Linköping Studies in Science and Technology

Licentiate Thesis No. 1941

Exploring Change

Arvid Wahlman
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

toward Sustainability
Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Licentiate Thesis No. 1941, 2022
Department of Management and Engineering

Linköping University

in Established
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

www.liu.se

Business Models

Exploring Change toward Sustainability in Established Business Models

Arvid Wahlman

2022
!"#$%&"#'()*+,"-)("#()."-#.-(/#,(*-.0#121'34(!".-#*"/*-(50-)")
"#$!%&'%

!"#$%&'()*+,-(). /%0-&1 234/-'(-5

6'$'/7*'( !4/-6$'4,.1*834'(.44*9%1.$4

!"#$%&'()*+(,

()*+,-.)/-!#0!1+/+2).)/-!+/3!4/25/)),5/2
65/78*5/29!:/5;),95-)-<!=4>?@%!@A!65/78*5/2<!=B)3)/
65/78*5/2!CDCC

i
 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

© Arvid Wahlman, 2022

Printed in Sweden by Liu-tryck, 2022

ISBN 978-91-7929-442-7 (print)

ISBN 978-91-7929-443-4 (PDF)
https://doi.org/10.3384/9789179294434
ISSN 0280-7971

ii
Abstract
Sustainability outlines one of the greatest societal challenges of our time.
To attain genuine sustainable development on a global level, firms must
address unsustainability in their business models; that is, in what they
offer to their markets, how they produce and deliver products and ser-
vices, and how they collect and distribute value. Against this background,
the purpose of this licentiate thesis is to explore how established business
models change toward sustainability. To explore how established busi-
ness models can change toward sustainability, it is relevant to review
business models and how they handle sustainable change and innovation,
but also how the surrounding actors — both business and non-business
— affect the progress of change in business models.
This thesis contains two appended papers reflecting two perspectives
that complement each other. The first paper explores how business model
change toward sustainability occurs in an in-depth study of a globally es-
tablished manufacturing firm, reviewing how they incorporated sustain-
able change orientations (SCO). The paper identifies varying dependen-
cies on external systems and collaboration in different SCOs and de-
scribes interdependency among different SCOs.
The second paper reviews change toward sustainability from a broader
perspective by exploring the roles of actors within a business ecosystem,
reviewing change toward sustainability as role enactment and ecosystem
interaction. The main theoretical contributions of the second paper are a
mapping of generic ecosystem roles for sustainability, and a discussion
of how these roles — independently and in interplay — affect and con-
tribute to sustainable development of business ecosystems.
By combining insights from the two papers, a new organisational sus-
tainable business model archetype is introduced, oriented to facilitate sus-
tainability by creating favourable business ecosystem conditions. This
sustainable business model archetype is proposed to replace parts of pre-
vious sustainable business model frameworks, increasing their consider-
ation of business ecosystems. In addition, the licentiate offers examples

iii
of activities and practices an actor can perform to increase sustainability
on an ecosystem level.
The licentiate benefits actors in pursuit of sustainability by exploring
business model change toward sustainability, by emphasising the role of
collaboration and the importance of participating in exchanges and inter-
actions. The findings can help practitioners and scholars understand and
apply business models and ecosystems more effectively to solve existing
and emerging sustainability challenges.

iv
Svensk sammanfattning
Hållbarhet utgör en av det största utmaningarna i vår tid. För att fram-
gångsrikt lyckas med hållbar utveckling på en global nivå behöver företag
adressera ohållbarhet i sina etablerade affärsmodeller, det vill säga, hur
de marknadsför, producerar och levererar produkter och tjänster, samt hur
de utifrån dessa fångar och distribuerar värde. Med detta som utgångs-
punkt är syftet för den här licentiatavhandlingen att utforska hur etable-
rade affärsmodeller förändras mot hållbarhet.
För att undersöka detta så argumenterar jag att det är relevant att förstå
hur en affärsmodell hanterar hållbar förändring och innovation, som beror
på företagets förutsättningar och omgivande nätverk och affärsekosy-
stem. För besvarandet av syftet innehåller avhandlingen två artiklar med
kompletterande perspektiv. Den första artikeln utforskar hur etablerade
företag inkorporerar hållbara förändringsorienteringar i sina affärsmo-
deller. Artikeln ger insikter om förändringsegenskaper, vikten av externa
aktörer och samarbete och hur olika hållbara förändringsorienteringar be-
ror på varandra.
Den andra artikeln undersöker i ett bredare perspektiv hur hållbar för-
ändring sker, genom att studera roller som aktörer spelar för att främja
hållbarhet i ett affärsekosystem. Artikeln ger en beskrivning av fyra över-
gripande ekosystemsroller för hållbarhet som bidrar och kompletterar
varandra i utvecklandet av hållbarhet i ett affärsekosystem.
Genom att kombinera insikter från de två artiklarna introduceras en ny
hållbar förändringsarketyp i licentiaten som främjar hållbarhet genom att
skapa gynnsamma affärsekosystemförhållanden. Här ges exempel på ak-
tiviteter och metoder för att utveckla hållbarhet på en ekosystemnivå.
Denna hållbara förändringsarketyp motiveras av att tidigare ramverk sak-
nar tillräcklig hänsyn till ekosystemets inverkan på förändring av affärs-
modeller mot hållbarhet.
Denna licentiat gynnar aktörer som ämnar att utveckla sin verksamhet
mot hållbarhet. Licentiaten ger insikter om hur hållbar förändring sker i
etablerade affärsmodeller. Den betonar vikten av samarbete och ett utö-
kad synsätt på affärsmodellen och de enskilda aktiviteterna. Jag hoppas

v
att min licentiat kan bidra till att praktiker och forskare i framtiden kan
använda affärsmodeller och ekosystem mer framgångsrikt vid adresser-
andet av befintliga och framtida hållbarhetsutmaningar.

vi
Acknowledgement
There are many people who have made this research journey a pleasura-
ble and achievable one. I would like to especially thank my supervisors,
Daniel Kindström and Emelie Havemo, for their support, valuable feed-
back, and for many thoughtful discussions.
Next, I would like to thank my research colleagues, both at my own
department and at others, who have supported my process in several dif-
ferent ways, from direct contributions and feedback to my work, and
through restoring conversations and walks. Special thanks go to my re-
search colleagues Nandita, Harald, Brenda, Jakob, Johan, Martin, Sarah,
Daniel E, Joakim, Fredrik, Tanvir and Lisa.
Finally, I thank my beloved partner Lydia, and my family and friends,
for standing by me and helping me through every point of this journey.

Linköping, August 2022

Arvid Wahlman

vii
Appended Papers
I. Wahlman, A., Kindström, D., Havemo, E., Sustainable
change orientations in an established business model,
Working Paper

II. Wahlman, A., Kindström, D, Havemo, E., Ecosystem

roles for sustainability: the case of the Swedish mining and
minerals business ecosystem, Working Paper

ix
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. III

SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ................................................................................... V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... VII

APPENDED PAPERS ................................................................................................ IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. XI

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................. XIII

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. XIII
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... XIII
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 REINVENTING BUSINESS MODELS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY ................................................ 2
1.2 RESEARCH PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 3
1.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF INCLUDED PAPERS .......................................................................... 6
1.4 THESIS OUTLINE ........................................................................................................ 8
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 9
2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................... 9
2.2. BUSINESS MODELS AS CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS .................................................. 13
2.3 SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL.................................................................................. 15
2.4 ANALYTICAL MODEL SUMMARISING THEORETICAL CHAPTER ............................................. 25
METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................27
3.1 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE .......................................................................................... 27
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................... 28
3.3 EMPIRICAL DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................... 29
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 30
3.5 RESEARCH QUALITY ................................................................................................. 31
3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 34
3.7 CASE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 35
4 SUMMARY OF THE PAPERS .................................................................................39
4.1 PAPER 1: SUSTAINABLE CHANGE ORIENTATIONS IN AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS MODEL........... 39
4.2 PAPER 2: ECOSYSTEM ROLES FOR SUSTAINABILITY.......................................................... 41
5 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................43

xi
 5.1 ACCESSIBILITY OF SBM CHANGES .............................................................................. 46
5.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR SBM CHANGE ............................................................................. 50
5.3 COLLABORATING FOR SUSTAINABILITY......................................................................... 53
5.4 A NEW SBM ARCHETYPE AT THE BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM LEVEL.......................................... 55
5.5 CREATING FAVOURABLE BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY................. 58
6 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 63
6.1 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS .................................................................................. 64
6.2 MANAGERIAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................... 66
6.3 LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................... 68
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 70

xii
List of Tables and Figures
List of tables
TABLE 1. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF APPENDED PAPERS .......................................................... 6
TABLE 2. KEY COMPONENTS IN BUSINESS MODELS AND SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODELS
............................................................................................................................ 17
TABLE 3. SUSTAINABLE CHANGE ORIENTATIONS AND SBM ARCHETYPES, APPENDED
FROM PAPER 1 ...................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDIED CASE FIRMS’ PROPOSITIONS, POSITION, SIZE,
AND PRESENCE (PAPER 2) ..................................................................................... 38
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF CHANGES AND EXTERNAL DEPENDENCY IN THE SCOS ............ 40
TABLE 6. CHARACTERISTICS OF SBM CHANGES FOR AN ESTABLISHED FIRM ................ 47

List of figures
FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL BUSINESS MODEL FRAMEWORK. ADAPTED FROM
OSTERWALDER & PIGNUER (2005) AND RICHARDSON (2008) ............................. 14
FIGURE 2. GENERAL PHASES FOR CHANGE FROM AN ESTABLISHED BM TOWARD AN
SBM. BASED ON ROOME AND LOUCHE (2016) AND RAJALA ET AL. (2016) ......... 19
FIGURE 3. ANALYTICAL MODEL OF ESTABLISHED BM CHANGE TOWARD
SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 4 MAPPING OF SUBCHAPTERS IN RELATION TO THE ANALYTICAL MODEL OF
ESTABLISHED BM CHANGE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY ......................................... 45
FIGURE 5. TECHNOLOGICAL SCO SUPPORTING FOUNDATIONS FOR THE SOCIAL AND
ORGANISATIONAL SCOS ...................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 6. HOW THE SBM ARCHETYPE CREATE FAVOURABLE ECOSYSTEM CONDITIONS
(CFEC) AFFECT CHANGE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY ............................................ 57
FIGURE 7. FOUR GENERIC ECOSYSTEM ROLES FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND THEIR KEY SETS
OF ACTIVITIES (FROM PAPER 2) ............................................................................ 58

xiii
1 Introduction
Global warming, deforestation, land and ecosystem degradation, biodi-
versity loss, increasing frequency of extreme weather, rising sea levels,
melting polar ice, unsustainable resource pool consumption, and reduced
benefits received from ecological ecosystems are all interconnected con-
sequences of human activity. Steffen et al. (2015) found that the human
collective has exceeded the ecological limits of genetic biodiversity, bio-
chemical flows (of phosphorous and nitrogen), land system change, and
climate change. They stress that when ecological limits are exceeded, the
risk of greatly disrupting key global systems increases, which could lead
to a less inhabitable earth for future humans.
Business activities cause many of the critical societal and environmen-
tal problems influencing climate change (Zollo et al., 2013). Corporations
have historically, and currently, a large influence on society and the en-
vironment through their activities and processes (Broman & Robèrt,
2017). Zollo et al. (2013) argue that ‘business’, as an institution, holds
many of the key resources required to tackle (most) sustainable chal-
lenges, i.e., technological innovation, political and relational influence,
and organisational capabilities. Companies often contribute to transform-
ing markets and society (Geels & Schot, 2007), and can act as core drivers
for sustainable development (Schaltegger et al., 2016a). However, alt-
hough sustainable development has been on the agenda for several dec-
ades, there is still only a small amount of actual change occurring in busi-
ness practice. Zollo et al. (2013) argue:
The core problem for organizations and society at large is how to
change a firm’s operations, goals, and overall business model to
meet the demands and expectations of its external stakeholders as
well as the aspirations of their internal counterparts. (p. 253)
Thus, to attain genuine substantive development on a global level, firms
must address unsustainability in their business models (BM); that is, in
what they offer to their markets, how they produce and deliver products
and services, and how they collect and distribute value (Stubbs &

1
Cocklin, 2008; Bocken et al., 2013; Bocken et al., 2014; Roome &
Louche, 2016; Evans et al., 2017).

1.1 Reinventing business models toward

sustainability
A growing concern for sustainability is reflected in established firms’
communication and their practices and activities. In their study of the 500
largest product and service firms, Ritala et al. (2018) found that firms
practise activities to improve environmental performance through energy
and resource reduction, waste re-evaluation, and material and energy sub-
stitution. When activities give both environmental and economic value,
they can be classified within traditional BM logic (Brennan & Tennant,
2018; Ritala et al., 2018). However, fewer firms are willing or able to
pursue sustainability-oriented change when the economic benefit of sus-
tainability is harder to discern, and when it requires greater alterations to
established BMs (Zollo et al., 2013; Rajala et al., 2016; Bocken &
Geradts, 2019). Therefore, large established firms — who have the po-
tential of delivering large scale changes to pressing societal and environ-
mental issues — often have a hard time making the necessary changes to
their established BMs (Ritala et al., 2018; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). Ac-
cording to Crilly et al. (2012), firms may focus on sustainability to gain
the legitimacy associated with sustainable business practices, but the au-
thors find that firms, in general, lack the will or the ability to undertake
the serious (and often painful) internal changes necessary to become more
sustainable.
A growing group of scholars argue that firms have to reinvent their
BMs to be designed for sustainability, where they deliver environmental,
social and economic value for a multitude of business and non-business
stakeholders (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken et al., 2014; Evans
et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Laasch, 2018; Freudenreich et al.,
2019). They argue that if sustainability would be treated as part of the
core BM rather than merely an add-on, the potential for sustainable de-

2
velopment could increase, both for individual firms and on a global econ-
omy-wide level (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Bocken et al., 2014). The sus-
tainable business model (SBM) is often built on core elements from tra-
ditional BM literature, albeit with some major alterations intended to de-
liver sustainability (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Laasch, 2018).
Among others, SBM attributes include: proactiveness, multi-stakeholder
management, long-term perspectives, and the creation of monetary and
non-monetary value for a broad range of stakeholders (Geissdoerfer et
al., 2018; Laasch, 2018).
However, firms are often reluctant or unable to invest the necessary
time and resources to pursue sustainability when their BMs and network
relationships are already established (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Roome &
Louche, 2016; Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016; Evans et al., 2017). Once a
BM is established, it limits what activities and actions can be performed
by the focal firm without performing large organisational changes
(Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010). To describe this rigidity, Zott and
Amit (2010) describe BMs as finished machines, e.g., a car, with ingoing
components and in-flows specifically calibrated for specific tasks. Once
built, managers can manoeuvre the car, but they have a limited ability to
change its structure to perform other tasks.
To reinvent a BM’s fundamental structure is a complicated process,
which not all firms can undertake (Teece, 2007; DaSilva & Trkman,
2014). It could be particularly complex to perform SBM change since it
challenges the commercial logic of most established firms founded in the
neoclassical economic paradigm (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Boons &
Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016; Rajala et al., 2016;
Roome & Louche, 2016) and requires acceptance from multiple internal
and external stakeholders (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016;
Evans et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).

