Social Responsibility Journal

New business models for creating shared value

Laura Michelini, Daniela Fiorentino,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laura Michelini, Daniela Fiorentino, (2012) "New business models for creating shared value", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 Issue: 4,
pp.561-577, https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211272129
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211272129
Downloaded on: 17 September 2018, At: 01:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8085 times since 2012*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2015),"Does the concept of “creating shared value” hold water?", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 36 Iss 3 pp. 18-29 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-2013-0098">https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-2013-0098</a>
(2013),"A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society,
Vol. 13 Iss 5 pp. 482-497 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078">https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:551360 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 New business models for creating shared
value
Laura Michelini and Daniela Fiorentino

Laura Michelini is an Abstract

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Assistant Professor and Purpose – For a long time, managing the relationship between business and society has been one of
Daniela Fiorentino is a PhD the main topics of academic and business literature. Porter and Kramer have proposed a new
student at LUMSA interpretation of this relationship based on the mutual dependence that exists between corporations and
University, Rome, Italy. society. Trying to put into practice the shared value principle, for-profit companies engaging in strategic
CSR have chosen to implement new hybrid business models. These models include the social business
model and the inclusive business model. The purpose of the paper is to understand which
characteristics distinguish social and inclusive business models and what kind of benefits and risks (for
companies and for communities) are connected to each model.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to identify the features of the inclusive business and social
business models and the benefits and risks associated with these models, ten case studies were
analyzed. Analysis of the business models was based on a theoretical framework developed through the
analysis of the literature.
Findings – The findings of the research suggest two main conclusions. First, social and inclusive
business models are similar in partner networks, use of knowledge and value chain, in the development
of innovative distribution models (except for the cases in which the market considered is not in an
emerging country) and in terms of social benefit. Second, the social and inclusive business models are
different in terms of value proposition, governance systems, profits management model, social risks and
economic profit equation.
Research limitations/implications – The first limitation is that the case study analysis is based on
documentary materials; for further investigation it might be useful to develop in-depth interviews with key
figures involved in the implementation of business models. Even though this descriptive study has
allowed a first important step in taking a comparative analysis between the two business models, further
research should strive to extend the analysis to all the hybrid business models that are being developed
with the aim of creating shared value.
Practical implications – The final propositions allow entrepreneurs and managers to better understand
the characteristics of business models. Moreover, the theoretical framework is a conceptual instrument
that is useful in analyzing and evaluating alternative ways to develop new business models – based on
the ‘‘creating shared value’’ principle – in developing markets.
Originality/value – The paper focuses on comparing the characteristics of the social versus inclusive
business models. Studies that compare business models in the social venturing space are limited.
Moreover, the study addresses the similarity and differences between the two business models rather
than focusing on the two models separately as the previous researches have done.
Keywords Social business, Inclusive business, Business model, Corporate social responsibility,
Developing countries, Modelling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
For a long time, managing the relationship between business and society has been one of
Received 17 June 2011
Revised 14 July 2011
the main topics of academic and business literature. Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011) have
Accepted 4 August 2011 proposed a new interpretation of this relationship, starting from the consideration that the

DOI 10.1108/17471111211272129 VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012, pp. 561-577, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 561
 traditional school of thought on corporate social responsibility (CSR) shares the same
weakness: ‘‘they focus on the tension between business and society rather than on their
interdependence’’ (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 83). For the first time, the mutual
dependence existing between corporations and society, which implies that both business
decisions and social policies must follow the principle of shared value with choices
benefiting both sides, has been put into evidence. In fact, they argue that ‘‘successful
corporations need an healthy society (and) at the same time an healthy society needs
successful companies’’ (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 83). Therefore, from a shared value
viewpoint, companies must integrate a social perspective into the core frameworks that they
use to understand competition and develop business strategy. The shared value principle
becomes more influential when companies decide to expand their businesses into
developing countries where the link between corporations and society becomes stronger
(Jamali, 2010; Matten and Crane, 2005). This is because, on the one hand these countries
represent a good business opportunity, on the other hand they are characterized by huge
social problems. Thus, corporate social responsibility strategies should generate business
as well as social value.
Starting from Porter and Kramer’s theory, companies that have already invested or want to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

invest in developing countries can choose between different corporate social responsibility
(CSR) strategies. Firstly, they could reduce the dangers caused by their value chain.
Secondly, they could choose a philanthropic strategy which improves the most important
areas of the competitive context. Finally, they could opt for a strategic CSR where the social
dimension becomes part of the value proposition.
In the latter case Porter and Kramer note ‘‘the concept of shared value blurs the line between
for-profit and non profit organization. New kinds of hybrid enterprises are rapidly appearing’’
(Porter and Kramer, 2011, p. 67). In fact, recently for-profit companies engaging in strategic
CSR have chosen to implement new hybrid business models that are part of the broader
trend of studies on corporate social entrepreneurship school of thought (Austin et al., 2005).
These models include the social business model (Yunus et al., 2010) and the inclusive
business model (WBCSD, 2008; UNDP, 2008).
Despite the growing importance of these new kinds of business models, which are able to
combine social and business advantage, literature is lacking. The academic literature is
predominantly focused on CSR from a variety of perspective (McWilliams et al., 2006) or on
the social entrepreneurship topic (Sud et al., 2009; Neck et al., 2009; Peredo and McLean,
2006). In few cases literature analyses the two models (social end inclusive) but they are still
considered individually (Mair and Schoen, 2005; Yunus et al., 2010; Marquez et al., 2010).
On the contrary, by adopting a more integrative approach this contribution wants to examine
and compare these new types of business models (social and inclusive). Both the business
models should be analyzed in the context of CSR company strategy because both are able
to connect business and social issues. This analysis will allow companies to better
understand the opportunities offered by these two business models as well as the
characteristics of the implementation.
In view of this deficiency, the purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions:
RQ1. Which characteristics distinguish the social and the inclusive business models?
RQ2. What kind of benefits and risks (for the companies and for the communities) are
connected to each model?

In pursuing these aims, the research starts from a literature background analysis of the
existing business models which allow companies to generate shared value. Secondly, a
review of the academic and managerial literature on business models has been proposed to
define a theoretical framework characterized by categories and sub-categories which has
been useful to develop the multiple case study analysis. To identify characteristics
distinguishing the social and the inclusive business models, as well as the benefits and risks
of each model, a descriptive qualitative analysis of some corporate case studies has been
conducted. Finally, the main research results have been explained and discussed and

j j
PAGE 562 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 conclusions, including some important managerial implications, limitations, and directions
for future researches have been drawn.

