Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Long Range Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lrp

A call for action: The impact of business model innovation on

business ecosystems, society and planet
Yuliya Snihur a, Nancy Bocken b, c, d, *
a
Toulouse Business School, 1 Place Jourdain, 31068, Toulouse, France
b
Maastricht Sustainability Institute (MSI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
c
LUT University, PL 20, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851, Lappeenranta, Finland
d
Lund University, IIIEE, Tegnérsplatsen 4, 223 50 Lund, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The impact of business model innovation (BMI) on business ecosystems, society, and planet is of
Sustainable business model innovation growing theoretical and practical importance for strategic management. Increasing sustainability
Sustainability pressures warrant a better understanding of the impact of companies’ BMI through a more
Business ecosystems
comprehensive analysis of innovation and its consequences. We discuss four foci of innovation
Societal impacts
(BMI, sustainable BMI, ecosystem innovation, and sustainable ecosystem innovation) to broaden
Responsible strategic management
the conceptualization of innovation and its economic, societal, and natural environmental im­
pacts. We call for scholarship examining the impact of BMI to advance knowledge through
research on value destruction and the dynamics of BMI over time.

1. Introduction

In this essay, we call for research on the impact of business model innovation (BMI) beyond its economic impact on the firm.
Although there is growing interest in BMI in the strategic management literature (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Teece, 2018), we believe this
corpus of research has been overly focused on firms and how they can be profitable. This is perhaps not surprising, as the origins of the
concept lie in describing “how firms do business” (Zott et al., 2011, p. 1019). We suggest that the current frontier for BMI scholars
should advance beyond the narrow question of economic profitability and value creation for the target customers to study the broader
impact of BMI on business ecosystems, society, and planet.
This advance is necessary to tackle growing sustainability concerns, such as climate change, rising emissions, pressures on re­
sources (IPCC et al., 2021; Steffen et al., 2018), poverty, and inequality (Porter, 2021; Seelos and Mair, 2007; Yunus et al., 2010),
through profitable BMI that addresses future competitiveness as well as pressing societal needs and crises. In many cases, BMI can alter
the ways in which companies create value for customers, but it can also spur value destruction, including destruction of social or
natural environment (Bocken et al., 2013; Ritala et al., 2021; Roome and Louche, 2016). Many recently developed BMIs, such as
sharing of homes enabled by Airbnb or sharing of pictures enabled by Instagram, have successfully created value for target customers.
Yet, they have also raised significant concerns about value destruction in residential neighbourhoods suffering from noise, increased
crime, and rent increases in the case of Airbnb or among addicted teenagers discouraged about their life and image subscribing to
freely available content about extreme dieting or self-harm in the case of Instagram.
We advance that scholars studying BMI are well-positioned to examine not only the economic effects of innovation on firm per­
formance, but also the broader consequences on business ecosystems, society, and planet. The importance of impact beyond the firm

* Corresponding author. Maastricht Sustainability Institute (MSI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: y.snihur@tbs-education.fr (Y. Snihur), nancy.bocken@maastrichtuniversity.nl (N. Bocken).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102182
Received 1 January 2021; Received in revised form 27 November 2021; Accepted 11 January 2022
Available online 13 January 2022
0024-6301/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

has long been recognized in the definition of business models to which we adhere in this paper: “boundary-spanning activity systems”
that are centred on the focal firm but span boundaries with customers and partners in the pursuit of value creation and capture (Zott
et al., 2011).1 Recent research on BMI has taken this perspective further by examining how business models can be the source of
innovation and value creation in and of themselves, where BMI is defined as the commercial introduction of a business model that is
new to the product market space in which the focal firm competes (Snihur and Zott, 2020). Studying BMI offers a complementary level
of analysis to product or service innovation and can help uncover the systemic issues related to value creation and destruction resulting
from the firm’s configuration of its activity system. For instance, in the case of Instagram, understanding how activities performed
might, sometimes unintentionally (i.e., not due to the firm’s strategy), result in significant value destruction, can reveal points of
intervention in the system to create positive societal value.2
Given growing concerns about sustainability and calls for business to address critical societal issues (Porter, 2021), the good news is
that there is an increasing focus on society and business ecosystems in business model research. A comparison between the founda­
tional special issue on business models in July 2010 and the July 2020 issue of Long Range Planning, which also studies business models,
shows that 40% of papers in the 2020 issue focus on the societal impact of business models (see Table A2), compared to 21% in 2010
(see Table A1); and 50% of papers in the 2020 issue also consider ecosystems in addition to the firm unit of analysis (see Table A2),
compared to 11% in 2010 (see Table A1). The bad news is that despite its importance, research examining the impact of BMI on
business ecosystems, society, and planet remains scattered in strategic management literature with no unifying framework or rallying
call to study its impact in a more coordinated and cumulative way.
Other disciplines have investigated the impacts of innovations on society. Economic historians provide one source of inspiration, as
scholars such as Hounshell (1985) have considered how new business models (not yet labelled as such) of companies like Singer or
Ford, anchored in superior marketing strategies or mass production techniques, created consumer demand in the late-19th and
early-20th century United States. Indeed, BMI is often closely linked to technological innovation (Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Christensen, 2006), but its wider impact remains underexplored. In his study of the business
history of the US between 1800 and 1932, Hounshell (1985) suggests that the consequences of past BMI were far-reaching, and
included increased wages, the diffusion of assembly line techniques across businesses, and the birth of mass (over)consumption of
cheap goods. More research on such impacts of innovation is needed.
The recently developing field of business models for sustainability (e.g., Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008) or, synonymously, sustainable
business models (e.g., Bocken et al., 2013), has grown from the ambition to study the potential positive role of BMI in society. For
instance, research on sustainability transitions suggests that BMI has enabled the diffusion of renewable energy in developed (Huijben
et al., 2016) and developing countries (Jolly et al., 2012). With exceptions (e.g., Laasch and Pinkse, 2020; Massa et al., 2017), this work
has received little attention in strategic management. Yet, increasing social and environmental challenges suggest an urgent refocus.
Our aim is to infuse the conversations about BMI in strategic management with concern about the impact of such innovation on business
ecosystems, society, and planet. First, we propose an organizing matrix expanding conversations to the four foci of innovation: BMI, sus­
tainable BMI, ecosystem innovation, and sustainable ecosystem innovation. Second, we outline directions to extend existing conversations
and generate new ones around two central areas for these four foci of innovation: value destruction and the dynamics of impacts over time.

