the
SBMI literature, the interdependent nature of these compo-
nents based on sustainable value innovation has not been
addressed.
3. For every organisation, contextual boundaries and their
coping mechanism to deal with the uncertainty varies.
Boundary spanning nature of a BM affects the dynamics ca-
pabilities of a firm. In the context of the system thinking
perspective, SBMI connects with the more extensive system.
For instance, sustainability goals provide an opportunity to
resolve problems at the ecological-social level creatively and
it requires a transformation in the BM components within
the internal level. SBMI is influenced through the stake-
holder’s demands (conserve the environment, social well-
being, shareholder value generations) and resource scarcity
(shifting to renewable resources). When the firm responds to
the demands of stakeholders, they transform their process of
value proposition, creation and delivery, and capture based
on inputs. The main objective is to enhance the output i.e.
sustainability performance at environmental, social and
economic levels. The resulting output plays a crucial role in
developing a feedback loop based on the success or failure of
implementing SBMI. However, the role of the feedback loop
with the external environment, i.e. Stakeholders and the
internal environment from the perspective of SBMI compo-
nents, is still an unexplored area of research.
5.4. Research questions
The main objective of this paper is to improve the comprehen-
sible understanding of SBMI components with a detail investiga-
tion of the underlying foundation of the concept with already
establishing fields such as BM, BMI, and SBM. The derivate phi-
losophy has been identified, which has led to address the theory-
practice research gaps related to SBMI literature that is still mak-
ing its implementation not viable. The following research question
is derived from helping the practitioners to bridge the theory-
practice gap in the implementation of SBMI.
1. What are the metrics for SBMI that drive its philosophy from
BM, BMI and SBM based on three components value proposi-
tion, value creation and delivery and value capture?
2. How each of these components is interdependent?
3. How do organisations develop feedback loops with the external
environment based on a system-level approach?
6. Conclusions
This study presents a comprehensive view of the derivative
philosophy for SBMI. It provides the underlying philosophy of SBMI
based on the conceptions and analogies derived from BM, BMI, and
SBMs. Little efforts have been put on what configures SBMI. This
study has facilitated to derive the proposed formwork for SBMI
grounded on sustainable value innovation. As SBMI is an emerging
concept, this research has anatomised the conception of SBMI by
analysing detail literature on BM, BMI, SBM, and SBMIs. It helped
the present study to draw the analogies between each of the
definitional concepts proposed by various scholars. This study
identified the following findings:
i) SBMI is designed within the nexus of BM, and value creation
is the core logic in developing such models.
ii) SBMI is an overlapping concept and designed by incorpo-
rating innovation and sustainable value. However, the bal-
ance between both of them should be preserved to
implement innovation and sustainable value strategy
Table 2
SBMI components.

Components Value proposition Value creation and delivery Value capture

Sub-components: Value Offerings Customer & Customer Capabilities & Partnerships Activities & Channels Revenue models Cost structure
based on BMC markets relationship resources processes
Schaltegger et al. value proposition customer business infrastructure customer financial aspects

J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201

(2012) relationship relationship
Rauter et al. (2017) Value Propositions target Customers customer core competency partner Network value Configuration distribution revenue Model cost Structures
Relationships Channel
Boons and Lüdeke- Value Proposition customer interface Supply chain financial model
Freund (2013)
Joyce and Paquin value proposition: customer & customer resources: partners: supplies activities: channels: scale of revenue Cost
(2016) economic value, segments: End of relationships: use materials, and out-sourcing, governance and outreach, models: structure:
Functional value Life, societal phase; End user employees local communities production distribution environmental environmental
culture, benefits; impacts; social
social benefits impacts
Upward and Jones value proposition: target customer relationship: capability: stakeholder; process measure: channel: link revenue: pricing cost: profit;
(2016) Offerings governance resources partnership: activity, value asset: account
Agreement configuration:
Activity
Bocken et al. (2014) value offerings; customer & customer resources partners & activities distribution revenue streams; cost structure
technology and markets; Value for relationship suppliers Channel growth strategies
product features Customer, society
and Environment
Lüdeke-Freund Eco design Social Mission supply Chain supply Chain Closing-the-Loop Eco-design Closing-the-Loop Pricing & Revenue pricing Patterns;
et al. (2018) patterns; Access Patterns Patterns Patterns Patterns; Supply Patterns; Closing- Patterns; Access Patterns; Access Giving Patterns;
Provision Patterns; Chain Patterns; the-Loop Patterns; Provision Patterns Provision Patterns Access Provision Patterns
Service & Cooperative Supply Chain
Performance Patterns Patterns
Patterns;
Community
Platform Patterns
Franca et al. (2017) Value proposition customer segments customer key resources key partners key activities channels revenue stream Cost structure
relationship

11
12 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
successfully. As the 4th industrial revolution is taking place
and emphasis more on sustainability, firms should focus
more on creating solutions innovatively, while maximizing
value for all stakeholders.