2. Background: corporate social entrepreneurship business model

Today, one of the main goals for enterprises is to achieve shared value. This is attained when
a company generates value for both the society and its shareholders, while is conducting its
own (Elkington and Hartigan, 2007). In this scenario, the corporate social entrepreneurship’s
(CSE) main target is to generate shared value (Austin et al., 2005). Therefore, CSE could be
defined as the process of extending the firm’s domain of competence and corresponding to
a set of opportunities through the innovative leveraging of resources, both within and without
its direct control, which is aimed at the simultaneous creation of economic and social value
(Austin et al., 2005).
CSE emerges from and builds upon two other conceptual frameworks: corporate
entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship (SE) (Austin and Reficco, 2009). Covin and
Miles (1999) have defined the former as ‘‘the presence of innovation with the objective of
rejuvenating or redefining organizations, markets, or industries in order to create or sustain
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

competitive superiority.’’ The latter has been defined as a process involving the innovative
use of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social
needs (Mair and Marti, 2006). By analyzing the CSE definition, it is possible to assimilate it to
the concept of social intrapreunership (SI) (Brenneke and Spitzeck, 2009). This concept
refers to companies which apply the Social Entrepreneurship principle to develop and
promote practical solutions to social or environmental challenges, where progress is
currently stalled by market failures (SustainAbility, 2008).
Even if social intrapreunership is based on social entrepreneurship principles, these two
concepts refer to different business models. The former includes all the organizations which
drive social changes through their core-business in a way that generates long-term value for
both their companies and communities (Brenneke and Spitzeck, 2009). In contrast, social
entrepreneurship considers social value creation as the primary objective of its business
and looks at economic value creation as a by-product which allows the organization to
achieve sustainability (Easterly and Miesing, 2007; Stoner and Wankel, 2007). Another
difference between SE and SI is that while SE is an outside process oriented to realize new
social enterprises, SI is an inside process interested in transforming its own company in a
social enterprise. Social enterprises may be defined as private, autonomous,
entrepreneurial organizations providing goods or services with an explicit aim to benefit
the community (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001).
Elkington and Hartigan (2007) have proposed the following nomenclature of social
enterprises:
B Leveraged non-profit. Its target is to deliver public goods to the most economically
vulnerable consumers who do not have access to them. The economic sustainability of
these organizations is guaranteed by fundraising activities.
B Hybrid non-profit. As with the first model, goods or services are delivered to populations
that have been excluded or under-serviced by mainstream markets. The enterprise is
able to recover a portion of its costs through the sale of goods and services to new
targets, but fundraising activities are also contemplated to achieve economic
sustainability.
B Social business venture. It is set up as a for-profit business from the outset, though its
specific mission is to drive transformational social and/or environmental changes. Profits
are generated, but the main aim is not only to maximize financial returns for shareholders
but also to financially benefit low-income groups and to grow the social venture by
reinvestment, enabling it to reach and serve more people. Inside the category of the
social business venture, two different business models can be distinguished: the social
business model (Yunus, 2008, 2010) and the inclusive business model (WBCSD, 2008;
UNDP, 2008).

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 563
 Social business model refers to ventures that aim to solve a social problem by using
business methods, including the production and sale of products and/or services. These
business activities should be undertaken in a way that is at least self-sustaining, and if some
economic surplus is generated, it should be used to improve the level of attainment of social
objectives (Yunus, 2008, 2010).
According to Yunus (2008, 2010), there are two basic typologies of the social business
model. The first model is characterized by no dividends, thus, the owners are entitled to get
their money back. In contrast, surpluses would not be distributed to them as they will be
reinvested to improve the quality of the product or service that seeks to attain the social
objective or to fund new social businesses. Investors who decide to set up a social business
enterprise, ‘‘can take back their original investment amount over a period of time define’’
(Yunus, 2010).
The second kind of social business model refers to a profit-making company owned by
low-income people either directly or through a trust. In this case, even if the business is
profit-oriented, it could be considered a social business because low-income people, being
the owners of the profits generated, will improve their social condition.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

The social business venture category also includes the inclusive business model. This kind
of social enterprise seeks to contribute towards poverty alleviation by including
lower-income communities (LIC) within its value chain while not losing sight of the ultimate
goal of business, which is to generate profits (WBCSD, 2008). Indeed, inclusive businesses
connect supply (producers) with demand (consumers) and the local dimension with the
global, thereby unleashing positive self-reinforcing processes of economic wealth creation
and social empowerment in developing countries.
The inclusive business model embeds its origin in the bottom of the pyramid theory (BOP)
proposed by Prahalad (2005), which is based on the concept of ‘‘serving the poor profitably’’
(Prahalad and Hart, 2002; Prahalad and Hammond, 2002). The author argues that markets
at the bottom of the economic pyramid are fundamentally new sources of growth for
multinational companies. Because these markets are in the earliest stage, growth can be
extremely rapid. However, profitability in LIC could be achieved only if companies change
their traditional opinions about developing countries by no longer considering them as
territories to exploit and instead regarding them as uncharted territories, or entirely different
markets characterized by good producers and good consumers with specific needs, which
in turn could be satisfied through specific and innovative businesses (Austin et al., 2007). In
particular, as the activity could result in profits for both the company and LIC, it is necessary
to ‘‘turn LIC into partners’’. BOP scholars often posit that to be successful, solutions must be
co-created by the exogenous actors and the poor. The model proposed entails a
combination of knowledge developed at the top of the pyramid and wisdom and expertise
found at the bottom. This feature differentiates inclusive business strategies from traditional
corporate strategies, which try to address social targets by serving an existing market more
efficiently or by importing existing business models into the LIC (London, 2008).
The aforementioned is a precursor to defined criteria on which the inclusive business model
is based (Marquez et al., 2010): the initiative must actively seek business opportunity with
LIC; it must prove significant for the organization; and it has to generate both economic and
social value.