2. Expanding conversations beyond business model innovation within the firm

Long Range Planning offered a forum for highly impactful conversations about business models in 2010 (Baden-Fuller and Morgan,
2010; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010; Teece, 2010; Yunus et al., 2010). Then, researchers discussed the usefulness of the
business model concept.3 Today, the literature has moved on to examine BMI (Berends et al., 2016; Foss and Saebi, 2017; Snihur and
Zott, 2020). Moreover, the field of sustainable BMI has emerged to address pressing sustainability concerns (Bocken et al., 2014;
Dentchev et al., 2018; Foss and Saebi, 2017).
The concept of the business model represents a system-level approach towards explaining how firms do business by referring to the focal
firm’s activity system (Lanzolla and Markides, 2021; Teece, 2010; Zott and Amit, 2010). Business model researchers seek to explain not only
the ways in which value is captured, but also how it is created (Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013; Massa et al., 2017). BMI refers to the
introduction of novel business models to the market space in which the firm competes (Snihur and Zott, 2020). Examples of BMI include
Google’s Adwords, which provided an interface with advertisers for its search engine in a two-sided platform business model (Baden-Fuller
and Haefliger, 2013), and Spotify, which originated music streaming in partnership with music labels (Snihur et al., 2021). These new
business models, initiated by a focal firm, aspire to create economic value by satisfying customer needs in new ways, as depicted graphically
in the bottom left corner of Fig. 1. Studies in strategic management have typically focused on examining economic impact of such

1
Business models are also defined as cognitive/linguistic schemas to classify businesses (Baden-Fuller and Morgan 2010), or as conceptual
representations of how a business functions (see Massa et al., 2017, for a review). Given that in this article we are concerned with the innovation of
the focal firm’s activity system, we base our work on the definition of the business model as an activity system (Zott and Amit 2010).
2
A business model describes conceptually how business is done (Magretta, 2002; Teece, 2010). Many institutionalized unsustainable business
models exist, such as business models pushing addictive consumption patterns (e.g., social media, gaming; Bocken and Short, 2021). While a
corporate strategy may not be “to get people hooked on social media or games” but rather “to create a socially engaging or adventurous experience,”
the business model might depend on maximising the time spent on a platform to maximize profits. We thank an anonymous reviewer for helping us
elucidate these differences.
3
See also Lanzolla and Markides (2021) and Bigelow and Barney (2021) for the most recent debates.

2
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Fig. 1. Expanding conversations about business model impacts and innovation foci.

innovations (see review in Table B1), with a recent meta-analysis showing that BMI is positively associated with economic firm perfor­
mance, typically evaluated based on measures including firm revenue growth, return on equity, operating profits, or stock market value
(Zhang et al., 2021). Some exceptions (Peerally et al., 2019; Yunus et al., 2010) have also considered social impact of BMI, for instance in
terms of reduced malnutrition or increased employment, but these are still rare (2 out of 20 studies reviewed in Table B1).
Researchers interested in societal impacts of BMI have started to consider how not only economic, but also social and environmental
value can be created by BMI. Scholars in sustainability research have sought to assess potential benefits of BMI for the natural environment
and society either conceptually or through review studies (Heiskanen and Jalas, 2003; Tukker, 2015), impact assessment (Lindahl et al.,
2014), or the development of tools and methods (e.g., Manninen et al., 2018). This has resulted in the development of research and practice
around sustainable BMI (SBMI, top left corner of Fig. 1), or novel business models with strong aspired social or environmental, in addition to
economic, impact. Examples of SBMI that aspire to economic, social, and environmental value creation include companies like Interface and
Desso, which collaborate with fishing communities, NGOs, and other manufacturers to retrieve fishing nets from the sea and turn them into
carpets (Kraaijenhagen et al., 2016). Signify pursues pay-per-use models, which facilitate product repair, maintenance, reuse, and recycling
(Kramer et al., 2019). Finally, various organizations offer inclusive value propositions to better meet the needs of the poorest in society. For
example, Aravind Eyecare cross-subsidizes its hospitals to make them accessible to all (Prabhu, 2017; Yunus et al., 2010).
Yet, although SBMI has become a burgeoning research field with relevant and actionable implications for business (Lüdeke-Freund
and Dembek, 2017), it has received little attention in strategic management research, with a few exceptions (e.g., Bocken and Geradts,
2020; Laasch, 2018; Massa et al., 2017). Moreover, the SBMI field suffers from limited quantitative evidence on the social and
environmental performance of newly introduced sustainable or circular business models (Table B2). While there is an action focus in
SBMI research (with 4 out of 20 studies reviewed including company workshops or experiments, Table B2) compared to mainly case
studies and surveys in BMI literature (Table B1), there is little measurement of social, environmental, or economic performance im­
pacts. Only three studies reviewed are of quantitative nature, and only one study (by Short et al., 2014; on the case of British Sugar)
analysed a case quantitatively from an environmental and economic perspective.
In sum, based on our review of the top 20 most cited empirical studies from each domain between 2010 and 2021 (see Tables B1
and B2), typically, SBMI studies provide little concrete empirical evidence and BMI studies focus on measuring a single type of impact
(i.e., economic impact on the firm) rather than taking a wider perspective.
Recently, researchers have also started to develop connections between BMI and business ecosystems (Lubik and Garnsey, 2016;
Peerally et al., 2019; Snihur et al., 2018, see Table B1). As Bansal and DesJardine (2014, p. 71) put it, “firms are systems nested within larger
macro-systems.” In this respect, business models create the infrastructure of business ecosystems, defined as networks of interconnected
actors that depend on one another for their mutual effectiveness and survival (Ansari et al., 2016; Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Moore, 1996; see
also Laasch (2019) for an actor-network perspective to study business models). The business ecosystem is usually linked to the firm’s
business model through the alignment of customers, partners, or complementors (Zott et al., 2011), which happens around the
co-development of a value proposition to which different ecosystem actors can contribute (Adner, 2017; Shipilov and Gawer, 2020).4 Thus,

4
While some elements might overlap between the two constructs (e.g., a value proposition or an activity can belong to the business models of
several firms and at the same time form the backbone of an ecosystem), researchers typically agree that business models are constitutive elements of
business ecosystems (Adner, 2017; Zott et al., 2011), with one firm participating in at least one, but potentially multiple business ecosystems, and
business ecosystems often spanning multiple business models.

