Abdel Kaf I 2015

592930
research-article2015
OAEXXX10.1177/1086026615592930Organization & EnvironmentAbdelkafi and Tuscher
Article
Business Models for Sustainability

From a System Dynamics
Perspective
Organization & Environment

123
2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086026615592930
oae.sagepub.com
Nizar Abdelkafi1,2 and Karl Tuscher1,2
Abstract
To achieve sustainability, a firm has to transform its entire business logic. A business model for
sustainability (BMfS) aims at creating value for various stakeholders and the natural environment.
This article advances the current understanding of the basic functioning of BMfS by applying
a systems perspective. Our BMfS understanding incorporates the natural environment as an
essential element, but does not deal with sustainability from a broad perspective. The core logic
of a BMfS is built upon the creation of a reinforcing feedback loop between the created value
to the customers, the value captured by the firm, and the value to the natural environment.
Consequently, we develop a graphical model based on system dynamics notation. First, we
conceptualize the basic feedback loops. Then, we propose partial models for the firm, natural
environment, entrepreneur/manager, and customer, and then integrate these partial models
within a systemic, multilevel model. Finally, we generate propositions that combine insights from
the model and extant literature.
Keywords
business models, sustainability, system dynamics, valuesbeliefsnorms theory (VBN) theory,
business case drivers, feedback loops, environmental value proposition, system delays, Bettervest
Introduction
Companies are more than ever requested to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Therefore, entrepreneurial thinking should support the creation of valuable solutions to
cope with environmental and social challenges (Senge, Lichtenstein, Kaeufer, Bradbury, &
Carroll, 2007). More and more entrepreneurs and business managers are committed to create a
positive impact for society and economy without harming the ecological environment (Starik &
Kanashiro, 2013). They contribute to solving societal and environmental problems through the
realization of a successful business (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011, p. 224). Hence, the creation
of economic value is both an end in itself and a means for the generation of value to the environment (Hockerts & Wstenhagen, 2010).
1Business
Model Engineering and Innovation, Fraunhofer MOEZ, Leipzig, Germany

of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
2University
Corresponding Author:
Nizar Abdelkafi, Business Model Engineering and Innovation, Fraunhofer MOEZ, Stdtisches Kaufhaus, Neumarkt
9-19, 04109 Leipzig, Germany.
Email: nizar.abdelkafi@moez.fraunhofer.de
Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV LIB on July 8, 2015
So far, the creation of sustainable value is mostly achieved through product, process, and
technological innovations (Hansen, Grosse-Dunker, & Reichwald, 2009). These approaches to
innovation are insufficient to transform organizations, industries, and societies toward more sustainability and should therefore be complemented by business model innovations to decrease the
firms negative impact on the natural environment or to create a positive value to it (e.g., Hansen
etal., 2009; Schaltegger, Ldeke-Freund, & Hansen, 2012).
Sustainability-supporting business models are discussed under different labels such as business models for sustainability (BMfSs) and sustainability business models. They incorporate
sustainability as an integral part of the companys value proposition and value creation logic. As
such, BMfS provide value to the customer and to the natural environment and/or society. Yet one
of the key challenges is to design a business that is characterized by creating economic success through (and not just along with) a certain environmental or social activity (Schaltegger
etal., 2012, p. 98). Research has proposed several ways to understand, develop, and analyze
these business models. Some approaches focus on how established firms can transform their current business model toward a BMfS (Sommer, 2012) or how they can create business cases for
sustainability (e.g., Ldeke-Freund, 2013). Other approaches deal with the generation of entirely
new BMfSs (Hockerts & Wstenhagen, 2010; Wells, 2013) or on the classification of existing
BMfS into archetypes (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014). Though these approaches generate
valuable insights into BMfS, they do not fully conceptualize the relationship between the company, its customers, and the natural environment. Specifically, they do not explain how value
creation, natural environment, and profit generation (captured value) can mutually complement
and reinforce each other.
Effective complementarities between business model components lead to reinforcing feedback loops (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2007; Snchez & Ricart, 2010). Recent business
model literature detects the basic reinforcing feedback loops between the firms value creation
and profit generation (e.g., Abdelkafi & Tuscher, 2014). Several scientific contributions
acknowledge the dynamic and complex nature of business models (e.g., Demil & Lecocq, 2010)
and the natural environment (e.g., Sterman, 2000). Because of this, system thinking is a promising approach to study BMfS. This is also in line with recent recommendations that propose the
investigation of corporate sustainability from a multilevel perspective (Starik & Kanashiro,
2013) and the integration of theories from different disciplines to achieve a broader view of sustainability (Sharma, Starik, & Husted, 2007). Consequently, this work aims to investigate the
inner logic of BMfS by integrating different perspectives and system levels while developing a
graphical representation that supports the design of BMfS. Specifically, we focus on the following questions:
How can we graphically represent a BMfS and its dynamics?
What are the main causal loops in the system structure of BMfS? To what extent can these
loops have an influence on the BMfS?
This article is structured as follows. After the literature review, we introduce a conceptualization of BMfS as a causal model related to four subsystems: the firm, the firms decision maker,
the customers, and the natural environment. Causal models are proposed for each subsystem,
and the final model integrates all of them. Hence, we adopt a narrower view on sustainability,
as in its broad sense sustainability refers to more than environmental aspects and comprehends
societal issues as well. Subsequently, we introduce Bettervest (https://bettervest.de), a case
example of BMfS that shows how the value to the environment and economic performance can
reinforce each other. In the Discussion section, we derive propositions based on the insights
from the model and extant literature. The last section concludes and derives directions for future
research.
Abdelkafi and Tuscher
Literature Review
The Business Model Concept
The business model is a broadly discussed concept in academia and practice. It represents the
firms money-earning logic (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Within the architecture of the firm, a
business model is located between the strategic and operational layer (e.g., Osterwalder, 2004).
The meaning of business models underwent strong changes; from a technological to an organizational, and then to a strategic approach (Wirtz, 2011). Still, literature does not agree upon one
single understanding. As noted by Abdelkafi and Makhotin (2013) there are two major streams:
an activity-based and a value-based stream. The activity-based view describes the business model
as the way activities and resources are used to do the business and achieve growth (Baden-Fuller
& Morgan, 2010). The value-based view defines the business model as a representation of how
a business creates and delivers value, both for the customer and the company (Johnson, 2010,
p. 22), or as the way organizations or individuals communicate, create, deliver, and capture
value out of a value proposition (Abdelkafi, 2012, p. 313). The value-based view typically
involves value dimensions and their constituent elements. In general, at least three core value
dimensions are included: (1) customer value proposition; (2) value creation, value architecture, or
business infrastructure; and (3) value capture or profit generation. Abdelkafi (2012) and Abdelkafi,
Makhotin, and Posselt (2013) additionally consider value delivery and value communication.
Some scholars actually consider value delivery a part of value creation, whereas others make a
stringent distinction between them. In this article, value delivery is integrated into the overall
value creation capability of the firm. In addition, value communication will not be considered.
Recapitulating, we use a business model framework that consists of three components: value proposition, value creation, and value capture. It is very similar to the conceptualization of Boons and
Ldeke-Freund (2013) who, in the context of business models for sustainable innovation, consider
four dimensions: value proposition, supply chain, customer interface, and financial model, whereas
supply chain and customer interface are clearly elements of the value creation.
Business Models for Sustainability

