See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367023438

Business Models for Sustainability

Chapter · January 2023

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.842

CITATIONS READS

5 7,617

1 author:

Nancy Bocken
Maastricht University
216 PUBLICATIONS 29,505 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Bocken on 08 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Business models for Sustainability

Nancy M.P. Bocken

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science

Citation: Bocken, N. (2023) "Business Models for Sustainability." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.842

Summary

Human activity is increasingly impacting the environment negatively on all scales. There is an urgent
need to transform human activity towards sustainable development. Business has a key role to play in
this sustainability transition through technological, product/service and process innovations, and
innovative business models. Business models can enable new technologies and vice versa and are
therefore important in the sustainability transition. A business model for sustainability, or
synonymously, sustainable business model, takes a holistic view on how business is done in relation
to its stakeholders, including the society and the natural environment. They incorporate economic,
environmental, and social aspects in an organisation’s purpose and performance measures; consider
the needs of all stakeholders rather than giving priority to owner and shareholder expectations; treat
‘nature’ as a stakeholder; and take a system, as well as a firm-level perspective on the way business is
done. The research field of sustainable business models emerged from fields such as service business
models, green and social business models, and concepts such as the sharing and circular economy.
Academics have argued that the most service-oriented business models can achieve a ‘factor 10’
environmental impact improvement, if designed the right way.

Researchers have developed various conceptualisations, typologies, tools and methods and reviews on
sustainable business models. However, sustainable business models are not yet mainstream. Important
research areas include: (1) tools, methods, and experimentation, (2) the assessment of sustainability
impact and rebounds for different stakeholders, (3) sufficiency and degrowth, and (4) the twin
revolution of the sustainability and digital transition. First, a plethora of tools and approaches are
available for inspiration and sustainable business model design. Second, in the field of assessment,
methods have been based on life cycle thinking considering the supply chain, how a product is
(re)used, and eventually disposed of. In the field of sufficiency, authors have recognised the
importance of moderating consumption through innovative business models to reduce the total need
for products, reducing the impact on the environment. Finally, researchers have started to investigate
the important interplay between sustainability and digitalisation. Because of the potential to achieve a
‘factor 10’ environmental impact improvement, sustainable business models are an important source
of inspiration for further work. This includes the upscaling of sustainable business models in
established business and in new ventures. Understanding how to design better business models, and
pre-empting their usage in practice, are essential to achieve the desired positive impact. In the field of
sufficiency, the macro-impacts of individual and business behaviour would need to be better
understood. In the area of digital innovation, the environmental, societal and economic value need
scrutinization.

Researchers and practitioners can leverage the popularity of this field by addressing these important
areas to support the development and roll-out of sustainable business models with significantly
improved economic, environmental, and societal impact.

Keywords
Business Model for Sustainability; Sustainable Business Model; Product service system;
Servitization; Circular Economy; Sharing Economy; Sufficiency; Degrowth; Hybrid Business.

1
Introduction to Business Models for Sustainability

Human activity is increasingly having negative impacts on the environment on all scales,
often outcompeting natural processes (Crutzen, 2006). The new epoch dubbed the
Anthropocene dominated by the impact of humanity on the Earth’s systems, is estimated to
have started about two centuries ago, coinciding with the industrial activity of the design of
the steam engine in 1784 (Crutzen, 2006). Total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions have continued to rise and annual GHG emissions during 2010-2019 were higher
than in any previous decade (IPCC, 2022). About 75% of land and 66% of ocean areas have
been significantly altered by people, driven largely by food production: crop and livestock
operations currently use more than 33% of Earth’s land surface and 75% of its freshwater
resources (Tollefson, 2019). In the era of the Anthropocene, transforming human activity
towards sustainable development is essential to the future health and wellbeing of our Earth
systems (Kennedy & Bocken, 2020; Steffen et al, 2018). There is a key role for business to
play in this sustainability transition through pursuing new technologies enabled by and
driving new innovative business models.

Fortunately, the global ecological crises have not gone unnoticed by managers in business
(Kennedy & Bocken, 2020). Businesses have started tackling sustainability issues, both for
normative reasons in response to global ecological destruction and social issues, but also
more instrumental reasons such as legal compliance, competitiveness, new revenue streams
and cost savings and attracting talent (Nidumolu et al., 2009). Innovations, such as those that
support the renewable energy transition and electrification of vehicles, are at the core of the
sustainability transition as a vehicle for managers to discover win-win opportunities that help
to achieve financial, environmental and social goals (Hart & Milstein, 2003). Yet,
innovations typically start at a rather incremental level (Kennedy et al., 2017) and those that
radically improve environmental and social performance of firms are still more rare (e.g.,
Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken & Geradts, 2020). Managers tend to make
incremental changes to existing products and services, that result in only limited
improvements to environmental performance, over transforming their business models fully
for sustainability (Kennedy et al., 2017; Ritala et al., 2018).

Sustainable business models have the potential to radically improve environmental and social
performance of firms (Bocken et al., 2014). To illustrate, compared to just selling a product,
service-driven business models such as pay per use or performance as examples of
sustainable business models, might be able to achieve environmental impact improvements of
up to 90% (Lindahl et al., 2014; Tukker, 2004). Yet, there is still a slow adoption of
sustainable business models in business practice, and an understanding of how to radically
improve environmental (and social) performance through sustainable business models

The concept of sustainable business models and the emergence of the concept are discussed
next. This is followed by trends in current research and finally, conclusions on the evolving
field of sustainable business models.

What are Sustainable Business Models and how did this topic emerge?

Sustainable business models may be defined as the ways in which organisations create,
deliver, and capture value for customers and stakeholders, to support a safe and just operating
space for humanity (Raworth, 2017; Rockström et al., 2009) and all living entities to flourish
(Kennedy & Bocken, 2020). Such business models may emerge in established business

2
gradually seeking to transform its business model for sustainability (Han et al., 2022; Laasch
& Pinkse, 2020) or in startups trialling new business models in practice (Henry et al., 2020).
Sustainable business models draw on economic, environmental, and social aspects of
sustainability in defining an organisation’s purpose and performance measures; consider the
needs of all stakeholders rather than giving priority to owner and shareholder expectations;
treat ‘nature’ as a stakeholder and promote environmental stewardship; and take a system, as
well as a firm-level perspective on the way business is done (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008).
Sustainable business models have been positioned by academia, business, and policy as a key
enabler for addressing systemic societal and environmental issues in a business context and
tackling institutionalised unsustainability (Bocken & Short, 2021; Ritala et al., 2021).

The foundations of the field of sustainable business models can be found in research on
mainstream business models (e.g., Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Amit & Zott, 2010),
product-service-systems or PSS (Mont, 2002; Tukker, 2004) but also in related fields of
social business models (e.g., Yunus et al., 2010), green business models (Bisgaard et al.,
2012) and topics like sharing and circular economy (Henry et al., 2021). These separate
streams of business model literature, as well as emerging sustainability practices and
concepts contribute to the emerging field of sustainable business models that has also gained
footing in management studies (Massa et al., 2017; Schaltegger et al., 2016; Snihur &
Bocken, 2022).