3
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

the focal firm’s activity system (i.e., the business model) includes connections with the ecosystem. The business model encompasses the
direct connections relevant to the focal firm (e.g., with suppliers and customers), while the business ecosystem is constituted by many
additional interdependencies. For example, while local shops are not included in Airbnb’s business model, they are part of the local
ecosystem that Airbnb impacts (positively or negatively) and should therefore be considered when studying wider BMI impacts.
BMI can instigate or stimulate ecosystem innovation (EI, bottom right corner of Fig. 1), which refers to the innovation by the
ecosystem participants other than the focal firm. For example, when Airbnb launches its accommodation sharing platform in different
cities, it allows for the formation of new relationships between guests and hosts and enables new real estate commercial ventures to be
created, fostering ecosystem innovation around the Airbnb platform, and creating economic value for the new ecosystem. Sigfox, a
French firm developing the network for the Internet of Things (IoT) based on low-power and long-range transfer of short messages,
helps start-ups create applications for new uses of connected objects on its platform (e.g., real-time tracking of containers or continuous
measurement of temperature in refrigerated trucks). Such business model innovators enable ecosystem innovation and create eco­
nomic value.
However, ecosystem innovation fostered by BMI does not by default guarantee the creation of social or environmental in addition
to economic value; on the contrary, it can also harm society or the planet. Often, EI, such as regional development initiatives, focus on
economic progress and job creation (Autio et al., 2018). While they represent a start, they can miss the potential to resolve some of the
most pressing sustainability issues, for example, those around biodiversity losses and climate change. In fact, few developments are
sustainable EI (SEI, top right corner of Fig. 1) that enable both preservation and regeneration of natural and social ecosystems and the
resources embedded in them. However, there are positive developments in this direction. Industrial symbiosis networks, such as FISS,
the national Finnish industrial symbiosis system, bring together resource-intensive industries to find opportunities for the reuse of
by-product and waste material from their processes (Patala et al., 2020). In addition to facilitating resource exchanges, the FISS
network also promotes sharing of technical expertise, legal advice, and funding (Patala et al., 2020). Another example is the One Planet
Network, an open collaborative partnership under the aegis of the UN, which brings together actors from various regions and sectors to
share expertise, resources, innovation, and a commitment to a shift towards sustainable models of production and consumption,
focusing on topics like public health, social inclusion, and climate action (e.g., responsible recovery of the tourism sector from the
COVID-19 crisis, One Planet Network, 2020).
As sustainability issues are wicked problems (Dorado and Ventresca, 2013; Waddock, 2012) shared and affected by many actors,
SEI beyond the remit of a single firm is expected to become increasingly important. Below, we develop a research agenda incorporating
these four innovation foci (i.e., BMI, SBMI, EI, and SEI).

3. Research agenda

While existing research has begun to provide useful insights about BMI affordances for business ecosystems, society, and planet, we
are still at the beginning of the journey to understand its impact, particularly from the perspective of increasing sustainability chal­
lenges. To stimulate debate and invite our colleagues to join this conversation, we suggest two promising areas for future research,
focused on (i) the value destruction impact of BMI and (ii) the dynamics of BMI and its impacts over time. We also discuss the practical
challenges of conducting such research.
First, we suggest a need for a stronger research focus on the value destruction impact of BMI.5 A well-acknowledged strength of the
BMI research is that it has focused on questions around value creation and capture (Zott et al., 2011), uncovering customer and user
benefits of BMI (e.g., Priem et al., 2018). This focus allows questions such as “What value is created?,” “How?,” and “For whom?” to be
asked in the context of business innovation. However, in today’s context of environmental and social challenges, it is increasingly
relevant to also ask what value is destroyed through BMI, for instance through addictive consumption or decreasing product lifetimes.
While SBMI research has recognized challenges of value destruction, it has taken a rather static perspective on assessing the impact of
new business models on society over time, with little attention to the timeframes or specific and replicable impact measures. Strategic
management scholars can contribute to better quantify value destruction to understand potential negative impacts of BMI beyond the
firm, which might otherwise be too quickly dismissed or assumed away by managers, researchers, or policy makers. Reframing these
impacts explicitly around social and environmental value destruction opens a fresh stream of research for more responsible strategic
management.
Second, there is a need for a more ambitious research focus on the dynamics of BMI and its (positive and negative) impacts over
longer time periods. While strategic management researchers often study time frames that extend over several years, and sometimes
decades (see Table B1), measuring non-economic impacts has so far been less well executed in this and the related SBMI research
(Table B1 and B2). Indeed, longitudinal quantitative SBMI studies are missing (Table B2). Adjacent fields, such as the history of
technology or sustainability transitions, suggest that BMI has strong and long-term societal impacts, including initiating the mass
consumption of cheaply produced goods at the start of the 20th century (Hounshell, 1985), or, more positively, enabling renewable
energy transitions today (Huijben and Verbong, 2013; Kallio et al., 2020).
Examining dynamics and impacts of BMI at the business ecosystem, society, and planet levels could become the new frontier for
strategic management scholars, helping to broaden and strengthen the relevance of this research. A refocus of strategic management
research on societal concerns and the long-term impacts of BMI could not only benefit academic research but also more responsible

5
We thank an anonymous reviewer for helping us to articulate this point.

4
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

teaching in the classroom. Table 1 summarizes the innovation foci, impact, and the suggested research agenda, which we elaborate
below.

3.1. Understanding the value destruction impact of BMI

Scholars agree that BMI can be at the genesis of disruptions in different industries (Christensen, 2006; Cozzolino et al., 2018;
Markides, 2006). Such disruptions can “jeopardize the existing linkages among the different members of an ecosystem” (Ansari et al.,
2016, p. 1830) and lead to ecosystem shifts in favour of the disruptor. While strategic management scholars have started to uncover the
positive consequences of business model novelty for firms that launch such innovations (e.g., Futterer et al., 2018; Zott and Amit,
2008), new business models can also have negative impacts, spurring tensions and conflict in business ecosystems and society and
destroying social or environmental value. What is more, this value destruction often goes unmeasured, is neglected, or is implicitly
accepted as a negative consequence (Bocken and Short, 2021). While SBMI research has an action-oriented focus including experi­
ments and practical workshops, it lacks quantified evidence on impacts and success (Table B2).
As an example, the “sharing economy,” often hailed for its sustainability potential, is not sustainable by default as new sharing
business models can entrench existing inequalities by relying on the exploitation of precarious labour (Mont et al., 2020) or disrupt
local communities. Consider Airbnb. As a result of its BMI, new actors joined the accommodation sharing market, increasing ecosystem
innovation, entrepreneurship, and creating jobs. Yet, the uptake also had a negative impact on local ecosystems, generating wide­
spread resistance in cities such as Amsterdam and Barcelona due to increases in housing prices and neighbourhood gentrification (i.e.,
social value destruction, Ricart et al., 2020).
As a second example, new circular business models need to be carefully designed to have the desirable impact of reducing the use of
resources (Tukker, 2015). BMI enabling greater recycling (e.g., subscription model offering refurbished products or second-hand sales
platforms) could spur consumers to buy more as the value proposition appears inherently sustainable, negating any positive impact on
the planet in terms of reduced use of resources. This highlights the need to simultaneously understand social, environmental, and
economic performance impacts of new business models in a holistic fashion.
Important questions arise. What social or environmental value might be destroyed because of (S)BMI? What are the negative
impacts of (S)BMI on wider ecosystems, such as cities or regions? Studies suggest that even when organizations start with good in­
tentions and launch SBMI, unintended negative consequences might arise when scaling as the focus shifts to optimizing economic
impact to fit mainstream institutional contexts (Mont et al., 2020). How can the positive societal and ecosystem impacts of SBMI be
retained when scaling, and how can the negative impacts be avoided? Businesses need to uncover and correct the negative impacts of
BMI early on, if possible before scaling or internationalizing.
These questions are challenging at the individual-firm BMI or SBMI level. They are even more complex at the level of EI and SEI. For
example, what social or environmental value might be destroyed because of EI and how can this be measured or mitigated? What are
the unintended consequences and rebound effects of SEI and how can they be avoided? Given the limited examples of SEI that have
been studied by researchers so far, pioneering data collection and examination of exemplars are needed. For example, how can regional
socio-economic and environmental indicators (e.g., air quality, poverty reduction), be linked to SEI initiatives through novel modelling
and measuring techniques? Socio-demographic, geographic, or remote-sensing data to assess urban inequality, housing prices, or air
pollution can be used to examine BMI value destruction impacts across locations and over time.
In sum, a better understanding of the value destruction impact of BMI relates to broader calls for responsible research and inno­
vation. Asking “why do it, who might benefit, and who might not?” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 757) could not only mitigate but also
anticipate value destruction. Asking and answering these questions should be the collective responsibility of innovators, business
partners, researchers, and policy makers.