1.2 Research purpose

Following the idea SBMs are suggested to be superior in leveraging sus-
tainability, and potentially also in gaining competitive advantages, how

3
firms change toward SBMs is of great relevance (Evans et al., 2017;
Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). However, as discussed in the introduction,
there are internal and external challenges for established firms in adopting
SBMs. Thus, the rate of success for SBM implementation is low (Evans
et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).
Prior literature has explored how established firms’ BMs change to-
ward sustainability (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Long et
al., 2018; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). However, the study of ‘how’ SBMs
are achieved is still in an early stage and several authors agree that there
is a need for greater inquiry into the subject (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome
& Louche, 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016a; Evans et al., 2017;
Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Among other, Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) argue
that the field of SBM is underexplored. They call for further inquiry into
how SBMs change and how innovations are implemented in practise.
Similarly, Zollo et al. (2013) argue that scholars have established ‘why’
businesses need to change, and ‘what’ firms should incorporate to fulfil
sustainable development goals (e.g., transitioning to SBMs), but find that
there is a need for more research into ‘how’ change toward sustainability
occurs.
Accordingly, the issue of ‘how’ established BMs can be oriented to-
ward sustainability is the overarching issue in this dissertation. It is par-
ticularly interesting to explore changes toward sustainability for estab-
lished firms, since they can have a large impact on sustainable develop-
ment and sustainable transitions in industry (Bocken et al., 2014;
Schaltegger et al., 2016b). Since established firms’ processes and BMs
are rigid and hard to change (Christensen & Raynor, 2013; Bocken &
Geradts, 2019), changes toward sustainability should differ from those
involved in new BM initiation, e.g., in the case of start-ups. Therefore,
the purpose of this licentiate thesis is:

To explore how established business models change toward

sustainability

4
The phenomenon of business model change toward sustainability consid-
ers a wider range of SBM changes, from incremental to more complex
forms, and includes changes directed toward different sustainable change
orientations (SCOs). SBMs conflict in different ways with established
BMs, depending on their form and orientation (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund,
2013; Bocken et al., 2014; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Ritala et al., 2018).
Several authors agree that organisational structures and elements are
relevant in addressing established BMs movement toward sustainability
(Zollo et al., 2013; Upward & Jones, 2016; Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016;
Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017; Bocken & Geradts, 2019; Brennan &
Tennant, 2018). A firm’s vision and beliefs guide established BMs and
influence what a firm considers ‘success’ (Upward & Jones, 2016;
Bocken & Geradts, 2019). A firm’s strategic decisions are dependent on
how sustainability connects to its BM (Upward & Jones, 2016). Hence,
BMs’ change toward sustainability can include changes to or adaptions
of a firm’s organisational structures and elements.
According to prior literature, for firms adopting change and innovation
toward SBMs, a key challenge is the uncertainty of external stakeholders’
responses. SBM changes often require the compliance of other stakehold-
ers to succeed (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Bocken et al., 2014; Rajala et
al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Evans et al., 2017). Due to depend-
ency on external actors when pursuing sustainability, several authors ar-
gue that the narrow, firm-centric focus of a traditional BM should be re-
placed with a wider, more systemic view of BMs that take more stake-
holders into account (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Boons et al., 2013; Evans
et al., 2017; Freudenreich et al., 2019; Schaltegger et al., 2019). From a
systemic view, it could be easier to reveal challenges in BMs’ change
toward sustainability, and to understand how this progress develops.
Such a systemic view can include shifting the focus from internal de-
velopment toward collaboration and interaction in networks as a focus in
the BM. Among others, Evans et al. (2017) argue that SBM changes could
be enabled if firms re-evaluate themselves as being part of a wider value
network that creates value in concert. Several scholars agree that collab-
oration can support change toward sustainability (Laukkanen & Patala,

5
2014; Rauter et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2017; Bocken & Geradts, 2019).
Collaboration can ensure that costs and benefits are shared among af-
fected participants, thereby making it viable and valuable for surrounding
networks to pursue (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Boons & Lüdeke-Freund,
2013). As a result, for BMs to change toward sustainability, critical func-
tions and capabilities may, to a high extent, be co-created in partnerships
and networks. Hence, when exploring BMs’ changes toward sustainabil-
ity, it is important to consider the interplay between surrounding net-
works and business ecosystems.

1.3 Contributions of included papers

This thesis contains two appended papers that help to answer the above
research purpose. To explore how established BMs can change toward
sustainability, I argue it is relevant to review how each BM handles sus-
tainable change and innovation, but also how the surrounding actors, both
business and non-business, affect the progress of BMs. Thus, in designing
the orientation of my two studies, I adopted two different scopes, reflect-
ing two complementary perspectives. The papers are briefly presented in
Table 1:

Table 1. Brief overview of appended papers

Paper Subject Design Key contributions
Paper Established Qualitative sin- Explores how different sustain-
1 BM change gle case study able change-orientations are
toward sus- interviews developed, affect an estab-
tainability lished firm’s BM and network,
and how sustainable change-
orientations connect to each
other
Paper Ecosystem Qualitative sin- Presents four generic ecosys-
2 roles for sus- gle case study tem roles for sustainability and
tainability of multiple discusses their interplays’ ef-
firms’ docu- fect on change toward sustain-
ments ability

Paper 1 is an empirical paper based on a qualitative case study of a large

multinational manufacturing enterprise and supplier to heavy industries,

6
i.e., large and heavy facilities and equipment and numerous and complex
processess. This paper explores how sustainable change orientations
(SCOs) are incorporated into an established BM. The paper offers insight
into how external stakeholders and business actors affect change toward
sustainability, by providing examples of the importance of collaboration
and highlighting a need for greater ecosystem consideration in future re-
search on change toward sustainability.
My role in Paper 1 was that of main author: I designed the study, gath-
ered, and structured the literature, participated in all interviews, tran-
scribed and structured the data, analysed the data, and wrote the paper.
My co-authors provided support and discussions during the research pro-
cess, contributed with suggestions from previous experience, and helped
me improve manuscripts. Furthermore, my research group participated in
research interviews during the data collection and contributed with feed-
back on earlier drafts of the paper.

Paper 2 is an empirical paper based on a qualitative case study of five

firms in the Swedish mineral and mining sector that represent different
actors in a business ecosystem. This paper is aimed at mapping ecosystem
roles for sustainability and discusses how they interact. The paper pre-
sents four generic ecosystem roles for sustainability, representing differ-
ent ways actors in business ecosystems can create and facilitate sustaina-
bility.
This paper primarily contributes to the purpose by exploring how
change toward sustainability is affected by external actors, by reviewing
how the interplay between different actors affects sustainable change pro-
gress in established BMs. Concurrently, the paper also discusses how a
firm can affect actors in surrounding business ecosystems to support sus-
tainability.
My role in Paper 2 was also that of main author: I designed the study,
gathered, and structured the literature, collected and structured the data,
analysed the data, and wrote the paper. My co-authors provided support

7
and discussions during the research process, assisted in collecting litera-
ture, helped with the research design, and contributed with suggestions
from previous experience, and helped me improve my manuscripts.

1.4 Thesis outline

The rest of the licentiate thesis is structured as follows:

• In Chapter 2, I will present the theoretical framework I used as a

foundation for the licentiate thesis and the appended papers.
• In Chapter 3, I will present the methodology used for the licenti-
ate thesis dissertation, including my view on the philosophy of
science, my research process, and my research design, including
data collection and analysis methods. In this chapter, I also dis-
cuss the quality of the research, examining reliability and valid-
ity. The chapter ends with a description of relevant ethical con-
siderations.
• In Chapter 4, I briefly summarize the two appended papers.
• In Chapter 5, I will discuss change toward sustainability from
different perspectives, and connect the results and findings on
the licentiate thesis to prior literature. This will extend the dis-
cussions and findings of the two appended papers, with the in-
tent to address the purpose of the licentiate thesis.
• Finally, in Chapter 6, I will present the conclusions of the licen-
tiate thesis, including a summary of theoretical contributions and
practical implications. I will also outline directions for future re-
search.

8
2 Conceptual Framework
In this chapter, I present the theory that my dissertation and its appended
papers builds upon. In 2.1, I give a brief overview of sustainable devel-
opment and the implications of sustainability for firms and other stake-
holders. I also present definitions of the core sustainability concepts that
are used in this dissertation. In 2.2, I present the business model (BM)
concept and build a foundation for understanding sustainable change in
established firms. In 2.3, I present the sustainable business model (SBM)
concept and discuss how it can be used as a tool to lead sustainable-ori-
ented change. In subchapters, I discuss SBM changes, reflecting different
forms and orientations and the impact of external business ecosystems.
Finally, in 2.4, I summarize the conceptual framework with an overview
of how established BMs change toward sustainability.

2.1 Sustainable development and sustainability

Since the agricultural revolution there has been a constant struggle be-
tween humankind and Nature, and they have become increasingly inter-
twined. Historically, humans were limited by the available food re-
sources, predators, diseases, and other events. However, following tech-
nical and social development, humans have again and again successfully
developed beyond their external limitations, which has allowed for the
extension and growth of the human population. Currently, humans can
live in almost all environments, and have thus affected most areas of the
globe in some way.
Following the industrial revolution, and the great acceleration in in-
dustry after the second world war, the human population has grown ex-
ponentially, with social welfare and living standards generally improving
all over the world (Tost et al., 2018). However, the exponential growth of
the human population has increased the corresponding effects on nature,
with resource extraction on land and sea resulting in depleted resources
and the destruction of biological ecosystems. Due to these trends,
Meadows et al. (1972) argued that there were limits to human economic

9
and societal growth. They prognosed that at contemporary consumption
rates, the available resources necessary for modern human societies
would be depleted in the foreseeable future. This report, together with
efforts from other researchers and experts, spurred debate, leading to fo-
rums and summits to address this emerging societal challenge.
Based on a joint UN effort, the Brundtland commission (1987) pre-
sented an influential conceptualization of sustainable development and
acts as a starting point for the popularisation of the term. A core principle
for sustainable development, and thereby sustainability, is to meet “the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own needs” (Brundtland commission, 1987, p. 37).
Additionally, there are three main pillars for sustainable development —
social, environmental, and economic capital — and all three are necessary
for sustainable development (Brundtland commission, 1987).
As concepts, sustainability and sustainable development are continu-
ously evolving (Du Pisani, 2006). In its essence, sustainable development
incorporates different forms of ethical consideration to different stake-
holders. In a way, sustainable development can be seen as a utilitarian
attempt to balance different goods, or capitals, for individual humans, so-
cieties, and environments (Du Pisani, 2006). Animals and other non-hu-
man entities are given their own intrinsic value, separate from humans
(Du Pisani, 2006). They are not only considered as objects or means for
human progress (Du Pisani, 2006). Within the sustainable development
concept, most recently represented by the UN Agenda’s 2030 goals, there
are also certain deontological rules, such as the goal to eradicate all hun-
ger and starvation and abolish slave labour (Du Pisani, 2006). Hence, to
an extent, the shared agenda for a future ‘sustainable world’ combines
utilitarian balancing of capitals and Kantian rules as to what forms of suf-
fering are conceivable and allowable (Du Pisani, 2006).
Thanks to discoveries in natural science and computing power, re-
searchers can calculate the actual effects of human activity and predict its
potential future effects on key earth systems. The evidence of human im-
pact on earth systems, such as the climate, has grown progressively

10
stronger, and today there is a strong consensus within the research com-
munity that human activity affects the natural environment and the cli-
mate. Following these new scientific discoveries, Rockström et al. (2009)
and Steffen et al. (2015) suggest ecological limits to key earth systems
within which human society must limit itself to remain in a “safe zone”.
Going beyond these limits increases the risks of greatly altering the cur-
rent ecological era, the Holocene, which human civilisation has prospered
within, to a more uncertain and uninhabitable ecological era, referred to
as the Anthropocene. Currently, Steffen et al. (2015) find that the ecolog-
ical limits of genetic biodiversity, biochemical flows of phosphorous and
nitrogen, land system change, and climate change have already exceeded
the level of certainty and addressing them is therefore of critical im-
portance.
Sustainability is a term frequently used by political and business lead-
ers alike; however, no single clear definition exists (Du Pisani, 2006). On
the definition of sustainability, there are two main approaches: ‘weak’
and ‘strong’ sustainability (Du Pisani, 2006).

• Weak definition of sustainability: If the total of economic, social, and

ecological capital is positive after an activity, it is sustainable accord-
ing to the weak definition. Therefore, human capital (infrastructure,
education, living standards, culture, etc.) can substitute natural capi-
tals (water, ecosystem services such as pollination, mineral re-
sources), and ‘sustainability’ is achieved when the total stock of cap-
ital is growing or at least sustained for future generations (Tost et al.,
2018). Thus, negative capital value can be accepted if the capital at-
tained in the other forms is greater than the capital loss (Du Pisani,
2006). For firms approaching sustainability in this way, according to
Upward and Jones (2016) there is a strong risk of missing opportuni-
ties related to sustainability and building risks into BMs.
• Strong definition of sustainability: One form of capital cannot be ex-
changed for another, and production should stay within the ecological
boundaries (see Steffen et al., 2015) of what can be reproduced. Cur-
rent activities should not inhibit future generations’ ability to perform

11
 the same activity in the future (Du Pisani, 2006). For the stronger def-
inition of sustainability, human capital is not interchangeable with,
but is rather limited by, natural capital (Tost et al., 2018). From a
business perspective, this corresponds to firms that seek an approach
in which business and environment can flourish on the earth forever
and promotes the ideal of business moving beyond being “less unsus-
tainable” (Upward & Jones, 2016).

Upward and Jones (2016) argue that most firms’ perception of sustaina-
bility is somewhere between the two above outlined definitions. Thus,
they perceive most stakeholders to be on the continuum of sustainability,
as they are inspired by natural and social science to redefine what consti-
tutes unacceptable externalities for businesses. On a larger scale, this
middle approach may avoid worsening global problems, but there is a risk
of this approach not leading to a resolution of the worsening global prob-
lems (Upward & Jones, 2016). Thus, although sustainable development
has been on the agenda for politicians and business leaders alike since the
mid-1970s, the expansion of human activities has continuously intensi-
fied, placing increasing strain on ecological systems — in direct conflict
with the goals of sustainable development.
Many established firms consider business success in terms of profit
margins, revenue growth, and shareholder value maximisation, and do
not consider environmental and social values in their definitions of suc-
cess (Upward & Jones, 2016). This perception of success lead firms to
pursue strategies that focus on exploitation and short-term growth, rather
than on sustainable development and consumption (Upward & Jones,
2016; Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). Bocken
and Geradts (2019) find that the pursuit of maximising shareholder value
trickles down to create barriers on a firm’s institutional, strategic, and
operational levels. Economic gains of environmental and social activities
can be hard to discern, since they are often indirect, e.g., attractiveness in
the form of employer and innovation capabilities (Schaltegger et al.,
2012), and often occur in the context of relationships with other actors,
e.g., governments or non-governmental organisations, which are hard to

12
control (Schaltegger et al., 2012; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). Thus, man-
agers and business leaders aiming only at maximising shareholder value
can be discouraged from pursuing sustainability due to the lack of clear
connection to financial outcomes and a lack of perceived control
(Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Roome & Louche, 2016; Bhattacharya &
Polman, 2017; Bocken & Geradts, 2019).
Thus, a firm’s perception of sustainability and success affect its ability
to change its established BM toward sustainability. To change toward
sustainability, Bocken and Geradts (2019) find that an established firm
should balance shareholder and stakeholder value, embrace ambiguity,
and value a business’ sustainability, fulfilling both long-term and short-
term needs. With such an organisational orientation, it is easier to realise
how societal and environmental sustainability connects to organisational
resilience and long-term prosperity, and develop strategies and opera-
tional features that favour more sustainable business practices
(Laukkanen & Porter & Kramer, 2011; Patala, 2014; Upward & Jones,
2016; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016; Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017; Bocken
& Geradts, 2019).