3. Literature review of business models

The academic literature offers various definitions and different perspectives on the concept
of business models. Originally, the notion of business model was used in the context of data
and process modeling for IT systems (Konczal, 1975), though the term was later defined as
‘‘a business concept that has been put into practice’’ (Hamel, 2000, p. 66).
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) have defined value creation as part of managing
technology development and have considered the business model as a link between
technological inputs and economic outputs. According to the authors (2002, p. 549), the

j j
PAGE 564 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 ultimate role of the business model is to ‘‘ensure that the technological core of the innovation
delivers value to the customer’’; they identify the following functions of the business model:
B to articulate the value proposition;
B to identify a market segment;
B to define the structure of the value chain;
B to estimate the cost structure and profit potential of producing the offering;
B to describe the position of the firm within the value network context; and
B to formulate the competitive strategy.
Other definitions have incorporated the concept of value creation and value capturing by
combining the approach of strategic management studies with the literature of innovation.
For example, Amit and Zott (2001) have defined a business model as ‘‘the content, structure,
and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of
business opportunities.’’ Recently, the authors (Amit and Zott, 2010, p. 217) suggested a
new perspective that considers the firm’s business model as ‘‘a system of independent
activities that transcends the local firms and span its boundaries.’’
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

In order to clarify the concept of a business model, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002) used
ontology as a tool to synthesize previous research experiences. The main aim of their study
was to provide ‘‘a rigorous building-block-like methodology that defines the essential
concepts in e-business models and shows the relationships between them’’ (Osterwalder
and Pigneur, 2002, p. 3).
In a subsequent study, Osterwalder et al. (2005) suggested a definition that integrates the
two perspectives: the way a company makes business and the conceptualization of that
strategy. For the authors, a business model is ‘‘a conceptual tool containing a set of objects,
concepts and their relationships with the objective to express the business logic of a specific
firm. Therefore, we must consider which concepts and relationships allow a simplified
description and representation of what value is provided to customers, how this is done and
with which financial consequences’’ (Osterwalder et al., 2005, p. 5). In other words,
according to the authors, business models should identify the elements and relationships
that describe the company’s business. More recently, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, p. 14)
suggested that ‘‘a business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates,
delivers, and captures value’’ and proposed the following building blocks for designing
business models: customer segments, value propositions, channels, customer relations,
revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partnerships and cost structures.
The literature review shows how authors have highlighted different components of the
business model (see Table I).

Table I Business model components in literature

Authors Business model components

Hamel (2000) Core strategy, strategic resources, customer interface and value network
Gordijn and Akkermans (2001) Value in, value port, actor, value activity, value exchange, value object, profitability calculation
Hedman and Kalling (2003) Customers, competitors, offering, activities and organization resources, supply of factor and
production inputs, longitudinal process component
Osterwalder et al. (2005) Value proposition, distribution channel, relationship with customers, partner network and revenue
model
Rasmussen (2007) Value proposition, market segment and revenue model, value chain, cost structure and profit potential,
value network, competitive strategy
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) Customer segments, value propositions, channels, customer relations, revenue streams, key
resources, key activities, key partnerships, cost structure
Zott and Amit (2010) Designing elements (content, structure, governance) and design themes (novelty, lock-in,
complementarities, efficiency)

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 565
 In recent times, some authors have used the concept of a business model to analyze social
and inclusive businesses. In particular, Yunus et al. (2010) identify four components of a
social business model: value proposition (stakeholders and product/service); social profit
equation (social profit and environmental profit); value constellation (internal value chain and
external value chain), and economic profit equation (sales revenues, cost structure, and
capital employed).
Mair and Schoen (2005) refer to Hamel’s components of the business model (Hamel, 2000)
to analyze social entrepreneurial organizations: core strategy, strategic resources, customer
interface and value network.
Marquez et al. (2010), in an attempt to analyze inclusive businesses, used some of the
building blocks identified by Osterwalder et al. (2005): value proposition, distribution
channel, relationship with customers, partner network and revenue model.
In coherence with the purpose of this research and considering the specificity of social and
inclusive business models, the theoretical framework based on Osterwalder et al. (2005,
2010) and on Yunus et al. (2010) have been take in consideration. In particular, the following
areas and building blocks (Table II) have been considered: offer (value proposition), market
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

(market segment and distribution), ecosystem (governance model, value chain,

competences, and partner network) and economic features (revenue management).

4. Research methodology
In order to identify the features of the inclusive business and social business models and the
benefits and risks associated with these models, ten case studies were analyzed.
The research, mainly descriptive in nature (Woodside and Wilson, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989),
is based on the multiple-case (holistic) model (Yin, 2003), and the single company has been
considered as the analysis unit. According to Eisenhardt’s (1989) framework, the research
process has been structured in seven steps: selecting cases, crafting instruments and
protocols, entering the field, analyzing data, shaping hypothesis, enfolding literature and
reaching closure.
The case selection has started from the definition of the following inclusion criteria: type of
business implemented by a multinational firm already operating in the market and relevance
and coherence with the research objectives. According to these criteria, 30 cases were
selected from a variety of secondary sources (e.g. research reports, white papers, industry
publications, etc.). Then, another screening of the 30 cases selected in the first phase has
been conducted based on the following new criteria: richness and relevance of the
information and homogeneity within the samples under investigation. The result was a useful
cluster composed of ten cases (five social business and five inclusive business cases).
In the second step (i.e. crafting instruments and protocols), the information was gathered
using documentary materials both internal (e.g. presentations, reports, etc.) and external

Table II Theoretical framework for the analysis of social and inclusive business models
Areas Building blocks Description

Offer Value proposition Gives an overall view of a company’s bundle of products and services
Eco-system Governance model Relates to the set of processes or laws which manage the relationship between
stakeholders as well as the goals for which the corporation is governed
Value chain Refers to the chain of activities for a firm operating in a specific industry
Competences Outlines the specific range of skill, knowledge, or ability of a company
Partner network Portrays the network of cooperative agreements with other organizations necessary to
efficiently offer and distribute value
Market Market segment Describes the segments of customers a company wants to offer value to
Distribution Describes the various means of the company to get in touch with its customers
Economic features Revenue management Describes the way a company makes money and manages it

j j
PAGE 566 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 (e.g. websites, press releases, publications, etc.). Documentary evidences are considered
objectives because they are generated outside the influence of the researcher (Johnston
et al., 1999).
In the third step data have been coded using the following categories and sub-categories of
analysis: value proposition, ecosystem (e.g. governance, value chain, skills, and network
partners), market (customers and distribution) and economic features (revenue
management). For the analysis of the value chain, the classification proposed by the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was used: R&D,
purchasing, production, distribution, marketing and customer;
Moreover, based on the components of the social business model framework proposed by
Yunus et al. (2010), benefits and risks for each case have been selected in order to identify
the social profit and economic profit equations. The framework proposed by the authors
includes, together with the economic impact assessment of the model (economic profit
equation), the introduction of the social profit equation, or the social impact assessment. In
order to increase the degree of the research’s validity (Riege, 2003), a grid to organize the
information have been produce to analyze the cases (e.g. internal validity) (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