3.2. Understanding the dynamics of BMI and its impacts over time

It is theoretically recognized that BMI can generate feedback loops that give rise to virtuous or vicious economic cycles (Casa­
desus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010), although little empirical research has leveraged these ideas. Businesses seeking to create social or
environmental benefits need to be aware of the current vicious cycles (e.g., fast fashion driven by low-cost models leading to increasing
waste) and consider how BMI can provide a positive impetus to interrupt such cycles rather than continuously generate negative
impacts like overconsumption (Hounshell, 1985) and resource overuse (Roome and Louche, 2016).
An example is Peerby, a Dutch online sharing platform launched in 2012 where people lend and borrow items from others in the
neighbourhood free of charge (Piscicelli et al., 2018). The idea is that people using the platform can own fewer things, entailing a
virtuous cycle of reduced production. Peerby competes with new products sold through platforms such as Alibaba and Amazon, with
ever quicker delivery times and cheap prices. Whereas Alibaba and Amazon are focused on optimizing economic value,6 Peerby aspires
to social and environmental impact. Studying, measuring, and comparing the (positive and negative) impact of such (S)BMI on local
ecosystems over time could provide concrete impetus, replicable measures, and specific insights for future initiatives.
We also still know very little about how virtuous (or vicious) cycles of interaction between BMI and the surrounding society and
business ecosystems are initiated and sustained, particularly in terms of social or natural resource exchange in addition to economic

6
For example, in Liège, Belgium, there was initially a lobby to welcome Alibaba’s operations to revive the city’s economic fortunes; however,
opponents are starting to note its impact on air pollution and its limited socio-economic impact (e.g., Boffey, 2021).

5
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Table 1
Innovation foci, impact, and the suggested research agenda.
BMI SBMI EI SEI

Aspired Firm-focused (innovation Firm-focused (innovation Ecosystem-focused (innovation Ecosystem-focused

organizational initiated by the focal firm)
emphasis
Aspired value Economic value creation
emphasis
Locus of impact Impact on the firm’s direct
customers, partners, and
suppliers
Performance and Economic performance and
impact some emerging focus on
measures in the social and ecosystem impact
literature (Table B1)
Critique Social and environmental
impact on business
ecosystems, society, and
planet often unaccounted
for
Future research: What types of social or
Value environmental value might
destruction be destroyed because of BMI
impact of BMI and how can this be
measured or mitigated?
Future research: How can unsustainable
Dynamics of vicious cycles of BMI (e.g.,
BMI and its volume over value) be
impacts over broken down in favour of
time sustainable alternatives?
initiated by the focal firm)
Economic, social, and
environmental value creation
Impact on the firm’s direct
customers, partners, and
suppliers
Social, environmental, and
economic value for the firm and
its stakeholders (mostly assessed
qualitatively)
Few replicable and agreed-upon
impact measures
How can the positive societal and
ecosystem impact of SBMI be
retained when scaling and how
can the negative impacts or
rebound effects be avoided?
Who or what are the catalysers of
virtuous cycles of SBMI impacts
on business ecosystems, society,
and planet? How can actors be
stimulated to create long-term
societal, environmental, and
economic value?
initiated by ecosystem
participants other than the focal
firm)
Economic value creation
Ecosystem (e.g., neighbourhood,
city, region)
Not available, future research
focus suggested in this paper
Not available, future research
focus suggested in this paper
What social or environmental
value might be destroyed because
of EI and how can this be
measured or mitigated?
How does BMI shape ecosystems
and what are the resulting
interplay and “tipping points” for
relationships between business
and societal actors (e.g., local
regulators, municipalities),
beyond which conflict might
escalate or social license to
operate could be granted?
(innovation initiated by
ecosystem participants other
than the focal firm)
Economic, social, and
environmental value creation
Ecosystem (e.g.,
neighbourhood, city, region)
Not available (few if any real
examples in practice yet),
future research focus
suggested in this paper
Not available (few if any real
examples in practice yet),
future research focus
suggested in this paper
What social or environmental
value might be destroyed
because of SEI and how can
this be measured or
mitigated?
How can businesses map their
position in an ecosystem to
better understand how to
make an environmental or
social impact?

exchange, and the types of interventions that could be beneficial. Existing theoretical models, such as the Bower-Burgelman model of
within-firm strategic processes (Kouamé and Langley, 2018), have been recently extended to examine ecosystem-level processes (see
Snihur et al., 2018) and can help to examine such cycles. Event tracking, homogeneous longitudinal data, and processual approaches
are needed to uncover virtuous or vicious cycle formation and evolution.
Relevant research questions arise. How does BMI shape and co-evolve with business ecosystems? What are the resulting “tipping
points” for relationships between business and societal actors (e.g., local regulators, municipalities, NGOs), beyond which conflict
could escalate or social license to operate could be granted or withdrawn? Who or what are the catalysers of virtuous or vicious cycles
of BMI impacts in society and business ecosystems? How can unsustainable vicious cycles of BMI be broken down?
In sum, (S)BMI can help inject novelty into business ecosystems and enable gradual sustainability transitions, for instance from one-
time product purchase to re-use, refurbishment, and repair models (Allais et al., 2018; Mugge et al., 2017), or leverage digital
technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, or IoT, for sustainability-related goals (George et al., 2021). These trends,
currently emerging in the business world, are worth careful investigation in combination with a focus on long-term social and
environmental impacts and related sustainability concerns.