2.2. Business models as conceptual

representations
The BM concept has grown in popularity, both for scholars and firm man-
agers, as it appears to increase competitiveness, represents new ways of
innovation, and handles macro forces, such as globalisation and internet,
better than earlier strategic approaches (Massa et al., 2017). DaSilva and
Trkman (2014) explains that the BM concept grew in usage and applica-
tion during the .com era, when start-ups needed ways to explain how their
novel ideas would perform in practise. However, scholars do not agree
on what constitutes a BM. In their literature review of BMs, Massa et al.
(2017) identified three different perspectives on the the term “BM”, as
used by scholars. Of the three perspectives, I interpret BMs as formal
conceptual representations that outline a firm’s fundamental components

13
AM'%%'! -&!
'*49!
UVX`D 4!J,1! '! .$**!1-7"-;! ,.! &/-!&/1--!8-1%8-2&"7-%9! %--!M'%%'!
-&!'*4!AUVX`D4!
J,1! EM%!'%!.,13'*! 2,(2-8&$'*!1-81-%-(&'&",(% 9!F!."(6!&/'&! '! 3'8! "%!'!
/ -*8.$*!3-&'8/,1! AM'%%'! -&!'*49!UVX`D 4!N-8-(6"(0! ,(! "&%! %2'*-9! 6"..-1-(&!
.,13%!,.! "(.,13'&",(! '1-! 2,(%"6-1-6!"38,1&'(&!"( $(6-1%&'(6"(0 &/-!8/-=
(,3-(,( 4!EM%'%!2,(2- 8&$'*! 1-81-%-(&'&",(% .,2$%!,(! 6"..-1-(&!-*-3-(&%!
'(6! '2&"7"&"-%9! ;/"2/! '1-! 2-(&1'*!&,!&/- "(&-181-&'&",(! ,.! /,;! '! 2,38'(+!
;,1< %9!.$(2&",(%9!'(6!,8-1'&-%4
F!2,(%"6-1!'! EM &,!2,(%"%&! ,.! &/1--!3'"(! -*-3-(&%d7'*$-!81,8,%"&",(9!
7'*$-!21-'&",(9'(6! 7'*$-!2'8&$1-!A5--2-9!UVXVD 4!W"&/"(!&/-%-! &/1--!3'"(!
-*-3-(&%9! &/-1-!'1-! 2-1&'"(!%3'**-1!EM!2,38,(-(&% AC%&-1;'*6-1! -&!'*49!
UVVZ:! ^"2/'16%,(9! UVVe:!C%&-1;'*6-1!]! i"0(-$19! UVXVD 9!,$&*"(-6 "(!
J "0$1-!X)-*,;4

V+I:)!*,#*#95-5#/ V+I:)!M,)+-5#/ V+I:)!M+*-:,)

WJ,#3:M-U9),;5M) WY)L!+M-5;5-5)9 WX#9-!9-,:M-:,)!

WX:9-#.),!!! WZ)9#:,M)9 WZ);)/:)!9-,)+.9
9)2.)/-9! WXH+//)I9
WX:9-#.),! WJ+,-/),9!
,)I+-5#/9H5*9 W[)MH/#I#2L

F.40($#>6#G"13$&!0,'#-0+.1$++#2"/$'#7(,2$*"(86#B/,&!$/#7("2#H+!$(9
*,'/$(#I#J.410$(#KLMMNO#,1/#P.3),(/+"1#KLMMQO

F(! 0-(-1'* 9 .,1! -%&')*"%/-6! ."13%!;"&/! '! 2,3 3 -12"'*!*,0"29!2-(&1'*!

%&'<-/,*6-1%"(! 7'*$- 21-'&",( '1-! %/'1-/,*6-1%!'(6! 8'+"(0! 2$%&,3-1 %
AC%&-1;'*6-1!]! i"0(-$19! UVXV:! P''%2/9! UVXeD 4!n'*$-! "%!21-'&-6!)+!
6-*"7-1"(0!7'*$-! 81,8,%"&",(%! &/'&!.$*."**! &/-!2$%&,3-1b% (--6%!'(6 9 "(!
'66"&",(921-'&-%! '! %$18*$%!
&/'&!
'! ."13!'(6! "&%!
)$%"(-%%! 8'1&(-1%!2'(! 2'8&$1-!
A[,&&!]!>3"&9!UVXV:! B/-%)1,$0/!-&!'*49!UVXe:!#LI6"(!-&!'*49!UVUVD 4!
>! 7'*$-! 81,8,%"&",(!"%!'! %-&!
,.! 81,6$2&%! '(6! %-17"2-%!&/'&!'1-! ,..-1-6!
&,!&/-!8'+"(0! 2$%&,3-1! AP''%2/9!UVXeD 4!>22,16"(0!&,!5--2-! AUVXVD 9!7'*$-!
81,8,%"&",(%! %/,$*6!)-! '6'8&-6! &,!'! ."13b%!2$%&,3-1!%-03-(&%4! T-?&9!
7'*$-!21-'&",(!"%!'(! '2&,1b%!'&&-38&! &,!"(21-'%-!7'*$-!'(6! 1-.-1%!&,!'! %-&!
,.!

Xf
activities, resources, and capabilities that enable providers and customers
to realise value (Shafer et al., 2005; Chesbrough et al., 2018). Depending
on what value propositions a firm offers, different resources, capabilities
and activities are needed (Shafer et al., 2005; Zott & Amit, 2010;
Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010). In a value creation process, value
can also be created by suppliers, customers, distributors, partners, and
complementors who add value to a firm’s value proposition through
various business activities (Shafer et al., 2005; Zott & Amit, 2010). The
interaction with and dependency on other actors differs, and depends on
a firm’s selected value creation process (Shafer et al., 2005; Zott & Amit,
2010).
Value capture is the process of securing financial and non-financial
returns from the value creation process and of distributing those returns
among participating contributors, such as customers, suppliers and
partners (Chesbrough et al., 2018; Sjödin et al., 2020). These returns can
be made through cost savings or increased profit generation (Shafer et al.,
2005). Chesbrough et al. (2018) argue that successful value capture
includes fair distribution of these returns to the value-creating
contributors. For firms with a commercial logic, it is important to
maximise profits and continuously increase economic value capture, both
for the firm and for its investors (Shafer et al., 2005; Laasch, 2018). With
a greater total value creation, and with a greater bargaining position for a
firm, it is possible for the firm to capture a greater amount of the created
value (Zott & Amit, 2010). The actual value captured is, however,
determined by the selected revenue model, which is complementary and
often intertwined with a firm’s BM, but distinct from it (Zott & Amit,
2010).

2.3 Sustainable business model

With the above explanation of BMs and how they can be changed and
innovated, I now turn to the growing field of SBM literature, and present
how BMs can be used as tools to comprehend, visualise, and understand
sustainable change for established firms.

15
 SBM is a fast-growing subfield in BM literature, with the number of
publications growing annually since 2008 (Comin et al., 2019;
Nosratabadi et al., 2019). Some authors instead use the term “business
model for sustainability”; however, the terms are often used interchange-
ably by authors. I chose to use SBM as it is a more popular term, reflected
by the number of studies referring to each respective term in Google
Scholar. I include papers referring to “business model for sustainability”
in my literature review and refer to them as SBMs.
The SBM subfield is expected to grow, as the importance of sustaina-
bility grows for business legitimacy and long-term success, and the risks
associated with exceeding key earth systems become more prevalent.
Hence, in their literature review, Massa et al. (2017) consider SBM to be
one of four main avenues of future research in BMs. SBM scholars argue
that BMs should be extended to consider more stakeholders in the
production and reception of value (Schaltegger et al., 2016a; Evans et al.,
2017; Comin et al., 2019), and to incorporate a triple bottom line within
a firm’s BM core (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Bocken et al., 2014). By
doing so, they can both deliver on sustainability promises, and be part of
a future sustainable economy. SBMs, as defined by Geissdoerfer et al.
(2018), are:

Business models that incorporate proactive multi-stakeholder man-

agement, the creation of monetary and non-monetary value for a
broad range of stakeholders and hold a long-term perspective (p.
403–404).

Hence, aspirational SBM attributes are, among others: proactiveness,

multi-stakeholder management, long-term perspective, and the creation
of monetary and non-monetary value for a broad range of stakeholders.
In contrast to the traditional definition of BMs discussed in the previous
subchapter, which exist in all firms, SBMs are rare, as sustainable logic
is a prerequisite of its being (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Bocken et al.,
2013; Laasch, 2018; Comin et al., 2019). Hence, Lozano (2018) instead
considers an SBM to represent an ideal state toward which firms can

16
strive. SBMs include the same three core elements as traditional BMs,
but introduce alterations to better incorporate sustainability (Boons &
Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Laasch, 2018; Endregat & Pennink, 2021), as can
be seen in Table 2:

Table 2. Key components in business models and sustainable business

models
Value propo- Value creation Value capture focus
sition focus focus
Traditional Addresses the Maximum customer Maximisation of eco-
Business customer value, with mini- nomic growth and eco-
model (BM) mum resource use nomic profit for owners

Sustainable Addresses Economic, social, Optimal production scale

business broad range of and ecological might require mainte-
model stakeholders value nance or shrinking
(SBM) Long-term orienta- Blended economic, so-
tion cial, and ecological value
Value shared among
stakeholders

2.3.1 Sustainable business model innovation

A growing subfield in SBM is sustainable business model innovation
(SBMI), which builds on prior literature on business model innovation
(BMI) and extends it to also include sustainable considerations. BM pro-
gress considers changes with varying characteristics and forms (Semnani
Kenlind, 2020). Within the larger group of BM changes, BMI represents
more purposeful and intentionally-designed BM change (Semnani
Kenlind, 2020). In their literature and practice review, Bocken et al.
(2014) offer a definition for SBMI:

Business model innovations for sustainability are defined as: inno-

vations that create significant positive and/or significantly reduced
negative impacts for the environment and/or society, through
changes in the way the organization and its value-network create,

17
 deliver value, and capture value (i.e., create economic value) or
change their value propositions (p. 44).

Thus, an SBMI aims to: 1) create sustainable value; i.e., positive benefits
for, or reducing harms to, society and environment, while aiming at the
long-term prosperity of the organisation and other stakeholders; and 2)
foster sustainability by adopting solutions and characteristics of an SBM
into the BM elements of value proposition, value creation, and value cap-
ture, or into a firm’s intrinsic value networks (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).
Characteristics of an SBM are among others: proactiveness, multi-stake-
holder management, and a long-term perspective (Geissdoerfer et al.,
2018; Laasch, 2018).
Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) categorise SBMI into four generic configu-
rations. These are: 1) SBM start-up, in which no BM exists, and a new
SBM is initiated; 2) SBM diversification, in which established BMs re-
main in place, and an additional SBM is created; 3) SBM acquisition, in
which an additional SBM is identified, acquired and integrated; and 4)
SBM transformation, in which an established BM exists, which is then
transformed into an SBM (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).
As the purpose of this study is to review established BMs, SBM start-
ups are of lower relevance. However, when a new entrant initiates an
SBM start-up, it can encourage established firms to mimic or replicate
the start-up’s value propositions (i.e., through SBM diversification) to
defend their current market shares (Schaltegger et al., 2016c). Thus, SBM
start-ups can affect established BM change toward sustainability, and
help to improve their own and their entire industries’ sustainability per-
formance. In addition, a larger and established firm can acquire a new
SBM start-up, which is then referred to as SBM acquisition (Geissdoerfer
et al., 2018). SBM acquisitions enable a firm to gain access to new mar-
kets and capabilities, without the cumbersome process of developing an
SBM internally (Schaltegger et al., 2016c). An SBM start-up does not
face the same challenges and barriers as an established BM does when
progressing toward sustainability and can, from the start, have sustaina-
bility at its core (Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2016c; Rauter et

18
al., 2017). However, the benefits of SBM acquisitions are limited, since
corporate culture is to a greater extent transferred from the larger firm to
the smaller firm. Thus, the sustainable-oriented organisational culture di-
minishes over time, which reduces the sustainable benefits of SBM ac-
quisition (Schaltegger et al., 2016c; Nylund et al., 2021).
SBM transformations act as the most challenging configuration of
SBMI. For many reasons, SBM transformations are complex and thus
many attempts fail (Evans et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Roome
and Louche (2016) and Rajala et al. (2016) both conceptualise SBM
transformations as occurring in four characteristic phases. Rajala et al.
(2016) define these phases as: 1) Recognising the potential for BM green-
ing, 2) establishing a desired vision of sustainability, 3) Reinventing BM
to leverage green vision, and 4) Reconfiguring the business ecosystem for
sustainable practices. In Roome and Louche (2016), the four phases are
Identifying, Translating, Embedding, and Sharing. These models have
several similarities, and I synthesize the general phases together with key
components in Figure 2.

1. Realisation and initiation 2. Translation and preparation

• Realizing deficiencies of current
BM and industry
• Realizing current core values and
beliefs
• Founding new values and shared
sustainable agenda and vision
• Translating new vision into
practise
• Connecting vision to all areas of
business
• Winning acceptance from the
broader mass through training,
support and early victories

4. Reconfiguration
• Reconfiguring business model to
new sustainable business
purpose
• Sharing knowledge and vision to
lead others
• Reshaping surrounding business
ecosystem to fit new BM
3. Reshaping BM
• Founding new partnerships to
access capabilities and resources
• Reshaping critical BM
components
• Testing and experimenting
• Striving for greater collaborative
structures

Figure 2. General phases for change from an established BM toward an

SBM. Based on Roome and Louche (2016) and Rajala et al. (2016)

19
In the first and initial phase, realisation and initiation, key activities for
an established firm include identifying deficiencies of current BMs and
industry practices from the perspective of sustainability, and to realise the
current beliefs and values that guide the firm (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome
& Louche, 2016). By doing so, the firm can develop new sets of values
and a vision of sustainability, which act as guidance for the firm in their
progress toward an SBM (Roome & Louche, 2016; Brennan & Tennant,
2018; Bocken & Geradts, 2019; Oskam et al., 2021).
In the second phase, translation and preparation, the new sets of val-
ues and the new vision should be translated into practise and connected
to all parts of the firm’s business (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche,
2016). It is also important to win acceptance from the broad mass of em-
ployees and managers, which can be done by supplying training, empow-
erment activities, senior manager support, and encouragement, as well as
by presenting early sustainability wins, thereby showcasing its financial
and business value (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Rajala et al., 2016;
Roome & Louche, 2016; Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017; Rauter et al.,
2017; Long et al., 2018; Bocken & Geradts, 2019).
In the third phase, reshaping BM, real shifting of the established BM
occurs, with subsequent reshaping of BM elements (Rajala et al., 2016;
Roome & Louche, 2016). Furthermore, it can be necessary to found new
partnerships to attain the right capabilities and resources (Rajala et al.,
2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Brennan & Tennant, 2018). In this phase,
the BM end-outcome does not have to be certain, and a firm can test and
experiment with different approaches (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome &
Louche, 2016).
In the fourth phase, reconfiguration, a firm should reconfigure their
BM to its new purpose (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016). To
support SBM transformation, a firm can strive for greater collaborative
structures with actors in the surrounding networks and business ecosys-
tems (Bocken et al., 2014; Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016;
Long et al., 2018; Parida & Wincent, 2019). Such activities include seek-
ing external actor support for the SBM and sharing knowledge and vision

20
to lead others toward a sustainable trajectory (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome
& Louche, 2016).