The concept of BMfSs emerged only a few years ago. So far, neither theoretical nor empirical
research offers sufficient answers to the question what a sustainable business model might be
(Schaltegger etal., 2012, p. 101-102). Ldeke-Freund (2010, p. 21) describes a BMfS as a business model that creates competitive advantage through superior customer value and contributes
to a sustainable development of the company and society. Schaltegger etal. (2012, p. 112) argue
that a BMfS supports . . . voluntary activities which solve or moderate social and/or environmental problems. By doing so, it creates positive business effects. Although there is disagreement on the dominant value creation category (economic or ecological/social), all BMfS
understandings agree on the creation of customer and social value and on the integration of
social, environmental, and business activities (Schaltegger etal., 2012).
Only a few studies attempt to conceptualize BMfS. So far, the literature identifies ideal types
of BMfS (e.g., Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008), analyzes potential BMfS for particular industries (Wells,
2004; Wstenhagen & Boehnke, 2008), distinguishes archetypes of BMfS (Bocken etal., 2014),
investigates the impact of particular archetypes such as productservice systems (Hansen etal.,
2009; Tietze & Hansen, 2013; Tukker, 2004), presents case studies of BMfS (Schneeweiss,
2012), develops methodologies toward the innovation of BMfS (Blaga, 2013; Bocken, Short,
Rana, & Evans, 2013; Sommer, 2012), or focuses specifically on green business models
(Beltramello, Haie-Fayle, & Pilat, 2013; Hgevold, 2011; Sommer, 2012) by considering collaborative innovation (Rohrbeck, Konnertz, & Knab, 2011), sustainable value creation (Hart &
Milstein, 2003),or the network perspective (Bocken & Allwood, 2012; Breuer & Ldeke-Freund,
2014). These attempts generate valuable insights into BMfS, but still need to be complemented
with a general understanding of the BMfS concept that provides a common framework for
research in this area.
In our conceptualization, a BMfS enables the firm to reinforce the mutual interdependencies
between the value created for its customers and the natural environment as well as the value
captured for itself. Ideally, the more value the firm can create for its customers and the environment, the higher the value it captures for itself.
Explaining the Rationale of BMfS

There has been a big debate on whether sustainability efforts have a positive or negative impact
on the firms financial performance (Schaltegger & Hasenmller, 2005). In the traditionalist view,
this relationship is uniformly negative: sustainability-related voluntary efforts (e.g., pollution
reduction) decrease the firms profit opportunity (e.g., Friedman, 1970; Xepapadeas & de Zeeuw,
1999). Consequently, high environmental performance correspond[s] to low economic performance and vice versa (Wagner, Van Phu, Amazohou, & Wehrmeyer, 2002). In the revisionist
view, the relationship between environmental and economic performance is represented by an
inverted U-shaped curve (Wagner, 2003). Voluntary ecological activities increase the firms financial performance only until a particular optimum (Schaltegger & Synnestvedt, 2002; Wagner,
2001), after which profitability starts to decline with every additional ecological activity.
Based on the revisionist view, this research acknowledges the initial positive relationship
between voluntary ecological and economic performance. Many scholars have discussed the business value of sustainability-improving initiatives (e.g., Ldeke-Freund, 2010; Schaltegger &
Hasenmller, 2005) within existing business models to shift the optimum point of the inverted
U-shaped curve further outward. Sommer (2012) analyzes the transformation of firms toward
sustainable business models by drawing on several case vignettes. Ldeke-Freund (2013) focuses
on how business models can support the commercialization of sustainability innovations to build
business cases for sustainability. Schaltegger etal. (2012) identify six key drivers that economically justify a sustainability-oriented business case. These business case drivers for sustainability
are costs and cost reduction, sales and profit margin, risk and risk reduction, reputation and brand
value, attractiveness as employer, and innovative capabilities. The activities designed to create
value to the environment should support at least one of these drivers, thus indirectly allowing the
firm to capture value. Though established businesses often feel strongly constrained in the exploitation of these business case drivers, changing the business model leads to new opportunities.
There are two types of sustainability with implications for the business model: weak and
strong sustainability (Roome, 2012): Weak sustainability sets out to bring environmental concerns into the framework provided by the structures and systems of business. . . . In contrast,
strong sustainability seeks to integrate the company into environmental or socio-ecological systems (pp. 620-621). Whereas weak sustainability induces incremental change, strong sustainability is more radical and is based on system thinking combined with organizational and social
innovation. Thus, there are business models that integrate sustainability into the core logic of the
firm (strong sustainability) and profitability oriented-business models that only use some sustainability elements to achieve a partial transformation toward BMfS (weak sustainability).
Conceptual Development
Recall that this article aims at developing a conceptual model for BMfS that demonstrates how
value creation capacity, value to the customers, value to the natural environment, and captured
value can reinforce each other. The value to the environment results from the reduction of
environmental impacts. For example, a new car introduced to a car-sharing fleet leads to 9 to 13
vehicles taken off the road (Martin, Shaheen, & Lidicker, 2010). Hence, the more cars can be
shared, the higher the value to the environment, the higher the total value to the customers, and
the more money the car-sharing company can capture.
The model to be developed should satisfy four requirements. First, it should support entrepreneurs and managers in understanding the firms impacts on the natural environment and how this
impact may be reduced. Second, it should reveal the impact of the natural environment on the
firm. Third, the model should clarify the key stocks and flows to actively monitor and manage
the performance of BMfS. Fourth, it should allow one to recognize the main loops at the level of
the firm and between the firm and the environment.
Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) propose an approach, in which the organization is one element of a
larger network that includes the natural environment. This perspective can support sustainability
solutions for the whole system, rather than for individual components (organizations) within the
system (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008, p. 116). For the manager, the multitude of stakeholders and
the resulting complexity can detract from a focus on key feedback loops between the firm and the
natural environment. Therefore, our model includes only the firm, natural environment, manager
or entrepreneur, and customer. The model should be applicable when managers of established
companies make decisions to change their business model and when entrepreneurs develop new
businesses. The term decision maker is used to refer to managers and entrepreneurs.
To understand the emergence of BMfS and its basic functioning, we investigate how the
state of the natural environment can call for changes in the management behavior of the firm.
In this regard, out of 93 scientific contributions that deal with relationships between the natural
environment and organizational behavior, Boons (2013) identifies only three studies that highlight the ecological aspect as an antecedent, and not as a consequence of organizational behavior. Furthermore, the impact on the firm is conceptualized via the representation of its
individuals; actions in the firm are heavily influenced by the way actorsboth within the
organization and external to itperceive and understand the natural environment and their
relation to it (Etzion, 2007, p. 650). Boons (2013) develops a model that explains the relationship between ecosystem dynamics and the firms behavior, thus drawing on an environmental
sociological perspective.
Our model combines an objectivism and a constructivism perspective. It includes the influence of the natural environment (e.g., resource availability) on the firm directly (e.g., resourceefficient processes) and indirectly via the decision makers mental model, since with his or her
behavior the decision maker can act on the company and its business model (e.g., Elster, 2007).
The relationships between the firm and the natural environment are considered through the socalled value to the environment. Interface, for example, changed its business model from selling
carpets to leasing floor comfort, while achieving more profits and value to the customer as well
as value to the environment by lowering the level of use of energy and raw materials (Sharma,
2014; Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008).
The link between the natural environment and the decision maker is the starting point of the
model that explains the emergence of BMfS. The decision makers mental perception of the natural environment and his behavior can be affected by environmental changes. These changes can
also have an impact on the cognition of the customers and their behaviors. Hence, by anticipating
changes in the natural environment and their impacts on customers, the decision maker can recognize a sustainability-driven opportunity and adapt the business model correspondingly.
The business model in turn has an influence on the natural environment. For instance, the carsharing model of a car producer offers mobility services rather than car ownership. As such, it
affects the firms behavior (e.g., production processes) and has a positive impact on the natural
environment (e.g., resource consumption, waste production; e.g., Martin & Shaheen, 2011).
Figure 1. System dynamics approach to the natural environment.