3.3. Solving practical challenges of conducting research on BMI impacts

Conducting research on BMI impacts brings additional challenges in terms of construct clarity, design, methods, and data
availability.
The first key issue concerns careful definitions and operationalization of the constructs. Setting boundaries between business
models and business ecosystems is critical, given potential overlaps. Using the activity-system definition of business models (Lanzolla
and Markides, 2021; Zott and Amit, 2010) and ecosystem-as-affiliation view (Adner, 2017; Ansari et al., 2016) can be helpful to trace a
focal-firm business model and its relations to other ecosystem actors, for instance through examining the firm’s and its partners’ value
propositions, activities, or artefacts (Laasch, 2019). Paying attention to different levels of analysis is important (e.g., individual, firm,
or ecosystem). There are interesting questions about how to operationalize ecosystem-level outcomes. For instance, no measure of
business ecosystem health or wellbeing currently exist. This offers exciting opportunities for researchers to develop such measures,
combining several potential dimensions, including the more subjective members’ satisfaction with business ecosystem value offerings,
perceptions of fairness, equity or deprivation, or more objective assessments of business model diversity within the business ecosystem,
and trade-offs between different dimensions, such as social or economic value.
Second, current BMI research focused on societal impacts is subject to excessive heterogeneity across cases (Dentchev et al., 2018)

6
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

and a lack of replicable impact measures (Table B2). Homogeneous case subsets based on theoretical reasoning could enable the
transferability of findings. Comparative and longitudinal designs might be particularly powerful to uncover BMI impacts across
different contexts such as regions or cities and to examine virtuous or vicious cycle formation and evolution. Tracking events and
paying attention to timing can be markedly useful, leveraging, for example, techniques used by historians (see Vaara and Lamberg,
2016, for a review). Natural experiments, related to different local regulations, can help evaluate the efficacy of distinct interventions.
Third, impact studies require data collection from and with different actors. One of the greatest challenges pertains to the absence
of pre-existing large datasets to trace the formation and evolution of (S)BMI in different local contexts and their impacts beyond
economic performance. Next to user studies and large-scale surveys related to the development of the (S)BMI, and socio-economic data
from the localities, digital technologies such as remote sensing and monitoring might help to identify the wider trends in local contexts.
Action-research together with a company, or several companies along a value chain, involving quantitative assessment of the social,
environmental, and economic impact of interventions, will be necessary to advance. Such collaborative research (Brown et al., 2021)
could focus on addressing shorter and longer-term corporate timelines of sustainability goals. For instance, electronics and health
multinational Philips has set the target to generate 25% of its revenue from circular products, services, and solutions by 2025, where
circular BMI plays an important role.7 Clothing retailer H&M explicitly refers to the need to move from a linear business model (take,
make, waste) to a circular business model where the value of products and resources is maximized by reusing, repairing, and recycling
as part of its 2040 climate positive targets.8

4. Conclusion

In sum, we have many more questions than answers, characteristic of a lively research field, but also an exciting opportunity for
insightful future work. Given the increasing pressure for management research to address relevant societal issues, developing the
conversation about the broader impact of BMI is both timely and important. Although BMI researchers have been relatively successful
at unpacking what happens at the firm level, developing implications of BMI for wider societal impacts and business ecosystem-level
connections might be the next frontier. BMI research can only realize its potential if it provides new ways of more fully accounting for
and anticipating business impacts on surrounding business ecosystems, society, and planet, urgently needed to accelerate sustain­
ability transitions. We thus call for stronger linkages between BMI research, anchored in strategic management, and scholarship of its
impacts.

Funding

Nancy Bocken received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020’s European research Council (ERC) funding scheme
under grant agreement No 850159, Project Circular X (www.circularx.eu).

Author statement

Yuliya Snihur: conceptualization, methodology, writing Nancy Bocken: conceptualization, methodology, writing.

Appendix A

Table A1
Classification of 2010 special issue on business models in Long Range Planning

July 2010 LRP issue Value creation Unit of analysis

Economic Societal Firm Ecosystem

Baden-Fuller and Morgan (2010) X X

Teece (2010) X X X X
Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010) X X
Zott and Amit (2010) X X
Demil and Lecocq (2010) X X
McGrath (2010) X X
Gambardella and McGahan (2010) X X
Wirtz et al. (2010) X X
Thompson and MacMillan (2010) X X X
Yunus et al. (2010) X X X
(continued on next page)

7
One example of a circular business model is Philips’ Lumea Select Try & Buy model. Through this subscription model, Philips retains ownership
of the Lumea IPL hair removal device throughout its lifespan. After customer use, it is returned to be reprocessed for further use. See: https://www.
philips.com/a-w/about/environmental-social-governance/environmental/circular-economy/circular-products-and-services.
8
See: https://hmgroup.com/sustainability/circular-and-climate-positive/circularity/.

7
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Table A1 (continued )
July 2010 LRP issue Value creation Unit of analysis

Economic Societal Firm Ecosystem

Dahan et al. (2010) X X X

Williamson (2010) X X
Chesbrough (2010) X X
Itami and Nishino (2010) X X
Doz and Kosonen (2010) X X X
Sosna et al. (2010) X X
Svejenova et al. (2010) X X
Sabatier et al. (2010) X X
Smith et al. (2010) X X

Table A2
Classification of July 2020 issue on business models in Long Range Planning

July 2020 LRP issue Value creation Unit of analysis

Economic Societal Firm Ecosystem

Felin et al. (2019) X X

Bocken and Snihur (2020) X X X X
Henike et al. (2020) X X X X
Hou et al. (2020) X X X
Zhao et al. (2020) X X X
Bocken and Geradts (2020) X X X
Laasch and Pinkse (2020) X X X
Salvador et al. (2020) X X
Frankenberger and Stam (2020) X X
Talmar et al. (2020) X X X

Appendix B

Table B1
Review of top 20 cited empirical studies on BMI 2010–2021 in strategic management and general management research.a

# Authors Journal Year Citations Type Impact/performance measure(s) used Timeframe

(Scopus, considered
Nov. 2021)

