Dedicated business models: Connecting firms' values with the systemic requirements of sustainability

Urmetzer, Sophie Article Dedicated business models: Connecting firms' values with the systemic requirements of sustainability Journal of Business Models (JOBM) Provided in Cooperation with: Aalborg University, Aalborg Suggested Citation: Urmetzer, Sophie (2021) : Dedicated business models: Connecting firms' values with the systemic requirements of sustainability, Journal of Business Models (JOBM), ISSN 2246-2465, Aalborg University Open Publishing, Aalborg, Vol. 9, Iss. 2, pp. 87-108, https://doi.org/10.5278/jbm.v9i2.3459 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/318960 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 87 Dedicated Business Models: Connecting Firms’ Values with the Systemic Requirements of Sustainability Sophie Urmetzer1 Abstract Purpose: The concept of dedicated business models is drafted to bridge the gap between the micro-level value frameworks of individual firms and the macro-level systemic requirements of sustainability transformations. Design: Three theoretical concepts are drawn on to describe the potential relations between firms’ strategies and the normative orientation of economic systems: Dedicated innovation systems to represent the macro-level and their innovation paradigms as the connection to the micro-level which is represented by business models employed by the individual firms. Then, the scientific literature is reviewed systematically and three propositions are developed that conceptualize dedicated business models. Findings: Business models that contribute to an increased dedication to sustainability in innovation systems take effect on the paradigmatic level and can be expected to feature: (i) an explicit commitment to sustainability-related values; (ii) the active creation and exploitation of new networks to gain access to untapped material, technological, intellectual, and institutional resources that promise higher levels of sustainability; and (iii) mechanisms to nurture and reinforce changed demands of consumers and suppliers in terms of sustainability principles. Limitations: The paucity of relevant literature limits the substantiation of the theoretical argument. It also lacks an empirical verification, which is beyond the scope of this conceptual paper. Originality: The study contributes to the growing scholarship on business models by highlighting their potential effect on innovation paradigms. Please cite this paper as: Urmetzer, S. (2021), Dedicated Business Models: Connecting Firms’ Values with the Systemic Requirements of Sustainability, Journal of Business Models Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 87-108 Keywords: Sustainable business model, dedicated business model, innovation system, dedicated innovation system, innovation paradigm, sustainability transformation 1 Department of Innovation Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany. [email protected] Acknowledgements: I am grateful to my dissertation adviser Andreas Pyka for the inspiration to write this article. Furthermore, I would like to thank the organizers of the NBM conference 2019 in Berlin, especially the valuable feedback by my session chairman Jan Jonker on the presentation of an earlier version of this paper. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5278/jbm.v9i2.3459 Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 88 Introduction Scholars increasingly acknowledge that the global sustainability challenges such as climate change, ecological degradation, the accumulation of waste in the environment, or poverty are interconnected issues that must be explored and addressed from a systems perspective (Murphy, 2012; Steffen et al., 2015; Swart et al., 2004). The rising awareness of the complexity of societal, environmental, and economic problems and the acknowledgement of their systemic interrelations have revived systems thinking and respective notions of governance (Abson et al., 2017; Meadows, 1999; Voß et al., 2006). In contrast, private firms’ efforts to take account of sustainability issues in business are often based upon a rather narrow and disconnected understanding of sustainability (Whiteman et al., 2013). Reporting on economic, social, and environmental performance has become the credentials for corporate sustainability (Milne and Gray, 2013) rendering these three domains competitors rather than acknowledging them as inseparable and synergistic contributors to the creation of value (Fiksel, 2003). With its exclusive focus on quantitative, direct indicators, this approach to sustainability — also referred to as the triple bottom line (Elkington, 2013) — ignores more qualitative and structural as well as indirect and systemic impacts of businesses. Does a car manufacturer using bioplastic for interior paneling contribute sufficiently to the solution of problems originating from the drastic increase in private transport, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution? Notwithstanding improvements in integrating sustainability in corporate performance reporting (e.g., via integrated reporting supported by the Global Reporting Initiative), sustainability reporting in general premises a firm-centered (inside-out) perspective grounded on economic efficiency and encourages management to make incremental improvements along business-as-usual trajectories (Alexander and Blum, 2016; Dyllick and Muff, 2016). Yet, to achieve fundamental and systemic change firms must develop an understanding of the surrounding socioeconomic system and — by adopting an outside-in perspective — contribute to its continuous innovation and improvement (Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Fiksel, 2003). One well-established framework to analyze systems in the context of progress and innovation is the notion of systems of innovation or innovation systems (IS) (Dosi et al., 1988; Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992). It considers innovation as a collective output of the systemic interplay among scientific, political, and business actors who continuously exchange knowledge according to given rules and structures. It has been widely acknowledged that the configuration and functioning of IS generally affects the dynamic characteristics