Figure 1 shows a brief depiction of the emergence of the field and related developments,
based on highly cited studies on ‘sustainable business models’ and ‘business models for
sustainability’ and related developments and trends. The early definition of a business model
for sustainability dates back to 2008 (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008), after the first studies on PSS
and sustainability emerged (e.g., Goedkoop et al., 1999; Mont, 2002; Tukker, 2004). Yet, as
of 2010 business model research took off with the publication of the business model canvas
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), and a well cited special issue on business models in the
academic journal Long Range Planning, for example featuring the work by Yunus et al.,
(2010) on social business models. In addition, books on concepts such as the performance
economy (Stahel, 2010) and Sharing Economy (Botsman & Rogers, 2010), discussing the
need for new business models driving sustainability, were introduced at around the same
time. The sustainable business model literature became more prominent as of 2013 with a
special issue on “Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance” in the
Journal of Cleaner Production by Boons et al. (2013), featuring a research agenda on business
models for sustainability (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013), early tools for sustainable
business modelling (Bocken et al., 2013) and a comprehensive overview of sustainable
business models in 2014 (Bocken et al., 2014). In 2016, a special issue on business models
for sustainability was published in the academic journal Organization & Environment
(Schaltegger et al., 2016) featuring topics like strongly sustainable business models (Upward
& Jones, 2016) and the normative business model (Randles and Laasch, 2016). In 2020, an
issue was published dedicated to business models was published in Long Range Planning
featuring sustainable business models (Bocken & Geradts, 2020; Laasch & Pinkse, 2020) and
the importance of experimentation (Bocken & Snihur, 2020; Felin et al., 2020).

To understand what a sustainable business model is, first a brief background on conventional
business models is provided, followed by related concepts such as PSS, social business
models, sharing and circular economy.

3
Figure 1. Emergence of the field of Sustainable Business Models

4
A business model is in essence the way a company does business (Magretta, 2002). It is a
way to quickly explain how the business works and remains viable. While there are different
depictions of a business model, is it often conceptually broken down into three elements:
value proposition at the core (product-service offering); value creation and delivery
(resources, activities, partnerships, customer relations, segments, channels) and value capture
(cost structure and revenue streams) (Bocken et al., 2014; Richardson, 2008; Teece, 2010). A
famous depiction of a business model used by business and academia, is the 9-box business
model canvas by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010). This business model canvas has been used
by academia and business as a template to map and find ways to innovate a company’s
existing business model or for entrepreneurs to develop and test their emerging business
models (Snihur & Bocken, 2022). Bridging their work, and work by others in management
science and interdisciplinary sustainability science, Figure 2 includes a depiction of a
sustainable business model in an adapted canvas format. The core of the business model is
the value proposition, which in a sustainable business model should cater for the triple
bottom line. The value proposition is ‘put in practice’ through the value creation and delivery
mechanisms. In the case of a sustainable business model, the group of stakeholders to satisfy
goes much beyond shareholders and owners, as sustainability issues, such as poverty
reduction and climate change, go for beyond a single company’s boundaries (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008; Velter et al., 2020). The cost and revenue streams or value capture
mechanisms in a sustainable business model ensure that all stakeholders in a system gain
value – not merely a limited group of owners and shareholders. Such a sustainable business
model canvas (Figure 2) can support the development of sustainable business models by
allowing key decision-makers to rethink the specific elements and holistically develop a more
sustainable business model. Related visual depictions of a sustainable business model canvas
include the Triple Layer Canvas by Joyce & Paquin (2016), and the Flourishing Canvas by
Jones & Upward (2014).

Figure 2. Sustainable business model canvas. Source: Developed from Bocken et al.
(2018), Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) and Richardson (2008).

Product service systems or in short PSS as a research field can be seen as a clear precursor to
research and practice in the field of sustainable business models. PSS, when designed in the
right way, are seen as a way to achieve significant improvements in environmental impact
while contributing to a business’ competitiveness (Mont, 2002; Tukker, 2004; Kjaer et al.,
2019). Whereas PSS and servitization constitute a field in themselves, they have been

5
investigated since the 1990s for their potential beneficial impact on the economy and
environment (see e.g., the report by Goedkoop et al., 1999 for the Dutch ministries of
environment and economics). Rather than selling a product, the service element of the
business model is innovated. For example, the customer pays per use (e.g., a launderette), per
performance (e.g., a well-functioning engine) (e.g., Stahel, 2010) or via a rental or
subscription model allowing for product reuse. For rental and subscription, the environmental
benefit may be achieved through reusing and refurbishing products and product take back for
recycling. The advantage of PSS from an environmental perspective is that the consumer
receives the service (e.g., clean laundry) but the service provider can optimise the process and
reduce cost and resources used behind it. Typically, the service-delivering company is
incentivised to make the product last and make best use of materials: reusing products and
materials saves cost. Finally, when the company pays for the usage cost (e.g., for fuel in the
case of car sharing) there is an incentive for fuel efficiency. Tukker (2004) and Tukker &
Tischner (2006) suggest that the more use and result-oriented business model types have the
greatest positive impact on sustainability, because customers pay for the usage, or a certain
level of performance which may be optimised by the service provider. According to Tukker
(2004) PSS focusing on a functional result (e.g., clean laundry, well-functioning engine), in
theory, have the highest potential for environmental impact reduction since the service
provider offers a result closer to a final customer need and has more freedom to design a low-
environmental impact system. However, the PSS needs to be designed with clear
environmental intent upfront to be impactful (Crul & Diehl, 2009; Tukker, 2015). PSS
design would need to focus on the final need, and customer demand or function that needs to
be fulfilled (Tukker & Tischner, 2006) and seeking to deliver this at the lowest environmental
cost.

While the area of sustainable PSS (Crul & Diehl, 2009; Mont, 2002; Tukker & Tischner,
2006) is often seen as a precursor to wider research on sustainable business models (Bocken
et al., 2014), it does not typically capture the social dimension of sustainability well, which is
more evident in the work of social business models focused on resolving societal problems
such as such as poverty, and the lack of access to healthcare and education. Yunus et al.
(2010) refer to social business models as being able to act as a change agent for the world by
resolving social issues through a model with sufficient “business-like” characteristics to
ensure the success of the endeavour. While there is a clear financial model in a social
business model, the value proposition, creation and delivery and capture mechanisms involve
key stakeholders all understanding and accepting the joint social mission. As an example of a
social business (model), Yunus et al. (2010) describe the case of Grameen Bank which
pioneered microcredit to the poorest in India, allowing them to start their own ventures and
earn a living wage.

Other key sustainability concepts which have both been associated with business models for
sustainability are the sharing economy (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) and circular economy
(EMF, 2013), which have been contrasted and compared in a review by Henry et al., (2021).
The sharing economy is about sharing products between more people, so in total you need
fewer products, which can be enabled by peer-to-peer models. Kurtis & Mont (2020) describe
a sharing economy business model as the business model of a sharing platform, which
mediates an exchange between a resource owner and a resource user to facilitate temporary
access to under-utilised goods, resulting in a reduction of transaction costs associated with
sharing. The important element is that in such a platform, temporary access is provided rather
than a transfer of ownership. Product owners and product users interact and co-create value
on the platform. The circular economy is about securing resources for current and future

6
generations, enabled by narrowing, slowing, closing, and regenerating resource loops, and
has roots in the 1960s but has gained footing in policy and business since the early 21 st
century (Blomsma & Brennan, 2017; Bocken et al., 2016; Konietzko et al., 2020; Stahel,
2010). In the circular economy various business models such as products as a service have
been discussed such as rental, subscription and lease, to enable the reuse and recycling of
materials (Tukker, 2015). In some cases, the product is owned by the customer (e.g., a
durable product sale with high warrantees) while in others (e.g., rental, lease) ownership is
not transferred. Circular and sharing business models enable companies to improve the
sustainability of their offering, while creating a competitive advantage (Henry et al.,
2021). Sharing economy is often seen as a subset of the circular economy with the move to
products as a service (PSS) as an important theme (Henry et al., 2021). While sharing as a
practice is of all times (Boons & Bocken, 2018), the sharing economy has gained footing
because of the advent of internet-based platforms allowing organisations such as Airbnb or
BlaBlaCar to emerge (Henry et al., 2021). The circular economy similarly gained from digital
technologies (Çetin et al., 2021; Ranta et al., 2021), but in contrast to the sharing economy,
many circular economy examples function without exchange platforms (e.g., a company
directly selling recycled or remanufactured products). Furthermore, while the circular
economy has a dominant environmental and economic focus, the sharing economy also has a
clear social dimension and community spirit related to sharing with others.