1 Demil, B., Lecocq, X. Long Range 2010 740 Single case Economic performance (operating 10 years
Planning profit, post-tax profit)
2 Yunus, M., Moingeon, Long Range 2010 599 Single case Social impact (reduce malnutrition of 30 years
B., Lehmann-Ortega, L. Planning children and increase employment)
and economic performance (full cost
recovery)
3 Sosna, M., Trevinyo- Long Range 2010 509 Single case Economic performance (annual 17 years
Rodríguez, R.N., Planning revenues, operating profit, number of
Velamuri, S.R. shops)
4 Bock, A.J., Opsahl, T., Journal of 2012 216 Survey of 107 Firm-level strategic flexibility Short-term
George, G., Gann, D.M. Management CEOs (cross-
Studies sectional
study)
5 Desyllas P., Sako M. Research Policy 2013 183 Single case Economic performance (profitability, 15 years
market capitalization, patenting)
6 Kim, S.K., Min, S. Strategic 2015 118 Quantitative Economic performance (annual 9 years
Entrepreneurship revenues)
Journal
7 Karimi, J., Walter, Z. Long Range 2016 81 Survey of 148 Economic performance (revenue Short-term
Planning newspapers generated from online sources, (cross-
number of advertisers) sectional
study)
8 Hacklin, F., Björkdahl, Long Range 2018 70 Multiple case Economic performance (revenue 9 years
J., Wallin, M.W. Planning study growth, operating margin, ROE)
9 Lehoux P., Daudelin G., Research Policy 2014 67 Multiple case Economic performance (funding, 15 years
Williams-Jones B., study revenues)
Denis J.-L., Longo C.
(continued on next page)

8
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Table B1 (continued )
# Authors Journal Year Citations Type Impact/performance measure(s) used Timeframe
(Scopus, considered
Nov. 2021)

10 Futterer, F., Schmidt, Long Range 2018 61 Survey of 128 Economic performance (corporate Short-term
J., Heidenreich, S. Planning corporate venture ROI) (cross-
ventures sectional
study)
11 Cozzolino, A., Verona, Journal of 2018 53 Single case Firm non-financial behaviour (in terms 22 years
G., Rothaermel, F.T. Management of experimentation and alliances)
Studies
12 McDonald, R.M., Administrative 2020 50 Multiple case Economic performance (revenues, 3 years
Eisenhardt, K.M. Science Quarterly study market share, funding)
13 Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. Journal of 2018 45 Multiple case Ecosystem emergence and growth 8 years
D.W., Burgelman, R.A. Management study around BMI (customer, partner,
Studies media, and analyst resonance) and
firm economic performance (revenues)
14 Lubik, S., Garnsey, E. Long Range 2016 27 Multiple case Economic performance (revenues, 4 years
Planning study funding, employee growth) and
ecosystem links
15 Peerally, J.A., De Long Range 2019 26 Single case Ecosystem links (with NGOs, farmers, 8 years
Fuentes, C., Planning local institutions) and social impact
Figueiredo, P.N. (reducing children malnutrition,
employment, and training to re-engage
vulnerable populations)
16 Zhao, Y., von Delft, S., Long Range 2020 25 Multiple-case Economic performance (revenues, 4 years
Morgan-Thomas, A., Planning study growth, survival)
Buck, T.
17 Frankenberger, K., Long Range 2020 10 Quantitative Economic performance (employment 2 years
Stam, W. Planning growth)
18 Cachon, G.P. Management 2020 8 Multiple case Economic performance (profit) Short-term
Science study
19 Shi, X., Li, F., Journal of 2021 1 Single case Economic performance (monetizing 4 years
Chumnumpan, P. Management innovation), ecosystem impact
(rewarding complementors)
20 Desyllas, P., Salter, A., Strategic 2020 1 Survey of 223 Economic performance (Tobin’s Q 3 years
Alexy, O. Organization firms growth)
a
This review is based on the recent BMI scholarship in top strategic management and top general management journals published since the seminal
2010 special issue of LRP on business models. The journals reviewed include Long Range Planning, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Strategic Man­
agement Journal, Strategic Organization, Strategy Science, as well as Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of
Management, Journal of Management Studies, Management Science, Organization Science and Research Policy. We undertook a keyword search in the
Scopus database in these journals, searching for “business model*” AND “innovation*” in journal article titles, abstracts, or keywords, resulting in 87
journal articles published between 2010 and November of 2021. We then sorted these articles in terms of the number of citations and reviewed the top
20 cited articles with reported empirical results in terms of impact measures used.
Table B2 Review of top 20 cited empirical studies on SBMI 2010–2021 in sustainability research.a

# Authors Journal Year Citations Type Impact/performance measure(s) Timeframe

(Scopus, used considered
Nov. 2021)

1 Bocken, N., Short, S., Corporate 2013 264 Multiple case Value opportunities, value missed, Long-term: positive
Rana, P., Evans, S. Governance study and value destroyed from a social, or negative value
(Bingley) multiple environmental, and economic over time for a
workshops perspective for the firm and its specific
stakeholders. Illustrated with LED organization.
example. Only qualitative
assessment
2 Geissdoerfer, M., Journal of 2018 252 Multiple case Social (e.g., jobs), economic (e.g., Short and long-term
Morioka, S.N., de Cleaner study cost), environmental performance
Carvalho, M.M., Production (e.g., reduce landfill, carbon
Evans, S emissions). Only qualitative
assessment
3 Geissdoerfer, M., Journal of 2016 154 Multiple Value opportunities, value missed, Long-term: positive
Bocken, N.M.P., Cleaner workshops value destroyed from a social, or negative value
Hultink, E.J. Production environmental, and economic over time for a
perspective for the firm and its specific
stakeholders. Only qualitative organization.
assessment
(continued on next page)

9
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

(continued )
# Authors Journal Year Citations Type Impact/performance measure(s) Timeframe
(Scopus, used considered
Nov. 2021)