2.3.2 Sustainable change orientations

SBM change and innovation can assume different orientations
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). In their literature review, Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund (2013) identified three overarching orientations for sustainable
innovations — technological, social and organisational — that firms can
focus on to improve their BMs’ sustainability performance (see Table 3).
In this licentiate, these orientations are referred to as sustainable change
orientations (SCOs), representing overarching directions of sustainable
change. The three SCOs were further developed by Bocken et al. (2014)
in their literature and practice review. They sought to categorise SBM
changes into different SBM archetypes, representing different activities,
practices, and mechanisms in delivering sustainability. In their frame-
work, they present eight SBM archetypes that a firm can pursue to de-
velop sustainability aligned to the technological, social, or organisational
SCO. With their SBM archetype framework Bocken et al. (2014) in-
tended to showcase clearly defined and mutually exclusive directions for
sustainable changes and innovations, with an archetype representing a
form of finished solution and ideal state for BMI. I follow the conceptu-
alisation of Bocken et al. (2014), and define SBM archetypes as groups
of activities, practices, and mechanisms with a specific aim of leveraging
environmental and/or societal benefits in business operations; this direc-
tion can be either social, organisational, or technological.
Bocken et al. (2014) argue that their framework is beneficial for edu-
cation and practitioners, as it can act as guidance when initiating changes
toward sustainability. Thus, the SBM archetypes represent a ‘what’ for
practitioners to strive toward. However, as the purpose of this licentiate
is to study established BM changes toward sustainability, I also consider
changes other than finished solutions to be part of the SBM archetype.
This aligns with how Ritala et al. (2018) use the SBM archetype frame-
work. In their study, Ritala et al. (2018) categorise activities based on
their direction toward an SBM archetype, where the coded activities act

21
as indicators for BM transformations and their directions. I believe that a
firm can pursue several SCOs, or SBM archetypes, in parallel, with var-
ying degrees of adoption and success. The sustainable change orienta-
tions and their connected SBM archetypes are briefly outlined in Table 3
(appended from Paper 1).

Table 3. Sustainable change orientations and SBM archetypes, ap-

pended from Paper 1
Sustainable SBM archetype Brief description of approach
change orienta-
tion
Technological Maximise material Doing more with less, minimis-
and energy effi- ing waste, energy use and
ciency emissions.
Create value from Re-evaluation of by-products
waste though re-processing or prod-
uct take-back schemes
Substitute with re- Increasing the use of green
newable and natu- chemistry, biomimicry, and re-
ral processes. newable energies
Social Deliver functionality Business provides services that
rather than owner- satisfy stakeholder outcomes
ship without needing to own physical
products
Adopting a stew- Proactive engagement with
ardship role stakeholders with a long-term
perspective
Encourage suffi- Actively seek to reduce produc-
ciency tion and consumption, by utilis-
ing and implementing solutions
that partly disconnect sales vol-
ume and profit
Organisational Repurpose for soci- BM focuses on delivering social
ety and environ- and environmental value,
ment blending them with strive for
economic profits
Develop scalable Solutions are developed and
solutions scaled to benefit society and
environment, often challenging
current market equilibriums

22
The technological SCO is oriented toward reducing negative environ-
mental and social impacts occurring within a focal firm, its supply chain,
and in customer operations through technology development (Bocken et
al., 2014). The social SCO is a concept established by Bocken et al.
(2014), which is oriented toward engagement with stakeholders previ-
ously unconsidered or toward reshaping current relational structures to
better suit sustainability. The organisational SCO relates to changing the
‘why’ of a firm, and is related to changing the organisational structures,
behaviours, routines, cultures, and purpose of a firm to better support
change toward sustainability (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken et
al., 2014). The organisational SCO considers both SBM changes directed
toward internal organisational capabilities and toward the socioeconomic
environment in which a firm operates (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Boons &
Lüdeke-Freund, 2013).
Organisational elements of a firm, i.e., its purpose, attitudes, cultures,
and routines, are often not considered to be part of a traditional BM but
are often included within SBMs, as they guide a firm’s strategy and BM
development and thus must be addressed (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Zollo
et al., 2013; Bocken et al., 2014; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). These ele-
ments are relevant to innovate, as they influence the value proposition
delivered to customers and other stakeholders, including society and the
environment (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Zollo et al., 2013; Bocken et al.,
2014; Brennan & Tennant, 2018; Bocken & Geradts, 2019).
In their meta-study of company press releases, Ritala et al. (2018)
show that the technological SBM archetypes are the most prominently
practised by large firms, representing over 75% of coded activities, fol-
lowed by, ‘adopt a stewardship role’, which represents about 10% of
coded activities. They suggest that the SBM archetypes associated with
the technological SCO represent low-hanging fruit and win-win situa-
tions, while less-practised SBM archetypes (social and organisational
SCOs) may be associated with more radical forms of SBM change.
The SCOs give an overview of alternative orientations for sustainable
change that established firms can practise (Bocken et al., 2014; Ritala et

23
al., 2018). Depending on what SCO is pursued, different challenges
emerge for the initiating firm (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014).

2.3.3 Business ecosystems’ role in SBM change

Change toward sustainability depends on the business ecosystem that a
firm is part of, which determines the conditions for a firm’s BM change
toward sustainability (Mars et al., 2012; Visnjic & Nelly, 2013). A busi-
ness ecosystem is defined as a loosely bound network of interdependent
actors that affect and are affected by various value creation activities
(Moore, 1993). Ecosystem development is a function of the combined
actions and interactions of the business ecosystem’s members, whose in-
terests can either align or conflict (Mars et al., 2012; Visnjic & Nelly,
2013). External actors can oppose change, preferring traditional and es-
tablished BMs and supply chains, or, through interaction and collabora-
tion, can support change toward sustainability (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008;
Bocken et al., 2014; Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Evans
et al., 2017).
Hence, an established BM and its change toward sustainability is de-
pendent on the ecosystem of which it is a part. Thus, to progress further
toward sustainability, changes and innovations can also be directed to-
ward surrounding system conditions (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008; Boons
and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). Ecosystem conditions affecting sustainability
include a level of trust and collaboration (Matinheikki et al., 2017; Joo &
Shin, 2018; Oskam et al., 2021), awareness of sustainability’s criticisms
and challenges, presence of visions for sustainability (Stead & Stead,
2013; Matinheikki et al., 2017; Journeault et al., 2021; Oskam et al.,
2021; Viholainen et al., 2021), and available resources, including fund-
ing, training, knowledge (Journeault et al., 2021), and infrastructure
(Visnjic & Nelly, 2013).

24
2.4 Analytical model summarising theoretical
chapter
In Figure 3, an analytical model is summarised, to describe how I inter-
pret established BM changes toward sustainability, being the overarching
phenomenon in this licentiate.

Business ecosystem
Sustainable change
orientations
Technological
Social
Established Organizational

Business model Established Business

Value proposition model change
Value creation SBM change toward sustainability
Value capture
SBM acquisition
SBM diversification
SBM transformation

Figure 3. Analytical model of established BM change toward sustaina-

bility

As seen in Figure 3, the established BM change toward sustainability de-

rives from and is dependent upon the established BM and its elements,
i.e., value proposition, value creation, and value capture. An established
BM exists within a larger business ecosystem, which affects and is af-
fected by individual business ecosystem members’ actions and strategies.
I find that the overarching change of an established BM toward sus-
tainability combines SBM changes of various scope and scales directed
toward different SCOs. An SCO represents an overarching orientation,
which itself includes different SBM archetypes, representing more dis-
tinct directions for SBM changes to capture environmental and/or social
benefits in business operations (Bocken et al., 2014; Ritala et al., 2018).
SBM changes affect both the established BM, and, to some extent, its
surrounding business ecosystem.

25
Methodology
This chapter will present my methods and motivations behind my meth-
odological choices in study design and will outline key elements of my
research process. First, I will start with my stance in the philosophy of
science. Second, I briefly outline my research process. Third, I describe
my research design, including data collection and data analysis methods.
Fourth, I reflect upon the quality of my conducted research and discuss
the ethical implications of my research. Finally, I end the methodology
with case descriptions of the case firm ManuCo, and the Swedish mining
sector.

3.1 Philosophy of science

The philosophy of science impacts how we, as researchers, interpret and
understand the world. When practising social science, it can be hard to
place oneself within the borders of one philosophy of science. Although,
I find there to be valuable arguments for both realism and anti-realism, I
associate my philosophy of science mainly with realism (Chalmers,
2013). My view is as follows: the world exists independent of observers.
In the world, there are tangible and intangible phenomena, where intan-
gible phenomena are grounded in human consciousness, compared to tan-
gible phenomena, in which the properties and characteristics are the
same, regardless of observers. The object of my research is to study the
business models of firms, and how firms conduct change toward sustain-
able business models. I aim to explain phenomena—namely how organ-
isations operate and practise change—which are, in part, dependent on
individual humans and exist as shared social constructs. To understand
and explore these phenomena, I use business models (BM) and business
ecosystems as analytical lenses.
BMs as formal conceptual representations are used to make sense of
the complexity associated with the phenomenon; that is, how firms con-
duct business (Massa et al., 2017). The BM acts as a simplification of
reality. Massa et al. (2017) use the analogy of a map to visualize this in

27
relation to BMs, in that the map is only exact when it is as large as the
area it depicts. Its interpretation is dependent on what elements are con-
sidered to be part of a BM, and it allows for “different possible represen-
tations of the same thing, depending on aspects such as what is assumed
away, what is formally described, and how it is described” (Massa et al.,
2017, p. 87). Similarly, the ecosystem perspective enables simplification
and structuring of actors to highlight specific elements of business con-
duct (Wulf & Butel, 2017; Adner, 2017; Jacobides et al., 2018).
Models in business, economics and marketing are idealisations of re-
ality rather than actual descriptions of reality. To understand the com-
plexity of the business economy, many simplifications and assumptions
are made. These simplifications are needed, otherwise the models would
not be practical to use and would be impossible to understand.

3.2 Research design

I selected to use a qualitative case study method, since it allows for an in-
depth understanding of a complex phenomenon (Yin, 2018). I was in-
spired by the research tradition at my division, where many researchers
conduct qualitative case study methods. I developed my understanding in
qualitative method through Ph.D. courses, and found Silverman (2015)
and Eriksson and Kovalainen (2015) especially helpful when comparing
different qualitative method designs and data types. Through case studies,
you make comprehensible empirical descriptions (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2015), which benefited my studies and propelled my re-
search forward. When I had decided to use case studies, Yin's (2018)
work on case studies acted as guidance during research design.
I performed intensive case studies in two related areas of research. I
practised the intensive form to gain an deep understanding of a certain
case (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015). The intensive form aims to explain
how and why something occurs within a case. The intensive case form
can help a researcher complement established knowledge or offer alter-
native explanations to a research field (Silverman, 2015), which is im-
portant in pushing a research field forward (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011).

28
 The case study acts as a good way for researchers to learn about a new
field of research that has not already been extensively studied. When per-
forming an intensive case study, cases should be selected because they
are unique, critical, or extreme in some sense, and are thereby interesting
for study (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015). Hence, I chose to study a sup-
plier to heavy industry applications and the mining industry. Heavy in-
dustries, which mining is an example of, are extreme, as sustainable is-
sues have been highly prevalent within these industries during the past
few decades. The case selected for my in-depth study, and the mining
industry, are presented in more detail in the subchapter 3.7, “Case de-
scription”.

3.3 Empirical data collection

I used two separate sets of qualitative data for my studies. For the first
study, I used semi-structured qualitative interviews as my main data
source. For the second study, I used documents as my main data source,
namely, annual company and sustainability reports. I will also describe
how empirical data was collected for each of the two studies.
When selecting interviewees, I sought to select respondents who had
a broad understanding of the focal firm’s business model and surrounding
industry. Selected interviewees were senior managers who represented
different parts of the company: e.g., product development, production,
purchasing, marketing, service, and sales.
The questions guide was developed based on theoretical concepts and
two pre-study interviews. I also worked with colleagues to adapt it to bet-
ter fit the general research purpose and case context. I conducted most
interviews in collaboration with one research colleague and recorded all
interviews, thereby increasing the study’s reliability (Silverman, 2015).
After the interviews I wrote memos (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015) of
reflections and observations I made during the interviews. The interviews
were transcribed by myself based on recordings, thereby offering me a
better understanding of the data. I sought to follow Silverman’s (2015)

29
recommendations on transcriptions in keeping relevant contextual infor-
mation intact, such as questions asked, follow-up questions, and pauses
and hesitations. I found it important to reflect upon the answers in the
context of the interview, and thus I tried to reflect also upon how the an-
swers were posed, and how these related to stakes and narratives
(Silverman, 2015). Although this was not used in the main analysis, it
helped me to better understand and reflect upon the data, and to grasp at
deeper meanings behind the transcribed answers.
For the second study, we used documents as the main data source,
namely, annual company and sustainability reports published in 2021.
Annual reports and sustainability reports are readily available through
firm’s web sites and are used by firms as tools to prove legitimacy for
operation activities and build company brand images (Tregidga et al.,
2014; Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018; Böhling et al., 2019; O’Dochartaigh,
2019). Through these documents, I was able to discern what sets of ac-
tivities firms and other actors performed, in relation to commercial and
sustainable value. Hence, the reports have a high focus on sustainability
and value creation. They reference activities performed by the focal firm
and other actors, and the actors to whom these activities deliver value.

3.4 Data analysis

The main process of breaking down and structuring the data was themat-
ical analysis (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015; Silverman, 2015), building
on pattern matching with prior theory concepts (Yin, 2018). Thematical
analysis builds on previous literature to create themes with which col-
lected data is then matched. Furthermore, I was also inspired by concepts
in grounded theory (Bryman & Bell, 2017) as to how to explore data for
new insights. My coding method divided data into tangible pieces for
evaluation and analysis. I, in part, sought to keep context and sequences
intact when conducting the analysis, as this affects how the answers have
emerged and what they imply (Silverman, 2015; Alvesson et al., 2017).
For the first study, I structured the data based on different themes and
created codes and categories. I did so in an iterative process, updating,

30
splitting, and reformulating codes and categories as data analysis pro-
gressed (Silverman, 2015). I used a similar approach for my second study.
This time I used Nvivo as a tool to structure my data. I found this tool
handy when the code groups grew very large: up to hundreds of codes
based on more than 7000 quotations. This made codes more accessible.
Nvivo also allowed for more advanced structuring of data sets. This sup-
ported the structuring of data into sets of activities that different actors
could perform, which acted as the core foundation for formulating eco-
system roles in sustainability.

3.5 Research quality

One of the challenges of qualitative research is assuring one’s readers that
the research is of a scientific nature and is worthy of trust (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2015). I will, in this subchapter, reflect upon the quality of
my research, using the evaluation criteria of reliability and validity. As
these two concepts are derived from quantitative methods, I have adapted
them to the use on qualitative inquiry. I first reflect upon why the criteria
is of value, and then describe how I have applied it in my research pro-
cess. I find it important to note that the evaluation of research quality
occurs throughout the research process, and I have thus reflected upon
these criteria during different stages of my research process to guide my
choices in research design and practise.

3.5.1 Reliability
One avenue of critique toward qualitative case studies is that the research
is impossible to reproduce, due to high dependability on the researcher
(Lekvall & Wahlbin, 2001). Seen from past experience, replicability of
studies in social science is hard and when studies are reproduced, the re-
produced research does not always produce the same results (Alvesson et
al., 2017). Hence, it is important to address the reliability of research,
meaning that if another researcher were to analyse the same data using
the same research process, he or she would obtain similar results and con-
clusions (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015; Silverman, 2015; Yin, 2018).

31
 Case studies and qualitative research in general are therefore highly
dependent on the researcher or researchers performing it. Lekvall and
Wahlbin (2001) consider the person performing the case study to be an
instrument, and this instrument is highly dependent on the researchers’
biases and characteristics. However, I find that instead of disregarding all
qualitative case study research as unreliable, this dependence may also be
seen as a strength (Silverman, 2015). To increase the reliability of my
research, I have sought to document my research process, strategy, and
data analysis methods as recommended by methods literature (Silverman,
2015; Yin, 2018). This I have done prior to, during, and after the research
process.
To ensure that I collected data in a reliable fashion, I recorded and
transcribed all interviews by myself, as recommended by Silverman
(2015). I found that I, during the transcription phase, better understood
the nuances of interactions, and realised that what I remembered from the
interview only comprised part of the answers. There were many details
that I had missed during the interviews, as I was preoccupied with asking
questions, interacting with interviewees, and evaluating what info was
lacking. I find that rigorous documentation helps when going back to the
data, which I did several times during my research process. By repeating
my own work (Yin, 2018), I found that there were several different ways
to interpret the data, which resulted in more reliable findings and conclu-
sions.