To bring together emerging but disparate streams of research from PSS to social business
models, a unifying research agenda presenting an overview of sustainable business model
archetypes was presented in 2014 (Bocken et al., 2014). This is the most cited sustainable
business model typology to date according to various review studies (Lemus-Aguilar et al.,
2019; Nosratabadi et al., 2019; Pieroni et al., 2019). The archetypes were classified according
to more technological, social, and organizational types as per the earlier broad categorisation
of sustainable business model innovation types in Boons & Lüdeke-Freund (2013).
Subsequently, various overviews and typologies of circular and sustainable business models
have been developed by different practitioners such as consultancies (e.g., Clinton &
Whisnant, 2014; Lacy & Ruqvist, 2015) and academia (e.g., Ritala et al., 2018; Lüdeke-
Freund et al., 2018), expanding the list of Sustainable Business Model examples. Some are
classified according to sustainability dimension (social, environmental, or economic; Ritala et
al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018) and others according to innovation type (e.g. Clinton
& Whisnant, 2014; Lacy & Ruqvist, 2015). In addition, later work includes reviews on
sustainable business models (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Nosratabadi et al., 2019) and circular
business models (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020), conceptual studies (Evans et al., 2017;
Lewandowksi, 2016), and research on circular and sustainable business model tools and
methods (Bocken et al., 2019b; Pieroni et al., 2019).

While sustainable business models are seen as an important way to address systemic societal
and environmental issues in a business context and tackling institutionalised unsustainability,
there are still severe institutionalised unsustainable business models in virtually all global
sectors (Ritala et al., 2021). Institutions can be characterised according to the regulative (laws
and regulations), cognitive (knowledge and skills), and normative context (norms, values,
beliefs, assumptions) — contexts which only shift gradually (Scott, 2013; Zvolska et al.,
2019). For example, when Paul Polman became the CEO of Unilever in 2009, he announced
that he would focus on long-term outcomes and sustainability, rather than short-term
quarterly results (Polman & Winston, 2021). While this move was commended by
sustainability enthusiasts, it was met with mixed response from the financial sector, and
certainly not an immediate following by other companies (Polman & Winston, 2021).

7
Financials norms largely remained focused on short-term gains and satisfying shareholder
rather than wider stakeholder interests (Bocken & Geradts, 2020). Furthermore, the circular
economy notion has been adopted in environmental regulation in the EU since 2015 and had
also been featuring in other parts of the world, like China’s 5-year plans; (Bocken et al.,
2017). Yet, European and global circularity — the extent of recycling, reuse etc. — was
estimated to be less than 10% in 2021 (Circle Economy, 2022). Examples of institutionalised
unsustainable business models common across sectors are those incorporating environmental
resource exploitation and waste (e.g., food and oil and gas industries), offering quantity over
quality (most consumer goods), pushing addictive consumption (e.g., clothing, social media),
or financing and supporting unsustainable practices (e.g., banks, pension funds) (Bocken &
Short, 2021). The transition towards sustainable business models is rather gradual (Ritala et
al., 2018) and requires significant experimentation and upscaling of existing initiatives
(McGrath, 2010).

Current state of research on sustainable business models

The field of sustainable business models is popular, which is evident from the various special
issues and reviews on sustainable business models (Figure 1). Yet, critics have questioned
whether the field of sustainable business models is an emerging field or passing buzz-term
because of the sudden popularity of the field and overuse of the term in research and practice
(Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017). However, it is evident that dominant unsustainable
business models need to be transformed towards more sustainable and circular business
models (Ritala et al., 2021). Notably, the IPCC (2022) calls for the transformation towards a
circular economy with significantly transformed sustainable and circular business models to
accelerate the business transition and cut carbon emissions by half by 2030. The current state
of research is aligned with this urgent need and focuses on topics that support the business
transition through tools and methods, but also critically reflect on the sustainability impact,
the need for strongly sustainable business models and more integration with other
transformations like the digital technology transition.

Tools, methods & experimentation

Tools and methods can support the company transformation towards sustainable and circular
business models and can also allow new ventures to develop a desirable, viable, feasible and
sustainable business model. Various sustainability modifications of the business model
canvas have been created (Figure 2). The triple bottom line canvas by Joyce & Paquin (2016)
includes the three layers of the triple bottom line (people, profit, planet), while the flourishing
canvas by Upward & Jones (2016) supports the development of more strongly sustainable
business models focused on flourishing, or thriving of society and the environment rather
than simply optimising economic benefits (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2020). Such business
model canvases allow businesses to contemplate their position in society and in relation to
the natural environment (Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Upward & Jones, 2016) so they can build
better more sustainable business models.

While the business model canvas and its sustainability variants are popular as they provide a
visual template and bring together the various elements of a business model, other tools have
been developed specifically for the process of sustainable business model innovation. The
sustainable business model tool review by Pieroni et al. (2019) classified tools and methods
according to whether they are to be used for sensing, seizing, and transforming as dynamic
capabilities in the business model innovation process (Teece, 2010). Sensing refers to

8
understanding opportunities, seizing to translating those opportunities into business model
concepts and transforming to preparing organizational capabilities for change and
implementing new business model concepts (Pieroni et al., 2019). Most tools for sustainable
business model are developed for the sensing phase of exploration. Examples include tools
using gamification (Whalen & Peck, 2014; Whalen, 2017) and card deck type of tools
(Konietzko et al., 2020; Sinclair et al., 2018). This is in line with a review by Bocken et al.
(2019b) on circular business model innovation tools which found that most tools are
developed for the ideation phase. According to Pieroni et al. (2019) at the time of their
investigation, only 20% of the identified approaches were suited for the transforming stage,
which includes activities such as piloting, preparing the organizational capabilities for
change, and implementing new business model concepts. Yet, experimenting and piloting are
essential as the process of transformation in existing business towards sustainable business
models is rather gradual (Antikainen et al., 2017; Weissbrod & Bocken, 2017).

Experimentation is about testing the desirability, feasibility, viability, and sustainability of

future business models (Baldassarre et al., 2020) and builds on the idea of the lean startup
which is about iterative consumer testing based on hypotheses about the future business
(Blank, 2013; Ries, 2011). Lean startup was originally developed to support the development
of successful business models for emerging startups — using little resources and benefitting
from prototyping the business model early on with customers (Blank, 2013) — but is also
widely used by large business to innovate their business models (Felin et al., 2020) also for
sustainability innovation (Bocken & Snihur, 2020).

According to Yunus et al. (2010), whereas conventional business model innovation is about
challenging conventional thinking, finding complementary partners and continuous
experimentation, sustainable business model innovation is also about involving
sustainability-oriented shareholders, or even replacing some shareholders with stakeholders,
and including sustainability objectives into the business model deliberately early-on. In the
field of circular economy, various practical tools have been developed to support the
experimentation phase to support the testing of desirability, feasibility, viability, and
sustainability of business models (e.g., Baldassarre et al., 2020) but also the assist in the
identification of and collaboration with partners to jointly innovate and put the business
model into practice (Brown et al., 2021).

Finally, the assessment of the eventual sustainability impact of new sustainable business
models is yet underexplored (Böckin et al., 2022), in particular when scaling up the
sustainable business model (Baldassarre et al., 2020; Bocken et al., 2021). However, as the
process of sustainable business model innovation takes time and is complex due to
involvement of multiple stakeholders to create sustainable value (Brown et al., 2019;
Freudenreich et al., 2020; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016), it is important that this process is
worthwhile and delivers the aspired social and/or environmental impact improvements. Few
tools and methods have been developed for this phase of assessment, discussed next (Böckin
et al., 2022; Das et al., 2022).