4 Bocken, N.M.P., Rana, Journal of 2015 147 Multiple Value opportunities, value missed, Long-term: positive
P., Short, S.W. Industrial and workshops value destroyed from a social, or negative value
Production environmental, and economic over time for a
Engineering perspective for the firm and its specific
stakeholders. Illustrated with baby organization.
stroller example. Only qualitative
assessment
5 Yang, M., Evans, S., Journal of 2017 139 Multiple-case Economic, social, and environmental Long-term
Vladimirova, D., Cleaner study value uncaptured by the business.
Rana, P. Production Examples such as recycle, reuse.
Only qualitative assessment
6 Baldassarre, B., Journal of 2017 125 Single case, Environmental (e.g., energy Medium-term
Calabretta, G., Cleaner business efficiency), social (e.g., employee
Bocken, N.M.P., Production experiment engagement, donations to good
Jaskiewicz, T. cause), economic performance (cost
savings, profit). Some quantitative
assessment (e.g., amount of
donations) *
7 França, C.L., Broman, Journal of 2017 114 Single case Environmental (material flows and Medium- and long-
G., Robèrt, K.-H., Cleaner energy flows), economic term
Basile, G., Trygg, L. Production performance (cost and revenue
streams). Investigated through case
of Aura Light. Only qualitative
assessment
8 Todeschini, B.V., Business 2017 108 Multiple-case Economic (e.g., cost, revenue), Long-term
Cortimiglia, M.N., Horizons study environmental (e.g., waste, local
Callegaro-de- sourcing), social performance (e.g.,
Menezes, D., Ghezzi, fair trade) Only qualitative
A. assessment
9 Bocken, N.M.P. Journal of 2015 107 9 open and 26 How venture capitalists balance Medium and long-
Cleaner semi-structured financial business case, social term
Production interviews returns, environmental returns.
Only qualitative investigation.
10 Yip, A.W.H., Bocken, Journal of 2018 102 15 semi- Potential economic performance of Short-medium term
N.M.P. Cleaner structured new business models measured
Production interviews and through customer attitude.
survey Quantitative assessment (survey
on customer attitudes) *
11 Heyes, G., Sharmina, Journal of 2018 99 Single case, 2 Circularity and environmental Medium-long-term
M., Mendoza, J.M.F., Cleaner workshops impact (e.g., waste, emissions) and
Gallego-Schmid, A., Production economic performance
Azapagic, A. (profitability). Only qualitative
assessment
12 Franceschelli, M.V., British Food 2018 97 Single case Environmental (e.g., CO2, Short-term
Santoro, G., Candelo, Journal biodegradability), economic (e.g.,
E. cost and revenues), social impact
(health). Only qualitative
assessment
13 Weissbrod, I., Bocken, Journal of 2017 83 Single case Performance against radical Short-term
N.M.P. Cleaner innovation goal: zero-clothing waste
Production to landfill. Only qualitative
assessment
14 Lüdeke-Freund, F., Sustainable 2018 77 Multiple Economic, environmental, and social N/A
Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Production and methods, e.g., value created. Only qualitative
Massa, L., Breuer, H. Consumption Delphi study assessment
15 Bocken, N., Boons, F., Journal of 2019 71 Multiple-case Co-evolution of business models: 5 years
Baldassarre, B. Cleaner study value created, captured, missed, and
Production destroyed (economic, social,
environmental). Only qualitative
assessment
16 Short, S.W., Bocken, Journal of 2014 64 Single case Different types of environmental (e. 30 years
N.M.P., Barlow, C.Y., Industrial g., energy reduction, CO2 emissions
Chertow, M.R. Ecology savings) and economic performance
(e.g., revenue, market share).
Includes quantitative assessment
*
(continued on next page)

10
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

(continued )
# Authors Journal Year Citations Type Impact/performance measure(s) Timeframe
(Scopus, used considered
Nov. 2021)

17 Leipold, S., Petit-Boix, Journal of 2018 62 Document Environmental impact: e.g., reduce, 8 years
A. Cleaner analysis and reuse recycle. Only qualitative
Production observations assessment
18 Bidmon, C.M., Knab, Journal of 2018 54 Illustrative case Societal impact, role of business Long-term
S.F. Cleaner model in transitions. Only
Production qualitative assessment
19 Long, T.B., Looijen, Journal of 2018 53 Multiple-case Economic (e.g., profitability) and Medium-term
A., Blok, V. Cleaner study environmental performance. Only
Production qualitative assessment
20 Hannon, M.J., Foxon, Journal of 2015 53 43 semi- Economic (market growth, impact Long-term
T.J., Gale, W.F. Cleaner structured on future energy system). Only
Production interviews qualitative assessment
a
This review is based on SBMI scholarship in interdisciplinary sustainability research. Only journal articles in English language are reviewed. We
undertook a keyword search in the Scopus database in these journals, searching for “sustainable business model*” OR “business model for sustainability”
AND “innovation” in journal article titles, abstracts, or keywords, resulting in 237 journal articles published between 2010 and November of 2021. We
then sorted these articles in terms of the number of citations and reviewed the top 20 cited articles with reported empirical results in terms of impact
measures used. We excluded papers that were out of scope (most typical, not about sustainability but only financial viability). An asterisk (*) indicates
that some form of quantitative performance data was collected.

References

Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J. Manag. 43 (1), 39–58.
Allais, R., Gobert, J., Tyl, B., 2018. Territorial Repair Networks for Sustainable Production and Consumption. IST2018, Manchester, UK.
Ansari, S., Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., 2016. The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strat. Manag. J. 37 (9), 1829–1853.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L.D., Wright, M., 2018. Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strat. Entrepren. J 12
(1), 72–95.
Baden-Fuller, C., Morgan, M.S., 2010. Business models as models. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 156–171.
Baden-Fuller, C., Haefliger, S., 2013. Business models and technological innovation. Long. Range Plan. 46 (6), 419–426.
Bansal, P., DesJardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strat. Organ. 12 (1), 70–78.
Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., Podoynitsyna, K., 2016. Learning while (re) configuring: business model innovation processes in established firms. Strat. Organ. 14
(3), 181–219.
Bigelow, L.S., Barney, J.B., 2021. What can strategy learn from the business model approach? J. Manag. Stud. 58 (2), 528–539.
Bocken, N.M., Geradts, T.H., 2020. Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long. Range Plan. 53
(4), 101950.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., 2021. Unsustainable business models–Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. J. Clean. Prod., 127828
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corp. Govern. 3 (5), 482–497.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56.
Bocken, N., Snihur, Y., 2020. Lean Startup and the business model: Experimenting for novelty and impact. Long Range Plan. 53 (4), 101953.
Boffey, D., 2021. Open Sesame: Alibaba’s Push into Europe a Mixed Blessing for Liège. The Guardian, 21 February 2021.
Brown, P., Von Daniels, C., Bocken, N.M.P., Balkenende, A.R., 2021. A process model for collaboration in circular oriented innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 125499.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., Ricart, J.E., 2010. From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 195–215.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 354–363.
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S., 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
companies. Ind. Corp. Change 11 (3), 529–555.
Christensen, C.M., 2006. The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 23 (1), 39–55.
Cozzolino, A., Verona, G., Rothaermel, F.T., 2018. Unpacking the disruption process: new technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation. J. Manag. Stud. 55
(7), 1166–1202.
Dahan, N.M., Doh, J.P., Oetzel, J., Yaziji, M., 2010. Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Plan. 43
(2–3), 326–342.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., 2010. Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 227–246.
Dentchev, N., Rauter, R., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Snihur, Y., Rosano, M., Baumgartner, R., Jonker, J., 2018. Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: a prolific
field of research and a future research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 695–703.
Dorado, S., Ventresca, M.J., 2013. Crescive entrepreneurship in complex social problems: institutional conditions for entrepreneurial engagement. J. Bus. Ventur. 28
(1), 69–82.
Doz, Y.L., Kosonen, M., 2010. Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 370–382.
Felin, T., Gambardella, A., Stern, S., Zenger, T., 2019. Lean startup and the business model: Experimentation revisited. Long Range Plan 53 (4), 101953.
Foss, N.J., Saebi, T., 2017. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 43 (1), 200–227.
Frankenberger, K., Stam, W., 2020. Entrepreneurial copycats: A resource orchestration perspective on the link between extra-industry business model imitation and
new venture growth. Long Range Plan. 53 (4), 101872.
Futterer, F., Schmidt, J., Heidenreich, S., 2018. Effectuation or causation as the key to corporate venture success? Investigating effects of entrepreneurial behaviors on
business model innovation and venture performance. Long. Range Plan. 51 (1), 64–81.
Gambardella, A., McGahan, A.M., 2010. Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Plan. 43
(2–3), 262–271.
George, G., Merrill, R.K., Schillebeeckx, S.J., 2021. Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: how digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and
sustainable development. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 45 (5), 999–1027.
Heiskanen, E., Jalas, M., 2003. Can services lead to radical eco-efficiency improvements? A review of the debate and evidence. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
10 (4), 186–198.
Henike, T., Kamprath, M., Hölzle, K., 2020. Effecting, but effective? How business model visualisations unfold cognitive impacts. Long Range Plan. 53 (4), 101925.