Source. Adapted from Sterman (2012) based on Daly (1991).
System Dynamics Notation

We use a system dynamics methodology to develop and graphically represent the partial models.
As a methodology for modeling and simulating complex systems, system dynamics enables the
user to recognize the main variables and interdependencies within a system (Sterman, 2000).
System dynamics builds on two distinctive modeling notations: causal-loop diagrams and stock
and flow models. By applying an intuitive notation of arrows, causal-loop diagrams represent
qualitatively the positive and negative impacts of variables on another in a system. Quantitative
models in system dynamics involve different types of variables: state variables (stocks), dynamic
variables to represent the flow in and out of these stocks (flows), the rate at which these flows
change the stock (controlled by a valve) and the flows of information between stocks and
flows. There are two types of feedback loops: reinforcing (positive) and balancing (negative). In
a reinforcing feedback loop, the system is bound to move in one direction, either growth or
decline. Contrarily, a negative feedback loop has a balancing effect and counteracts growth or
decline, leading the system to threshold values (Sterman, 2012).
Since its inception by Forrester (1961), system dynamics has been applied to numerous problems in society, management, and ecology research (Gallati & Wiesmann, 2011; Morecroft,
2007; Sterman, 2012). The methodology has been applied in the field of sustainable development
since the seminal simulations in The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, &
Behrens, 1972). One of the frequently cited models in ecological sustainability is the simple
stock and flow model by Sterman (2012) based on Daly (1991) represented in Figure 1.
The boxes in the model denote the stocks: renewable resources, nonrenewable resources, and
pollution and waste. All three stocks decrease by a certain rate (e.g., harvest rate for renewable
resources). Renewable resources accumulate through a certain inflow (e.g., regeneration rate).
Pollution and waste increase through human activity, but decline through decay or use of recycling processes. The ecosystem dynamics influence the rate at which renewable resources regenerate and the rate at which waste decays or is recycled. The stock of nonrenewable resources,
however, only depletes over time. The big arrows show the flows into and out of the stocks;
ingoing flows increase the stock level, and vice versa. Valves regulate both the rate of the in- and
outflows. The clouds in the model represent the sources and sinks of the flows. Both sources and
sinks are stocks outside the systems boundaries. Their meaning depends on their position in relation to a flow: the stock from which a flow originates (source) or in which the flow drains after
leaving the system boundaries (sink). System dynamics models assume that these sources and
Figure 2. Stock and flow diagram of a generic business model logic.
sinks do not constrain the flows (Sterman, 2000). For instance, a limited stock of drinking water
(renewable resource) might be available in a lake. The lakes water level increases by a water
inflow from the source, a nonspecified stock outside the systems boundaries, and decreases by
an outflow of water that drains into an unspecified sink.
Developing a Firm-Level Model of BMfS

Business models can be interpreted as complex and dynamic systems (e.g., Demil & Lecocq,
2010). The integration of sustainable development into the business model further increases
complexity (Porter & Derry, 2012). To capture the multilevel systems and to reduce complexity,
we use the approach of partial modeling, which consists in dividing a large model into several
smaller models.
Recall that we consider three business model dimensions: customer value proposition, value
creation, and value capture. These dimensions are represented by key stocks in the model. Figure 2
shows a simple stock and flow diagram of a firms business model. The value capture represents the
value that the firm generates for itself from its value proposition. Value creation is operationalized
as the firms capacity of creating value and derives from its key resources and processes. The
value proposition denotes the value offered by the firm to its customers; it refers to the firms
offering as a stock that accumulates or depletes over time. Note that the value proposition can be
interpreted as the value perceived by the customers, but in this research it is defined from the
firms viewpoint and supposed to be independent of customer valuation.
An increase in the firms value creation capacity enhances the firms offering to its customers,
hence its value proposition (Arrow 1). An enhanced value creation capacity, for example, more
staff in a personnel-intensive service industry, also yields an increase in the level of created and
captured value (Arrow 2). The created value also depends on the stock level of value propositions
to the customer, for example, new products introduced to the portfolio (Arrow 3). A percentage
of the generated earnings can be spent to improve the value creation capacity (Arrow 4) or can
be invested to generate more customer value propositions, for example, through new product
development (Arrow 5). The relationship between these stocks induces a self-reinforcing feedback loop that leads to continuous growth of the system. This reinforcing feedback loop, however, can be weakened if, for instance, the costs due to the extension of value creation capacity
grow stronger than the value provided to the customer.
Figure 3. Stock and flow diagram of generic logic of business model for sustainability.
To conceptualize BMfS, we have to integrate the environmental value proposition (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008). Following the logic of the customer value proposition, this stock does not represent the actual impact of the business model on the environment, but rather the intended impact
from the firms perspective. Therefore, it is denoted an environmental value proposition rather
than value to environment. To demonstrate the connections between the four key value dimensions, we integrate the business case drivers identified by Schaltegger etal. (2012) as mediating
variables. Schaltegger etal. (2012, p. 102) mention that . . . the business case drivers have the
character of intermediating variables which link the corporate sustainability strategy with the
architectural business model level of a firm. Nevertheless, we only consider five business drivers out of six, while disregarding innovative capabilities. Since the value creation capacity
includes the firms key capabilities, that is its key resources and processes, innovative capabilities can be seen as an element of value creation capacity. Therefore, innovation capabilities, as
such, are removed from the model. The model in Figure 3 represents the most important relationships, which have been numbered for easy reference. In the model, the environmental value
proposition directly or indirectly influences all business case drivers. To establish the links within
the BMfS, we rely on the comprehensive analysis by Schaltegger etal. (2012), who show how
sustainability can affect the interrelations between the business model and business case drivers.
Hence, the environmental value proposition seems to have a direct positive impact on the following business case drivers: reputation and brand value (Arrow 1), risk reduction (Arrow 2), cost
reduction (Arrow 3), and employer attractiveness (Arrow 4). Risk reduction and cost reduction
are used instead of risks and costs, respectively, to get a positive sign on the arrow from the environmental value proposition to these variables. By incorporating environmental considerations
into the business model, the company can improve its image (e.g., Bhamra & Lofthouse, 2007,
p. 29). The company also becomes more attractive to job seekers (Albinger & Freeman, 2000),
and the level of retention of talented people improves (Ehnert, 2009). In addition, the level of risk
for customers and for other stakeholders such as investors can be reduced, and lower costs can be
achieved due to higher resource efficiency. Cost reduction can be further supported by employer
attractiveness, since increased loyalty and employer attractiveness because of sustainability lead
to lower recruitment costs (van Tulder, van Tilburg, Francken, & Da Rosa, 2014, p. 53; Arrow 5).
The reduction of customer and stakeholder risks relieves the firms cost position through, for
example, inexpensive credits (Arrow 6). In effect, companies are charged smaller interest rates
for getting bank credits, if the level of risk is estimated low. In this context, Cheng, Ioannou, and
Serafeim (2014, p. 16) provide empirical evidence that firms with better CSR performance face
lower capital constraints, and therefore have a better access to finance. A socially and environmentally engaged organization reduces the level of (perceived) risk because it can develop trustful and long-term relationships with its stakeholders, whereas trust and long-term orientation of
the firm lead to considerable image improvements (Arrow 7). Sales and margin seem to be the
only variable that is not directly affected by the environmental value proposition, but rather indirectly affected via reputation (Arrow 8), risk reduction (Arrow 9), and cost reduction (Arrow 10).
Needless to say, higher reputation and improved image enable the firm to attract more customers
and to better consolidate its relationships with existing customers. On the contrary, the reputation
damage that a company can suffer due to self-triggered environmental disaster can lead to a considerable decline in the number of customers willing to buy the companys products (Sharma,
2014). Risk reduction on the side of the customers motivates them to deal with their suppliers as
established partners and therefore to keep doing business with them. Cost reductionbecause of
improved efficiencycan lead to more competitive price structures, hence to higher sales.
In addition to the effects of the environmental value proposition on the business case drivers,
the model explains the relationships between these variables and the other stocks and flows. The
stocks of customer value proposition (Arrow 11) and value creation capacity (Arrow 12) determine the firms potential in changing the stock level of the environmental value proposition. For
instance, some automobile producers took their existing car models (available value proposition)
and then used their value creation capabilities to replace conventional engines by electric engines
in the vehicles, thus generating an environmental value proposition, since electric cars have zero
local carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, the leverage of this value creation capacity to change existing products results in augmenting the stock level of the customer value propositions (Arrow 13),
for example, through the electric car. Note that the value creation in itself can have a stronger
impact on the environmental value proposition. For instance, BMW increased its commitment to
the environment by changing its value creation capacity. For the manufacturing of its i3-model,
BMW created completely new electric car models that use self-produced electricity based on
wind energy (Vilimek & Keinath, 2014).
Through the accumulation of the stock of environmental value over time, the firm is expected
to foster its reputation as an environmentally conscious and engaged organization (directly and
indirectly via risk reduction). To maintain its acquired reputation, the firm will tend to develop
more customer value propositions with a positive impact on the environment (Arrow 14). An
increase in the stock level of customer value proposition leads to higher sales or margins (Arrow
15). Willard (2012, p. 46) notes that the additional revenue generated by the new green products
easily recovers the R&D investment. The sales and margins (Arrow 16) and cost reduction
(Arrow 17) again determine the flow rate of value created (Johnson, 2010). In effect, the higher
the sales and the lower the costs, the higher the level of captured value. As the stock level of
captured value increases, the firm can reinvest it to generate more value to the customer (Arrow
18; Sherwood, 2002), leading to even more value to the environment (Arrow 11). Consequently,
a reinforcing loop emerges that strengthens the mutual positive relationships between the environment, the customer, and the firm.
10
Still there are three connections in the model that are worth explaining. As compared with
Figure 2, the direct link from the stock of customer value proposition to value created is now
replaced by an indirect link that is mediated by sales and margins. That is, an increased stock of
value to the customer generates more sales and profits, which in turn influence the value created.
The link between value creation capacity and the value created is mediated by cost reduction that
stems primarily from resource savings such as eco-efficiency improvements (Arrow 19). In addition, the change in value creation capacity depends on value reinvested (Arrow 20; Sherwood,
2002) and employer attractiveness level (Arrow 21). Employer attractiveness due to the companys involvement in sustainability practices increases the commitment and loyalty of employees
and supports companies in recruiting talented people, leading to the preservation of the existing
value creation capacity and also to its extension (Willard, 2012). The final model therefore highlights not only possible drivers behind the environmental value proposition but also visualizes
several feedback loops that drive BMfS. Because of the model complexity, the business case
drivers will not be redrawn in the final model to preserve clarity.
Modeling the Behavior of Individuals