Assessment of impact and rebounds

In conceptual work, it has been suggested that the most service-oriented sustainable business
models may be able to achieve environmental impact reductions of up to 90% (Tukker, 2004;
Tukker & Tischner, 2006). Some empirical studies have identified this type of factor 10
impact decrease in environmental impact associated with sustainable business models

9
(Lindahl et al., 2014). However, to achieve these benefits the business model needs to be
designed with environmental and societal intent upfront (Crul & Diehl, 2009). For example, a
PSS like car sharing would need to be designed for fuel efficiency in the use phase, products
would need to be designed for longevity and upgrading and eventually recycling, and users of
the PSS would be incentivised to reduce their environmental impact (e.g., through paying per
use) to achieve these benefits (Crul & Diehl, 2009). Furthermore, more evidence on the
impact of sustainable business model tools is needed as many companies innovate their
business models but do not assess the impact of these innovations (Das et al., 2022).

Most business model assessment approaches to date are based on Life cycle assessment
(LCA) type of thinking and help to assess the impacts associated with specific phases of the
product/ service life cycle, such as resource extraction, production, retail, logistics, use and
reuse, and finally recycling or recovery of materials (Böckin et al., 2022; Das et al., 2022).
Some use a more qualitative streamlined assessment (Bocken et al., 2016) or simulation to
estimate the potential impact of a new business model to a business and its environmental
impact (Lieder et al., 2017). While such assessment might give a broad overview of the
impacts, they often lack ‘real’ company data about the business model in practice (Whalen et
al., 2022). Few studies assessing the sustainability impact of new sustainable business
models use company data directly with exceptions. Exceptions include studies of products
with a dominant use phase, such as e-scooters (Moreau et al., 2020) power tools (Martin et
al., 2021) and washing machines (Bocken et al., 2018), as well as industrial applications
(Lindahl et al., 2014). Because of the high sustainability potential of sustainable business
models (Tukker, 2004) but low application (Ritala et al., 2018) and lack of evidence of the
impacts in reality (Das et al., 2021), more research is needed on the impact of sustainable
business models on society and the environment (Whalen et al., 2022).

The social and economic dimension of business model innovation have been investigated to a
lesser extent, but various studies are emerging. Some authors have taken an integrative
perspective by investigating the triple bottom line of societal, environmental, and economic
impact of new business models. For example, Godina et al. (2020) investigate the impact of
additive manufacturing on business models taking an economic, social, and environmental
perspective. Bianchini et al. (2019) visualise the environmental impacts of new circular
initiatives using material flow analysis (MFA) and Sankey diagrams and assess the social
impact of new initiatives. Whalen (2017) specifically focuses on financial assessment
through a circular economy serious game which reveal the financial drivers and barriers to
implementing new circular business models in practice. Baldassarre et al. (2020) develop a
qualitative tool to assess the desirability of a proposition to the customer, the feasibility and
financial viability for the business, and the overall sustainability of new business models.

Sustainable business models are thus heralded for their potential positive impact on
competitiveness, society and the environment (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Schaltegger et
al., 2012), but the impact of a sustainable business model on the environment and society
highly depends on the adoption of the business model by consumers and the wider behaviour
transformation that is achieved (Tukker & Tischner, 2006; Whalen et al., 2022). The usage of
the business model (e.g., secondhand product platform, car sharing platform) by end-
consumers and their overall shifts in behaviour determine the impact of a ‘sustainable’
business model (Whalen et al., 2022). For example, when one buys more of a product,
knowing it will be recycled, or knowing one can resell it on a secondhand product platform,
most environmental benefits of the business are negated. So-called rebound effects, the
negative counter-effects of a sustainable or circular business model (Zink & Geyer, 2017)

10
need to be avoided. Rebound effects known originally from the energy efficiency literature
occur when improvements in efficiency or other innovations fail to deliver on their
environmental promise due to (behavioural) economic mechanisms (Siderius & Poldner,
2021). For example, Siderius & Poldner (2021) who investigated the Dutch textiles industry
found that there is low awareness by the industry of rebound effects, which may negate some
of the potential sustainable innovations pursued by the industry. Kjaer et al. (2019) in this
context refer to ‘absolute resource decoupling’, which only occurs when resource use
declines, irrespective of the economic growth pursued by the business. To achieve absolute
reductions in environmental impact, negative rebound effects should be avoided. Such tools
and methods should anticipate negative rebound effects, in the early stages of sustainable and
circular business model design, so that any negative impacts can still be avoided (Das et al.,
2022). In addition to avoiding rebounds and achieving absolute reductions in environmental
impact, tools could support the creation of ‘net positive impact’, i.e., doing ‘more good’
rather than only ‘less bad’ for society and the natural environment (Polman & Winston,
2021).

Sufficiency and degrowth

Sustainable business models have the potential to bring together concepts of sustainable
production and consumption (Bocken et al., 2014). In contrast to “business as usual”,
sustainable business models pursued by business could be focused on consuming less in total
(Niessen & Bocken, 2020) and degrowth (Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018; Wells, 2018). The
sufficiency-oriented business model is focused on allowing the customer to make do with less
and consume less in total, through strategies such as design for longevity, high levels of
warrantees, repair and design for upgrading (Bocken et al., 2014; Bocken & Short, 2016;
Kropfeld & Reichel, 2021). Sufficiency has been investigated as a potential strategy for high
environmental impact sectors such as clothing (Early & Goldsworthy, 2015; Freudenreich &
Schaltegger, 2020) and food (Bocken et al., 2020). The related macro concept of degrowth is
about a “high quality of life and the need to reduce the ecological impacts of economic
activity to a sustainable level, together with the equitable distribution of wealth among
nations” (Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018, p. 722), presenting an alternative to economic
indicators of wealth such as growth in GDP. Degrowth protagonists argue that the society’s
dominant model of economic growth is unsustainable, amplifying global warming and other
global catastrophes, and alternative indicators need to be found replacing economic growth
(Matterson, 2022). In a business context, degrowth models are about an alternative activist
way of doing business, presenting customers with options to significantly reduce their impact
through novel business models and product that last (Khmara & Kronenberg, 2018). Both
concepts are thus focused on supporting sustainable consumption by focusing on ‘enough’
(Alexander, 2012) and making do with less (Bocken & Short, 2016).

Authors have described sufficiency as a concern for policy, business and individuals
(Bocken & Short, 2016; Jungell-Michelsson & Heikkurinen, 2022). In the case of policy,
this would entail curtailing unsustainable consumption patterns. Thailand for example, has its
own unique sustainability framework— the sufficiency economy—based on Buddhist
worldview on the interrelationships between economy, society, and environment (Song,
2020). The Thailand sufficiency economy vision is based on principles such as sufficiency,
moderation, economizing, and rationalization and keeping an adequate population size while
preserving natural ecosystems (Bocken & Short, 2016). In Western societies, the sufficiency
concept translates into avoiding unnecessary consumption and focusing on needs rather than
wants, where the transformation of business models has an important role (Gossen &

11
Kropfeld, 2022; Niessen & Bocken, 2021). Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar (2016) for example
reviewed emerging legislation on avoiding premature product obsolescence — and rather
stimulating product durability and reparability in business — in Europe. Authors have
investigated positive examples of business proposing more sufficiency-oriented behaviour
and consumption (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014: Freudenreich & Schaltegger, 2020). Yet the role
of business has its limitations and policy interventions are needed (Bocken et al., 2022,
Jungell-Michelsson & Heikkurinen, 2022; Svenfelt et al., 2022). Examples include the
introduction of local or regional carbon dioxide budgets as tools to focus on restrictions and
sufficiency, targets for consumption-based emissions and campaigns to encourage reuse and
reduced consumption (Svenfelt et al., 2022). In the context of individuals and sufficiency,
policy might eventually focus on restricting the most unsustainable behaviours (e.g., using a
petrol-fuelled car), but research has also focused on voluntary behaviour change. Voluntary
simplicity, characterized by “ecological awareness, attempts to become more self-sufficient,
and efforts to decrease personal consumption of goods” as a lifestyle has been discussed in
literature (Leonard-Barton, 1981, p. 243). Related terms and concepts and practices are
minimalism, slow consumption (e.g., related to food, fashion), zero-waste living, sharing and
swapping (Osikominu & Bocken, 2020). In voluntary simplicity the focus is on “rejecting
high-consumption and materialistic lifestyles of dominant consumer cultures, which may be a
necessary counter-movement to start breaking down dominant unsustainable lifestyles”
(Osikominu & Bocken, 2020, p. 2). Relatedly, sufficiency practices, are about absolute
reductions in consumption, modal shifts (e.g., using public transport rather than a private
car), product longevity and sharing (Sandberg, 2021). Voluntary simplicity appears to be a
trend, reflected in the growing number of studies in academia, and a widespread interest in
consumerist countries such as the USA, but also in emerging countries like India and
Thailand (Rebouças & Soares, 2020).