3.5.2 Validity
The validity criteria for social science relates to how accurately an ac-
count represents the social phenomena to which it refers (Hammersley,
1990, in Silverman, 2015). In social science, it is hard to attain a true and
certain representation of a phenomenon, and interpretation is, to a large
extent, connected to the perspective, data, researcher, etc. (Silverman,
2015). Instead, for social science, validity can refer to obtaining rigor,
breadth, complexity, depth, and richness of an inquiry (Denzin & Lin-
coln, 2000, in Silverman, 2015), by delimiting the risks of values influ-

32
encing the data. In addition, I find it important to consider the “truth sta-
tus” of data (Silverman, 2015); i.e., reflecting upon the situation in which
data is created and what audience the respondent or source is addressing.
Triangulation is practised to garner different points of view within a
phenomenon, e.g., by using different theories, methods, and data sources
(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015). I practised data triangulation by review-
ing my data from different theoretical perspectives. In addition, I was
supported by supervisors and colleagues who have experience in the same
and in proximal fields of research during my research process. Triangu-
lation is not a failproof method, and it is hard, or even impossible to find
an accurate representation of a phenomenon. Instead, Denzin & Lincoln
(2000, in Silverman, 2015) argue that triangulation is a strategy in obtain-
ing rigor, breadth, complexity, depth, and richness during an inquiry.
I seek validity through pattern matching (Yin, 2018); i.e., by matching
my data to prior theories. Throughout my research process I sought to
address rival explanations and remain critical toward my findings and
ideas. Another issue of the validity of research in social science is to what
extent it can be generalised. Generalisability of research to reach higher
level values for society is an important part when performing a qualitative
case study. One major critique of the case study method is that it is too
contextual and specific, making conclusions untranslatable to other con-
texts (Yin, 2011; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015).
Generalisability, or external validity, thus acts an important criterion
for qualitative case study research (Yin, 2018). This, Yin (2018) suggests,
can be obtained by relating case findings to prior results, which I tried to
do consistently. By doing so, I seek to relate, challenge, falsify, and con-
trast my findings with previous literature and conceptual frameworks,
thereby attaining scientific contributions through the case study method
(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2015; Silverman, 2015).

33
3.6 Ethical considerations
As a researcher, I am a part of a larger research community and repre-
sentative of its ability to create and deliver trustworthy knowledge. Thus,
I try to perform research with high ethical standards.
Research ethics concerns the whole research process, although for my
research, ethical considerations are mainly associated with data collec-
tion, processing, and handling. This primarily relates to voluntary partic-
ipation, informed consent, the anonymity of interviewees, confidentiality,
and protection of sensitive individual and firm-based information. Fur-
thermore, it is important to give rich and correct case descriptions, and to
consider the contributions of previous authors.
As I encountered potential managers to interview by recommendation
of a firm contact, there is a risk that interviewees would be known inter-
nally, thus risking the anonymity of the individual. It can be hard to en-
sure strict anonymity when performing a limited number of interviews in
a closed setting. In addition, although the interviews were voluntary,
there is a risk that interviewees would feel forced to participate in the
interviews, as they were requested to do so by a senior manager. To ad-
dress this, we started and ended interviews by clarifying that if they
wanted to take something out of the interview we would do so. I started
interviews by briefly explaining who we were and the purpose of the re-
search. I also said that the interviewee did not have to respond to ques-
tions and could request us to delete or reformulate answers afterward. I
also stressed not putting anyone at risk of reprimands due to what they
had said in confidence during the interviews.
Interview materials were only managed by me and the other research-
ers participating in the study. This was not done for the second study,
which was based on publicly available information, and was therefore not
considered sensitive to share or display. A further step taken was to anon-
ymise the firm of the first paper. This anonymisation also included ob-
fuscating the exact size of the firm and what industries the firm operates
within.

34
 As a part of research ethics, it is important to disclose sponsorships.
One external business actor had an influence on the field and direction of
my research. I have found it important, although I have relationships with
the organisation and its members, to remain distinct from the industry,
and not review myself as part of it. I further separated documents that I
delivered to the actor and used for research purposes, to delimit the free-
dom of my research. In developing my research findings, I found the
anonymisation of the firm to be beneficial, since it then reduced my con-
nection to the firm and allowed me to be freer and more critical in my
thinking and research processes.

3.7 Case description

ManuCo — global equipment manufacturer of heavy industry appli-
cations
The anonymised case of the first study is a global manufacturer with a
wide range of applications in heavy industries. ManuCo supplies custom-
ers worldwide and has a regional market presence through factories, local
sales offices, and distribution centres. To support equipment sales, Ma-
nuCo supplies customer segments with spare parts, on-site service and
maintenance, digital services, training, and consultancy.
I, together with research colleagues, purposefully selected the case
(Yin, 2018) based on the traction of sustainability in the supplied to in-
dustries. Heavy industries are in general resource- and energy-intensive
and hence have high environmental impacts. Furthermore, based on pre-
study interviews, there is a growing concern for sustainability coming
from shareholders, customers, and stakeholders. The frequence and
magintude of opposition against established firms has (in general) grown,
especially in markets with strong institutions, in alternative employment,
and in industries where resource ownership (e.g., land and water) is
contested. This incentivises firms to prioritise social and enviromental
sustainability to legitimise their business.
Further, ManuCo is strongly rooted in its established BM, which has
developed over many decades to give sustainable competitive advantages

35
through high quality value propositions to costumers, making it a good
case in describing the changes established BMs make toward sustainabil-
ity.

The mining industry

The mining industry has, particularly during the last two-to-three dec-
ades, sought to improve their legitimacy and social and environmental
sustainability performance, following its history of stakeholder conflicts
over resource and land use (Whitmore, 2006; Ranängen & Zobel, 2014;
Tost et al., 2018; Böhling et al., 2019). These conflicts can be expected
to increase as resources become more scarce and more critical for diverse
supply chain applications. In response, firms — both individually and
collectively — take different approaches in addressing unsustainability;
among other approaches, they have proposed implementing reporting
standards to address sustainability and stakeholder issues (Tost et al.,
2018).
The destroyed environmental and social value within mining indus-
tries is often vast; however, it is not easy to address. Resource, water,
land, and energy efficiency is hindered by global trends in the mining
industry (Tost et al., 2018). Metals and minerals become less accessible
over time, with the amount of promising ore bodies decreasing despite
increasing exploration intensity and technological sophistication
(Wouters & Bol, 2009). Sites found for exploration hold lower grades of
valuable content within, thus resulting in greater waste flows and chemi-
cal, water, and energy use during processing (Wouters & Bol, 2009; Tost
et al., 2018).
Also, trends in digitalisation, the circular economy, and servitisation
are strongly present within mining, which is expected to lead to both
value opportunities and challenges related to a firm’s ecosystem (Parida
& Wincent, 2019). It is also of interest as it provides many critical re-
sources used in technologies with sustainable benefits, such as renewable
energy and batteries, which are important in addressing climate change
in modern society.

36
 Within the larger context of mining and mineral industries, the Swe-
dish mining sector was selected, since it has progressed further than com-
parable industries according to business experts in the areas of environ-
mental sustainability, stakeholder interaction, and operational safety. The
Swedish mining and mineral industries are characterised by a high focus
on innovation and collaboration, which business experts consider ideal
attributes in developing sustainable solutions. One notable example is
Hybrit, which involves three large industry actors, in a pursuit to develop
a steel process based on hydrogen instead of coal. Furthermore, two of
the largest suppliers of mining equipment, Epiroc and Sandvik, are based
in Sweden and have their headquarters in Sweden, thus influencing trends
in global mining supply chains.
The five selected firms are briefly described in Table 4. The firms are
interconnected by technological innovation, supply chain interaction, and
share regulatory conditions. They represent three different stages of the
mining supply chain, equipment, mining, and processing. In Table 4 there
is a summary of the firms in the study, their main value propositions,
supply chain position, size, and their geographical presence.

37
Table 4. Brief description of studied case firms’ propositions, position,
size, and presence (paper 2)
Firm Main value Supply Number Geographical
proposition chain posi- of em- presence
tion ployees
(2020)
Epiroc Mining and con- 1st equip- ~15,000 Global. Based
struction equip- ment sup- and HQ in
ment and service plier Sweden
Sandvik Mining and con- 1st equip- ~37,000 Global. Based
struction equip- ment sup- and HQ in
ment and ser- plier and 3rd Sweden
vice, metal metal pro-
smelting cessing
SSAB Iron smelting 3rd mineral ~14,300 Sweden, Fin-
processing land, and the
US
LKAB Iron ore extractor 2nd mining ~4,500 Sweden
Boliden Metal ore extrac- 2nd mining ~6,100 Sweden, Nor-
tor and smelter and 3rd min- way, Finland,
eral pro- and Ireland
cessing

38
4 Summary of the papers
Following is a summary of the two appended papers. The two papers of-
fer complementary perspectives on the overarching issue of the estab-
lished business model’s (BM) change toward sustainability.
For the licentiate thesis, the first paper plays an important role by ex-
ploring sustainable change orientations (SCO), and the characteristics of
sustainable business model (SBM) changes. Paper 2 offers insights to
how BM progression toward sustainability depends on business ecosys-
tem actors and interactions.

4.1 Paper 1: sustainable change orientations in an

established business model
The first paper appended to this dissertation is a working paper with the
title, Sustainable change orientations in an established business model.
It has, in earlier forms, been submitted for the Euroma Sustainability Sup-
ply Chain conferences in 2020 and 2021. This paper covers my initial
exploration-oriented empirical work in the field of how an established
BM can change toward sustainability.
This paper focuses on an established firm and its established BM, and
how they have progressed toward sustainability. ManuCo is an anony-
mised manufacturing multinational enterprise, supplying various applica-
tions to heavy industries. These industries are characterised by resource
and energy intensiveness and by already developed and fixed processes.
Thus, in these industries sustainability often occupies a pronounced posi-
tion. However, due to their established BMs, firms within these industries
also have a particular resistance toward change. The qualitative study is
based on 12 semi-structured interviews with senior managers at ManuCo.
This study is grounded in BM and SBM literature, which is used to iden-
tify SBM changes and categorise them into appropriate structures.
SBM changes were categorised into one of three alternative SCOs,
namely technological, social, or organisational. The categorisation re-

39
vealed differences in associated SBM changes and their external depend-
ency. I found that the technological SCO, in general, was more accessible
for an established manufacturing firm. I further found that the technolog-
ical SCO supported foundations for social and organisational SCOs,
which were associated with more challenging forms of SBM change. A
summary of the three SCOs is given in Table 5, describing the relevant
SBM archetypes, the nature of associated SBM changes, and the external
dependencies of SCOs.

Table 5. Summary of changes and external dependency in the SCOs

SCO Technological Social Organisational

Nature of Incremental and Add-on changes Extensive SBM
SBM add-on changes and more extensive changes, chal-
changes that complement SBM changes, lenging estab-
established BM. challenging estab- lished BM and al-
Primarily separate lished BM and alter ter value capture
changes of value value capture
proposition or
value creation
Dependency Moderate, many High, SBM changes Highest, SBM
on external SBM changes can demand approval changes often de-
actors, net- be performed in- from external busi- mand collabora-
works, and ternally without ness actors, e.g., tion for develop-
business the support or ap- partners and suppli- ment, and poten-
ecosystem proval of external ers and strong busi- tially also altera-
business actors ness relationships tions to industry
and market prac-
tices

40
4.2 Paper 2: Ecosystem roles for sustainability
The second paper appended to this dissertation is a working paper with
the title, Ecosystem roles for sustainability: the case of the Swedish min-
ing and minerals business ecosystem. It has, in earlier forms, been sub-
mitted to the conferences of the Centre for Business & Industrial Market-
ing in 2021, and Euroma Sustainability Supply Chain in 2022. This paper
covers my efforts to discern how established BMs change toward sustain-
ability is dependent on business ecosystem interplay.
The paper is built on a qualitative case study of five firms in the Swe-
dish mineral and mining sector that represent different actors in a busi-
ness ecosystem. This case was purposefully selected, since there are
many challenges and conflicts related to sustainable issues between dif-
ferent stakeholders, and since several business actors show a progression
toward handling sustainability-related issues with a more proactive ap-
proach.
The paper presents four generic ecosystem roles for sustainability that
actors can play: 1) ecosystem orchestrator, 2) resource provider, 3) solu-
tion leader, and 4) sustainability solver. These roles create or facilitate
sustainability within a business ecosystem. The roles have different levels
of sustainable leadership and contribute to sustainability by either ena-
bling or creating sustainability-oriented solutions. These roles can be
played by firms or other stakeholders in the business ecosystem. Within
a business ecosystem, there are also actors who act as intermediaries be-
tween roles and other stakeholders, and actors who act as representatives
for stakeholder and sustainability interests.
Beyond the four ecosystem roles for sustainability, one important find-
ing of Paper 2 is how the interplay between different roles affect sustain-
able development. Paper 2 indicates that the conditions for BM change
toward sustainability is, to an extent, dependent on business ecosystem
interplay. Hence, it can be favourable for a firm to pursue one or multiple
ecosystem roles for sustainability as a proactive strategy.

41
5 Discussion
In this chapter, I will use insights from both appended papers to discuss
how established business models (BM) change toward sustainability. I
find that the overarching change of an established BM toward sustaina-
bility combines different sustainable business model (SBM) changes, of
various scope and scale, directed toward different sustainable change ori-
entations (SCO). An SCO represents an overarching orientation, which
in itself includes different SBM archetypes, representing more distinct
directions for SBM changes aimed at capturing environmental and/or so-
cial benefits in business operations (Bocken et al., 2014; Ritala et al.,
2018). The accessibility of SBM changes differs depending on their char-
acteristics, how they relate to the established BM, and their dependency
on external actors and networks. Following prior literature, I argue for an
extended view of the BM to also consider business ecosystems, which
affects actors’ ability to change their established BMs toward sustainabil-
ity. I also argue for the key function of collaboration to change and push
established BMs toward sustainability, especially to facilitate larger and
more challenging SBM changes, e.g., SBM transformations.
Following my research, I find that firms can incorporate many forms
of SBM changes into their established BMs. In 5.1, I present
characteristics of SBM change that are relevant in explaining why certain
SBM changes are pursued by established (manufacturing) firms to a
greater extent than other forms of change. In general, firms mainly focus
on accessible SBM changes that align with their historic path and estab-
lished BM and tend to avoid more challenging SBM changes. Accessible
SBM change tends, for large firms with established BMs, to be associated
with the technological SCOs (Ritala et al., 2018). For large established
firms, many pursued SBM changes improve resource and material effi-
ciency, waste management, and resource utilisation. These accessible
SBM changes could be of great benefit to society and the environment;
however, they may not be sufficient to address the larger sustainability
challenges of our time (Upward & Jones, 2016).