and the development of its elements (i.e., firms, research and political institutions, etc.) (Dantas and Bell, 2011; Lundvall, 2007; Motohashi, 2005). However, the specific effect – vice versa – of individual management decisions within firms on the setup and outcome of the IS has not been explored very well. This results in a very vague conceptualization of the role of the firm in IS generally, which also holds for the characterization of the established firms’ contributions to sustainability transitions. While literature about motivations and incentives for firms to engage in sustainability abounds (see, e.g., Ariely et al., 2009; Bossle et al., 2016; Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Hahn and Scheermesser, 2006; Mahoney et al., 2013), it is generally agreed that the dominant economic systems in their present form do not naturally promote such behavior (Hawken et al., 2013; Jackson, 2009; Porter and Kramer, 2011; Schweickart, 2009). Therefore, transitions researchers have commonly framed currently successful firms as part of the problem that must be overcome in order to destabilize present unsustainable regimes (Geels, 2014). Accordingly, relatively recent conceptual advancements of IS for sustainability (Lindner et al., 2016; Pyka, 2017; Urmetzer and Pyka, 2021) also neglect the potential contribution of currently powerful private actors in realizing normative improvements of the system. This underestimation is worrying considering the influence, power, and sheer number of incumbents that can hardly be entirely substituted before long (Wells and Nieuwenhuis, 2012). Luckily, the first studies of the transformative role of firms in sustainability transitions (Andersen and Markard, 2017; Augenstein and Palzkill, 2016; Hansen and Coenen, 2017; Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013) have started to bridge the observed disconnection between regime-conforming firms and transition endeavors. From the micro-level perspective, a useful conceptual approach to address the effect of corporate strategies on the systemic surroundings is the sustainable business model framework, which connects the firm level with the systems level (Bocken et al., 2014; Stubbs and Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 89 Cocklin, 2008). Accordingly, it has been shown in several studies that the systems context of a firm, in terms of natural, social, institutional, industry, and technologyspecific systems, influences the design and content of sustainable business models (Morioka et al., 2017). The same holds for impacts of IS on business models (BM) (Ahlstrom et al., 2018; Hannon et al., 2015). However, little research has been done to address influences in the opposite direction, i.e., the question in which way BM innovation impacts IS configuration. Consequently, the evolutionary impact of BM on IS has remained rather unspecific. Against the backdrop of the urgent systemic sustainability challenges, however, it may be crucial to understand in which way the design of BM can support the fundamental changes required in the structure, the dynamics, and the outcomes of the surrounding IS. This gap is addressed in the article at hand by posing the following research question: What are the characteristics of business models that have the potential to contribute to an entire innovation system’s dedication to sustainability? The business model perspective is adopted to link the micro-level orientation within firms to the mechanisms and configurations that determine outcomes on the systems level. This perspective promises insights into an individual actor’s potential to contribute to systemic change. Therefore, the article does not focus on sustainable innovation (as output of an IS) as such, but explores opportunities of firms to contribute to a reconfiguration of present IS in a way that their overall capacity to produce more sustainable outcomes increases. In other words, the research at hand focuses on ways how firms can prompt a system-wide change towards a stronger systemic dedication to sustainability instead of exploring their (obviously quite limited) transformative possibilities within current IS. It provides pathways towards the better linking of concepts of management sciences with theories of innovation economics, thus contributing to the fostering of interdisciplinary BM research, which is the expressed aim of this special issue. The following section serves as a short introduction to dedicated innovation systems and systems thinking in general, carves out the central role of paradigmatic search heuristics in innovation-driven transformation processes, and introduces sustainable business models. Section 3 presents the procedure and results of a systematic literature review on the coevolution of business models and IS. Together with the theoretical frameworks introduced in section 2, these are used to reflect on possible BM characteristics that increase firms’ systemic effect on dedicated innovation systems in section 4. Three propositions summarize the discussion and facilitate further research on ‘dedicated business models’. Section 5 concludes. Conceptual Background Dedicated innovation systems An innovation system (IS) consists of “interacting private and public firms (either large or small), universities, and government agencies aiming at the production of science and technology …” (Niosi et al., 1993: 212). This is achieved by the continuous creation and flow of new knowledge which is eventually introduced “into the economy in the form of innovations, [and diffused and transformed] into something valuable, for example, international competitiveness and economic growth” (Gregersen and Johnson, 1997: 482). Due to their history and application, IS have a strong (often implicit) focus on technological innovation, competitiveness, and economic development (Schlaile et al., 2017). Lately, however, IS research has started to also consider innovation as a source of the required radical changes in response to global sustainability challenges. This calls for an expanded framing of IS beyond the incubator of technological remedies by incorporating a system-wide dedication to the continuity and resilience of social and ecological systems, interand intra-generational justice, and quality of life (Daimer et al., 