Sufficiency and degrowth have increasingly become a topic of concern in business. Svenfelt
et al. (2022, p. 23) summarise the concept of sufficiency as follows in the business model
context: “companies can use sufficiency principles in their business models and work to 1)
avoid consumption, 2) reduce consumption, and 3) work for reuse”. The ‘Don’t buy this
jacket’ 2011 advert in the New York Times on Black Friday — the day where people are
typically encouraged to consume more — by outdoor company Patagonia, is a key example
of consumption avoidance advocacy. In Patagonia, it is enabled by strategies to support
product longevity, warrantees and repair. Since, many outdoor brands have adopted
sufficiency, particularly focused on product longevity in their marketing tactics (Gossen &
Kropfeld, 2022). Literature and practice review (Bocken et al., 2022; Niessen & Bocken,
2020) has revealed that an increasing number of companies in a range of sectors from food to
clothing, mobility and furniture have adopted sufficiency strategies. However, this is still a
niche group, and more sector-level policy and individual behaviour changes would be
required to put sufficiency into practice (Svenfelt et al., 2022).

While some fear that sufficiency policies might interfere with the materialistic lifestyle,
sufficiency scholars argue quite the opposite: that consuming less and a less materialistic
lifestyle make people happier (Jungell-Michelsson & Heikkurinen, 2022). By reducing one’s
material dependency and shifting behaviour towards non-material values, quality of life
might in fact be enhanced while at the same time supporting a more just distribution of the
resources provided by the planet (Jungell-Michelsson & Heikkurinen, 2022). However, at a
macro scale, most of our economic thinking is still dominated by growth and optimising
economic indicators rather than societal wellbeing (e.g., Jackson, 2009; Raworth, 2017).
Hence, a different perspective on economics is needed, presented e.g., through concepts like

12
“Doughnut Economics”, which recognises the economy’s dependency on society and the
natural environment and calls for optimising wellbeing of nature and society above the
economy (Raworth, 2017). In a more sufficiency based and regenerative circular economy,
individual, business and policy actions need to be geared towards alternative pathways
recognising these dependencies (Bocken et al., 2022) and ensuring that environmental and
societal wellbeing are optimised above profits (Fullerton, 2014; Hawken, 2021).

Sufficiency and degrowth could be seen as important trends that require more research to
position it as a win-win strategy that simultaneously addressed multiple challenges, by
linking business activity to individual action and macro-trends, leading to environmental
benefits through reducing consumption and increasing levels of societal and environmental
wellbeing.

The twin revolution of sustainability and digital transformation

The sustainability and the digital transformation are happening in parallel and clear synergies
are needed for a positive transition that addresses global challenges. Indeed, the European
Union sees the sustainability transition and the digital transition as necessarily going hand in
hand (European Commission, 2022a). They are depicted as twin challenges, where neither
can succeed without the other, and both are important for the future (European Commission,
2022a). To stimulate this twin transition, together with CEOs of key players in the ICT
sector, the European Commission formed the European Green Digital Coalition (EGDC),
with the main aim to “maximise the sustainability benefits of digitalisation” (European
Commission, 2022b). Commitment areas include the investment in development and
deployment of green digital solutions with significant energy and material efficiency,
methods, and tools to measure the net impact of green digital technologies and co-creating,
with representatives of other sectors, recommendations and guidelines for a green digital
transformation beneficial to environment, society and the economy (European Commission,
2022b).

The focus on understanding the impact of digital technologies and how they can create
savings is essential to avoid the case where digital technologies would consume more energy
than they save: digital technologies account for between 8-10% of our energy consumption,
and 2-4% of our greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission, 2022a). Behavioural and
technological shifts are needed and be better understood to put the twin transition into
practice. For example, extending the lifetime of all smartphones by just 1 year would save 2.1
Mt CO2 per year by 2030 and switching from 4G to 5G networks can reduce energy
consumption by up to 90% (European Commission, 2022a). Authors have investigated cases
of digitalisation and weighed the environmental benefits against cost. For example, Lelah et
al. (2011) quantified the environmental benefits of a service business model of connected
infrastructure to optimise glass waste collection. They found that the service model could
have environmental benefits, only if the connected infrastructure (e.g., sensors) are not over-
specified (Lelah et al., 2011).

Sustainable business models have thus been investigated in relation to the digital transition
and the ability to achieve sustainability benefits (e.g., Brenner, 2018; Di Vaio et al., 2020;
Prause, 2015). Digitalisation could create sustainability benefits through allowing for more
open management of business processes and collaboration on sustainability issues, increased
efficiencies through better of use of resources (e.g., avoiding waste) and the ‘predictive’
skills of algorithms that regulate IoT (Internet of Things) systems to guide the most

13
sustainable choices (Di Vaio et al., 2020). Specifically for the area of circular business
models, it has been argued that introducing digital technologies can potentially decrease the
use of resources and enhance circular systems if companies use fewer resources more
efficiently with appropriate digital technologies, thus also reducing operational costs (García-
Muiña et al., 2021). Digitization also enables smart solutions that reduce energy consumption
and facilitate the efficient use of capacity and logistics routes (Rosário & Dias, 2022).

Examples of sustainable business models that are driven by digitalisation are sharing
economy business models enabled by exchange platforms to encourage sharing (Curtis &
Mont, 2020) and circular business models such as subscription models enabled by
smartphones and digital platforms (Tunn et al. 2021). These would not have even been
possible without digitization as the platforms enable sharing of products with many users
online and quick access to services such as bike sharing. However, researchers have critiqued
business leaders for insufficiently levering the potential of digital technologies strategically
(Kane, 2016). The strategic integration of digital technology with business model innovation
to achieve sustainability benefits is only still emerging in practice (Ingemarsdotter et al.,
2020; Poppelaars et al., 2018; Tunn et al., 2018). As an example, IoT (Internet of Things) has
been heralded for its potential on circular economy and sustainability but lacks strategic
implementation in practice by business to achieve these significantly improved sustainability
impacts (Ingemarsdotter et al., 2020; Tunn et al. 2020).

Furthermore, the social dimension of sustainability in relation to digitalisation (García-Muiña

et al., 2021) and sustainable business models (Rosário & Dias, 2022), is a topic that needs
continuous scrutinization. Examples of social dimensions to be assessed in relation to a new
business model include human rights, health and safety and working conditions (García-
Muiña et al., 2021). Another social aspect is digital literacy and access to new sustainable
business models which still need more research (Rosário & Dias, 2022). More
fundamentally, the interrelations between increased digitization and employment needs and
to what extent digitization replaces jobs or generates new employment are a subject of
concern and further research (Aubert-Tarby et al., 2018; Ballestar et al., 2021). The
emergence of so-called gig-economy jobs, jobs with flexible contracts and little certainty,
pursued in emerging business models such as those in mobility (e.g., taxi services such as
Uber and Lyft) and food delivery (e.g., Deliveroo, Uber Eats) (Boons & Bocken, 2018) also
raises questions about the future of employment and the need for intervention. New business
models enabled by platforms such as Airbnb and Uber are also under constant scrutinization
by legislators (Bellan, 2022; Lomas et al., 2021; Nieuwland & Van Melik, 2020)

To conclude, sustainability and sustainable business models and digitization have the
potential to become a positive twin transition that addresses global challenges. However,
more research is needed to leverage these transformations and create positive societal,
environmental, and economic impacts, while avoiding negative impacts.