43
 To address these larger sustainability challenges, authors argue, sus-
tainability should be considered to be at the BM’s core, with economic
value deriving through sustainable practices and activities (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008; Schaltegger et al., 2016a). To attain this, the social and
organisational SCOs are key. SBM changes associated with these orien-
tations are more challenging to practise and incorporate into an estab-
lished BM, as they are associated with alterations and reinventions of the
established BM and its logic. Despite this challenge, they can result in
business opportunities for firms and produce sustainable development on
a systemic level (Bocken et al., 2014), and are thus important for estab-
lished firms to pursue.
To access these more challenging SCOs, my research proposes that
initial efforts in the technological SCO can create foundations for further
SBM change. I argue that the technological SCO strengthens business
relationships, increases external actors’ trust in a focal firm, and increases
a firm’s internal understanding of sustainability, all of which are im-
portant in supporting SBM changes. Among others, these foundations can
strengthen the willingness and availability of collaboration for a firm.
Collaboration is argued as key for SBM change, especially for the social
and organisational SCOs. Sustainable understanding and its connection
to a firm’s established BM can, according to prior literature, trigger radi-
cal and impactful SBM changes (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016; Rajala et
al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Brennan & Tennant, 2018). The foun-
dations for SBM change are discussed further in subchapter 5.2, and the
key role collaboration holds in enabling change toward sustainability is
discussed further in subchapter 5.3.
Change toward sustainability also depends on the business ecosystem
that a firm is a part of, which determines the conditions for a firm’s BM
change toward sustainability (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Mars et al., 2012;
Visnjic & Nelly, 2013). Thus, to support change toward sustainability in
their own BM, an actor can perform activities to influence conditions to
be more favourable toward sustainability within their particular ecosys-
tem. In subchapter 5.4, I outline the need for a new SBM archetype, and
in 5.5, I develop the new SBM archetype, which I call create favourable

44
business ecosystem conditions, with examples of activities derived from
the two appended papers. This is a unique contribution developed in this
licentiate that extends the framework of Bocken et al. (2014), in which
no SBM archetype specifically addresses the conditions for sustainability
of the surrounding business ecosystem.
In Figure 4, the subchapters of the discussion are mapped out, depend-
ing on how they relate to the main components of the analytical model
(Figure 3) and how they relate to each other.

Sustainable change
5.4 and 5.5. orientations
SBM archetype directed
toward the business
ecosystem
5.1
5.2
Characteristics
Foundations
Established business of SBM Established Business
For SBM
model changes model change
change
toward sustainability

5.3
Collaborating
SBM change
for
sustainability

Business ecosystem

Figure 4. Mapping of subchapters in relation to the analytical model of

established BM change toward sustainability

In Figure 4, the squares of SBM change and sustainable change orienta-

tions are connected in 5.1, which describes characteristics of SBM change
that affect accessibility and challenge for established BM incorporation.
Subchapter 5.1 explains how these characteristics connect to SCOs, and
thereby also connect to the next subchapter. 5.2 describes how the tech-
nological SCO supports foundations for further change toward sustaina-
bility; among others, by creating better conditions for partnerships and
collaborations. Therefore, the circle connects to 5.3, which describes the
impact of collaboration for established BM’s change toward sustainabil-
ity. Collaboration, in turn, depends on the interplay between the focal

45
firm and the actors of the surrounding business ecosystem. Due to this,
the collaboration circle 5.3 connects to the "business ecosystem” square.
Finally, the subchapters 5.4. and 5.5. consider the business ecosystem’s
function on an established BM and its ability to change toward sustaina-
bility. Here, the new SBM archetype describes an interplay between a
focal firm and its surrounding business ecosystem, which affects the con-
ditions for change toward sustainability within the relevant business eco-
system.

5.1 Accessibility of SBM changes

There are many barriers and challenges for changing a BM toward sus-
tainability (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Bocken & Geradts, 2019). How-
ever, some SBM changes are more accessible for an established BM. Fol-
lowing the categorisation of SBM change activities and practices outlined
in paper 1, I identified certain characteristics that made changes more ac-
cessible for incorporation into an established BM. These insights com-
plement the results of Ritala et al. (2018), who, due to their methods of
choice, are unable to answer why certain SCOs are pursued by large es-
tablished firms to a greater extent.
In Paper 1, I found that the accessibility of SBM changes depend on
the following characteristics: 1) if an SBM change acts as a win-win or
as a trade-off; 2) if an SBM change is peripheral or central to the estab-
lished BM; 3) if an SBM change can be performed separately, or demands
interdependent changes extending over BM elements; and 4) if an SBM
change can be performed internally or extends to the surrounding network
or business ecosystem. These characteristics are briefly outlined in Table
6. The arrows in the middle signify that the relationship between the char-
acteristics is not binary, but instead a continuum.

46
 Table 6. Characteristics of SBM changes for an established firm
Accessible Challenging
Win-win ßà Trade-off
Peripheral ßà Central
Separate ßà Interdependent
Internal ßà Extending to network

My research finds that, in general, SBM changes are more accessible

when they represent low hanging fruits and win-win situations, where
environmental and social gains go hand-in-hand with economic pursuits.
By following traditional business pursuits, change toward sustainability
can complement the established BM. Here, an example is lean produc-
tion, which results in material and energy efficiency and cost and risk
reductions. Another example is product durability, which reduces mate-
rial and energy use and, for certain customer segments, offers a competi-
tive advantage and increases acceptance of premium pricing. When a
change represents trade-offs, they are understandably more challenging
to pursue (Brennan & Tennant, 2018). For instance, it was uncommon for
ManuCo to retract from customer relationships due to problematic behav-
iour, as this clashes with ManuCo’s focus on revenue growth.
SBM changes peripheral to the core BM are accessible, as they have a
low effect on the established BM’s central elements, which can remain
consistent. This includes CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities,
stakeholder management, and adding renewable electricity production.
Another example is the acquisition of a sustainability-oriented firm, i.e.,
SBM acquisition (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), which can be held peripheral
to the core BM. In contrast, when SBM changes require alterations to,
and even abandonment of, the established BM and its logic, they are more
challenging to pursue. For instance, in the case of ManuCo, the pursued
technology stream of automation altered the focus for the BM, i.e., from
product to process centricity, thus implying changes to how value propo-
sitions were developed, marketed, and sold.

47
 SBM changes are more accessible when they can occur separately and
with low dependency on other BM changes. Here, examples are renewa-
ble energy production and substitution of a chemical used during a spe-
cific stage of production. The challenge of incorporation grows if an SBM
change is interdependent on other changes that must be performed in par-
allel for its successful implementation, and when it extends beyond a fo-
cal firm’s boundaries to include network actors.
Finally, SBM changes are more accessible when they can be per-
formed internally, based on the case firms’ resources and capabilities. In
comparison, when an SBM change is dependent on external actors, it be-
comes more challenging to implement. For instance, sourcing certifica-
tion was easy for the case firm to add to its list of requirements in supplier
selection. In contrast, for external supply chain actors, sourcing certifica-
tions were more challenging. For the implementation of sourcing certifi-
cations, supply chain actors had to develop new capabilities and routines
for measuring, calculating, requesting, storing, and transparently sharing
information. In addition, sourcing certifications are not to all actors’ ben-
efits. Hence, actors with low ethical standards and questionable material
sourcing can thus directly oppose sourcing certification schemes. The im-
plementation challenge is then amplified by the large number of actors
who must abide by the sourcing certification scheme for it to be effective.
The characteristics of an SBM change helps to explain why certain
SCOs are practised to a higher extent by firms with established BMs. In
the case of ManuCo, many accessible SBM changes were associated with
the technological SCO, and to some extent the social SCO, which fol-
lowed ManuCo’s historic path of product centricity and their focus on
technology. In addition, there were economic incentives and legislative
pressure to progress through technology improvements. The absence of
economic incentives and legislative pressure creates barriers for the tech-
nological SCO (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014). For ManuCo, pursued SBM
changes mainly complemented or extended the value proposition and
value capture elements, with value capture through premium pricing, cost
reductions, and financial risk reductions. Similarly, Ritala et al. (2018)
found that the technological SCO was, to a higher extent, practised by

48
large established firms, compared with the social and organisational
SCOs.
In contrast, the social and organisational SCOs were to a greater extent
connected with more challenging SBM changes, which altered and chal-
lenged ManuCo’s established BM and internal logic and extended be-
yond firm boundaries. Similarly, Laukkanen and Patala (2014) found that
for social and organisational SCOs, the main barriers were associated
with the traditional BM logic and established network preferences. Due
to this, the social and organisational SCOs were more complex to pursue.
The social and organisational SCOs connect to SBM transformations
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), which change an established BM into a new
one. Consequently, these orientations are less accessible for firms with
established BMs, and demand greater consideration and investment to
succeed.
Thus, when making changes within an established BM toward sustain-
ability, firms mainly focus on accessible SBM changes which follow their
historic path and complement the established BM and tend to avoid more
BM-challenging SCOs. However, SBM authors argue that limiting
change toward sustainability to comply with current BMs is not enough
— instead BMs should be reinvented to place sustainability at their core
(Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Schaltegger et al., 2016a). The traditional BM
logic focuses on exploitation and short-term growth, which disfavour sus-
tainability over time (Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017; Laasch, 2018;
Bocken & Geradts, 2019). Several of the SBM changes identified in Pa-
per 1 demanded alteration and reshaping of the established BM and its
components. In addition, without placing sustainability at the BM core,
an SBM change’s potential could be reduced or result in rebound effects
(Bocken et al., 2014; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Thus, to attain social and
environmental benefits, established firms should pursue more challeng-
ing SBM forms and orientations, in addition to more accessible SBM
changes.
In the next two subchapters, I will outline how the technological SCO
support change toward sustainability, how collaboration can enable

49
change toward sustainability and its implications in established manufac-
turing contexts.

5.2 Foundations for SBM change

For large established firms with a product-centric focus, initiation of the
social and organisational SCOs can be supported by the development of
the technological SCO (Paper 1). In their study, Ritala et al. (2018) found
that for large firms, the technological SCO was initiated and adopted be-
fore the social and organisational SCOs. This finding was supported by
the case of ManuCo, which also mainly developed within the technolog-
ical SCO before approaching social and organisational SCOs. Paper 1 ex-
tends this by proposing that the technological SCO creates foundations
that support social and organisational SCOs. This contrasts with the study
of Ritala et al. (2018), by displaying a clearer hierarchy among the three
overarching SCOs than has been previously established. For firms with
an established BM and a product and technology focus, the technological
SCO can support three important foundations for social and organisa-
tional SCOs, as displayed in Figure 5.

Sustainability
understanding
Value proposition Social and
Technological quality and trust Organisational
SCO
Business SCOs
relationship
strength

Figure 5. Technological SCO supporting foundations for the social and

organisational SCOs

First, the technological SCO may increase an established firm’s under-

standing of sustainability, thereby supporting the realisation of firm and
industry deficiencies. A greater understanding of sustainability and its

50
connection to a firm’s BM — i.e., its impact on and connection with
wider society and the environment — can initiate SBM innovation and
change (Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016; Rajala et al., 2016; Roome &
Louche, 2016; Brennan & Tennant, 2018; Journeault et al., 2021). This is
especially relevant for the social and organisational SCOs, as a lack of
sustainability awareness and understanding acts as a main barrier for their
initiation (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014). Among others, the technological
SCO can create a connection between financial performance and sustain-
ability, on issues such as resource efficiency, carbon footprint, and oper-
ator safety. When such issues are value drivers for customers, they are
connected to financial performance, and thus valuable. Authors argue for
the importance of connecting sustainability to financial performance at
an early stage to convince internal and network stakeholders of the rele-
vance for an established BM change toward sustainability (Rajala et al.,
2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017). For in-
stance, in the case of ManuCo, after performing activities to accommo-
date customer demand on operator safety, it shifted to become a “…nat-
ural part of working”, as one manager put it, and is now perceived as a
competitive advantage used during communication.
Second, the technological SCO could improve customers’ perception
of an established firm’s value proposition’s quality, on aspects such as
durability, utility, cost efficiency and delivery time. For ManuCo, the
quality of their value proposition was key in demonstrating to customers
that a social SCO was beneficial, e.g., that fewer units could provide
greater outcome than a greater number of cheaper alternatives, and that
outcome-based contracts provide greater end-outcomes and functionality
for customers than traditional ownership-based contracts. Further, by lev-
eraging the technological SCO, and attaining quality leadership in an in-
dustry, an actor may be more attractive as a partner for development pro-
jects. This is suggested in both appended articles, where actors perceived
as “technology leaders” are more frequently approached for partnerships,
development, and collaboration.
Third, the technological SCO may strengthen business relationships
necessary to develop social and organisational SCOs, which are to a great

51
extent dependent on external actors’ actions and reactions. Through
stronger business relationships, a firm can test and experiment with new
alternative solutions, benefiting from collaboration and sharing of re-
sources and capabilities (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche; 2016
Rossignoli & Lionzo, 2018). For ManuCo, the strength of a customer re-
lationship depends on how well ManuCo, as supplier, can service and
support its customer. Here, the technological SCO can contribute to the
current quality and future potential of the value proposition and its ability
to deliver through value creation. Thus, strong business relationships can,
at least partially, be built through excellence in performing activities re-
lated to the technological SCO.
The creation of these foundations, and their function in supporting fur-
ther SBM change, helps established firms practise SBM transformations.
As argued in the previous subchapter, social and organisational SCOs are,
to a greater extent, connected to SBM transformations. In Rajala et al.'s
(2016) and Roome and Louche's (2016) view on SBM transformations,
sustainable understanding and willingness to collaborate are key. How-
ever, in their studies, the emergence of these foundations is not elaborated
upon and is taken as granted for established firms. In contrast to these
studies, this licentiate proposes that accessible technological SBM
changes can precede and enable a larger SBM transformation by spurring
sustainable understanding and willingness to collaborate.
To summarise, for firms with an established BM and a product and
technology focus, the technological SCO creates supporting foundations
for the initiation of social and organisational SCOs. The technological
SCO acts as a foundation in three ways: 1) it may increase a firm’s un-
derstanding of sustainability and increase the connection between SBM
changes and a firm’s financial performance; 2) it can increase the per-
ceived quality of a firm’s value proposition and capabilities; and 3) it can
assist in strengthening business relationships, thereby increasing external
actors’ willingness to initiate partnerships and collaboration.

52
5.3 Collaborating for sustainability
Collaboration enables established BMs’ change toward sustainability
(Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Evans et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018;
Bocken & Geradts, 2019). As discussed in the prior chapter, partnerships
can enable larger changes: e.g., SBM transformations, in social and or-
ganisational SCOs, which, in general, differ from traditional BM orienta-
tions. Parida and Wincent (2019) propose that to leverage sustainability-
related trends in digitalisation, automation, and circularity, firms need to
develop away from traditional supply chains toward new forms of eco-
system structures, including a greater focus on interaction and collabora-
tion.
The function of collaboration for sustainability is proposed and dis-
cussed in both appended papers. Paper 1 proposes that SCOs, to a varying
extent, are dependent on collaboration for their implementation. Paper 2
suggests that sustainability develops through the interplay of ecosystem
roles, with some roles providing critical resources and sustainability lead-
ership that enable other roles in the creation and delivery of sustainability.
Furthermore, Paper 2 proposes that collaboration projects, led by solution
leaders and including complementing actors, are important in creating
sustainable solutions that contrast with current industry practice. These
collaboration projects were suggested to develop solutions unavailable
through internal development or dual collaboration forms. Thus, the pa-
pers suggest that collaboration can support and enable SBM change, and
that an extended view of the BM is motivated when considering sustain-
ability.
However, not all actors are willing to initiate collaboration to support
change toward sustainability. A firm can see an SCO as a favourable busi-
ness opportunity, e.g., by driving a value proposition toward functionality
and sufficiency, but this might not be perceived as valuable by established
customers, suppliers, and partners. For instance, resource efficiency,
waste flow reductions and circularity imply many economic benefits for
certain actors of a supply chain who can capture value from these prac-
tices. However, for other actors, these may reduce value capture, through

53
increased costs associated with new capability development and dimin-
ished revenue streams from current sources (Rajala et al., 2016). For ex-
ample, Interface, a US carpet manufacturer, saw that an SBM transfor-
mation would be to its benefit; however, it would reduce sourced goods
from established suppliers while simultaneously requiring them to de-
velop capabilities to handle material circulation (Rajala et al., 2016). Un-
derstandably, Interface’s established suppliers were reluctant to support
Interface’s sustainable change orientation. Similarly, in the case of Ma-
nuCo (Paper 1), customers were reluctant toward SCOs when they feared
that they stood to lose from them, e.g., when they would benefit others
more than themselves and weaken competitiveness.
In response, when conducting an SBM transformation, Rajala et al.
(2016) and Roome and Louche (2016) propose that a firm should adapt
its supplier and partner network to accommodate their aspired BM. My
research in Paper 1 suggests that when changing an established BM to-
ward sustainability, an actor is dependent on the availability of qualified
partners and their view of external actors and sustainability. Actors who
distrusted external actors and had high internal supply chain competition
were less inclined toward collaboration. These actors often had estab-
lished firm-centric views of value and business success, with low consid-
eration for sustainability issues. In contrast, actors who had included sus-
tainability, albeit partly, into its business purpose were more approacha-
ble regarding partnerships and alterations of their value proposition and
value creation elements. In the case of ManuCo, such actors were more
accepting of sharing intellectual property compared to more traditional
counterparts, thereby enabling collaboration and development. In addi-
tion, spill over effects from collaborations were considered less of a
threat, as they also implied positive benefits for society and the environ-
ment.
To summarise, collaboration plays an important role in established
BMs’ change toward sustainability, as is proposed and highlighted in
both appended papers. If the established network and supply chain op-
pose an SCO, an actor may have to adapt its supplier and partner network.
Thus, my research suggests that an actor’s ability to use collaboration for

54
sustainability is dependent on the availability of qualified partners with a
collaborative orientation who include sustainability in their business pur-
pose. If such actors are lacking, an actor can improve conditions for sus-
tainability and collaboration by extending its focus toward the business
ecosystem level. This is discussed further in the two following subchap-
ters.