Our model involves two types of individuals: those whose behavior affects the business model
(entrepreneur or manager) and those who are affected by the business model (customer). We
explore the variables that cause these actors to behave in a sustainable way beyond a purely economic rationale. In particular, the cognition perspective can uncover the key motives why decision makers develop BMfS.
We focus on conceptualizations from environmental cognition, a research area, which studies
the behavior of individuals and organizations in favor or against the environment. Henry and
Dietz (2012) define environmental cognition as the way individuals structure their thinking
about environmental issues and associated political actions (p. 238) and argue that environmental cognition is an important perspective for understanding the environmentally relevant behaviors of individuals and organizations. Theories and models explain how specific cognitive
elements such as beliefs and values are causally linked, how these links change over time, and
how they influence the behavior of individuals (Henry & Dietz, 2012). We focus on the cognition
and behavior of entrepreneurs and managers as the individuals who develop the BMfS, and of
customers as the individuals who are served by the business model.
We select the valuesbeliefsnorms (VBN) theory to fit the contextual purposes. VBN theory
was proposed for the explanation of individual actions that support the environment. Figure 4
shows the system dynamics of the cognitive model of sustainability-related behavior of individuals based on VBN theory. The theory emerged from social psychology and builds on a causal
chain of cognitive processes, including concepts such as altruism and self-interest. In particular,
altruism seems to add new perspectives to explain the rationale of BMfS. So far, the theory has
mostly been applied to individuals outside the organizations such as consumers (to predict their
sustainable consumption choices) or environmental activists. Nevertheless, it can also be applied
to individuals in organizations (Henry & Dietz, 2012). The concept of beliefs appears in VBN
theory and in the framework of Boons (2013). Boons shows that ecosystem dynamics can affect
beliefs and desires and can directly affect the availability of resources, thus influencing the set of
opportunities available to the firm. Beliefs and opportunities drive individual actions as well as
organizational action, and finally feed back to ecosystem dynamics. Hence, by combining the
insights from VBN theory and Boonss framework, we can argue that ecosystem dynamics constitute an antecedent for business model change. Therefore, this research conceptualizes an indirect link via beliefs and individual action (behavior), and a direct influence from the environment
to the firms business model through value creation capacity. Business models, in turn, influence
the ecosystem dynamics directly and indirectly through the customers behavior. Note that we are
11
Figure 4. Cognitive model of sustainability-related behavior of individuals based on valuesbeliefs

norms theory.
Source. Adapted from Stern (2000).
here not using business models and organizational action (in Boonss framework) interchangeably. There is, however, a tight connection between both concepts. George and Bock (2012,
p. 28) argue that [a] business model provides a link between an opportunity and the organization
that exploits it. Boons (2013, p. 288) also argues that ecosystem dynamics (e.g., resulting in
resource scarcity) may drive companies to embark on alternative business models such as product service systems and material recycling, thus implicitly assuming the tight interdependencies
between business models and organizational action.
One disadvantage of VBN theory is that it does not include any social influences or network
connections among individuals. We are aware of the fact that some consumer decisions and
managerial or entrepreneurial actions are driven by social contexts, which are not represented in
the final model.
Connecting the Partial Models Toward a Multilevel Model of BMfS

The last step of the conceptual development integrates the presented subsystems into a comprehensive model (Figure 5). We discuss the arrows of the model, while focusing on the links
between the main subsystems. To improve the readability of the final model, we represent all
stocks within the environment by means of one stock, called ecological capital. Obviously, an
increase in the ecological capital can be due to the regeneration of the renewable resources, or a
decrease in the stock level of pollution and waste. Ecological capital decreases, however, when
pollution and waste levels increase; renewable resources are harvested at a higher rate than they
can regenerate; or the level of stock of the nonrenewable resources depletes over time. For clarity, we use different types of arrows (dotted, dashed, and plain). Furthermore, as aforementioned,
the business case drivers and their links are not drawn. In fact, there may be some direct connections between the business case drivers and the variables introduced in the partial models.
Nevertheless, we believe that they will not change the implications of the final model. In effect,
the business case drivers have been introduced to connect the stocks and flows inside the BMfS.
Since these stocks and flows capture the main dynamics of the business model, then the links
between BMfS stocks and flows and the variables in the other partial models can be considered
to represent major relationships. Hence, it seems legitimate to neglect a priori the links that may
connect the business case drivers to the partial models.
12
Figure 5. System dynamics-based representation of business models for sustainability.