iii) SBMI is configured based on sustainable value innovation
and its framework compromised of components: Sustainable
Value Proposition Innovation (SVPI), Sustainable Value Cre-
ation and Delivery Innovation (SVC&DI), and Sustainable
Value Capture Innovation (SVCI).
iv) The organisation cannot rely on the traditional BM model. It
has to bring sustainability and innovation to address its
stakeholders, considering it a future paradigm for its existing
BM.
This research focused on identifying components of BM, BMI, SBM,
and SBMI and to classify detailed sub-components for further classi-
fication beyond its research scope. Future research should be focused
on identifying sub-components for SBMI as the literature is still
segregated and not suitable for developing metrics for empirical
analysis. SBMI has mainly characterised based on patterns and ar-
chetypes that are hard to generalise in a broader context. Global
warming, climatic change, digitalization, poverty, unemployment,
and resource depletion are emerging as a global phenomenon.
Therefore, SBMI should be more prevalent. But not all firms have
capabilities to be proactive to changing needs of the environment,
thus providing clear guidance on how they can achieve a holistic
perspective would be useful for decision-makers. Future research
might be focused on exploring SBMI successful implementation and
experimentation in different contexts. There is a need to understand
the consequences of the proposed components in the real world. The
field of SBM and SBMI lacks its bridge with other areas and requires a
multidisciplinary approach towards developing it as a standalone
field (Ludeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). A study that integrates
more theories other than resource-based and stakeholder view is
necessary for future studies.
The proposed research framework has some various implica-
tions. In the field of BM, the proposed framework has provided a
concise conception of SBMI. It would help the academicians and
managers to distinctively visualise SBMI and enable them to
investigate the models based on three pillars, namely SVPI,
SVC&DI, and SVCI. The literature is currently segregated on
further sub-components of SBMI. There is a need to define what
constitutes a sub-component for the framework and the metrics
associated with each sub-component. For now, SBMI is a sub-
field of BM. Even so, the future predicts another direction. The
growing development of SBMI research and the importance of
sustainability will undermine the concept of BM and BMI. Or-
ganisations are currently incorporating sustainability agenda into
its practice not only for the sake of the environment and social
issues but for its economic reasons. This study would be helpful
in providing an initial understanding of the conceptualisation of
a theoretical framework to the practitioners.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jawaria Shakeel: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing - original
draft. Abbas Mardani: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing - original
draft. Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh Chofreh: Formal anal-
ysis, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Feybi Ariani Goni:
Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - original draft. Ji
rí Jaromír
Kleme
s: Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Project admin-
istration, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the EU project “Sustainable
Process Integration Laboratory e SPIL”, project No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/
0.0/15_003/0000456 funded by EU “CZ Operational Programme
Research, Development and Education”, Priority 1: Strengthening
capacity for quality research under collaboration agreement with
UTM, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121201.
References
Abdelkafi, N., Taeuscher, K., 2016. Business models for sustainability from a system
dynamics perspective. Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 74e96.
Abdul-Rashid, S.H., Sakundarini, N., Raja Ghazilla, R.A., Thurasamy, R., 2017. The
impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance:
empirical evidence from Malaysia. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 37 (2), 182e204.
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P., 2016. Sustainability-
oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 180e205.
Aghion, P., Veugelers, R., Hemous, D., 2009. No Green Growth without Innovation.
Bruegel.
Al-Debei, M.M., Avison, D., 2010. Developing a unified framework of the business
model concept. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19 (3), 359e376.