5.4 A new SBM archetype at the business

ecosystem level
Bocken et al. (2014) formulated their SBM archetypes following a liter-
ature and practice review of historic examples of innovation. Thus, their
framework is limited to approaches that have already been tested and
studied. This is realised by the authors who state that the framework
“…cannot predict entirely radical new approaches, and as such may need
to be revisited from time to time to reflect the latest state-of-practice” (p.
54). Following this limitation, additional SBM archetypes can be added
to fully represent the range of modern change toward sustainability. As
such, this licentiate represents a revisit of the framework of Bocken et al.
(2014), wherein certain changes and updates are made to “reflect the lat-
est state-of-practice”.
When using the SBM framework of Bocken et al. (2014) in my first
study (Paper 1), I realised that no SBM archetype of Bocken et al. (2014)
was specifically addressed to adapt and influence the conditions of the
surrounding business ecosystem. This is touched upon within the two or-
ganisational SBM archetypes, but not as their primary purpose. First,
Bocken et al. (2014) argue that the potential of the organisational SBM
archetype repurpose for society and environment could have a greater
effect if a firm seeks to influence others to adopt a similar orientation,
thereby potentially reshaping how business is practised on a larger scale.
Second, in the organisational SBM archetype, develop scale up solutions,
Bocken et al. (2014) consider collaboration between actors with different
capabilities and resources to be an integral part for developing successful

55
scale up solutions that can challenge unsustainable equilibriums. How-
ever, these two SBM archetypes do not include activities, practices and
mechanisms directed at leveraging changes to the surrounding socioeco-
nomic environment and business ecosystems.
According to Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) and Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund (2013), organisational innovations can be orientated toward the
surrounding socioeconomic system. I find this could be more clearly vis-
ualised by introducing a new SBM archetype. Based on Paper 2, the po-
tential for BM change toward sustainability is dependent on the business
ecosystem, and the actions and strategies of actors within one’s business
ecosystem. Certain conditions within a business ecosystem can affect its
and its members’ ability to change toward sustainability. These include
the levels of trust and of collaboration (Matinheikki et al., 2017; Joo &
Shin, 2018; Oskam et al., 2021), awareness of sustainable criticality and
challenges, visions for sustainability (Stead & Stead, 2013; Matinheikki
et al., 2017; Journeault et al., 2021; Oskam et al., 2021; Viholainen et al.,
2021), and available resources, including funding, training, knowledge
(Journeault et al., 2021) and infrastructure (Visnjic & Nelly, 2013). Thus,
an important part of the organisational SCO could be addressing the con-
ditions for sustainability within the business ecosystem.
In this licentiate I add to the framework of Bocken et al. (2014) by
introducing a new SBM archetype named create favourable business eco-
system conditions (CFEC). I define this SBM archetype as: activities and
practices directed toward promoting business ecosystem conditions im-
portant for sustainable development. This archetype, and its connection
to business ecosystem members and their shared business ecosystem are
visualized in Figure 6.

56
 Business ecosystem

Business Ecosystem
CFEC Ecosystem
ecosystem conditions for
archetype development
members sustainability

Support and enables

actors’ change toward
sustainability

Figure 6. How the SBM archetype create favourable ecosystem condi-

tions (CFEC) affect change toward sustainability

Figure 6 presents a simple visualisation of the connections between eco-

system members, business ecosystem conditions, and the overarching
business ecosystem. Business ecosystem members who perform the
CFEC archetype makes the ecosystem conditions more favourable for
sustainability. In the following subchapter, I outline different examples
of activities an actor can perform to create favourable ecosystem condi-
tions for sustainability. These ecosystem conditions in turn support and
enable actors’ pursuit toward sustainability and affect the direction of a
business ecosystem’s development. Here, sustainable development acts
as one potential, but not the only, option for ecosystem development.
To summarise, when progressing toward sustainability, it is important
to create favourable business ecosystem conditions, i.e., shifting the sur-
rounding socio-economic environment to favour sustainable develop-
ment. To highlight the importance of activities, practices, and mecha-
nisms oriented toward this direction, I present a new organisational SBM
archetype named create favourable business ecosystem conditions that
complements and extends the prior two organisational SBM archetypes
of Bocken et al. (2014).

57
5.5 Creating favourable business ecosystem
conditions for sustainability
To explore how an actor can influence business ecosystem conditions to
be more favourable for sustainability, insights can be drawn from Paper
2. In the paper, I found that actors can play four generic ecosystem roles
for sustainability that contribute to sustainability in different ways (see
Figure 7). Here, sustainability develops through the interplay of all four
generic roles. I reason that all roles are important in developing sustaina-
bility, by providing diverse sets of resources and capabilities, enacted by
sustainable leadership to solve specific sustainability issues. Ecosystem
interplay has also been found to facilitate sustainability by creating better
foundations for collaboration and trust in relationships (Joo & Shin, 2018;
Nylund et al., 2021). Thus, to improve business ecosystem conditions for
sustainability, an actor can perform activities associated with the ecosys-
tem roles for sustainability or perform activities that enable others to per-
form such activities.

Resource provider Ecosystem orchestrator

Provides infrastructure, knowledge, human
resources, funding
Can act as an intermediary between actors
Set direction through sustainable vision and
goals
Enforces direction through pressures and
incentives
Can act as an aligner and representative of
interests

Ecosystem roles for

sustainability

Sustainability solver Solution leader

Addresses and solves sustainable challenges
in value chains, customer applications or for
local communities
Can participate in innovation projects led by
solution leaders
Initiates and lead innovation projects
Attract and select relevant partners
Integrates partners’ contributions and interests
Can scale sustainable solutions

Figure 7. Four generic ecosystem roles for sustainability and their key
sets of activities (from Paper 2)

58
The four generic ecosystem roles for sustainability (Figure 6) reveal ex-
amples of activities that affect business ecosystem conditions which re-
late to the new CFEC archetype.
The ecosystem orchestrator performs activities to influence industry
practise toward sustainability and collaboration willingness. This in-
cludes leading business ecosystem actors toward sustainability by using
various governance tools and influencing and creating favourable condi-
tions for other ecosystem roles in sustainability. When considering SBM
transformations, both Rajala et al. (2016) and Roome and Louche (2016)
found that a key activity of the final and forth step related to sharing the
new sustainability vision toward networks and business ecosystem actors.
The importance of sharing sustainability beyond focal firm boundaries
was also argued by Schaltegger et al. (2016c), who considered one great
challenge for SBM changes was customers’ reluctance and disinterest in
sustainability in general. Thus, to improve the conditions for sustainabil-
ity, an actor can seek to lead ecosystem members through a sustainable
vision and to convince external actors of the benefits of pursuing sustain-
ability, e.g., by sharing knowledge and creating business opportunities
related to SBM changes.
While some actors can actively lead sustainability, others are more de-
pendent on the decisions of other actors within their business ecosystem.
Actors with lower positions of influence can instead seek to participate in
constellations, e.g., a business association, which can act as an ecosystem
orchestrator, and perform various governance tools and influence its
members and other business ecosystem actors.
The resource provider supplies actors with critical resources that ena-
bles sustainability. In Paper 2, this mainly included knowledge, infra-
structure, and funding, which acted as critical components for sustainable
solvers and solution leaders to create solutions for specific or complex
issues. In their study, Journeault et al. (2021) similarly highlight the im-
portance of roles providing critical resources for sustainability enable-
ment. Their roles support firms in understanding sustainability and real-

59
ising its criticality and opportunities to work with it. Therefore, to im-
prove ecosystem conditions for sustainability, an actor can share re-
sources to support sustainability development.
Another activity of the resource provider role that connects to the
CFEC archetype is that of intermediating, i.e., connecting potential part-
ners in projects and bridging gaps of cultural and contextual understand-
ing. By interconnecting others, e.g., through platforms or via direct rela-
tionship mediation, the potential for sustainability is facilitated. In their
study, Nylund et al. (2021) find platforms can facilitate sustainable pro-
ject initiation and progress, thereby improving sustainable development.
Hence, to improve ecosystem conditions for sustainability, an actor can
intermediate relationships within the business ecosystem, thereby facili-
tating sustainable value creation.
The ecosystem role solution leader provides insights as to how collab-
oration can change industry or market practices toward sustainability. By
combining mutual efforts through collaboration, actors may have a better
chance of influencing markets and industries toward favourable business
ecosystem conditions, including levels of sustainable understanding, col-
laboration willingness, and capability development. In addition, through
collaboration, several of the key elements of SBMs could be attained,
e.g., shared visions, multistakeholder management, and shared gains
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). Therefore, ecosystem conditions can as an in-
direct effect of collaboration, become more favourable for sustainability.
The activities performed by the sustainable solver role are addressed
to solve specific sustainable issues. These may influence ecosystem con-
ditions to be more favourable for sustainability, e.g., by participating in
collaboration, improving levels of trust through actions and by supporting
stakeholders with solutions to specific sustainable issues. Thus, even
though an actor in general has low levels of sustainability leadership and
influence, they can still practise the CFEC archetype by performing prac-
tices ethically, treating external stakeholders with respect, and by being a
trustworthy partner.
To summarise, I have in this subchapter presented different activities
representing examples of the SBM archetype create favourable business

60
ecosystem conditions. These include, among others: 1) enable the enact-
ment and interplay of ecosystem roles for sustainability; 2) lead ecosys-
tem members, on their own, or as part of a business association, through
a sustainable vision and knowledge sharing; 3) enable sustainability by
providing resources critical for sustainable development projects; 4) in-
termediate relationships to facilitate sustainable value creation; 5) partic-
ipate in collaboration projects, as either a leader or follower, which have
the intent of developing sustainable solutions and showcasing the benefits
of collaboration, multistakeholder management, and shared gains; and 6)
act respectfully and ethically in interactions with business ecosystem ac-
tors.

61
6 Conclusions
Sustainability outlines one of the greatest societal challenges of our time.
This is outlined in the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which
represent a shared aspiration for a radically different society (Linnér &
Wibeck, 2020). My licentiate contributes to business and sustainability
by exploring the role business plays in sustainable development.
Business as an institution can transform society, and push it toward
sustainability (Geels & Schot, 2007), and actors in business ecosystems
can act as core drivers for sustainable development. As seen in prior lit-
erature, progress toward sustainable business models (SBM) is of key im-
portance in attaining genuine sustainable development on a global level
(Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2016a; Evans et al., 2017). How-
ever, established firms are constrained from pursuing SBM changes, as
the economic benefit of sustainability is hard to discern and requires al-
terations to established business models (BM) (Bocken & Geradts, 2019).
Due to this, it is important to increase our shared understanding of how
established BMs change toward sustainability, an area in need of greater
research inquiry (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016;
Schaltegger et al., 2016a; Evans et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018).
The purpose of this licentiate thesis is thus to explore how established
BMs change toward sustainability. To address this purpose, I have con-
ducted two studies which have complementary perspectives. The first pa-
per focuses on an equipment manufacturer, and its change toward sus-
tainability through sustainable change orientations (SCO). The second
paper reviews how sustainability develops through the interplay of net-
works and business ecosystems and showcases how BM change toward
sustainability is dependent on surrounding ecosystem conditions. In this
licentiate thesis, the two appended papers are complemented with a
broader discussion of change toward sustainability.
Building on the two appended papers, the licentiate thesis explores the
purpose further and contributes to both the literature of SBM and to prac-
titioners. In the following subchapters, I summarise my main theoretical

63
contributions and practical implications as to how established BMs can
change toward sustainability.
While there is still much potential discussion on how BMs change to-
ward sustainability and similar topics, this licentiate thesis offers good
perspectives for future research. Thus, I conclude this chapter by outlin-
ing key directions for future research.

6.1 Theoretical contributions

My licentiate mainly contributes to the field of SBM, by providing spe-
cific insights relevant to established BMs’ change toward sustainability.
Established firms are relevant, since they can have large impact on sus-
tainable development and sustainable transitions within industries
(Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2016b). While my theoretical
contributions are mainly relevant for established firms in heavy indus-
tries, my findings can hold relevance for theory in a wider scope, as I
purposefully selected cases where tensions and sustainability concerns
were of high relevance. I categorised my theoretical contributions into
two main streams.
The first theoretical stream contributes to literature on SCOs (e.g.
Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken et al., 2014), by exploring how
the scope and scale of changes differ among the three orientations and by
explaining how the technological SCO supports social and organisational
SCOs. Paper 1 identified differences among the three SCOs related to
scale and scope of inherent changes, and dependency on external actors
and networks, which affected their accessibility for an established BM.
These differences help to explain why the technological SCO is more ap-
parently practised in established manufacturing firms and precedes the
other two SCOs. This extends the findings of Ritala et al. (2018) who
showcase what SCOs in large established firms pursue in general, but
who, due to their selected method, are unable to explain why certain
change orientations are more accessible and practised by established
firms.

64
 To overcome the many barriers and challenges for established BMs in
progressing toward sustainability (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Bocken &
Geradts, 2019), this licentiate finds that the technological SCO can create
foundations for further sustainability changes. Thus, for firms with an es-
tablished BM and product and technology centricity, the technological
SCO can support the initiation of social and organisational SCOs, in ad-
dition to preceding them. For established firms, the technological SCO
could increase the perceived quality of a value proposition and a firm’s
capabilities, strengthen business relationships, and may increase a firm’s
understanding of sustainability, all foundations for social and organisa-
tional SCOs. This is a theoretical contribution that adds to Ritala et al.
(2018), by outlining a clearer hierarchy among the three overarching
SCOs than had been previously known. The foundations that support fur-
ther SBM change also extend the SBM transformation studies of Rajala
et al. (2016) and Roome and Louche (2016). In contrast to their studies,
this licentiate elaborates on how sustainable understanding and collabo-
ration willingness emerge. The licentiate proposes that accessible tech-
nological SBM changes can precede and enable a larger SBM transfor-
mation. This highlights the importance of considering SBM changes of
different forms, and not only focusing on larger and more purposeful
SBM innovations.
The second theoretical stream complements SBM literature that ar-
gues for an extended view of value creation within the BM to support
sustainability (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008; Schaltegger et al., 2016c; Evans
et al., 2017; Freudenreich et al., 2019; Schaltegger et al., 2019). I
complement this literature in three ways.
First, I propose that established BMs’ change toward sustainability is
supported through collaboration, network interaction, and business eco-
system consideration. I find in Paper 1 that this is especially relevant
when conducting sustainable changes within social and organisational
SCOs.
Second, building on Paper 2’s framework of ecosystem roles for sus-
tainability, I showcase how actors are interdependent on their business

65
ecosystems when progressing toward sustainability and display how sus-
tainability develops through the interplay of different roles. By consider-
ing a wide range of actors and the roles they can play, my framework
extends prior literature on sustainability in ecosystems, which is often
limited to one stakeholder at a time (Joo & Shin, 2018; J Liu & Stephens,
2019; Journeault et al., 2021; Nylund et al., 2021; Viholainen et al.,
2021), thereby contributing with a more comprehensive view of how sus-
tainability progresses in ecosystems.
Third, I contribute to the literature by adding a new organisational
SBM archetype, create favourable business ecosystem conditions, com-
plementing the prior two organisational SBM archetypes of Bocken et al.
(2014) which do not specifically address activities in the surrounding
business ecosystem. In this licentiate I developed this SBM archetype,
discussed its relevance, and gave examples of how it can be implemented,
further described in the managerial practical implications below.