In the data analysis phase, all the documentary materials collected have been evaluated by
each researcher independently. Each researcher conducted the data coding independently
using the same categories and sub-categories of analysis. Then the research team
compared and discussed the findings.
The phase of shaping hypotheses has been focused on building evidence which had to
measure the construct in each case well as to verify that ‘‘the emergent relationships
between constructs fit with the evidence in each case’’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 542). After
having accumulated data from different documents the researchers verified each category
of each case. The output of this process is summarized in Appendix 1 and 2.
In order to increase the degree of external validity of the analysis, in the step of enfolding
literature the results were analyzed and compared with the literature (Yin, 2003). The results
of the analysis are described in paragraph 4. Finally in the last step (i.e. reaching closure) we
have defined the research propositions (paragraph 5).

5. Results
The case analysis has allowed the identification of the main characteristics of social and
inclusive business models. Table III summarizes the major components of the theoretical
framework (Table III) and the characteristics of each business model.
Furthermore, the analysis has highlighted the benefits and risks of the implementation of
such business models (Table IV).

5.1 The main features of social and inclusive business models

A first difference between the models is the value proposition, which is the characteristic of
the supply in relation to the market. Implementing a social business requires a change in the
value proposition that is different from the traditional business model developed by the
company. In this respect, Yunus et al. (2010)emphasize the evolution of the traditional value
proposition of Danone from ‘‘high-end product, emphasis on lifestyle’’ to the new value
proposition ‘‘low price and fulfillment of basic nutritional need’’ (Yunus et al., 2010, p. 25).
In the social business model, the offer is characterized by features and prices that must
serve the needs of the low-income sector. The case analysis highlights how the type of
product offered is usually already present in the business portfolio and is innovated based
on the target needs.
Changing the traditional value proposition is not always necessary in the inclusive business
model. Indeed, the inclusive business may include different offers generated by different
combinations of the matrix product and market. The company may choose to address

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 567
 Table III Features of social and inclusive business models
Areas Building blocks Social business Inclusive business

Offer Value proposition Innovation needed (product and price) No innovation product innovation
different pricing policies
Eco-system Governance model Social joint venture external spin-off Internal and external spin-off
Value chain All the value chain All the value chain
R&D; marketing distribution Provision; production
Distribution; marketing; end consumer
Competences Focus on the core business Focus on the core business
Partner network Partnerships with nonprofit Partnerships with nonprofit
organizations and local /international organizations and local/international
institutions institutions
Market Market segment Low income sector (LIS) Emerging countries: the population
with low, medium and high income
Non-profit organizations
Traditional markets
Distribution Non-conventional sales channels Non-conventional and traditional sales
channels
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Economic features Profit management model Profits to cover the investment, then Dividends for the shareholders
invested into the business

Table IV Benefits and risks of social and inclusive business models

Company Community

Social business Benefits Access to new markets Lower prices

Access to local networks of production and Employment growth
distribution Acquisition of new expertise
Positive relationships with local agencies and Local entrepreneurial development
governments Access to new services and products
Acquiring of new skills Increased quality of life
CSR development
Risk Long-term economic sustainability complexity of Privatization of public goods
governance

Inclusive business Benefit Increased profits Employment growth

Entrance into new markets Acquisition of new expertise
Availability of raw materials and quality control Local entrepreneurial development
Traceability of the supply chain Access to services and quality products
Access to local networks of production and Increased quality of life
distribution
Lower production costs
Positive relationships with agencies and local
governments
CSR development
Risk Implementation costs Oligopolistic market
Difficulty of controlling the supply chain Profit orientation
Non-profitable market and social instability Loss of autonomy for the suppliers
Long-term economic sustainability Privatization of public goods
Negative image

emerging markets (i.e. the low income segment as well as upper and middle segments) by
offering a product already present in its portfolio (e.g. Ferrero and Coca Cola) or a new one
(e.g. P&G’s PuR). Alternatively, the company can address traditional markets with products
(e.g. new or already in the portfolio) made in developing countries (e.g. Ikea). Pricing
policies may be varied based on the type of the offer. This highlights how changing the value
proposition is not a sine qua non condition for implementation in the inclusive business
model, as opposed to the traditional model.

j j
PAGE 568 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 Regarding the ecosystem, the first item under analysis is the system of governance. The
case studies showed that in the social business type, the most consolidated practice is the
social joint venture (i.e. the creation of a joint business between a for-profit and a non-profit
organization). It therefore establishes a new legal entity called a social business enterprise
(SBE), which is aimed at generating profits. These profits are initially used to return capital to
investors and are later reinvested into the company itself.
Another feature of the governance model is the composition of the board of directors, which
is made up of managers and professionals from the two founding partners.
Participation in the new entity in egalitarian ways helps to ensure that the particular interests
of one of the two subjects could prevail. Given the complexity of the governance model, it is
critical to define, in advance and in an explicit manner, the objectives and commitments of all
promoters in order for the project to be successful. This is evidenced by the fact that in most
cases, the project was started through an agreement between the two partners, i.e. a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that specifies the commitments and responsibilities.
In the field of social business, the analysis shows that it is possible to configure other
systems of governance. Yunus points out that ‘‘existing businesses will create businesses
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