Amit, R., Zott, C., 2012. Creating value through business model innovation. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. 53 (3), 36e44.
Aspara, J., Hietanen, J., Tikkanen, H., 2010. Business model innovation vs. replica-
tion: financial performance implications of strategic emphases. J. Strat. Market.
18 (1), 39e56.
Batocchio, A., Ferraz Minatogawa, V.L., Anholon, R., 2017. Proposal for a method for
business model performance assessment: toward an experimentation tool for
business model innovation. J. Technol. Manag. Innovat. 12 (1), 61e70.
Beattie, V., Smith, S.J., 2013. Value creation and business models: refocusing the
intellectual capital debate. Br. Account. Rev. 45 (4), 243e254.
Bocken, N., van Bogaert, A., 2016. Sustainable Business Model Innovation for Posi-
tive Societal and Environmental Impact, Sustainable Development Research at
ICIS: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. Datawyse/Universitaire Pers Maastricht,
the Netherlands, pp. 107e119.
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A value mapping tool for sustainable
business modelling. Corp. Govern.: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 13 (5), 482e497.
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, 42e56.
Bocken, N., Boons, F., Baldassarre, B., 2019. Sustainable business model experi-
mentation by understanding ecologies of business models. J. Clean. Prod. 208,
1498e1512.
Boons, F., Ludeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation:
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.
Carayannis, E.G., Sindakis, S., Walter, C., 2015. Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability. J. Technol. Tran. 40 (1), 85e104.
Cavalcante, S., Kesting, P., Ulhoi, J., 2011. Business model dynamics and innovation:
(Re)establishing the missing linkages. Manag. Decis. 49 (7e8), 1327e1342.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J.E., 2010. Competitiveness: business model recon-
figuration for innovation and internationalization. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad.
Manag. 8 (2), 123e149.
Chesbrough, H., 2007. Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology
anymore. Strat. Leader. 35 (6), 12e17.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long.
Range Plan. 43 (2), 354e363.
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S., 2002. The role of the business model in capturing
value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
companies. Ind. Corp. Change 11 (3), 529e555.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Shaharoun, A.M., Ismail, S., Kleme
s, J.J., 2014. Sustainable
enterprise resource planning: imperatives and research directions. J. Clean.
Prod. 71, 139e147.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Kleme
s, J.J., 2018. Sustainable enterprise resource planning
systems implementation: a framework development. J. Clean. Prod. 198,
1345e1354.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Zeinalnezhad, M., Navidar, S., Shayestehzadeh, H.,
Kleme
s, J.J., 2019. Value chain mapping of the water and sewage treatment to
 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
contribute to sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 239, 38e47.
Clauss, T., 2017. Measuring business model innovation: conceptualization, scale
development, and proof of performance. R D Manag. 47 (3), 385e403.
Clinton, L., Whisnant, R., 2019. Business model innovations for sustainability. In:
Lenssen, G.G., Smith, N.C. (Eds.), Managing Sustainable Business: an Executive
Education Case and Textbook. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherland,
pp. 463e503.
Comes, S., Berniker, L., 2008. Business model innovation. In: Pantaleo, D., Pal, N.
(Eds.), From Strategy to Execution: Turning Accelerated Global Change into
Opportunity. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany,
pp. 65e86.
De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H., Haaker, T., 2013. Business model roadmapping: a
practical approach to come from an existing to a desired business model. Int. J.
Innovat. Manag. 17 (1), 1340006.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., 2010. Business model evolution: in search of dynamic con-
sistency. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2e3), 227e246.
Evans, S., Rana, P., Short, S., 2014. Final Set of Tools and Methods that Enable
Analysis of Future Oriented, Novel, Sustainable, Value Adding Business-Models
and Value-Networks, vol. 2. EU SustainValue Project Deliverable, p. 6.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M.Y., Silva, E.A.,
Barlow, C.Y., 2017. Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a
unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus. Strat. En-
viron. 26 (5), 597e608.
Fleisch, E., Weinberger, M., Wortmann, F., 2015. Business Models and the Internet of
Things (Extended Abstract). Springer International Publishing, Cham,
Switzerland, pp. 6e10.
Foss, N.J., Saebi, T., 2017. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation:
how far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 43 (1), 200e227.