2012; Lindner et al., 2016; Schlaile et al., 2017; Tödtling and Trippl, 2018; Urmetzer and Pyka, 2021; Warnke et al., 2016; Weber and Truffer, 2017). Such reframing has been accomplished on a theoretical level by the conceptualization of dedicated innovation systems (DIS). DIS are understood as IS that “explicitly go beyond technological innovation and economic growth and allow for paradigmatic change towards sustainability: They are ‘dedicated’ to foster the joint search for transformative innovations” (Pyka, 2017: 3). A dedication towards sustainability can be understood as a very specific innovation paradigm Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 90 that determines the rate and direction of innovative activity towards sustainable outcomes. Based on and expanding Dosi’s evolutionary notion of technological paradigms (Dosi, 1982), such dedication will become manifest in changed search heuristics shared by the actors of an IS. This will influence the definition of the ‘relevant’ problems, the knowledge claimed necessary to solve them, as well as the common understanding of what progress or ‘success’ means. Simply put, the conception of ‘business-as-usual’ changes in DIS and innovation that promotes more sustainable production and consumption patterns is no longer regarded the exception, but the rule. While Dosi himself recognizes “the selective and focussing effect [on the selection and emergence of new paradigms] induced by various forms of stricto sensu non-economic interests” (Dosi, 1982: 160), it has not been explored so far how such noneconomic interests like the preservation of ecosystems or the well-being of current and future generations actually influence paradigms and who will be in the position to intentionally do so. Since the DIS approach “targets radical transformations of existing institutions …” (Pyka, 2017: 3), the powerful incumbent industries have so far not been expected to be the ones taking the lead. Due to their embeddedness in the system, firms have for a long time been regarded as incapable of influencing market structure, consumer demand, institutions, and infrastructures towards more sustainable configurations (Smith et al., 2005). Firms that are currently successful naturally focus on the exploitation of existing procedures and infrastructure (Schaltegger et al., 2016), thus rather supporting the continuation of current paradigms. Consequently, throughout a major part of the literature, incumbents play quite a passive role in that they only change their innovation logics under severe pressure from civil society, governments, and consumers (Penna and Geels, 2015), incentivized by imminent creative destruction from external forces (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016) or by rewarding public policy programs (Jacobsson and Bergek, 2011). Sustainability challenges are generally considered as negative externalities of production processes which are traditionally taken care of by the public sector. Likewise, social and environmental development beyond business interests is regarded to be the responsibility of the government (Kieft et al., 2017; Málovics et al., 2008; Steward, 2012). Consequently, corporate sustainability endeavors have usually not departed from dominant innovation paradigms in their continuing reliance on linear growth, increasing consumption, and maximized shareholder wealth (Sharma and Lee, 2012). In the conventional concept of IS such behavior is in full accordance with what is expected from incumbent private firms. In DIS, by contrast, that role might (have to) change. But how can we conceive a way of corporate behavior that is mindful to Dosi’s noneconomic interests and contributes to an overall systemic dedication to sustainability? Connecting collective and individual levels From a systems perspective it is not easy to make out individual patterns of action that will collectively lead to a desired outcome of the whole. Instead, quite often the diverging aims of subunits together effectuate systemic outcomes that have not been intended by any of them. As Donella Meadows points out, “one of the most frustrating aspects of systems is that the purposes of subunits may add up to an overall behaviour that no one wants” (2008: 15). Consequently, if private and public organizations, universities, and government agencies each pursue their isolated, particular sustainability goals, this will hardly contribute to an overall system with the purpose of producing transformative innovations dedicated to sustainability. We know little of the systemic role of the various micro-processes within IS subsystems in innovation processes, a fact that makes the planning of deliberate intervention in systems towards desired outcomes extremely difficult if not impossible. Strong and instrumental links have been built between the IS literature and sustainability before (see Urmetzer and Pyka, 2021 for an overview), but these concepts hardly illuminated those individual orientations and mindsets necessary to afford the required transformation (Urmetzer et al., 2018). Figure 1 illustrates the relation of IS subsystems, innovation paradigms, and IS outcomes as conceptualized for this research. It pictures innovation paradigms as one central lever for the different IS actors to influence the way the IS functions and thus the kind of innovation it produces. The figure highlights the reciprocal interference between the elements shown: while the various subsystems in an IS collectively influence the innovation paradigm (thereby determining the rate and direction of the innovative output), the paradigm itself Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 91 in turn affects the innovative activity of the subsystems as well as IS outcomes. For the individual subsystems in IS to instigate paradigmatic change and become motors of innovation dedicated to sustainability they must (i) frame the innovation challenge as systemic and sustainability related (in Dosi’s terms: define the relevant problem), (ii) explore alternative heuristics and sources of knowledge production and use (in Dosi’s terms: define the knowledge required to solve the problem), and (iii) change the general perception of success from (pure) profit maximization towards societal desirability (in Dosi’s terms: define