Conclusion

Sustainable business models are about the ways in which organisations create, deliver, and
capture value for customers and stakeholders, to support a safe and just operating space for
humanity and all living entities to flourish. In the era of the Anthropocene, there is an urgent
need to transform human activity towards sustainable development. There is a key role for
business to play in this sustainability transition through their innovations and innovative
business models. A sustainable business model takes a holistic view on how business is done

14
in relation to its stakeholders, also including the society and the natural environment. The
research field of sustainable business models emerged from fields such as Product Service
Systems (PSS), green and social business models, and concepts such as sharing and circular
economy.

In the area of tools and methods, open questions centre around the upscaling of sustainable
business models both in established business and in new ventures. While various methods
have been developed to support sustainable business model innovation only a minority
support the transforming stage, which includes activities such as piloting, preparing for
organizational change, and implementing new business model concepts in practice. What
approaches may be used, but also, how can sustainability impacts be created and sustained
when scaling up the business?

Related to this, the field of assessment and rebounds, the impacts of a sustainable business
model depend on how the model is designed and the impact through usage. Understanding
better how to design better business models, as well as pre-empting the impact of the usage of
the business model in practice are essential to achieve the desired ‘factor 10’ impact
improvement. Moreover, better understanding the user and how a new business model (e.g.,
car sharing, clothing rental) fits within the wider behavioural patterns of users of the
sustainable business model can help to understand potential negative rebound effects and
help build better business models to avoid such negative impacts.

In the field of sufficiency and degrowth, the focus is on understanding how the business
model supporting ‘making do with less’ will play out in practice. Moreover, the macro-
impacts of individual and business behaviour would need to be better understood. Related to
this, the work of scholars rethinking the economy (for societal and environmental wellbeing)
could be better underpinned by and linked to work on the individual and business scale.

In the area of digital innovation and sustainable innovation, there are still many open research
areas, related to leveraging this twin revolution, related to understanding the environmental,
societal and economic gains versus the cost. Research can help scrutinize the developments
of new digital technologies and their impacts, but also propose solutions on how to best
leverage the twin revolution and develop viable, desirable, feasible and sustainable business
models.

Finally, the area of sustainable business models has seen many review studies (Geissdoerfer
et al., 2018; 2020; Lemus-Aguilar et al., 2019; Nosratabadi et al., 2019). However, more
empirical research is needed to help put sustainable business models into practice. This could
include inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, case studies, experimental studies, practical
tools to help implement and track effects of business models, and action-oriented research,
learning from related areas such as social practice theory (Shove et al., 2012; Whalen et al.,
2022), design and engineering, and transitions research (Bocken et al., 2021).

Sustainable business model researchers can leverage the interest and popularity of the field
by seeking to address these open research areas and live up to the potential to deliver
significantly improved economic, environmental and societal impact.

15
Bibliography

Selected sources for further reading on this topic.

1. Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability‐
oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 18(2), 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068

2. Bocken, N. M., & Geradts, T. H. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model
innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4),
101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950

3. Bocken, N., Geradts, T. (2022) Designing Your Circular Business Model. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Spring Issue. Available at:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/designing_your_circular_business_model

4. Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., van der Grinten, B., Bakker, C. 2016. Product design and
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production
Engineering, 32 (1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

5. Bocken, N.M.P. & Short, S.W. (2021) Unsustainable business models – Recognising and
resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production,
127828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127828

6. Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop
Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

7. Boons, F., 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007

8. Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product
design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design studies, 47, 118-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002

9. Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow,
C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for
creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 597-
608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939

10. Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of
the pyramid. MIT Sloan management review, 44(1), 51.

16
11. Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 17(2), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194

12. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Routledge,
London.

13. Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. (2019). A review and typology of circular
economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 36-61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763

14. Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73-104. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072

15. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value proposition design:
How to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons.

16. Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for
circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of cleaner
production, 215, 198-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

17. Polman, P., & Winston, A. (2021). Net positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving
more than they take. Harvard Business Press.

18. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: Redefining capitalism and the
role of the corporation in society. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.

19. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist.
Chelsea Green Publishing.

20. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses, London, UK, Penguin Books.

21. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & 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), 95-119.

22. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2016. Business models for sustainability
origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization and Environment, 29(1), 3–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806

23. Stahel, W. (2010). The performance economy. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274907

17
 24. Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business
model”. Organization & environment, 21(2), 103-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042

25. Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability?
Experiences from SusProNet. Business strategy and the environment, 13(4), 246-260.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414

References

Alexander, S. (2012). The Sufficiency Economy. Simplicity Institute Report 12s.

https://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/TheSufficiencyEconomy3.pdf

Amit, R., Zott, C. 2012. Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53(3), 41-49.

Antikainen, M., Aminoff, A., Paloheimo, H., Kettunen, O. (2017). Designing circular
business model experimentation – Case study. The ISPIM Innovation Forum, Toronto,
Canada on 19-22 March 2017.

Aubert-Tarby, C., Escobar, O. R., & Rayna, T. (2018). The impact of technological change
on employment: The case of press digitisation. Technological forecasting and social change,
128, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.015

Baldassarre, B., Konietzko, J., Brown, P., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N., Karpen, I. O., &
Hultink, E. J. (2020). Addressing the design-implementation gap of sustainable business
models by prototyping: A tool for planning and executing small-scale pilots. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 255, 120295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120295

Ballestar, M. T., Camina, E., Diaz-Chao, A., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2021). Productivity and
employment effects of digital complementarities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(3),
177-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.10.006

Bellan, R. (2022, June 14). Massachusetts court rejects ballot to define gig workers as
contractors. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/14/massachusetts-court-rejects-
ballot-to-define-gig-workers-as-contractors/

Bianchini, Rossi, & Pellegrini. (2019). Overcoming the Main Barriers of Circular Economy
Implementation through a New Visualization Tool for Circular Business Models.
Sustainability, 11(23), 6614. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11236614

Bisgaard, T., Henriksen, K., Bjerre, M. (2012). Green Business Model Innovation –
Conceptualisation, Next Practice and Policy. Nordic Innovation, Oslo.

Blank, S. (2013). (1st Edition 2005) The Four Steps to the Epiphany: Successful Strategies
for Products That Win. K&S Ranch Publishing, San Francisco, USA.

18
Blomsma, F., Brennan, G. 2017. The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing
Around Prolonging Resource Productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21: 603–614.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12603

Bocken, N., Boons, F., & Baldassarre, B. (2019a). Sustainable business model
experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 208, 1498-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.159

Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., van der Grinten, B., Bakker, C. 2016. Product design and
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production
Engineering, 32 (1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Bocken, N. M., & Geradts, T. H. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model
innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4),
101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950

Bocken, N. M., Olivetti, E. A., Cullen, J. M., Potting, J., & Lifset, R. (2017). Taking the
circularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 21(3), 476-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12606

Bocken, N.M.P, Miller, K, Evans, S. (2016). Assessing the environmental impact of new
Circular business models. New Business Models Conference, Toulouse, France, 16-17 June
2016.