Foss, N.J., Saebi, T., 2018. Business models and business model innovation: between
wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long. Range Plan. 51 (1), 9e21.
Francis, D., Bessant, J., 2005. Targeting innovation and implications for capability
development. Technovation 25 (3), 171e183.
França, C.L., Broman, G., Robe rt, K.-H., Basile, G., Trygg, L., 2017. An approach to
business model innovation and design for strategic sustainable development.
J. Clean. Prod. 140, 155e166.
Gebauer, H., Saul, C.J., 2014. Business model innovation in the water sector in
developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 488, 516e524.
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2016. Design thinking to enhance the
sustainable business modelling process - a workshop based on a value mapping
process. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1218e1232.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Evans, S., 2018. Sustainable business model
innovation: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 401e416.
Girotra, K., Netessine, S., 2013. OM forum-business model innovation for sustain-
ability. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15 (4), 537e544.
Girotra, K., Netessine, S., 2014. The Risk-Driven Business Model: Four Questions that
Will Define Your Company. Harvard Business Press, Harvard, USA.
Goni, F.A., Chofreh, A.G., Mukhtar, M., Sahran, S., Shukor, S.A., Kleme
s, J.J., 2017.
Strategic alignment between sustainability and information systems: a case
analysis in Malaysian public Higher Education Institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 168,
263e270.
Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., 2001. Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE
Intell. Syst. 16, 11e17.
Gorissen, L., Vrancken, K., Manshoven, S., 2016. Transition thinking and business
model innovation-towards a transformative business model and new role for
the Reuse Centers of Limburg, Belgium. Sustainability 8 (2), 112e134.
Grant, R.M., 2016. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text and Cases Edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Igarashi, M., de Boer, L., Michelsen, O., 2015. Investigating the anatomy of supplier
selection in green public procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 442e450.
International Energy Agency, 2016. World Energy Outlook 2016. International En-
ergy Agency, Paris, France.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., Sexton, D.L., 2001. Integrating entrepreneurship
and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Acad. Manag. Exec. 15
(1), 49e63.
Johnson, M.W., Suskewicz, J., 2009. How to jump-start the clean-tech economy.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 (11), 52e60.
Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M., Kagermann, H., 2008. Reinventing your business
model. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86 (12), 57e68.
Jolink, A., Niesten, E., 2015. Sustainable development and business models of en-
trepreneurs in the organic food industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 24 (6), 386e401.
Joyce, A., Paquin, R.L., 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to
design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474e1486.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., Goh, E., 2013. The innovation
bottom line. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 54 (3), 1e6.
Koen, P.A., Bertels, H.M.J., Elsum, I.R., 2011. The three faces of business model
innovation: challenges for established firms. Res. Technol. Manag. 54 (3),
52e59.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Goldsby, M.G., 2011. Innovation Acceleration: Trans-
forming Organizational Thinking. Pearson Higher Education, New Jersey, USA.
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, J., George, Deimler, M., 2012. Business Model
Innovation: when the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game. Own the Future: 50
Ways to Win from the Boston Consulting Group, pp. 291e298.
Loorbach, D., Wijsman, K., 2013. Business transition management: exploring a new
role for business in sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 20e28.
Lozano, R., 2018. Sustainable business models: providing a more holistic
13
perspective. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (8), 1159e1166.
Lu, Z.N., Chen, H.Y., Hao, Y., Wang, J.Y., Song, X.J., Mok, T.M., 2017. The dynamic
relationship between environmental pollution, economic development and
public health: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 134e147.
Lubin, D.A., Esty, D.C., 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 88 (5),
42e50.
Ludeke-Freund, F., Dembek, K., 2017. Sustainable business model research and
practice: emerging field or passing fancy? J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1668e1678.
Ludeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., Breuer, H., 2018. The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomy-45 patterns to support sustainability-
oriented business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 145e162.
Man, J.C.d., Strandhagen, J.O., 2017. An Industry 4.0 Research agenda for sustainable
business models. Procedia CIRP 63, 721e726.
Massa, L., Tucci, C.L., Afuah, A., 2017. A critical assessment of business model
research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 (1), 73e104.