the meaning of progress). An example: The automobile industry’s (representing the IS) paradigmatic turn towards sustainability would require from an individual dedicated automobile company (representing a corporate subsystem) to (i) understand and reconsider its individual role in the societal challenges connected to congestion, air pollution, and climate change (what Dyllick and Muff (2016) term the outside-in perspective). Consequently, the company would have to (ii) open up and use their expertise to find solutions that provide mobility instead of combustion engines. The respective new search heuristics would probably require, for instance, experimentation with alternative mobility concepts and extraneous technologies, collaboration with public transport enterprises, competitors, consumer associations and citizens’ initiatives, as well as adapted procurement policies. Accordingly, (iii) progress or ‘success’ would need to be redefined from ‘faster, safer, more comfortable’ to, for instance, ‘cleaner, smarter, more convenient.’ Beyond corporate sustainability: The business model perspective This systemic perspective on businesses’ contribution to sustainability transformations has been argued to be in stark contrast to specific, incremental change initiatives such as traditional notions of corporate social responsibility or the triple bottom line (Miller Gaither Innovation System Outcomes Innovation Paradigm Corporate Subsystem Sociopolitical Subsystem Scientific Subsystem Figure 1: Interrelation of the corporate subsystems (firms) with innovation paradigms and IS outcomes as conceptualized in the context of the study. (Please note that this article explores corporate subsystems only, which is why examples of other important IS subsystems are only insinuated.) Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 92 et al., 2018; Milne and Gray, 2013; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2018). For “reporting progress on sustainability influences stakeholders’ perceptions and is therefore an important tactic, but on its own it does not appear to be a significant driver of sustainability” (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008: 115). But even without insinuating greenwashing, against the backdrop of the overall aim to transform the IS, these endeavors must be regarded as being too narrow in focus. In its current form, corporate social responsibility actually runs the risk of contributing to the manifestation of unsustainable system configurations instead of putting the firm in “the broader context of necessary structural and systemic change that stands beyond the reach of mainstream corporate responsibility initiatives” (Waddock and White, 2007: 42; see also Bocken et al., 2014; Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Hart, 1997; Sharma and Lee, 2012). To open up towards this broader context, a suitable unit for the analysis of a firm’s capacity to become a system (co-)builder of a DIS is the business model (BM). According to Teece, a BM “describes the design or architecture of the value creation, delivery and capture mechanisms employed” by a firm (2010: 179). The concept also offers great insights into businesses’ roles in sustainability transformations because it ultimately reflects the way a company ‘does business’ (Amit and Zott, 2008). It does so by combining the firm level with the systems perspective (Bocken et al., 2014; Bocken, 2019; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008) and encapsulating the belief system of a company – a fundamental driver of corporate decision-making and, subsequently, action (Martins et al., 2015; Massa et al., 2017; Tikkanen et al., 2005). These characteristics prompted a new line of research investigating how the underlying principles guiding the technological and social innovation of a firm can be aligned with system-level sustainability via sustainable BM (also referred to as BM for sustainability, or sustainability BM) (Bocken et al., 2015; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). Sustainable business models (SBM) “draw on economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability in defining an organization’s purpose, use a triple bottom-line (people, profit, planet) approach in measuring performance, consider the needs of all stakeholders rather than giving priority to shareholder expectations, treat ‘nature’ as a stakeholder and promote environmental stewardship, and encompass a system, as well as a firm-level perspective” (Bocken, 2019: 1). The contribution of SBM to system-wide sustainability is mainly seen in a direct effect on the systemic outcomes, such as a reduced resource impact through circular production or through the provision of a service instead of a product. While such concrete outcomes are indeed necessary and as innovative ideas most welcome, we must suspect that a diffusion of such BM will be slow to reach scale and momentum will not necessarily be created (Bocken et al., 2014). Coming back to what has been argued before, one of the reasons may be that SBM can be expected to occur within established paradigms. BM for DIS, by contrast, aim for a paradigmatic change by introducing a dedication to sustainability as normative direction in innovation processes across the entire (innovation) system. In other words, SBM change individual configurations and isolated outcomes in socio-technical systems, whereas BM for DIS are expected to change the innovation paradigms thus influencing the inner logic of innovation across the system. Coming back to the example of the automobile industry of the previous section, an SBM would be restricted to the given problem definition (e.g., combustion engines fuel climate change), the known solution space (e.g., technological alternatives to combustion engines or increased efficiency in resource use), and the agreed definition of success (mostly measured in economic terms). To sum up, I have chosen the BM perspective as a suitable unit for exploring the potential power of firms to change the paradigmatic underpinnings of innovation in IS towards a dedication to sustainability. Dosi’s notion of technological paradigms is expanded to provide a framework that connects individual actors’ orientations (as expressed by a specific BM) with the systemic outcomes produced