Bocken, N., Morales, L. S., & Lehner, M. (2020). Sufficiency business strategies in the food
industry—The case of Oatly. Sustainability, 12(3), 824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030824

Bocken, N. M., Niessen, L., & Short, S. W. (2022). The Sufficiency-Based Circular
Economy—An Analysis of 150 Companies. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.899289

Bocken, N., Schuit, C., Kraaijenhagen, K. (2018). Experimenting with a circular business
model: Lessons from eight cases. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 28, 79-
95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001

Bocken, N. M., & Short, S. W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model:

Experiences and opportunities. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 18, 41-61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.010

Bocken, N.M.P. & Short, S.W. (2021) Unsustainable business models – Recognising and
resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production,
127828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127828

Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013) A value mapping tool for
sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482-
497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078

Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop
Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

19
Bocken, N., & Snihur, Y. (2020). Lean Startup and the business model: Experimenting for
novelty and impact. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101953.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101953

Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., Nußholz, J. (2019b). A Review and Evaluation of
Circular Business Model Innovation Tools. Sustainability, 11(8), 2210.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210

Bocken, N. M., Weissbrod, I., & Antikainen, M. (2021). Business model experimentation for
the circular economy: definition and approaches. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1),
49-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00026-z

Böckin, D., Goffetti, G., Baumann, H., Tillman, A. M., & Zobel, T. (2022). Business model
life cycle assessment: A method for analysing the environmental performance of business.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 112-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.014

Boons, F., & Bocken, N. (2018). Towards a sharing economy–Innovating ecologies of

business models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.031

Boons, F., 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business
models and economic performance: an overview. Journal of cleaner production, 45, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative
consumption. HarperBusiness.

Brenner, B. (2018). Transformative Sustainable Business Models in the Light of the Digital
Imperative—A Global Business Economics Perspective. Sustainability, 10(12), 4428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10124428

Brown, P., Baldassarre, B., Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R. (2021). A tool for
collaborative circular proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126354

Circle Economy (2022, September, 5). About the CGR1. https://www. CGRi (2022ity-
gap.world/about

Çetin, S., De Wolf, C., & Bocken, N. (2021). Circular digital built environment: An emerging
framework. Sustainability, 13(11), 6348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348

Clinton, L., Whisnant, R., 2014. Model Behavior: 20 Business Model Innovations for
Sustainability. SustainAbility, London, UK.

20
Crul, M., & Diehl, J. C. (2009). Design for Sustainability: A Step by Step Approach. UNEP.

Crutzen, P. J. (2006). The “anthropocene”. In Earth system science in the anthropocene (pp.
13-18). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Curtis, S. K., & Mont, O. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sustainability.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519

Das, A., Konietzko, J., & Bocken, N. (2022). How do companies measure and forecast
environmental impacts when experimenting with circular business models?. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 29, 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.009

Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Hassan, R., & Escobar, O. (2020). Artificial intelligence and
business models in the sustainable development goals perspective: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Business Research, 121, 283-314. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019

Ehrenfeld, J. R., and Hoffman, A. J. (2020). Flourishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation) (2013). Towards a Circular Economy - Economic and
Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.

European Commission (2022a, June 7). Europe’s digital transition goes hand in hand with the
European Green Deal. European Commission Policies. https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/green-digital

European Commission (2022b, June 9). European Green Digital Coalition. European
Commission Policies. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/green-digital

European Commission (2022c, September 2). First circular economy action plan. Circular
economy. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/first-circular-economy-
action-plan_en

Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow,
C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for
creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 597-
608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939

Felin, T., Gambardella, A., Stern, S., & Zenger, T. (2020). Lean startup and the business
model: Experimentation revisited. Long Range Planning, 53 (4),101889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.06.002

Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory

perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,
166(1), 3-18.

Freudenreich, B., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). Developing sufficiency-oriented offerings for

clothing users: Business approaches to support consumption reduction. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 247, 119589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119589

21
García-Muiña, F., Medina-Salgado, M. S., González-Sánchez, R., Huertas-Valdivia, I.,
Ferrari, A. M., & Settembre-Blundo, D. (2021). Industry 4.0-based dynamic Social
Organizational Life Cycle Assessment to target the social circular economy in
manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 327, 129439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129439

Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models
and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of cleaner production, 190, 712-721
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159

Geissdoerfer, M., Pieroni, M. P., Pigosso, D. C., & Soufani, K. (2020). Circular business
models: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123741.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

Godina, R., Ribeiro, I., Matos, F., T. Ferreira, B., Carvalho, H., & Peças, P. (2020). Impact
assessment of additive manufacturing on sustainable business models in industry 4.0 context.
Sustainability, 12(17), 7066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177066

Goedkoop, M., van Haler, C., te Riele, H., Rommers, P. (1999). Product Service-systems,
Ecological and Economic Basics. Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM) and
Economic Affairs (EZ).

Gossen, M., & Kropfeld, M. I. (2022). “Choose Nature. Buy Less.” Exploring Sufficiency-
oriented Marketing and Consumption Practices in the Outdoor Industry. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 30, 720-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.005

Han, D., Konietzko, J., Dijk, M., & Bocken, N. (2022). How do companies launch circular
service business models in different countries?. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 31, 591-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.011

Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). A typology of circular start-
ups: An Analysis of 128 circular business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245,
118528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118528

Ingemarsdotter, E., Jamsin, E., & Balkenende, R. (2020). Opportunities and challenges in
IoT-enabled circular business model implementation–A case study. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 162, 105047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105047

IPCC (2022). Working Group III contribution to the WGIII Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Routledge,
London.

Jones, P., & Upward, A. (2014). Caring for the future: The systemic design of flourishing
enterprises. Proceedings of RSD3, Third Symposium of Relating Systems Thinking to Design,
Oslo School of Architecture and Design, October 15–17, 2014, Oslo, Norway.

22
Joyce, A., Paquin, R. 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more
sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1, 1474–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067

Jungell-Michelsson, J., & Heikkurinen, P. (2022). Sufficiency: A systematic literature

review. Ecological Economics, 195, 107380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107380

Kane, G. C. (2016). The dark side of the digital revolution. MIT Sloan Management Review,
57(3).

Kennedy, S., & Bocken, N. (2020). Innovating business models for sustainability: An
essential practice for responsible managers. In Research Handbook of Responsible
Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., & van den Ende, J. (2017). Radical innovation for sustainability:
The power of strategy and open innovation. Long Range Planning, 50(6), 712-725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.05.004

Khmara, Y., & Kronenberg, J. (2018). Degrowth in business: An oxymoron or a viable

business model for sustainability?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 721-731.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.182

Kjaer, L. L., Pigosso, D. C., Niero, M., Bech, N. M., & McAloone, T. C. (2019).
Product/service‐systems for a circular economy: The route to decoupling economic growth
from resource consumption?. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 22-35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12747

Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). A tool to analyze, ideate and develop
circular innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(1), 417.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010417

Kropfeld, M. I., & Reichel, A. (2021). The Business Model of Enough: Value Creation for
Sufficiency-Oriented Businesses. In Business Models for Sustainability Transitions (pp. 163-
189). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Laasch, O., & Pinkse, J. (2020). Explaining the leopards’ spots: Responsibility-embedding in
business model artefacts across spaces of institutional complexity. Long Range Planning,
53(4), 101891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101891

Lacy, P. & Rutqvist, J., 2015. Waste to Wealth: the Circular Economy Advantage. Palgrave
MacMillan.

Lelah, A., Mathieux, F., Brissaud, D., 2011. Contributions to eco-design of machine- to-
machine product service systems: the example of waste glass collection. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19, 1033-1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.003

Lemus-Aguilar, I.; Morales-Alonso, G.; Ramirez-Portilla, A.; Hidalgo, A. (2019) Sustainable

Business Models through the Lens of Organizational Design: A Systematic Literature
Review. Sustainability, 11, 5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195379

23
Leonard-Barton, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. Journal
of consumer research, 8(3), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1086/208861

Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the business models for circular economy—Towards

the conceptual framework. Sustainability, 8(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043

Lieder, M., Asif, F., & Rashid, A. (2017). Towards Circular Economy implementation: an
agent-based simulation approach for business model changes. Autonomous Agents and Multi-
Agent Systems, 31(6), 1377-1402.