with social aims to explore the potential of new markets while working to help the less
fortunate segments of the population’’ (Yunus, 2008, p. 52). To date, however, the social joint
venture is the only practice capable of generating more shared value. As will be detailed
later via an analysis of the benefits, this model allows both partners to contribute tangible
and intangible resources. The for-profit company mainly provides economic resources,
managerial skills and technological know-how to develop new products. On the other side,
the non-profit organization provides its knowledge of the market and local needs, its network
with other institutions and actors in the territory and distribution channels.
In contrast, the inclusive business can be implemented by activating a spin-off process,
which can be both internal with the establishment of a strategic business area (e.g. Ikea) and
external through the creation of a third company (e.g. Ferrero). In both cases, the only
promoter (or founder in the case of an external spin-off) is the company itself. With regard to
economic management, in this case, profits will be divided among shareholders.
As to the analysis of the value chain, social businesses can create shared value in all
phases. For example, the social business of Danone has helped to create shared value both
in the research and development phases and in the provision, manufacturing, distribution,
and marketing phases. Finally, value was created for the end customer as well. However,
there are cases in which value creation can be limited just to the phases of research and
development or distribution and marketing (e.g. BASF). It is certain that the model of
inclusive business excludes value creation only for the provision and production phases.
The inclusive business model, however, can create value throughout the whole chain
(e.g. Ferrero), only in the provision and production phases (e.g. Ikea) or even just in the sales
and distribution phases (e.g. Coca Cola). It should be stressed that in both models, it is
critical to contribute to the creation of value within the value constellation with the
involvement of suppliers and local distributors.
Regarding the competences, it is clear in both models that activities start from a base of
skills acquired and consolidated in a particular industry and are then upgraded and
consolidated in the low income market.
Another element present in both models is the development of partnerships. All of the
examined cases highlight the importance of working with one or more non-profit
organizations. Alliances with local non-profit organizations represent the best tool to
create shared value because they allow the for-profit company to gauge the specific needs
of the market, acquire skills and specific know-how and improve relations with the
community. Strategic and long-term partnerships help to reach co-creation (i.e. development
of a business model in which companies and non-profit organizations become promoters of
the same values).

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 569
 With regard to the market, the social business is driven almost exclusively by low-income social
groups. On the contrary, the inclusive business model’s targets are low-income segments of the
population (e.g. P&G), the average or high-income local population (e.g. Ferrero), non-profit
local or international organizations (e.g. P&G) or traditional markets (e.g. Ikea).
Finally, regarding distribution within both social and inclusive business models, it could be
necessary for the company to develop new distribution models in order to respond to the
territory’s characteristics and to the local demands.

5.2 Risks and benefits of social and inclusive business models

Table IV summarizes the benefits and risks associated with the for-profit firm after its entry
into an emerging market through an activity of social or inclusive businesses. The ultimate
goal of this analysis is to highlight the social (social profit equation) and the economic impact
(economic profit equation) by featuring both business models. The benefits for the
enterprise can be divided into three categories. The first category includes the benefits that
can increase the brand equity associated with the development of corporate social
responsibility such as reputation, visibility, image and positioning. The second group
includes the benefits more closely related to the development of competitive advantage
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

such as exploring and finding new markets, acquiring know-how to reach the low-income
segment, and building relationships with agencies and local organizations in order to
develop future business activities in the emerging markets. The third category contains the
economic and profit-related benefits, which can be obtained solely in the inclusive business
model. This category includes the opportunity for the company to increase productivity, the
access to quality raw materials, the reduction of production costs, and the access to local
distribution networks.
With reference to the risks, it should be noted that emerging markets require higher start-up
costs for the company, owing to the uncertainty of returns. The social context and the
political situation, on the one hand, as well as the difficulty to control and manage the supply
chain on the other hand, can create risks (e.g. accidents or other issues), with detrimental
effects on the company’s image.
Regarding the risks and benefits for the community, social business model has a positive
impact on the local quality of life because it contributes specifically providing low prices
products or services and increasing the local entrepreneurship. Privatization of public goods
is the main risk of social business model.

5.3 Case comparison

To answer to RQ1 (which characteristics distinguish the social and the inclusive business
models?) and RQ2 (what kinds of benefits and risks for the companies and for the
communities are connected to each model?), a synthetic representation of social business
models compared to inclusive business models has been reported in Figure 1.
These models are associated with a classification of risks and benefits for the community
and the for-profit company which implements the model.
Such analysis highlights the common features and the specificities of the models. In
particular, the analysis reveals four common elements that emerge: the importance of
achieving partnerships with local organizations, the focus on pre-existing skills of the
company, the process of value creation in the value constellation and the development of
innovative distribution models (except for the cases in which the market considered is not in
the emerging country):
P1. Social and inclusive business are similar on partner network, use of knowledge and
value chain.
P2. Social and inclusive business are similar on the development of innovative
distribution models except for the cases in which the market considered is not in
the emerging country.

j j
PAGE 570 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 Figure 1 Comparison between the social business and the inclusive business models
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

The two models differ in terms of governance systems in that the social business type is tied
to the creation of a joint venture with a non-profit organization, while the inclusive business is
characterized by internal or external spin-off businesses where the company is the sole
promoter.
Other distinctive elements are the value proposition and the target market. In the case of the
social business, a change of the offer system (in terms of product features and price) is
necessary, whereas it is optional in the inclusive business model because the shared value
is generated through other functions of the value chain.
The greatest difference between the two models pertains to the economic area. In the social
business type, profits can be either used to return capital to investors or be reinvested in the
business itself or in other social businesses. This model does not include profit distribution to

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 571
 shareholders. In contrast, the inclusive business type is based on the traditional profit
management model:
P3. Social and Inclusive business are different in terms of the value proposition, the
governance systems and the profits management model.

Finally, an analysis of risks and benefits associated with each model enables one to
determine the value of the impact on the community (i.e. social profit equation) and on the
enterprise (i.e. economic profit equation):
P4. Social and inclusive business are similar for social benefit but different in terms of
social risks.
P5. Social and inclusive business differ by economic profit equation.

6. Conclusion remarks
The main objective of this study has been to examine the differences of two business model
that allow companies to create share value: the social and the inclusive business models.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Business models analysis has been based on a theoretical framework developed through
the literature analysis. The main characteristics that distinguish the social and the inclusive
business models and the typology of benefits and risks (for the companies and for the
communities) related to each model have been identified by using case studies analysis.
In conclusion this study wants to add knowledge about new business models that allow
companies to create shared value to existing literature.
Moreover, this study addresses similarities and differences between the two business
models rather than being focused on the two models separately as previous research has
done. In particular, the findings of the research suggest two main conclusions. First, social
and inclusive business models are similar on partner network, use of knowledge and value
chain, on the development of innovative distribution models (except for the cases in which
the market considered is not in the emerging country) and in term of social benefit. Second,
social and inclusive business models are different in terms of value proposition, governance
systems, profits management model, social risks and economic profit equation.
In addition to the contributions on existing literature, this study has provided new insights for
business management.
The theoretical framework which has been developed to analyze the social and inclusive
business models as well as the final propositions could also be useful for entrepreneurs,
managers and for all the academics who are involved in this field of research.
The final propositions allow entrepreneurs and managers to better understand the business
models characteristics. Moreover, the theoretical framework is a conceptual instrument
useful to analyze and evaluate alternatives ways to develop new business models – based
on the ‘‘creating shared value’’ principle – in developing markets.
Both business models can offer opportunity for entrepreneurs and manager. In particular,
inclusive business models allow companies to increase profits through the investment of the
company in the community. Benefits refers mainly to the possibility of entrance into new
markets, access to local networks of production and distribution, access to raw materials
and improve relationships with local actors.
Differently, social business focus mainly on community benefit while the economic benefits
are indirect as increase the brand equity and the development of competitive advantage for
future business profit activities in the emerging markets (e.g. exploring and finding new
markets, acquiring know-how to reach the low-income segment, and building relationships
with local actors).
The study presents some limitations that can be addressed in a future research. The first
limitation is that case study analysis is based on documentary materials; for further