by the IS via modifications in the innovation paradigm (as expressed by an understanding of what problems need to be solved, what solutions need to be picked, and how success needs to be defined, shared across the IS) (see figure 2). Although notions and usage of BM vary widely across literature and practice, the following three fundamental elements are generally seen to make up a BM (Bocken et al., 2014) and shall serve as the baseline for Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 93 exploring the systemic relationship between BM and DIS: (1) value proposition (the way to describe the product or service offered), (2) value creation and delivery (the way new business opportunities are created and realized), and (3) value capture (the way revenues are earned from the provision of goods or services). The following section presents a systematic review of the literature to map the coevolutionary relationships between BM and IS discovered and described by earlier research. The findings will serve as a basis for developing three propositions for outlining the contours of dedicated BM. Business Models in Innovation systems An increasing number of studies have explored the role of BM in socio-technical systems transitioning to sustainability (Bocken et al., 2014; Bocken and Short, 2016; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2012, 2016; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). In the following, I will zoom in on the intricate relationship between (changes in) the corporate innovation rationale (as embodied in BM) and the introduction of a dedication towards sustainability across the IS. Methodology and data To explore the literature on BM in the context of IS, a systematic literature review was carried out (Kivimaa et al., 2019; Petticrew and Roberts, 2008). A scientific literature repository search based on keywords was conducted using Scopus – a database which has been proven to excel in covering literature in social sciences and outcompeting other repositories, such as Web of Science (Bartol et al., 2014; Gavel and Iselid, 2008; Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). It was explicitly searched for research contributions at the interface of BM and IS to gain insights into conceptual work on Innovation System Outcomes Innovation Paradigm Corporate Subsystem Sustainable Business Models Business Models for DIS modify (impact) impact Figure 2 The different modes of action of SBM (right) and BM for DIS (left): While the former impacts IS outcomes on the basis of a given paradigm, the latter is expected to operate through actively modifying paradigms (via redefining problems, solutions, and success), thus potentially affecting IS outcomes indirectly. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 94 the coevolutionary relation of the two. The selection of articles was completed in four steps. First, the database was browsed combining the search terms “business model” AND (“innovation system” OR “system of innovation”) in the title/abstract/keywords fields, which yielded 74 items. The publication had to be (1) a peer-reviewed piece of academic work in the field of social science and business studies and (2) indexed in Scopus as of April 4, 2019. Second, the respective article abstracts were carefully analyzed using the following exclusion criteria: (3) Articles that used one of the search terms in a fundamentally different sense were excluded (i.e., the term “business model” needed to be used in the sense of design or architecture of the value creation, delivery, and capture employed by a firm (Teece, 2010), whereas “innovation system” needed to refer back to the evolutionary framework as described by the fathers of the concept (e.g., Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1998)); (4) articles that treated the two focal key concepts only superficially or separately without addressing their interplay were excluded from the analysis. Abstract reading resulted in a selection of 37 articles, of which 22 were omitted based on reading the full papers (exclusion criteria 3 and 4), resulting in 15 articles feeding into the next step. This involved searching the reference lists of the selected 15 articles for earlier relevant contributions, also considering terms with similar meaning. This “backward citation snowballing” added two articles to the analysis. The “cited by” option in Google Scholar helped to carry out a “forward citation snowballing” for each of the 17 articles. The resulting list of citing articles was then scanned according to the above exclusion criteria. This offered an additional set of three new articles. The final list of articles considered in the systematic review numbered 20. All the articles were read and coded according to the following criteria: The type of IS covered (IS in general, technological, national, regional, or sectoral IS), the business/industrial sector studied, the consideration of sustainability (yes or no), the BM element in focus, the BM definition, the question addressed by BM (what, how, for whom), the empirical field explored, the relation of BM and IS (which influencing which), proposed points of intervention, the research question, the formulation and addressee of recommendations, the focus (economics, business administration, or politics), the related theories covered, and central statements (citations). Results The way business models operate in IS and how specific IS configurations and functions affect business models has rarely been studied. The number of studies has increased over time though, with four of the articles published between 2000 and 2009 and 16 between 2010 and 2019. This approximately concurs with the period during which the two concepts evolved (Klein and Sauer, 2016; Massa et al., 2017). Most of the articles either refer to national IS (six articles) or to technological IS (six articles), while three studies explore regional IS, one a sectoral IS, and the remainder just use IS as a general approach without specifying a particular level of analysis. The types of industry studied vary greatly, from low-tech fields (agriculture, gardening) to hightech sectors (nanotechnology, biotechnology) and typical “transitions industries” such as the energy or the mobility sector. Nine publications – and since 2014 almost