Source. Own figure, based on adapted models of Sterman (2012) and Stern (2000).
Because a BMfS includes the environmental value proposition, it exhibits a major extension
compared with business models with a narrow understanding of profit maximization, that is
those value systems . . . with the greatest appreciation for profit seeking or profit maximization
(Hansen & Schaltegger, 2015, p. 16). The environmental value proposition is represented by a
stock that can accumulate or decline over time. By tracking the stock level of the environmental
value, firms can control the sustainability orientation of the business model. The environmental
value proposition affects indirectly all other stocks of the business model: the customer value
proposition, value capture, and value creation capacity.
The firms business model has an impact on the environment represented by the ecological
capital. The ecological capital stems from the triple bottom line concept that introduces ecological capital as a monetary equivalent of the natural environment (Elkington, 1997). The impact of
the firms activities has been studied intensively in the literature (see Etzion, 2007, for a review).
Through the consumption of resources, the firm can activate its value creation capacities (Arrow
1). However, it generates pollution and waste, thus decreasing ecological capital (Arrow 2). The
higher the consumption of nonrenewable resources, the higher the level of pollution, and the
more waste is produced. Examples of such resources that lead to pollution are oil and coal, or
industrially created substances that do not occur naturally (e.g., Boons, 2013). A BMfS, however,
13
creates value by avoiding as much as possible the consumption of nonrenewable resources and
the production of pollution and waste or by keeping nonrenewable resources in closed loops
through reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling. Although the stock of renewable resources can
regenerate over time, extraction should occur at a sustainable level by avoiding the utilization of
practices and technologies with negative ecological impacts (e.g., the use of fertile soil for the
production of biofuels).
The environment influences the beliefs of the decision maker (Elster, 2007). Environmental
dynamics can be considered a cause of social action because of its impacts on the formation of
beliefs and desires (Boons, 2013). Entrepreneurs and managers translate their perceptions of the
environment into action. This translation can be best explained by VBN theory. Values, beliefs,
and norms constitute important drivers of sustainable behavior of firms (Bansal & Roth, 2000).
The level of ecological capital and the changes of this level have an influence on the beliefs of
decision makers (Arrow 3). These linkages are studied within the scope of environmental cognition (e.g., Henry & Dietz, 2012). The degree of risk perceived to be related to potential threats to
the environment, including ecological risk or nuclear power (Hernry & Dietz, 2012), transforms
to norms (Arrow 4). Norm activation refers to a process in which people construct self-expectations regarding prosocial behavior. These behavioral self-expectations are termed personal
norms and are experienced as feelings of moral obligation (Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 2007,
p. 323). Norms have an impact on the behavior of the decision maker (Arrow 5). Consequently,
the resulting action initiates a transformation to BMfS or leads to the activation of a new set of
opportunities, which give rise to a new business model. The feedback from behavior to beliefs
(Arrow 6) is not a component of the VBN theory, but has been discussed within environmental
cognition. This linkage refers to the theory of biased assimilation, which is concerned with the
tendency of individuals to interpret events of their actions in a way that tends to support their
prior belief system (e.g., Henry & Dietz, 2012; Hoffmann & Henn, 2008). VBN theory states that
the individuals values are rather stable over time and have an impact on beliefs (Arrow 7),
whereas beliefs constantly change because of objective external and cognitive internal changes.
For instance, a decision maker who designs a BMfS, might improve his or her level of awareness
for the environment, increases the perceived power to actively exert an influence, and finds reassurance in his or her beliefs after successfully implementing the BMfS.
Similarly, customers cognition with respect to environmental issues is modeled by VBN theory. As in the case of decision makers, the environment directly affects the beliefs (Arrow 8),
which influence the personal norms (Arrow 9), and consequently the sustainability-related
behavior of customers (Arrow 10). For example, the accumulation of pollution and waste leads
to a more environmental consciousness of consumers. Nevertheless, this has to be relativized to
a certain extent, since the relative power of the socialpsychological variables to explain personal
behavior (such as values and beliefs) decreases as the efforts and costs increase (Stern, 2000).
Sustainable behavior further reinforces the related beliefs (Arrow 11), which are generally
shapedas in the case of the decision makerby the individuals values (Arrow 12).
Reciprocally, the behavior of the individuals in their role as decision makers or customers has
an impact on ecological dynamics (Boons, 2013). Consequently, there are several causal relationships from the decision maker to the environment via the business model and from the customer
to the environment. As shown by Anderson and Paine (1975), the strategic behavior of firms is
dependent on the values and beliefs of managers. The manager or the entrepreneur can influence
the environment indirectly through the business model, in particular the value created (Arrow
13), change in customer value proposition (Arrow 14), change in value creation capacity (Arrow
15), and change in environmental value proposition (Arrow 16). A change in the environmental
value proposition either increases (Arrow 17) or decreases (Arrow 18) the ecological capital. The
behavior of the customers is affected by the stock level of the customer value proposition (Arrow
19) and can directly influence the environment (Arrows 20 and 21). For instance, the customers
14
can have lifestyles or habits that induce less pollution or waste; for instance, through the possibilities of a car-sharing business model that reduces the need for owning a car. The consumers
can also substitute a conventional car for an electric car, thus increasing the consumption of
renewable resources instead of nonrenewable resources. In the model, customers have no direct
impact on the business model of the firm; however, they indirectly influence the business model
through changing the beliefs of the decision maker (Arrow 22).
A Case Example
The developed model applies to two categories of firms: startups that integrate sustainability into
their business model core logic, and established firms that aim to achieve a transformationat
least partiallyto BMfS. The case example of Bettervest, which is analyzed in this section,
belongs to the first category and focuses on those entrepreneurs who have launched new firms
based on BMfS. Bettervest GmbH is a German-based startup founded in 2012. Bettervest implemented a BMfS that combines sustainability and financial objectives. To collect data, we use
published material such as short articles, interviews with the founder, and the companys
website.
Bettervest is a crowdfunding platform, on which people can invest small amounts of money
in energy efficiency projects initiated by companies, local authorities, and so on. Investors can
contribute 50 to 12.500 Euro to the project and earn money by getting a percentage of the energy
cost savings that result from project implementation.
The cognitive aspect has played a key role in the creation of Bettervests BMfS. The founder,
Patrick Mijnals, recognized the changes in the ecological environment many years before starting the venture. In several interviews, he describes how his beliefs about ecological sustainability
and entrepreneurial actions were originally formed:
Inspired by the book of Ernst Ulrich von Weizscker I read in high school some years ago, I came up
with the idea of focusing on energy efficiency projects, a very lucrative, but unfortunately neglected
issue in the energy debate. (vc-magazin.de, 2014)
von Weizsckers book demonstrates that wealth can be doubled while halving energy consumption, and that this shift has to be initiated by the private sector (von Weizscker, Lovins, &
Lovins, 1998). This book shaped the founders beliefs about sustainability and the possibility of
improving the natural environment through a market-based solution. Few years later, he encountered the crowdfunding idea, on which he based his business model (Bundesministerium fr
Wirtschaft und Energie, 2013).
Five years later, he presented the idea to some like-minded people, and they jointly founded
Bettervest. At the beginning, it was difficult to find business investors driven by the need to generate a value to the environment: We have spent a long time looking for investors that were not
only convinced by our business model, but whose values also are in line with our higher-ranking
sustainability objectives (vc-magazin.de, 2014). The business model has a clear environmental
value proposition: All projects should be focused on energy efficiency. The customer value proposition is that organizations such as private companies get access to funds, and the investors get
a return on the invested money (Meyer, 2013). The business model of Bettervest builds on various reinforcing feedback loops. The environmental value proposition is created indirectly via the
customers energy savings and has a direct link to the customer value proposition. According to
the founder, most organizations should be actually interested in energy efficiency projects
because an average of 30% energy costs can be saved, but most organizations lack the financial
resources. Consequently, the environmental value proposition complements the value proposition that is offered to the funds-seeking organizations. In addition, the investing individuals
15
contribute to ecological sustainability. The individuals that invest in the Bettervest projects
equally benefit from increased energy efficiency, as the rent of their investment depends on the
actual energy savings.
Bettervest captures value by charging a provision fee on cost savings achieved in each project.
The reinforcing feedback loop between the value capture, value to customers and investors leads
to strong incentives to increase energy savings and hence the value to the environment. For projects that require more than 10,000 Euro, Bettervest involves energy consultants to identify potential savings. At the time of writing, Bettervest is working toward the improvement of its value
creation capacities. In the future, their own certified experts should estimate the energy savings.
To summarize, Bettervest designed a BMfS, in which the value to all relevant stakeholders complement each other and reinforce the captured value for the firm.
Discussion and Managerial Implications