j j
PAGE 572 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 investigation it might be useful to develop in-depth interviews with key figures involved in the
implementation of business models.
Even thought this descriptive study has allowed a first important step in taking a comparative
analysis between the two business models, further research should strive to extend the
analysis to all the hybrid kind of business models that are being developed with the aim of
creating shared value.
Finally, to better understand the relationships between a for-profit company and its spin-off
company in terms of influence and to address and to deepen the implementation processes
associated with the models, future research should also focus on the analysis of governance
models.

References
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001), ‘‘Value creation in e-business’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22
Nos 6/7, pp. 493-520.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2010), ‘‘Business model design: an activity system perspective’’, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 216-26.
Austin, J. and Reficco, E. (2009), ‘‘Corporate social entrepreneurship’’, working paper 09-101, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA.
Austin, J., Marques, P. and Reficco, E. (2007), ‘‘Building new value chains with low income sectors in
Latin America’’, in Rangan, V., Quelch, J., Herrero, G. and Barton, B. (Eds), Business Solutions for the
Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 193-204.

Austin, J., Leonard, H., Reficco, E. and Wei-Skillem, J. (2005), ‘‘Social entrepreneurship: it’s for
corporations’’, in Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Paradigms of Sustainable Social
Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 169-81.
Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprises, Routledge, London.
Brenneke, M. and Spitzeck, H. (2009), ‘‘Social intrapreneurship’’, paper presented at the 22nd EBEN
Annual Conference, 10-12 September, Athens, available at: www.eben.gr/site/Papers/Spitzeck%
20Heiko%20Social%20Intrapreneurship.pdf (accessed 7 July 2011).
Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002), ‘‘The role of the business model in capturing value from
innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies’’, Industrial & Corporate
Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 529-55.
Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. (1999), ‘‘Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 47-63.
Easterly, L. and Miesing, P. (2007), ‘‘Social venture business strategies for reducing poverty’’, in Stoner,
J.A.F. and Wankel, C. (Eds), Innovative Approaches to Reducing Global Poverty, Information Age
Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 3-26.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), ‘‘Building theories from case study research’’, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Elkington, J. and Hartigan, P. (2007), The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs
Create Markets that Change the World, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gordijn, J. and Akkermans, H. (2001), ‘‘E3-value: design and evaluation of e-business models’’, IEEE
Intelligent Systems, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 11-17.
Hamel, G. (2000), Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hedman, J. and Kalling, T. (2003), ‘‘The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and
empirical illustrations’’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-59.
Jamali, D. (2010), ‘‘CSR of MNC subsidiaries in developing countries: global, local, substantive or
diluted?’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 181-200.
Johnston, W.J., Leach, M.P. and Liu, A.H. (1999), ‘‘Theory testing using case studies in
business-to-business research’’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 201-13.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 573
 Konczal, E.F. (1975), ‘‘Models are for managers, not mathematicians’’, Journal of Systems Management,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-15.
London, T. (2008), ‘‘The base of the pyramid perspective: a new approach to poverty alleviation’’, paper
presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA,
pp. 1-46.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Mair, J. and Marti, J. (2006), ‘‘Social entrepreneurships research: a source of explanation, prediction and
delight’’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Mair, J. and Schoen, O. (2005), ‘‘Social entrepreneurial business models: an exploratory study’’, working
paper 610, IESE Business School, Madrid, 20 January.
Marquez, P., Reficco, E. and Berger, G. (2010), Socially Inclusive Business: Engaging the Poor Through
Market Initiatives in Ibero-America, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005), ‘‘Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical

conceptualisation’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 166-79.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Neck, H., Brush, C. and Allen, E. (2009), ‘‘The landscape of social entrepreneurship’’, Business
Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2002), ‘‘An e-business model ontology for modeling e-business’’,
Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference e-Reality: Constructing the e-Economy,
University of Maribor, Bled, pp. 1-12.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005), ‘‘Clarifying business models: origins, present, and
future of the concept’’, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), ‘‘Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept’’,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41, pp. 56-65.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), ‘‘Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), ‘‘Creating shared value’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89
Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.
Prahalad, C.K. (2005), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits,
Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hammond, A. (2002), ‘‘Serving the world’s poor, profitably’’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 80 No. 9, pp. 48-57.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S. (2002), ‘‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’’, Strategy þ Business,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Rasmussen, B. (2007), ‘‘Business models and the theory of the firm’’, working paper 32, CSES, Victoria
University, Melbourne, June.

Riege, A.M. (2003), ‘‘Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with hands-on
applications for each research phase’’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Stoner, J.A.F. and Wankel, C. (2007), Innovative Approaches to Reducing Global Poverty, Information
Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
Sud, M., VanSandt, C.V. and Baugous, A.M. (2009), ‘‘Social entrepreneurship: the role of institutions’’,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 201-16.
Sustainability.com (2008), ‘‘The social intrapreneurs: a field guide for corporate changemakers’’, available
at: www.sustainability.com/library/the-social-intrapreneur?path ¼ library/the-social-intrapreneurs
(accessed 7 July 2011).

j j
PAGE 574 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 United Nations Development Programme (2008), ‘‘Creating value for all: strategies for doing business
with the poor’’, available at: www.undp.org/gimlaunch/ (accessed 8 July 2011).
Woodside, A.G. and Wilson, E.J. (2003), ‘‘Case study research methods for theory building’’, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 493-508.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development and SNV Netherlands Development Organization
(2008), ‘‘Inclusive business: profitable business for successful development’’, available at: www.wbcsd.
org/includes/getTarget.asp?type ¼ d& id ¼ MzExNDQ

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Yunus, M. (2008), A World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, Public Affairs,
New York, NY.
Yunus, M. (2010), Building Social Business, Public Affairs, New York, NY.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B. and Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010), ‘‘Building social business model: lessons from
the Grameen experience’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2/3, pp. 308-25.