Lindahl, M., Sundin, E., & Sakao, T. (2014). Environmental and economic benefits of
Integrated Product Service Offerings quantified with real business cases. Journal of cleaner
production, 64, 288-296.

Lomas, N. (2021, December 6). UK High Court deals huge blow to Uber-style ride-hailing
contracts. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/14/massachusetts-court-rejects-
ballot-to-define-gig-workers-as-contractors/

Lüdeke-Freund, Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business
model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 145-162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.004

Lüdeke‐Freund, F., Gold, S., & Bocken, N. M. (2019). A review and typology of circular
economy business model patterns. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 36-61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12763

Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model research and practice:
Emerging field or passing fancy?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1668-1678.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093

Lüdeke-Freund, F., Massa, L., Bocken, N., Brent, A., & Musango, J. (2016). Business models
for shared value. Network for Business Sustainability: South Africa.

Maitre‐Ekern, E., & Dalhammar, C. (2016). Regulating planned obsolescence: a review of

legal approaches to increase product durability and reparability in Europe. Review of
European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(3), 378-394.
https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12182

Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter, Harvard Business Review, 86-92.

Martin, M., Heiska, M., & Björklund, A. (2021). Environmental assessment of a product-
service system for renting electric-powered tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281,
125245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125245

Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73-104. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072

24
Matterson, V. (2022, June 15). Degrowth – what's behind the economic theory and why does
it matter right now? World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/what-is-degrowth-economics-climate-change/

McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long range

planning, 43(2-3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.005

Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 10(3), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00039-7

Moreau, H., de Jamblinne de Meux, L., Zeller, V., D’Ans, P., Ruwet, C., & Achten, W. M.
(2020). Dockless e-scooter: A green solution for mobility? Comparative case study between
dockless e-scooters, displaced transport, and personal e-scooters. Sustainability, 12(5), 1803.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051803

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. and Rangaswami, M. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key
driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, September 2009: 57-64.

Nieuwland, S., & Van Melik, R. (2020). Regulating Airbnb: how cities deal with perceived
negative externalities of short-term rentals. Current issues in tourism, 23(7), 811-825.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1504899

Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Rakotonirainy, A.,
& Chau, K. W. (2019). Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability, 11(6), 1663.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061663

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.

Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for
circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production,
215, 198-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

Polman, P., & Winston, A. (2021). Net positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving
more than they take. Harvard Business Press.

Poppelaars, F., Bakker, C., & Van Engelen, J. (2018). Does access trump ownership?
Exploring consumer acceptance of access-based consumption in the case of smartphones.
Sustainability, 10(7), 2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072133

Prause, G. (2015). Sustainable business models and structures for Industry 4.0. Journal of
Security & Sustainability Issues, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2015.5.2(3)

Randles, S., & Laasch, O. (2016). Theorising the normative business model. Organization &
Environment, 29(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615592934

Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Väisänen, J. M. (2021). Digital technologies catalyzing
business model innovation for circular economy—Multiple case study. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105155

25
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist.
Chelsea Green Publishing.

Rebouças, R., & Soares, A. M. (2021). Voluntary simplicity: A literature review and research
agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(3), 303-319.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12621

Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution.
Strategic change, 17(5‐6), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses, London, UK, Penguin Books.

Ritala, P., Albareda, L., & Bocken, N. (2021). Value creation and appropriation in economic,
social, and environmental domains: Recognizing and resolving the institutionalized
asymmetries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125796.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125796

Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puumalainen, K. (2018). Sustainable
business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 170, 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159

Rosário, A. T., & Dias, J. C. (2022). Sustainability and the Digital transition: a literature
review. Sustainability, 14(7), 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074072

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E., Lenton,
T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J. and Nykvist, B. (2009) Planetary
boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity, Ecology and Society, 14(2).
10.5751/ES-03180-140232.

Sandberg, M. (2021). Sufficiency transitions: A review of consumption changes for

environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126097.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126097

Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & 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), 95-119.

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2016. Business models for sustainability
origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization and Environment, 29(1), 3–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615599806

Scott, W. R. 2013. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publi-
cations.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life
and how it changes. Sage.

26
Siderius, T., & Poldner, K. (2021). Reconsidering the circular economy rebound effect:
Propositions from a case study of the Dutch circular textile valley. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 293, 125996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125996

Sinclair, M., Sheldrick, L., Moreno, M., & Dewberry, E. (2018). Consumer Intervention
Mapping—A Tool for Designing Future Product Strategies within Circular Product Service
Systems. Sustainability, 10(6), 2088. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10062088

Snihur, Y., & Bocken, N. (2022). A call for action: The impact of business model innovation
on business ecosystems, society, and planet. Long Range Planning, 102182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102182

Song, H. C. (2020). Sufficiency economy philosophy: Buddhism‐based sustainability

framework in Thailand. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 2995-3005.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2553

Stahel, W. (2010). The performance economy. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274907

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., ... and
Donges, J. F. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252-8259.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business

model”. Organization & environment, 21(2), 103-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042

Svenfelt, Å., Engström, E., Eggestrand Vaughan, H., Gerdin, E. (2022) 62 ways of enabling
sustainable consumption. A collection of examples from research in Mistra Sustainable
Consumption. Mistra Sustainable Consumption, Report 1.16E Stockholm: KTH.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning,
43(2-3), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

Tollefson, J. (2019). Humans are driving one million species to extinction. Nature,
569(7755), 171-172. 10.1038/d41586-019-01448-4

Tunn, V. S. C., Van den Hende, E. A., Bocken, N. M. P., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2020).
Digitalised product-service systems: Effects on consumers’ attitudes and experiences.
Resources, conservation and recycling, 162, 105045.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105045

Tunn, V. S., Van den Hende, E. A., Bocken, N. M., & Schoormans, J. P. (2021). Consumer
adoption of access‐based product‐service systems: The influence of duration of use and type
of product. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(6), 2796-2813.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2894

27
 Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability?
Experiences from SusProNet. Business strategy and the environment, 13(4), 246-260.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.414

Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy– a review,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049

Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006). Product-services as a research field: past, present and
future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of cleaner production, 14(17), 1552-
1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.022

Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An ontology for strongly sustainable business models:
Defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science. Organization
& Environment, 29(1), 97-123. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026615592933

Velter, M. G. E., Bitzer, V., Bocken, N. M. P., & Kemp, R. (2020). Sustainable business
model innovation: The role of boundary work for multi-stakeholder alignment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 247, 119497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119497

Weissbrod, I., & Bocken, N. M. (2017). Developing sustainable business experimentation

capability–A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2663-2676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.009

Wells, P. (2018). Degrowth and techno-business model innovation: The case of Riversimple.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1704-1710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.186

Whalen, K. (2017). Risk & race: Creation of a finance-focused circular economy serious
game. In PLATE: Product Lifetimes And The Environment (pp. 422-425). IOS Press.

Whalen, K., & Peck, D. (2014). In the loop–sustainable, circular product design and critical
materials. International journal of automation technology, 8(5), 664-676.
https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2014.p0664

Whalen, K., Sarasini, S. Bocken, N. (2022). Prosperity or Peril? Consumer Adoption of PSS
Business Models and Influence on Sustainability. 7th International Conference on New
Business Models, 22-24 June, Rome, Italy

Yunus, M., B. Moingeon & L. Lehmann-Ortega. (2010). Building Social Business Models:
Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 308-325.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.005

Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2017). Circular economy rebound. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
21(3), 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136

Zvolska, L., Palgan, Y. V., & Mont, O. (2019). How do sharing organisations create and
disrupt institutions? Towards a framework for institutional work in the sharing economy.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 667-676. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.057

28

View publication stats