The model draws the attention of entrepreneurs and managers to the environment and the stakeholders who care for it and the relationships between stakeholders, the natural environment, and
the company. The recognition of a BMfS opportunity requires the design of a reinforcing loop
that feeds back from the environmental value proposition to the value capture dimension of the
business model. In the case of Bettervest, the more energy efficiency projects are carried out, the
more value the company can capture. Hence, we can derive the first proposition:
Proposition 1: By design, effective BMfS explicitly consider, the reinforcing feedback loops
between the environmental value proposition, customer value proposition, and the captured
value.
From the system dynamics literature, we know that causal loops from the business model to
the environment and then to the manager generally happen with certain delays (Sterman, 2000).
The concept of delays makes it obvious that companies striving for the achievement of a competitive advantage should be able to uncover the feedback loops from the environment to the
business model much earlier than competitors. For instance, the time elapsing between the recognition of societal or environmental problems and the design of effective laws and regulations
can be very long. Reactive companies rather adapt their business models after the laws and regulations are put into effect. Proactive decision makers, however, anticipate changes by recognizing
the causal loops much in advance and by adapting their business models adequately before competition. Actually, the companies endeavors can be classified along a continuum of several
stages that range from a denial or active rejection of environmental and societal issues to a proactive integration of corporate sustainability (e.g., Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2010). In a research
study conducted in the Canadian oil and gas industry, Sharma (2000) found that companies
managers who interpret environmental issues as opportunities are more likely to embark on voluntary and proactive environmental strategies than those who merely strive for conformance to
regulations and standard industry practices. Managers in the latter category consider environmental issues a threat and rather exhibit a reactive behavior. In the example of Bettervest, the
founder was aware of the level of savings that can be achieved through increased energy efficiency (30%) already several years before the EU commission started discussing the implementation of binding policies toward achieving an energy-saving target of 30% until 2030 (Kafsack,
2014). In addition, the act of reading about the entrepreneurial potential to create a more sustainable society established the link from the environment to the founders cognition. In other cases,
the customer or other stakeholders can act as a trigger for changing the entrepreneurs beliefs
regarding the environment. Hence, the second proposition:
16
Proposition 2: The business model affects the ecological capital directly through the environmental value proposition and the firms value creation capacity, as well as indirectly via the
customers behavior. The ecological capital feeds back to the mental model of the firms decision maker not only directly but also indirectly through the beliefs of the customers and their
behaviors. This feedback is subject to a delay in the recognition of potential and promising
BMfS by decision makers.
Consequently, a firm interested in designing BMfS should put mechanisms in place to get
knowledge from the outside. It must develop an absorptive capacity (M. W. Cohen & Levinthal,
1990; Hansen & Klewitz, 2012) of environmentally relevant information in order for the decision
makers to update and adapt their beliefs about the environment. The earlier the decision makers
can perceive the changes in ecological capital, the higher the likelihood that they can recognize
environmental opportunities and translate them to BMfS faster than competitors. In this way, the
decision maker benefits from an information advantage. Nevertheless, making sense of this
information and recognizing an opportunity depends on other factors such as prior knowledge
and social capital (e.g., N. M. George, Parida, Lathi, & Wincent, 2014)
In addition to the delay that occurs in recognizing and processing information about the ecological capital, another delay can occur between the decision makers perception of an environmental opportunity and the actual change in the business model toward a BMfS. Delays within
this link can result from limited sustainability-related beliefs of other stakeholders. Hrisch,
Freeman, and Schaltegger (2014) discuss the challenges of managing the sustainability-related
acceptance and behavior of the firms stakeholders through the mechanisms of education, regulation, and sustainability-based value creation for stakeholders. The example of Bettervest illustrates this challenge; although the founder recognized a sustainable business opportunity, he
could not achieve a fast implementation of his BMfS. The reason: He could not easily find investors who were also driven by sustainability objectives. About 5 years elapsed between the recognition of the opportunity and the launch of the business. Communicating the multiple value
propositions to persuade necessary stakeholders requires additional effort. Hence, we can formulate the following proposition:
Proposition 3: The beliefs of the decision maker with respect to ecological capital translate
into behavior that aims to adapt the business model according to sustainability aspects or to
develop a new BMfS. A major delay can occur in the translation of the ecological perceptions
into an appropriate business model.
Both delays (Propositions 2 and 3) seem a priori to depend on whether the company is a young
business with sustainability designed at its core, or an established business with ambitions to shift
to a BMfS. The delay in the feedback loop from the ecological capital to the entrepreneurs
beliefs is higher in companies that are originally focused on profit maximization. Note again that
the feedbacks of the ecological capital reach the decision makers via stakeholders who care about
the environment. In this way, they do not come directly from the natural environment itself. In
effect, as the natural environment is affected, people observe this and develop requests, demands,
and expectations that are perceived by managers. Managers of traditional SMEs, however, often
have little mental space available for considering environmental issues with no direct influence
on their firm. In this context, Sharma (2014) notes that
the bulk of firms creative talent (that is, its operational managers) is usually tied up with the dayto-day operations and routines of the current business. It rarely has the white space to apply fresh
ideas and strategic thinking in innovating to compete effectively for a sustainable future. (p. 103)
17
Contrarily, entrepreneurs who start their venture with a BMfS have sustainability-related issues
already embedded in the core logic of their business and will therefore be more perceptive to
further sustainability-related opportunities. In this context, by drawing on empirical survey data
from Germany, Hrisch, Johnson, and Schaltegger (2014) note that knowledge of sustainability
management tools is the key difference between small and large companies; it constitutes an
important mediator to promote sustainability management. In other words, the firms size plays
a minor role as compared with knowledge of sustainability management (tools) and the resources
allocated to their implementation. More precisely, the authors found that the indirect, mediating
effect of knowledge is roughly three times stronger than the direct effect of company size
(Hrisch, Johnson, & Schaltegger, 2014). Because young companies with sustainability at their
core are expected to have a better knowledge of the tools for sustainability management than
established profit-focused SMEs that envisage the transition to BMfS, they are in a better position to cope with the delay from the environment to the decision makers beliefs.
Concerning the second link that translates the decision makers perceptions about the ecological capital to actual behavior that transforms the business model, neither the young business with
built-in sustainability, nor the established firm has a clear advantage. Whereas a young business
may lack resources to execute properly the sustainability business model, established profit-oriented companies with BMfS ambitions can encounter difficulties due to organizational inertia.
Hence, the following proposition can be stated:
Proposition 4: A young business with sustainability designed at its core is more likely to
overcome the delay induced by the causal loop that links environmental change to the decision
makers behavior than an established, profit-oriented company. The lack of resources in young
businesses and organizational inertia in established profitability-oriented companies delay the
translation of the decision makers cognition into appropriate modifications of the business
model.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