Further reading
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

Burgman, J. and Prahalad, C.K. (2007), ‘‘Cocreating business’s new social compact’’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Grünbaum, N.N. (2007), ‘‘Identification of ambiguity in the case study research typology: what is a unit of
analysis’’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 78-97.
Jenkins, B. (2007), ‘‘Expanding economic opportunity: the role of large firms’’, Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative Report no. 17, available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/
report_17_EO%20Framing%20Paper%20Final.pdf (accessed 8 July 2011).

Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1996), ‘‘From value chain to value constellation: designing interactive
strategy’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 65-77.
Porter, M.E. (2008), On Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2005), ‘‘Social entrepreneurship: creating new business models to serve the
poor’’, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 241-6.

About the authors

Laura Michelini is a postdoctoral research fellow and Assistant Professor in economics and
management at the LUMSA University of Rome. She received her PhD in science of
communication from the LUMSA University of Rome. Her research interests are: marketing,
corporate social responsibility, and innovation management. Laura Michelini can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Daniela Fiorentino is a PhD student at the LUMSA University of Rome in science of
communication and she works in UNICEF Italy in the Corporate Partnerships Division. Her
research interests are: corporate social responsibility and corporate social
entrepreneurship.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 575
 Appendix 1

Figure A1 Social business case studies

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

j j
PAGE 576 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012
 Appendix 2

Figure A2 Inclusive business case studies

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2012 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 577
 This article has been cited by:

1. Annabeth Aagaard, Lise Lodsgård. Leveraging Sustainable Business Model Innovation Through Business-NGO
Collaboration 211-238. [Crossref]
2. Bilbao-TerolAmelia, Amelia Bilbao-Terol, Arenas-ParraMar, Mar Arenas-Parra, Alvarez-OteroSusana, Susana Alvarez-
Otero, Cañal-FernándezVerónica, Verónica Cañal-Fernández. Integrating corporate social responsibility and financial
performance. Management Decision, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Katarzyna Bachnik, Robert Nowacki. 2018. How to Build Consumer Trust: Socially Responsible or Controversial Advertising.
Sustainability 10:7, 2173. [Crossref]
4. Florian Lüdeke-Freund, Sarah Carroux, Alexandre Joyce, Lorenzo Massa, Henning Breuer. 2018. The sustainable business
model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustainable Production
and Consumption 15, 145-162. [Crossref]
5. Patrick Spieth, Sabrina Schneider, Thomas Clauß, Daniel Eichenberg. 2018. Value drivers of social businesses: A business
model perspective. Long Range Planning . [Crossref]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

6. Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen, Wencke Gwozdz, Kerli Kant Hvass. 2018. Exploring the Relationship Between Business
Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and Organisational Values within the Fashion Industry. Journal of Business Ethics
149:2, 267-284. [Crossref]
7. M. Paola Ometto, Thomas Gegenhuber, Johanna Winter, Royston Greenwood. 2018. From Balancing Missions to Mission
Drift: The Role of the Institutional Context, Spaces, and Compartmentalization in the Scaling of Social Enterprises. Business
& Society 4, 000765031875832. [Crossref]
8. Ignasi Martí. 2018. Transformational Business Models, Grand Challenges, and Social Impact. Journal of Business Ethics 2. .
[Crossref]
9. Mahfuz AshrafMd, Md Mahfuz Ashraf, RazzaqueMohammed Abdur, Mohammed Abdur Razzaque, LiawSiaw-Teng, Siaw-
Teng Liaw, RayPradeep Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Ray, HasanMd Rashadul, Md Rashadul Hasan. Social business as an
entrepreneurship model in emerging economy. Management Decision, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Amelia Bilbao-Terol, Mar Arenas-Parra, Verónica Cañal-Fernández, Pablo Nguema Obam-Eyang. 2018. Multi-criteria
analysis of the GRI sustainability reports: an application to Socially Responsible Investment. Journal of the Operational Research
Society 205, 1-23. [Crossref]
11. Sandra Olofsson, Maya Hoveskog, Fawzi Halila. 2018. Journey and impact of business model innovation: The case of a social
enterprise in the Scandinavian electricity retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production 175, 70-81. [Crossref]
12. Cecilia Mark-Herbert, Brita Prejer. Social Entrepreneurship in an Inclusive Business Model: A New Business Model for
Sustainable Agroforestry . [Crossref]
13. Florian Lüdeke-Freund. Unternehmerische Verantwortung und Nachhaltigkeit – Welche Rolle spielen Geschäftsmodelle?
29-55. [Crossref]
14. Nur Suriaty Daud@Fhiri, Siti Intan Diyana Ishak, Suhairimi Abdullah, A. A. Azmi, Aida Shakila Ishak, Z. Ahmad. 2018.
The Discussion of Social Entrepreneurship: Review of the Literature. MATEC Web of Conferences 150, 05095. [Crossref]
15. Florian Lüdeke-Freund, Krzysztof Dembek. 2017. Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing
fancy?. Journal of Cleaner Production 168, 1668-1678. [Crossref]
16. Amelia Bilbao-Terol, Susana Álvarez-Otero, Celia Bilbao-Terol, Verónica Cañal-Fernández. 2017. Hedonic evaluation of the
SRI label of mutual funds using matching methodology. International Review of Financial Analysis 52, 213-227. [Crossref]
17. Manuel Méndez Pinzón, Marcela Gomez Osorio. 2017. Factores incidentes para crear valor compartido en las mipymes de
Bogotá. Suma de Negocios 8:18, 96-105. [Crossref]
18. Boris Urban, Elena Gaffurini. 2017. Organisational learning capabilities as determinants of social innovation: An empirical
study in South Africa. SA Journal of Human Resource Management 15:0. . [Crossref]
19. Paul Tracey, Neil Stott. 2017. Social innovation: a window on alternative ways of organizing and innovating. Innovation 19:1,
51-60. [Crossref]
20. Maximilian J. L. Schormair, Dirk Ulrich Gilbert. Das Shared-Value-Konzept von Porter und Kramer – The Big Idea!?
95-110. [Crossref]
21. Lorenzo Massa, Christopher L. Tucci, Allan Afuah. 2017. A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Academy of
Management Annals 11:1, 73-104. [Crossref]
 22. Stewart Jones, Christopher Wright. 2016. Fashion or future: does creating shared value pay?. Accounting & Finance . [Crossref]
23. Arttu Malkamäki, Anne Toppinen, Markku Kanninen. 2016. Impacts of land use and land use changes on the resilience of
beekeeping in Uruguay. Forest Policy and Economics 70, 113-123. [Crossref]
24. Krzysztof Dembek, Prakash Singh, Vikram Bhakoo. 2016. Literature Review of Shared Value: A Theoretical Concept or a
Management Buzzword?. Journal of Business Ethics 137:2, 231-267. [Crossref]
25. Chitphinan Charoenrungrueang, Mullika Sungsanit. 2016. The Current Status of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities
in Thailand: Evidence from Listed Companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. International Journal of Trade, Economics
and Finance 7:4, 125-131. [Crossref]
26. Yung-Kai Yang, Shu-Ling Wu. 2016. In search of the right fusion recipe: the role of legitimacy in building a social enterprise
model. Business Ethics: A European Review 25:3, 327-343. [Crossref]
27. Anirudh Agrawal, Sreevas Sahasranamam. 2016. Corporate social entrepreneurship in India. South Asian Journal of Global
Business Research 5:2, 214-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. AlegreInes, Ines Alegre, Berbegal-MirabentJasmina, Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent. 2016. Social innovation success factors:
hospitality and tourism social enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28:6, 1155-1176.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