Mitchell, D., Coles, C., 2003. The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing
business model innovation. J. Bus. Strat. 24 (5), 15e21.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009. Why sustainability is now the
key driver of innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87 (9), 56e64.
Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E.K., Rakotonirainy, A.,
Chau, K.W., 2019. Sustainable business models: a review. Sustainability 11 (6),
1663e1692.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey,
USA.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., 2014. Value Proposition Design:
How to Create Products and Services Customers Want. John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey, USA.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Clarifying business models: origins,
present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16 (1), 1e40.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2019. Creating shared value. In: Lenssen, G.G., Smith, N.C.
(Eds.), Managing Sustainable Business: an Executive Education Case and Text-
book. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 323e346.
Rauter, R., Jonker, J., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Going one’s own way: drivers in
developing business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 144e154.
Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Tesch, J.F., Kolbe, L.M., 2017. The business model pattern
database - a tool for systematic business model innovation. Int. J. Innovat.
Manag. 21 (1), 1750004e1750065.
Richardson, J., 2008. The business model: an integrative framework for strategy
execution. Strat. Change 17 (5-6), 133e144.
Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puurnalainen, K., 2018. Sustainable
business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: a longitudinal content analysis
study. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 216e226.
Ritter, S.K., 2014. Seeing the green side of innovation. Chem. Eng. News 92 (26),
24e28.
Roome, N., Louche, C., 2016. Journeying toward business models for sustainability: a
conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation.
Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 11e35.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustain-
ability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J.
Innovat. Sustain. Dev. 6 (2), 95e119.
Schaltegger, S., Ludeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business models for sus-
tainability: a co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, inno-
vation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29 (3), 264e289.
Schneider, S., Spieth, P., 2013. Business model innovation: towards an integrated
future research agenda. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 17 (1), 1340001-1340034.
Schwab, K., 2017a. The fourth industrial revolution. http://www.luminariaz.files.
wordpress.com/2017/11/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-2016-21.pdf.
(Accessed 10 June 2019).
Schwab, K., 2017b. The global competitiveness report 2017-2018. accessed. http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/
TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf. (Accessed 10 June
2019).
Shafer, S.M., Smith, H.J., Linder, J.C., 2005. The power of business models. Bus. Horiz.
48 (3), 199e207.
Sommer, A., 2012. Managing Green Business Model Transformations. Springer,
Heidelberg, Germany.
Song, W., Yu, H., 2018. Green innovation strategy and green innovation: the roles of
green creativity and green organizational identity. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Envi-
ron. Manag. 25 (2), 135e150.
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., Ricart, J.E., 2014. Business model innovation - state of
the art and future challenges for the field. R D Manag. 44 (3), 237e247.
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a "sustainability business model, 2,
21. Organization & Environment, pp. 103e127.
Teece, D.J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long. Range
Plan. 43 (2e3), 172e194.
Timmers, P., 1998. Business models for electronic markets. Electron. Mark. 8 (2),
3e8.
Upward, A., Jones, P., 2016. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models:
defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science.
Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 97e123.
Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Tekie, E.B., 2004. The wheel of business model reinven-
tion: how to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors. J. Change
Manag. 4 (3), 259e276.
Wells, P., 2013. Sustainable business models and the automotive industry: a
14 J. Shakeel et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121201
commentary. IIMB Manag. Rev. 25 (4), 228e239.
Wells, P., 2016. Economies of scale versus small is beautiful: a business model
approach based on architecture, principles and components in the beer in-
dustry. Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 36e52.
Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., Gottel, V., 2016. Business models: origin, devel-
opment and future research perspectives. Long. Range Plan. 49 (1), 36e54.
Witjes, S., Lozano, R., 2016. Towards a more Circular Economy: proposing a
framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business
models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 112, 37e44.
World Bank, 2017. The little green data book 2017. http://www.documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/239271500275879803/The-little-green-data-book-
2017. (Accessed 15 May 2019).
World Economic Forum, 2019. Global risks report 2019. www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf. (Accessed 15 May 2019).
Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Rana, P., 2017. Value uncaptured perspective for
sustainable business model innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1794e1804.
Yip, G.S., 2004. Using strategy to change your business model. Business Strategy
Review, 15 (2), 17e24.
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The business model: recent developments and
future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019e1042.