6.2 Managerial and practical implications

Sustainability is not a separate challenge for businesses and societies, but
a shared one. When actors only act according to their own interests, the
tragedy of the commons (Garrett, 1968) is hard to avoid. The effects of
climate change and natural resource depletion, although unequally dis-
tributed, affect all actors. While the impetus for managers to consider
sustainability varies among contexts, and is connected to varying external
and market pressures (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014), all firms affect and are
affected by environmental and societal trends (Stead & Stead, 2013;
Abdelkafi & Täuscher, 2016;). Firms are encouraged to approach more
proactive and sustainable strategies for their own future prosperity and
viability (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016; Upward &
Jones, 2016; Broman & Robèrt, 2017).
However, there are many challenges and barriers to changing BMs to-
ward sustainability (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Long et al., 2018;
Bocken & Geradts, 2019), which is especially apparent once a BM is es-
tablished (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Bocken &

66
Geradts, 2019). In my research, I have come to better realise what consti-
tutes BM change toward sustainability and why it is so challenging for
firms to pursue. Despite this, I have also found certain aspects that could
benefit practitioners with established BMs who are trying to positively
influence change toward sustainability. These aspects are relevant for
firms, as they could enable their long-term prosperity and competitive-
ness. They are also important for society at large. By practising the fol-
lowing suggestions, I hope that business as an institution can reinvent its
role in sustainable development.
For firms who have not previously considered sustainability, or have
mainly had a reactive perspective toward it, low-hanging fruits act as a
good starting point for initiating BM changes toward sustainability. These
low-hanging fruits are incremental, peripheral, separate, and additive
changes that complement the established BM and its networks. Low-
hanging fruits can provide early wins, which can increase internal and
external stakeholder approval of a sustainable trajectory (Rajala et al.,
2016; Roome & Louche, 2016; Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017). If the
core orientation of the firm is technological, as was the case of Paper 1,
initial changes toward sustainability can build trust in value propositions,
strengthen business relationships, and may improve a firm’s understand-
ing of, and connection to, sustainability. These factors are important for
the initiation of more complex SBM changes.
Once a firm has captured these initial low-hanging fruits, it should turn
its attention to larger and more impactful sustainable business opportuni-
ties. When SBM changes are more radical, central, interdependent, and
in conflict with the established BM and its networks, they are understand-
ingly more challenging for an established firm to pursue. However, these
changes can have great sustainable potential ( Boons & Lüdeke-Freund,
2013; Zollo et al., 2013; Bocken et al., 2014) and can represent good busi-
ness opportunities for firms (Rajala et al., 2016; Roome & Louche, 2016;
Brennan & Tennant, 2018). When pursuing such SBM changes, i.e., SBM
transformation, an established firm should prepare accordingly and un-
derstand what an SBM change demands to be successful. For successful
implementation of these business opportunity changes, it is important for

67
actors to realise that changes and alternations may be more oriented to-
ward relational and mindset-related parts of the firm and of the BM than
toward technology.
For an established firm pursing sustainability, change can also be di-
rected toward the surrounding socio-economic environment. By perform-
ing activities that create favourable business ecosystem conditions, both
the firm’s and other actors’ change toward sustainability is supported. To
create favourable business ecosystem conditions, an actor can: 1) enable
the enactment and interplay of ecosystem roles for sustainability; 2) lead
ecosystem members, on its own, or as part of a business association,
through a sustainable vision and knowledge sharing; 3) enable sustaina-
bility by providing resources critical for sustainable development pro-
jects; 4) intermediate relationships to facilitate sustainable value crea-
tion; 5) participate in collaboration projects, as a leader or follower,
which has the intent of developing sustainable solutions and showcasing
the benefits of collaboration, multistakeholder management, and shared
gains; and 6) act respectfully and ethically in interactions with business
ecosystem actors.

6.3 Limitations and directions for future research

In this subchapter, I summarise limitations of the licentiate and present
directions for future research to extend the generalisability and viability
of my research, and to extend research addressing business model change
toward sustainability.
First, the appended papers and their findings are limited to the case
contexts of manufacturing and mining and require verification from sim-
ilar contexts and generalisation through other contexts. For instance, the
findings of Paper 1 are limited to manufacturing and product-centred
firms with established BMs. Thus, to further theory-building and gener-
alisability, I recommend future studies to include other contexts. Longi-
tudinal qualitative and quantitative studies of firms’ sustainability pro-
gression could also be beneficial, e.g., related to whether actors adopt
different ecosystem roles for sustainability over time.

68
 Next, the licentiate has mainly studied established BM change toward
sustainability. In other words, it mainly focuses on the positive contribu-
tions that actors can have for sustainability. This represents a limitation,
as not all firms seek to contribute to sustainability, and as actors can also
oppose sustainable development on different levels. Actors in business
ecosystems can also have a negative impact on sustainable development,
for instance by practising dominating behaviour that creates mistrust and
depletes resources for development (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Stead &
Stead, 2013; Joo & Shin, 2018). In my literature search and reading, I
have not found any article exploring roles or activities opposing sustain-
ability, which thus represents a gap in the literature. Hence, for future
research, I recommend researchers to take an alternative view on the con-
cepts of ‘change orientation’ and ‘ecosystem roles’, instead looking at
how actors actively can work against sustainable development. There is
a risk that such research could enable actors who work against sustainable
development. However, such research could also increase our shared un-
derstanding of why change toward sustainability in business ecosystems
and industries is so slow, and present regulators and practitioners with
important issues to address in their policies and strategies.
In my research, I propose that there are certain business ecosystem
conditions that are important for sustainability. What constitutes favour-
able ecosystem conditions for sustainability, are among others, collabo-
ration willingness, trust rates, available resources, knowledge sharing,
sustainable understanding, values, and beliefs. Future research could
identify a comprehensive list of business ecosystem conditions for sus-
tainability and explore how and why they affect a business ecosystem’s
ability to deliver sustainability.
To conclude, the intention of my research was to further our shared
understanding of how change toward sustainability occurs, especially
looking at established BMs. Much work remains within this critical area
of research, and my hope is that my research will benefit future research-
ers in their pursuit of exploring, understanding, and developing SBM re-
search forward.

69
References
Abdelkafi, N., & Täuscher, K. (2016). Business models for sustainability from
a system dynamics perspective. Organization & Environment, 29(1),
74–96.

Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy.

Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through

problematization. Academy of management review, 36(2), 247–271.

Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social
science with something to say: Oxford University Press.

Bhattacharya, C., & Polman, P. (2017). Sustainability lessons from the front
lines. Mit Sloan Management Review, 58(2), 71.

Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for
sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance (Bingley),
13(5), 482–497.

Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and
practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.

Bocken, N., & Geradts, T. H. J. (2019). Barriers and drivers to sustainable

business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic
capabilities. Long Range Planning, 101950.

Böhling, K., Murguía, D. I., & Godfrid, J. (2019). Sustainability reporting in

the mining sector: Exploring its symbolic nature. Business & society,
58(1), 191–225.

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.

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.

70
Brennan, G., & Tennant, M. (2018). Sustainable value and trade‐offs:
Exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery's
malt supply network business model. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 27(5), 621–630.

Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 17–31.

Brundtland, G. H., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our common future: Oxford

University Press, Oxford, GB.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2017). Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder (2: ):

Liber.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From Strategy to Business

Models and onto Tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195–215.

Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? : Hackett

Publishing.

Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value
capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 35(6), 930–938.

Christensen, C., & Raynor, M. (2013). The innovator's solution: Creating and
sustaining successful growth: Harvard Business Review Press.

Comin, L. C., Aguiar, C. C., Sehnem, S., Yusliza, M.-Y., Cazella, C. F., &
Julkovski, D. J. (2019). Sustainable business models: a literature
review. Benchmarking: An International Journal.

Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through?
Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448.

DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business Model: What It Is and What It
Is Not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389.

Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development—historical roots of the

concept. Environmental Sciences, 3(2), 83–96.

71
Endregat, N., & Pennink, B. (2021). Exploring the Coevolution of Traditional
and Sustainable Business Models: A Paradox Perspective. Journal of
Business Models, 9(2), 1–21.

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2015). Qualitative methods in business

research: A practical guide to social research: Sage.

Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M. Y., Silva,
E. A., & Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business Model Innovation for
Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of
Sustainable Business Models. Business Strategy and the Environment,
26(5), 597–608.

Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). A stakeholder

theory perspective on business models: Value creation for
sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.

Garrett, H. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–

1248.

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition

pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.

Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business

model innovation: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198,
401–416.

Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business

Review, 82(3), 68-78, 126.

Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of

ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

Joo, J., & Shin, M. M. (2018). Building sustainable business ecosystems

through customer participation: A lesson from South Korean cases.
Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(1), 1–11.

Journeault, M., Perron, A., & Vallières, L. (2021). The collaborative roles of
stakeholders in supporting the adoption of sustainability in SMEs.
Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112349.

72
Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the purely commercial business model:
Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability
business models. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 158–183.

Landrum, N. E., & Ohsowski, B. (2018). Identifying worldviews on corporate

sustainability: A content analysis of corporate sustainability reports.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 128–151.

Laukkanen, M., & Patala, S. (2014). Analysing barriers to sustainable business

model innovations: Innovation systems approach. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 18(06), 1440010.

Lekvall, P., & Wahlbin, C. (2001). Information för marknadsföringsbeslut:

IHM publishing.

Linnér, B.-O., & Wibeck, V. (2020). Conceptualising variations in societal

transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Science &
Policy, 106, 221–227.

Liu, Z., & Stephens, V. (2019). Exploring innovation ecosystem from the
perspective of sustainability: Towards a conceptual framework.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,
5(3), 48.

Long, T. B., Looijen, A., & Blok, V. (2018). Critical success factors for the
transition to business models for sustainability in the food and
beverage industry in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production,
175, 82–95.

Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic

perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1159–
1166.

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

Mars, M. M., Bronstein, J. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). The value of a metaphor:
Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics, 41(4), 271–
280.

Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business
model research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104.

73
Matinheikki, J., Rajala, R., & Peltokorpi, A. (2017). From the profit of one
toward benefitting many–Crafting a vision of shared value creation.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, S83–S93.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The
limits to growth. New York, 102(1972), 27.

Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition.

Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E. K.,

Rakotonirainy, A., & Chau, K. W. (2019). Sustainable Business
Models: A Review. Sustainability, 11(6).

Nylund, P. A., Brem, A., & Agarwal, N. (2021). Innovation ecosystems for
meeting sustainable development goals: The evolving roles of
multinational enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281,
125329.

O’Dochartaigh, A. (2019). No more fairytales: A quest for alternative

narratives of sustainable business. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal.

Oskam, I., Bossink, B., & de Man, A.-P. (2021). Valuing value in innovation
ecosystems: How cross-sector actors overcome tensions in
collaborative sustainable business model development. Business &
society, 60(5), 1059–1091.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Christopher, L. T. (2005). Clarifying Business

Models: Origins, Present and Future of the Concept.

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a

handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers: John
Wiley & Sons.

Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). Why and how to compete through
sustainability: a review and outline of trends influencing firm and
network-level transformation. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 15(1), 1–19.

Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: Harvard Business
Review.

74
Rajala, R., Westerlund, M., & Lampikoski, T. (2016). Environmental
sustainability in industrial manufacturing: re-examining the greening
of Interface's business model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115,
52–61.

Ranängen, H., & Zobel, T. (2014). Exploring the path from management
systems to stakeholder management in the Swedish mining industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 128–141.

Rauter, R., Jonker, J., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Going one's own way:
drivers in developing business models for sustainability. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 140, 144–154.

Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for

strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133–144.

Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., & Puurnalainen, K. (2018).
Sustainable business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A
longitudinal content analysis study. Journal of Cleaner Production,
170, 216–226.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin,
E., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the
safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).

Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models for
sustainability: A conceptual model found inside the black box of
organisational transformation. Organization & Environment, 29(1),
11–35.

Rossignoli, F., & Lionzo, A. (2018). Network impact on business models for
sustainability: Case study in the energy sector. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 182, 694-704.

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. (2016a). Business models

for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. In:
Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

75
Schaltegger, S., Ludeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2016b). Business
Models for Sustainability: A Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation. Organization &
Environment, 29(3), 264–289.

Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2016c). Business models

for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable
entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organization &
Environment, 29(3), 264–289.

Schaltegger, S., Horisch, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2019). Business Cases for
Sustainability: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Organization &
Environment, 32(3), 191–212.

Semnani Kenlind, S. (2020). A typology of business model changes: Cases

from Swedish wood manufacturing industry. Linköping University
Electronic Press,

Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business
models. Business Horizons, 48(3), 199–207.

Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data: Sage.

Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Jovanovic, M., & Visnjic, I. (2020). Value creation and
value capture alignment in business model innovation: A process view
on outcome‐based business models. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 37(2), 158–183.

Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2013). The coevolution of sustainable strategic

management in the global marketplace. Organization & Environment,
26(2), 162–183.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett,
E. M., De Wit, C. A. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.

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

model”. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and

microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic
management journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

76
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long
Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.

Tost, M., Hitch, M., Chandurkar, V., Moser, P., & Feiel, S. (2018). The state
of environmental sustainability considerations in mining. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 182, 969–977.

Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2014). (Re) presenting ‘sustainable
organizations’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 477–
494.

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.

Viholainen, N., Kylkilahti, E., Autio, M., Pöyhönen, J., & Toppinen, A.
(2021). Bringing ecosystem thinking to sustainability-driven wooden
construction business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126029.

Visnjic, I., & Nelly, A. (2013). Collaborate to Innovate: How Business

Ecosystems Unleash Business Value. University of Cambridge.

Whitmore, A. (2006). The emperors new clothes: sustainable mining? Journal

of Cleaner Production, 14(3-4), 309–314.

Wouters, H., & Bol, D. (2009). Material scarcity. An M2i study. Delft:
Stichting Materials innovation institute.

Wulf, A., & Butel, L. (2017). Knowledge sharing and collaborative

relationships in business ecosystems and networks: A definition and a
demarcation. Industrial Management & Data Systems.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research: sage.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Sage.

Zollo, M., Cennamo, C., & Neumann, K. (2013). Beyond what and why:
Understanding organizational evolution towards sustainable enterprise
models. Organization & Environment, 26(3), 241–259.

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System
Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216–226.

77
78
 Papers
The papers associated with this thesis have been removed for
copyright reasons. For more details about these see:

https://doi.org/10.3384/9789179294434
 Linköping Studies in Science and Technology
Licentiate Thesis No. 1941

Exploring Change

Arvid Wahlman
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

toward Sustainability
Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Licentiate Thesis No. 1941, 2022
Department of Management and Engineering

Linköping University

in Established
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

www.liu.se

Business Models

Exploring Change toward Sustainability in Established Business Models

Arvid Wahlman

2022