29. MAIRA PETRINI, PATRÍCIA SCHERER, LÉA BACK. 2016. MODELO DE NEGÓCIOS COM IMPACTO SOCIAL.
Revista de Administração de Empresas 56:2, 209-225. [Crossref]
30. Anjum Amin-Chaudhry. 2016. Corporate social responsibility – from a mere concept to an expected business practice. Social
Responsibility Journal 12:1, 190-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Marzanna Witek-Hajduk, Piotr Zaborek. 2016. Does Business Model Affect CSR Involvement? A Survey of Polish
Manufacturing and Service Companies. Sustainability 8:2, 93. [Crossref]
32. Brunella Arru. 2015. Indagine sulla comunicazione della responsabilità sociale delle società quotate italiane. MERCATI E
COMPETITIVITÀ :4, 15-46. [Crossref]
33. Jaqueline Pels, Tomás Andrés Kidd. 2015. Business model innovation. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
Marketing 9:3, 200-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Rikke Brinkø, Susanne Balslev Nielsen, Juriaan van Meel. 2015. Access over ownership – a typology of shared space. Facilities
33:11/12, 736-751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Kirsi Niinimäki, Esben Pedersen, Kerli Hvass, Lisbeth Svengren-Holm. Fashion Industry and New Approaches for
Sustainability 453-474. [Crossref]
36. Boris Urban. 2015. Evaluation of social enterprise outcomes and self-efficacy. International Journal of Social Economics 42:2,
163-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. MINTTU LAUKKANEN, SAMULI PATALA. 2014. ANALYSING BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
MODEL INNOVATIONS: INNOVATION SYSTEMS APPROACH. International Journal of Innovation Management
18:06, 1440010. [Crossref]
38. park jong chul, June-Hee Na, 이이이, Prashant Mool. 2014. The Effects of Creating Shared Value on Corporate Performance.
Journal of Distribution Science 12:10, 29-35. [Crossref]
39. Dongmin Lee, Junghoon Moon, Jongpyo Cho, Hyoung-Goo Kang, Jaeseok Jeong. 2014. From corporate social responsibility
to creating shared value with suppliers through mutual firm foundation in the Korean bakery industry: a case study of the
SPC Group. Asia Pacific Business Review 20:3, 461-483. [Crossref]
40. Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez. Corporate Social Responsibility and International Business: A Conceptual Overview 1-35.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Claudia Ogrean, Mihaela Herciu. CSR Strategies in Emerging Markets 1702-1725. [Crossref]
42. Arash Najmaei, Zahra Sadeghinejad. Designing Business Models for Creating and Capturing Shared Value 335-360.
[Crossref]
43. Ibrahim H. Osman, Abdel Latef Anouze. A Cognitive Analytics Management Framework (CAM-Part 1) 151-227. [Crossref]
44. Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech. Applying Business Solutions to Social Problems 139-164. [Crossref]
45. Alicia Guerra Guerra, Lyda Sánchez de Gómez. Social Entrepreneurship Taxonomy 370-407. [Crossref]
46. Claudia Ogrean, Mihaela Herciu. CSR Strategies in Emerging Markets 1-24. [Crossref]
 47. Arash Najmaei, Zahra Sadeghinejad. Designing Business Models for Creating and Capturing Shared Value 40-65. [Crossref]
48. Siavash Moheb, Ali Golrokh. The Impact of Social Business Strategies in Creating Empirical Social Business Models 1-21.
[Crossref]
49. Jessica Williams, Lynnaire Sheridan, Peter McLean. Developing Corporate Social Responsibility Projects 1-28. [Crossref]
50. Lucia Aiello, Claudia Cacia. Knowledge Sharing and Crowdsourcing as an Enterprise Opportunity 4608-4617. [Crossref]
51. Ibrahim H. Osman, Abdel Latef Anouze. A Cognitive Analytics Management Framework (CAM-Part 1) 1-79. [Crossref]
52. Ibrahim H. Osman, Abdel Latef Anouze. A Cognitive Analytics Management Framework (CAM-Part 2) 80-189. [Crossref]
53. Silvia Testarmata, Mario Risso, Fabio Fortuna. The Advent of the Value Sharing Model 1-28. [Crossref]
54. James O. Odia. Created Shared Value and Sustainable, Inclusive Development of Developing Countries 122-153. [Crossref]
55. Sorin-George I. Toma, Paul Marinescu, Cătălin Grădinaru. Creating Shared Value in the 21st Century 155-184. [Crossref]
56. Roxana Voicu-Dorobanţu, Cătălin Ploae. Improved Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Eastern Europe 290-308.
[Crossref]
57. Lucia Aiello, María del Pilar Muñoz Dueñas. CSR in Cultural Organizations 140-162. [Crossref]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Trisakti At 01:40 17 September 2018 (PT)

58. Jessica Williams, Lynnaire Sheridan, Peter McLean. Developing Corporate Social Responsibility Projects 80-109. [Crossref]
59. Siavash Moheb, Ali Golrokh. The Impact of Social Business Strategies in Creating Empirical Social Business Models 210-230.
[Crossref]