all of them – explicitly consider the contribution of BM to sustainability in IS. This observation and the fact that also the sustainability transition community is increasingly discovering BM research (Bidmon and Knab, 2018) confirms the general suitability of this concept to explore long-term systemic transitions from a micro perspective (Arevalo et al., 2011). The notion of the term BM varies across the publications, ranging from encompassing certain innovation and marketing strategies of the focal firm (Casper, 2000), an “interplay between innovation strategies and resources” (Markard and Truffer, 2008: 460), the organizational method of how the firm does business (Kalvet, 2010), to how it creates, proposes, and/ or captures value (Adams et al., 2016; Breznitz, 2007; Grin et al., 2018; Hannon et al., 2015; Provance et al., 2011; Sarasini and Linder, 2018). Not surprisingly, those authors who stress the value creation element of BM also appear to be the ones that ascribe to BM an active role in shaping the IS (Grin et al., 2018; Kishna et al., 2017; Yun et al., 2017). From this perspective, firms no longer only respond to the demands and interests of customers, policy, or competitors, but partake in defining what is of value. About half of the selected studies describe the relation between BM and IS as being purely unidirectional, in that the authors do acknowledge the influence of different IS configurations and specifications on the Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 101 References Abdelkafi, N. and Täuscher, K. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability From a System Dynamics Perspective. Organization & Environment 29(1), 74–96. Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Wehrden, H. von, Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W. and Lang, D.J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46(1), 30–39. Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D. and Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews 18(2), 180–205. Ahlstrom, D., Yang, X., Wang, L. and Wu, C. (2018). A global perspective of entrepreneurship and innovation in China. Multinational Business Review 26(4), 302–318. Alexander, D. and Blum, V. (2016). Ecological economics: A Luhmannian analysis of integrated reporting. Ecological Economics 129, 241–251. Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2008). Creating value through business model innovation. In: MIT (ed) Sloan ManagementReview: Top 10 lessons on strategy. Andersen, A.D. and Markard, J. (2017). Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories. Working Papers on Innovation Studies. Arevalo, J.A., Castelló, I., Colle, S. de, Lenssen, G., Neumann, K. and Zollo, M. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: integrating sustainability in business models. Journal of Management Development 30(10), 941–954. Ariely, D., Bracha, A. and Meier, S. (2009). Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially. American Economic Review 99(1), 544–555. Augenstein, K. and Palzkill, A. (2016). The Dilemma of Incumbents in Sustainability Transitions: A Narrative Approach. Administrative Sciences 6(1), 1. Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M. and Juznic, P. (2014). Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics 98(2), 1491–1504. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy 37(3), 407–429. Bidmon, C.M. and Knab, S.F. (2018). The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New linkages between business model and transition research. Journal of Cleaner Production 178, 903–916. Bocken, N. (2019). Sustainable Business Models. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P. and Wall, T. (eds) Decent Work and Economic Growth. Springer, Cham. Bocken, N., Rana, P. and Short, S.W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 32(1), 67–81. Bocken, N. and Short, S.W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 18, 41–61. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 102 Bocken, N., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 42–56. Boons, F. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 9–19. Bossle, M.B., Dutra de Barcellos, M., Vieira, L.M. and Sauvée, L. (2016). The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 861–872. Breznitz, D. (2007). Industrial R&D as a national policy: Horizontal technology policies and industry-state co-evolution in the growth of the Israeli software industry. Research Policy 36(9), 1465–1482. Casper, S. (2000). Institutional Adaptiveness, Technology Policy, and the Diffusion of New Business Models: The Case of German Biotechnology. Organization Studies 21(5), 887–914. Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., De Massis, A. and Frattini, F. (2008). The knowledge-bridging role of Technical and Scientific Services in knowledge-intensive industries. International Journal Technology Management 41(3/4), 249–272. Daimer, S., Hufnagl, M. and Warnke, P. (2012). Challenge-oriented policy-making and innovation systems theory: Reconsidering systemic instruments. In: Koschatzky, K. (ed) Innovation system revisited: Experiences from 40 years of Fraunhofer ISI research, pp. 217–234. Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe. Dangelico, R.M. and Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and How Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 95(3), 471–486. Dantas, E. and Bell, M. (2011). The Co-Evolution of Firm-Centered Knowledge Networks and Capabilities in Late Industrializing Countries: The Case of Petrobras in the Offshore Oil Innovation System in Brazil. World Development 39(9), 1570–1591. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11(3), 147–162. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds) (1988). Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London. Dyllick, T. and Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business. Organization & Environment 29(2), 156–174. Elkington, J. (2013). Enter the Triple Bottom Line. In: Elkington, J. (ed) The Triple Bottom Line, pp. 23–38. Routledge. Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing Resilient, Sustainable Systems. Environmental Science & Technology 37(23), 5330–5339. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London. Garst, J., Blok, V., Branzei, O., Jansen, L. and Omta, O.S.W.F. (2019). Toward a Value-Sensitive Absorptive Capacity Framework: Navigating Intervalue and Intravalue Conflicts to Answer the Societal Call for Health. Business & Society, 000765031987610. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 103 Gavel, Y. and Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Information Review 32(1), 8–21. Geels, F.W. (2014). Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Culture & Society 31(5), 21–40. Gregersen, B. and Johnson, B. (1997). Learning Economies, Innovation Systems and European Integration. Regional Studies 31(5), 479–490. Grin, J., Hassink, J., Karadzic, V. and Moors, E. (2018). Transformative Leadership and Contextual Change. Sustainability 10(7), 2159. Hahn, T. and Scheermesser, M. (2006). Approaches to corporate sustainability among German companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(3), 150–165. Hannon, M.J., Foxon, T.J. and Gale, W.F. (2015). ‘Demand pull’ government policies to support Product-Service System activity: the case of Energy Service Companies (ESCos) in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 900–915. Hansen, T. and Coenen, L. (2017). Unpacking resource mobilisation by incumbents for biorefineries: the role of microlevel factors for technological innovation system weaknesses. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(5), 500–513. Hart, S.L. (1997). Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harvard Business Review 75(1). Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B. and Hunter Lovins, L. (2013). Natural Capitalism. Routledge. Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(4), 413–432. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth. Routledge, London. Jacobsson, S. and Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and Corporate Change 13(5), 815–849. Jacobsson, S. and Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1), 41–57. Jennings, P.D. and Zandbergen, P.A. (1995). Ecologically Sustainable Organizations: An Institutional Approach. Academy of Management Review 20(4), 1015–1052. Kalvet, T. (2010). Business Models of the Largest Enterprises in a Small Country Context: The Case of Estonia. Administrative Culture 11(1), 128–151. Kieft, A., Harmsen, R. and Hekkert, M.P. (2017). Interactions between systemic problems in innovation systems: The case of energy-efficient houses in the Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24, 32–44. Kishna, M., Negro, S., Alkemade, F. and Hekkert, M. (2017). Innovation at the end of the life cycle: discontinuous innovation strategies by incumbents. Industry and Innovation 24(3), 263–279. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 104 Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S. and Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Research Policy 48(4), 1062–1075. Kivimaa, P. and Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy 45(1), 205–217. Klein, M. and Sauer, A. (2016). Celebrating 30 years of innovation system research: What you need to know about innovation systems. Available online at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/147305/1/871710765.pdf (Accessed 20 April 2019). Laukkanen, M. and Patala, S. (2014). Analysing barriers to sustainable business model innovations: Innovation systems approach. International Journal of Innovation Management 18(06). Lindner, R., Daimer, S., Beckert, B., Heyen, N., Koehler, J., Teufel, B., Warnke, P. and Wydra, S. (2016). Addressing directionality: Orientation failure and the systems of innovation heuristic. Towards reflexive governance. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis (52). Loorbach, D. and Wijsman, K. (2013). Business transition management: exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 20–28. Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed) (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). National Innovation Systems - Analytical Concept and Development Tool. Industry and Innovation 14(1), 95–119. Mahoney, L.S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L. and LaGore, W. (2013). A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24(4-5), 350–359. Málovics, G., Csigéné, N.N. and Kraus, S. (2008). The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37(3), 907–918. Markard, J. and Truffer, B. (2008). Actor-oriented analysis of innovation systems: exploring micro–meso level linkages in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20(4), 443–464. Martins, L.L., Rindova, V.P. and Greenbaum, B.E. (2015). Unlocking the Hidden Value of Concepts: A Cognitive Approach to Business Model Innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9(1), 99–117. Massa, L., Tucci, C.L. and Afuah, A. (2017). A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Academy of Management Annals 11(1), 73–104. McCall, T. (2013). Transitions in Regional Development Policy: Comparative to Competitive Advantage. In: Kinnear, S. (ed) Regional advantage and innovation: Achieving Australia’s national outcomes, pp. 73–98. Springer, Heidelberg. Meadows, D.H. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland. Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Earthscan, London. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 105 Miller Gaither, B., Austin, L. and Schulz, M. (2018). Delineating CSR and social change: Querying corporations as actors for social good. Public Relations Inquiry 7(1), 45–61. Milne, M.J. and Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 118(1), 13–29. Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1), 213–228. Mont, O. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner Production 10(3), 237–245. Morioka, S.N., Bolis, I., Evans, S. and Carvalho, M.M. (2017). Transforming sustainability challenges into competitive advantage: Multiple case studies kaleidoscope converging into sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 723–738. Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research Policy 34(5), 583–594. Murphy, R. (2012). Sustainability: A Wicked Problem. Sociologica 2. Musiolik, J., Markard, J. and Hekkert, M. (2012). Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79(6), 1032–1048. Mylan, J. (2015). Understanding the diffusion of Sustainable Product-Service Systems: Insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory. Journal of Cleaner Production 97, 13–20. Niosi, J., Saviotti, P., Bellon, B. and Crow, M. (1993). National systems of innovation: In search of a workable concept. Technology in Society 15(2), 207–227. Penna, C.C. and Geels, F.W. (2015). Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979– 2012): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model. Research Policy 44(5), 1029–1048. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. Planko, J., Cramer, J., Hekkert, M.P. and Chappin, M.M. (2017). Combining the technological innovation systems framework with the entrepreneurs’ perspective on innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(6), 614–625. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism - and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review. Provance, M., Donnelly, R.G. and Carayannis, E.G. (2011). Institutional influences on business model choice by new ventures in the microgenerated energy industry. Energy Policy 39(9), 5630–5637. Pyka, A. (2017). Dedicated innovation systems to support the transformation towards sustainability: Creating income opportunities and employment in the knowledge-based digital bioeconomy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 3(27), 1–18. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 106 Sarasini, S. and Linder, M. (2018). Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: The example of new mobility services. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27, 16–31. Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2018). Business Cases and Corporate Engagement with Sustainability: Differentiating Ethical Motivations. Journal of Business Ethics 147(2), 241–259. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 6(2). Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability: A Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation. Organization & Environment 29(3), 264–289. Schlaile, M.P., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V., Andersen, A.D., Timmermans, J., Mueller, M., Fagerberg, J. and Pyka, A. (2017). Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously. Sustainability 9(12), 1–20. Schweickart, D. (2009). Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron? Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 8(2-3), 559–580. Sharma, A. and Lee, M.-D.P. (2012). Sustainable Global Enterprise. Journal of Management Inquiry 21(2), 161–178. Smith, A., Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy 34(10), 1491–1510. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Vries, W. de, Wit, C.A. de, Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. and Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24(4), 331–343. Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organization & Environment 21(2), 103–127. Swart, R., Raskin, P. and Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change 14(2), 137–146. Teece, D.J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning 43(2-3), 172–194. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Circular Economy. Available online at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ (Accessed 17 May 2019). Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.-A., Parvinen, P. and Kallunki, J.-P. (2005). Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Management Decision 43(6), 789–809. Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2018). Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views. European Planning Studies 26(9), 1779–1795. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 107 Urmetzer, S. and Pyka, A. (2021). Innovation systems for sustainability. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A. and Wall, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of the UNSustainable Development Goals: Decent work and economic growth, pp. 600–611. Springer, Cham. Urmetzer, S., Schlaile, M., Bogner, K., Mueller, M. and Pyka, A. (2018). Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Sustainability 10(6), 1694. Vargo, S.L., Wieland, H. and Akaka, M.A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 44, 63–72. Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (eds) (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Waddock, S. and White, A. (2007). On Ceres, the GRI and Corporation 20/20: Sandra Waddock talks to Allen White. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 26, 38–42. Warnke, P., Koschatzky, K., Dönitz, E., Zenker, A., Stahlecker, T., Som, O., Cuhls, K. and Güth, S. (2016). Opening up the innovation system framework towards new actors and institutions. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis (49). Weber, K.M. and Truffer, B. (2017). Moving innovation systems research to the next level: towards an integrative agenda. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33(1), 101–121. Wells, P. and Nieuwenhuis, P. (2012). Transition failure: Understanding continuity in the automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79(9), 1681–1692. Whiteman, G., Walker, B. and Perego, P. (2013). Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies 50(2), 307–336. Yun, J.J., Won, D., Park, K., Yang, J. and Zhao, X. (2017). Growth of a platform business model as an entrepreneurial ecosystem and its effects on regional development. European Planning Studies 25(5), 805–826. Journal of Business Models (2021), Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 87-108 108 Sophie Urmetzer graduated from the University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde and the University of Aberdeen in International Forest Ecosystem Management (BSc). She received her second degree in Sustainable Resource Management (MSc) at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) specializing in Renewable Resources and Environmental Economics. Between 2005 and 2011 she was employed as scientific coordinator in study management at TUM. In 2013, she commenced her position as research assistant at the Chair of Innovation Economics at the University of Hohenheim, where she obtained her PhD degree in 2020. She is engaged in research on national innovation systems and explores the particularities of transformation paths towards a knowledge-based, sustainable bioeconomy. About the Authors Journal of Business Models (2015), Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-00 109 109