This article provides a new perspective on BMfS and combines many insights from the literature
into a coherent conceptual model that uses system dynamics notation. The model connects four
partial models: the firm, the environment, the decision maker, and the customer. It explains the
functioning of BMfS and how these business models can be initiated. The partial model of the
firm, BMfS, builds on a reinforcing feedback loop between the firms value creation capacity,
value to the customers, value to the natural environment as well as the value that the firm can
capture for itself. The environment is conceptualized by means of three main stocks: renewable
resources, nonrenewable resources, as well as pollution and waste, in addition to the corresponding flows. The partial model of the individual cognition argues that BMfSs are triggered by the
decision makers cognitive representation of the natural environment. Consequently, the change
in sustainability-related beliefs and norms of the decision maker leads to a changing behavior.
The final model shows how the changed behavior can result in changes in the firms business
model, and how the business model feeds back to the environment and to the customer.
As such, the developed model satisfies all four requirements formulated in the Conceptual
Development section. First, it supports decision makers in understanding how the business model
can affect the natural environment. Two types of impacts are identified: a direct impact via the
environmental value proposition and value creation capacity and an indirect impact through the
customers behavior. To achieve a faster reduction of the negative impacts on the environment, it
is better to start with creating an environmental value proposition and modifying the value creation capacity than to begin with changing the customers behavior. Second, the model reveals the
direct, and mostly indirect, impact of the natural environment on the firm. The environment affects
18
the business model directly because of its impact on the firms value creation capacity (e.g., as
resources become scarce) and indirectly via the beliefs of the customers and decision makers.
Third, the system dynamics model illustrates the different types of stocks and flows that relate
the main stakeholders of a BMfS. The important stocks are the firms value proposition, environmental value proposition, which is the value proposition provided to stakeholders concerned
about the environment, the value creation capacity, value capture, as well as the ecological capital. Fourth, the model represents important feedback loops explaining the rationale of a BMfS
from a stakeholder perspective. For instance, feedback loops can induce self-reinforcing ecological beliefs of the decision maker or the customer, leading to a business model shift toward more
sustainability. Besides, two relevant links have been identified that can cause delays in the whole
system: from the environment to the decision maker and from the decision maker to the business
model.
The case study of Bettervest illustrates the logic of the proposed model. The case study reveals
how the BMfS was triggered by changes in the environment (perceived via a book). It also demonstrates the commercial potential of designing a reinforcing feedback loop between the created
value to different customer groups, the environment, and the firms profit generation.
The final discussion has led to the development of four propositions. Hence, this research is a
first step toward a large research program. The future research directions proposed in the following are directly related to the four propositions. First, a database of BMfS case studies can be
constructed to investigate in a systematic way the mechanisms by which the environmental value
proposition, value to the customer, and captured value can reinforce each other.
Second, due to the importance of the decision makers cognition in the development of BMfS,
it can be insightful to study the mental models of entrepreneurs and managers that operate in
businesses that strive for achieving a positive impact on society, the economy, and the natural
environment. Research should identify how these decision makers construct their mental models
about the environment, how they update their current beliefs, and how these beliefs translate to
specific behaviors. Entrepreneurial cognition is a stream of research that can be helpful in this
regard. For instance, the systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition,
conducted by N. M. George etal. (2014), did not identify research contributions that deal with
opportunity recognition driven by sustainability issues. This is another argument why the entrepreneurial cognition literature should focus more on sustainability in the future.
Third, the reduction of the delay that occurs when decision makers translate relevant environmental information into effective behavior to enact a business model change can accelerate the
implementation of BMfS. Mechanisms such as stakeholder education (e.g., investors) during the
development and implementation of BMfS can be a suitable approach. Further research can
explore empirically additional mechanisms that aim to improve the implementation speed of
BMfS. In particular, how can public actors and policy makers enhance this implementation speed
through policies and supportive external conditions?
Fourth, this work has neglected the organizational characteristics that allow firms to successfully design and implement BMfS. Some company types, for instance, seem to cope better with
system delays than others. Hence, these companies may find it easier to embark on BMfS than
others. Thus, future research can identify the contingencies that make certain organizations better
prepared for a transition to BMfS. Such a project can capitalize on the work of Sommer (2012)
who presents case studies from several industries. The comparison between successful and less
successful transformations to BMfS can provide key insights into potential contingencies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
19
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abdelkafi, N. (2012). Open business models for the greater good: A case study from the higher education
context. Die Unternehmung, 66, 297-316.
Abdelkafi, N., & Makhotin, S. (2013, June 26-29). Graphical representation methods for business model
design and innovationAnalysis, comparison & development of an integrated framework. Presented
at 13th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management (EURAM), Istanbul, Turkey.
Abdelkafi, N., Makhotin, S., & Posselt, T. (2013). Business model innovation for electric mobility: What can
be learned from existing business model patterns? International Journal of Innovation Management,
17, 1-41.
Abdelkafi, N., & Tuscher, K. (2014, June 8-11). Understanding the basic functioning of business models:
A graphical approach. In K. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli, & I. Bitran (Eds.), Proceedings of the
XXV ISPIM conference, Dublin, Ireland. Manchester, England: International Society for Professional
Innovation Management.
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer
to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 243-253.
Anderson, C. R., & Paine, F. T. (1975). Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 18, 811-823.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43, 156-171.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy
of Management Journal, 43, 717-736.
Beltramello, A., Haie-Fayle, L., & Pilat, D. (2013). Why new business models matter for green growth.
Paris, France: OECD.
Bhamra, T., & Lofthouse, V. (2007). Design for sustainability: A practical approach. Hampshire, England:
Gower.
Blaga, S. (2013). Rethinking business sustainability. Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil
Madgearu, 1, 5-21.
Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaft und Energie. (2013, November 20). Im Portrt: Patrick Mijnals,
Geschftsfhrer der bettervest GmbH. Retrieved from http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Mediathek/
videos,did=603670.html
Bocken, N. M. P., & Allwood, J. (2012). Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by
influencing stakeholders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 35, 118-129.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable business
modelling. Corporate Governance, 13, 482-497.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
Boons, F. (2013). Organizing within dynamic ecosystems: Conceptualizing socio-ecological mechanisms.
Organization & Environment, 26, 281-297.
Boons, F., & Ldeke-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.
Breuer, H., & Ldeke-Freund, F. (2014, June 8-11). Normative innovation for sustainable business models
in value networks. In K. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli, & I. Bitran (Eds.), Proceedings of XXV ISPIM
ConferenceInnovation for sustainable economy and society (pp. 8-11). Dublin, Ireland: International
Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2007, November). Competing through business models. IESE
Business School Working Paper No. 713. Barcelona, Spain: IESE Business School.
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance.
Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1-23.
Cohen, M. W., & Levinthal, A. D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Daly, H. (1991). Steady-state economics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.
20
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range
Planning, 43, 227-246.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a
paradox perspective. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, England:
Capstone.
Elster, J. (2007). Explaining social behaviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal
of Management, 33, 637-664.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedmansoc-resp-business.html
Gallati, J., & Wiesmann, U. (2011). System dynamics in transdisciplinary research for sustainable development. In U. Wiesmann & H. Hurni (Eds.), Research for sustainable development: Foundations,
experiences, and perspectives. Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research
(NCCR) North-South (Vol. 6, pp. 345-360). Bern, Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia, University of
Bern.
George, G., & Bock, A. (2012). Models of opportunity: How entrepreneurs design firms to achieve the
unexpected. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
George, N. M., Parida, V., Lathi, T., & Wincent, J. (2014). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: Insights on influencing factors. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0347-y
Hansen, E. G., Grosse-Dunker, F., & Reichwald, R. (2009). Sustainability innovation cube: A framework
to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13,
683-713.
Hansen, E. G., & Klewitz, J. (2012). The role of an SMEs green strategy in public-private eco-innovation
initiatives: The case of ecoprofit. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25, 451-477.
Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2015): The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of
architectures. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal
norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation
theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 323-334.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive,
17(2), 56-69.
Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2012). Understanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment,
25, 238-258.
Hockerts, K., & Wstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging DavidsTheorizing about
the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
25, 481-492.
Hoffmann, A., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building.
Organization & Environment, 21, 390-419.
Hgevold, N. M. (2011). A corporate effort towards a sustainable business model: A case study from the
Norwegian furniture industry. European Business Review, 23, 392-400.
Hrisch, J. Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment,
27, 328-346.
Hrisch, J., Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Implementation of sustainability management and
company size: A knowledge-based view. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/bse.1844
Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and renewal.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kafsack, H. (2014, July 23). EU Klimapolitik: Klima schonen, Russland schwchen (EU Climate Policy:
Preserving the Environment, Weakening Russia). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved from
21
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/eu-energiepolitik-klima-schonen-russlandschwaechen-13061042.html.
Ldeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of business models for sustainability. In R.
Wever, J. Quist, A. Tukker, J. Woudstra, F. Boons, & N. Beute (Eds.). Proceedings of ERSCP-EMSU
Conference 2010Knowledge collaboration and learning for sustainable innovation. European
Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production Society.
Ldeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainability innovation: Conceptual foundations and
the case of solar energy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuphana University, Lneburg,
Germany.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review
and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12, 20-38.
Martin, E., & Shaheen, S. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12(4), 1074-1086.
Martin, E., Shaheen, S., & Lidicker, J. (2010). Carsharings impact on household vehicle holdings: Results
from a North American shared-use vehicle survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2143, 150-158.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). Limits to growth. A report for the
Club of Romes Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books.
Meyer, K.-M. (2013, March 23). Interview mit Patrick Mijnals (bettervest). Retrieved from http://crowdstreet.de/2013/03/23/bettervest
Morecroft, J. (2007). Strategic modelling and business dynamics: A feedback systems approach. Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontologyA proposition in a design science approach
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universit de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Porter, T., & Derry, R. (2012). Sustainability and business in a complex world. Business and Society
Review, 117, 33-53.
Rohrbeck, R., Konnertz, L., & Knab, S. (2011). Collaborative business modelling for systemic and sustainability innovations. International Journal of Technology Management, 63, 4-23.
Roome, N. J. (2012). Looking back, thinking forward: Distinguishing between weak and strong sustainability. In P. Bansal & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment
(pp. 620-630). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Snchez, P., & Ricart, J. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income
markets. European Management Review, 7, 138-154.
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des Business Case of
Sustainability. Lueneburg, Germany: Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana
University of Lueneburg.
Schaltegger, S., Ldeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation & Sustainable
Development, 6, 95-119.
Schaltegger, S., & Synnestvedt, T. (2002). The link between green and economic success: Environmental
management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. Journal of
Environmental Management, 65, 339-346.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation.
Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 222-237.
Schneeweiss, E. (2012). GLS Bank: Successfully sustainable. In H. Spitzeck, M. Pirson, & C. Dierksmeier
(Eds.), Banking with integrity. The winners of the financial crisis? (pp. 107-114). New York, NY:
Palgrave.
Senge, P., Lichtenstein, B., Kaeufer, K., Bradbury, H., & Carroll, J. (2007). Collaborating for systemic
change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 44-53.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice
of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
Sharma, S. (2014). Competing for a sustainable world. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf.
22
Sharma, S., Starik, M., & Husted, B. (Eds.). (2007). Organizations and the sustainability mosaic: Crafting
long-term ecological and societal solutions. Northampton, England: Edward Elgar.
Sherwood, D. (2002). Seeing the forest for the trees: A managers guide to applying systems thinking.
London, England: Nicholas Brealy.
Sommer, A. (2012). Managing green business model transformations. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Starik, M., & Kanashiro, P. (2013). Toward a theory of sustainability management: Uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment, 26, 7-30.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston,
MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Sterman, J. D. (2012). Sustaining sustainability: Creating a systems science in a fragmented academy and
polarized world. In M. P. Weinstein & R. E. Turner (Eds.), Sustainability science: The emerging paradigm 21 and the urban environment (pp. 21-58). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 407-424.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a sustainability business model. Organization &
Environment, 21, 103-127.
Tietze, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2013). To own or to use: How product service systems impact firms innovation behaviour. European Financial Review. Retrieved from http://www.europeanfinancialreview.
com
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product service systems: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from
SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 246-260.
Van Tulder, R., van Tilburg, R., Francken, M., & Da Rosa, A. (2014). Managing the transition to a sustainable enterprise: Lessons from frontrunner companies. London, England: Routledge.
vc-magazin.de. (2014, February 19). Neun Fragen an Patrick Mijnals, bettervest [Nine questions for Patrick
Mijnals, bettervest]. Retrieved from http://www.vc-magazin.de/aeltere-beitraege-aller-kategorien/
item/2760-neun-fragen-an-patrick-mijnals-bettervest
Vilimek, R., & Keinath, A. (2014). User-centred design and evaluation as a prerequisite for the success
of disruptive innovations: An electric vehicle case study. In M. A. Regan, T. Horberry, & A. Stevens
(Eds.), Driver acceptance of new technology: Theory, measurement and optimization (pp. 169-186).
Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Von Weizscker, E. U., Lovins, A. L., & Lovins, H. (1998). Factor four: Doubling wealthHalving
resource use: The new report to the Club of Rome. London, England: Earthscan.
Wagner, M. (2001). A review of empirical studies concerning the relationship between environmental and
economic performance of firms: What does the evidence tell us? Lueneburg, Germany: Centre for
Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Lueneburg.
Wagner, M. (2003). How does it pay to be green? An analysis of the relationship between environmental
and economic performance at the firm level and the influence of corporate environmental strategy
choice. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.
Wagner, M., Van Phu, N., Amazohou, T., & Wehrmeyer W. (2002). The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis of the European paper industry.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 133-146.
Wells, P. (2004). Creating sustainable business models: The case of the automotive industry. IIMB
Management Review, 16(4), 15-24.
Wells, P. (2013). Business models for sustainability. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Willard, B. (2012). The new sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line.
Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
Wirtz, B. (2011). Business model management. Design, instruments, success factors (1st ed.). Wiesbaden,
Germany: Gabler.
Wstenhagen, R., & Boehnke, J. (2008). Business models for sustainable energy. In A. Tukker, M. Charter,
C. Vezzoli, E. St, & M. M. Andersen (Eds.), Perspectives on radical changes to sustainable consumption and production (pp. 85-94). Sheffield, England: Greenleaf.
Xepapadeas, A., & de Zeeuw, A. (1999). Environmental policy and competitiveness: The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37,
165-182.
23
Author Biographies
Nizar Abdelkafi is head of the research unit Business Model Engineering and Innovation at Fraunhofer
MOEZ and senior researcher at the department of Innovation Management and Innovation Economics at the
University of Leipzig. He holds an Industrial Engineering diploma from the National Engineering School
Tunis, a Master degree in Business Administration from the Technische Universitt Mnchen, and a PhD
degree form the Hamburg University of Technology. Nizar Abdelkafi is interested in innovative business
models, along with innovation and sustainability management and has published his research in two books,
several international journals such as International Journal Journal of Innovation Management and IEEE
transactions on Engineering Management, as well as over 30 conference papers and book chapters.
Karl Tuscher is a research fellow and doctoral candidate in the research unitBusiness Model Engineering
and Innovation at Fraunhofer MOEZ. He holds a Master degree in management science with specialization
in strategic management, innovation management, and marketing. Karl Tuscher has studied at University
of Leipzig, Universidad de Chile and ESC Toulouse (France).

Abdel Kaf I 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdel Kaf I 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

592930

OAEXXX10.1177/1086026615592930Organization & EnvironmentAbdelkafi and Tuscher

Business Models for Sustainability

Organization & Environment

Nizar Abdelkafi1,2 and Karl Tuscher1,2

Model Engineering and Innovation, Fraunhofer MOEZ, Leipzig, Germany

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Business Models for Sustainability

Organization & Environment

Explaining the Rationale of BMfS

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Organization & Environment

Figure 1. System dynamics approach to the natural environment.

System Dynamics Notation

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Figure 2. Stock and flow diagram of a generic business model logic.

Developing a Firm-Level Model of BMfS

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Organization & Environment

Modeling the Behavior of Individuals

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Figure 4. Cognitive model of sustainability-related behavior of individuals based on valuesbeliefs

Connecting the Partial Models Toward a Multilevel Model of BMfS

Organization & Environment

Figure 5. System dynamics-based representation of business models for sustainability.

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Discussion and Managerial Implications

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

Organization & Environment

Abdelkafi and Tuscher

You might also like