11
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Hou, H., Cui, Z., Shi, Y., 2020. Learning Club, Home Court, and Magnetic Field: Facilitating business model portfolio extension with a multi-faceted corporate
ecosystem. Long Range Plan. 53 (4), 101970.
Hounshell, D., 1985. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: the Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States. JHU Press.
Huijben, J.C., Verbong, G.P., 2013. Breakthrough without subsidies? PV business model experiments in The Netherlands. Energy Pol. 56, 362–370.
Huijben, J.C.C.M., Verbong, G.P.J., Podoynitsyna, K.S., 2016. Mainstreaming solar: stretching the regulatory regime through business model innovation. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. 20, 1–15.
IPCC, 2021. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K.,
Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J.B.R., Maycock, T.K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., Zhou, B. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Iansiti, M., Levien, R., 2004. Strategy as ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82 (3), 68–78.
Itami, H., Nishino, K., 2010. Killing two birds with one stone: profit for now and learning for the future. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 364–369.
Jolly, S., Raven, R., Romijn, H., 2012. Upscaling of business model experiments in off-grid PV solar energy in India. Sustain. Sci. 7 (2), 199–212.
Kallio, L., Heiskanen, E., Apajalahti, E.L., Matschoss, K., 2020. Farm power: how a new business model impacts the energy transition in Finland. Energy Res. Social
Sci. 65, 101484.
Kouamé, S., Langley, A., 2018. Relating microprocesses to macro-outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research. Strat. Manag. J. 39 (3), 559–581.
Kraaijenhagen, C., Van Oppen, C., Bocken, N., 2016. Circular Business. Collaborate & Circulate. Circular Collaboration, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Kramer, M.R., Geradts, T., Nadella, B., 2019. Philips Lighting: Light-As-A-Service. Harvard Business School Case 719-446, March 2019.
Laasch, O., 2018. Beyond the purely commercial business model: organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long. Range
Plan. 51 (1), 158–183.
Laasch, O., 2019. An actor-network perspective on business models: how ‘Being Responsible’led to incremental but pervasive change. Long. Range Plan. 52 (3),
406–426.
Laasch, O., Pinkse, J., 2020. Explaining the leopards’ spots: responsibility-embedding in business model artefacts across spaces of institutional complexity. Long.
Range Plan. 53 (4).
Lanzolla, G., Markides, C., 2021. A business model view of strategy. J. Manag. Stud. 58 (2), 540–555.
Lindahl, M., Sundin, E., Sakao, T., 2014. Environmental and economic benefits of Integrated Product Service Offerings quantified with real business cases. J. Clean.
Prod. 64, 288–296.
Lubik, S., Garnsey, E., 2016. Early business model evolution in science-based ventures: the case of advanced materials. Long Range Plan. 49 (3), 393–408.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Dembek, K., 2017. Sustainable business model research and practice: emerging field or passing fancy? J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1668–1678.
Magretta, J., 2002. Why business models matter. Harv. Bus. Rev. (5), 86–92.
Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N., Dahlbo, H., Aminoff, A., 2018. Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value
propositions? J. Clean. Prod. 171, 413–422.
Markides, C., 2006. Disruptive innovation: in need of better theory. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 23 (1), 19–25.
Massa, L., Tucci, C., Afuah, A., 2017. A critical assessment of business model research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 (1), 73–104.
McGrath, R.G., 2010. Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 247–261.
Mont, O., Palgan, Y.V., Bradley, K., Zvolska, L., 2020. A decade of the sharing economy: concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 269,
122215.
Moore, J.F., 1996. The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Mugge, R., Jockin, B., Bocken, N., 2017. How to sell refurbished smartphones? An investigation of different customer groups and appropriate incentives. J. Clean.
Prod. 147, 284–296.
One Planet Network, 2020. Sustainable tourism. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sustainable-tourism/covid-19-responsible-recovery-tourism. (Accessed 9
December 2020).
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J., 2012. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Publ. Pol. 39 (6),
751–760.
Patala, S., Salmi, A., Bocken, N., 2020. Intermediation dilemmas in facilitated industrial symbiosis. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121093.
Peerally, J.A., De Fuentes, C., Figueiredo, P.N., 2019. Inclusive innovation and the role of technological capability-building: The social business Grameen Danone
Foods Limited in Bangladesh. Long Range Plan. 52 (6), 101843.
Piscicelli, L., Ludden, G.D., Cooper, T., 2018. What makes a sustainable business model successful? An empirical comparison of two peer-to-peer goods-sharing
platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4580–4591.
Porter, M.E., 2021. The Changing Role of Business in Society (Harvard working paper).
Prabhu, J., 2017. Frugal innovation: doing more with less for more. Phil. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 375 (2095), 20160372.
Priem, R.L., Wenzel, M., Koch, J., 2018. Demand-side strategy and business models: putting value creation for consumers center stage. Long. Range Plan. 51 (1),
22–31.
Ricart, J.E., Snihur, Y., Carrasco, C., Berrone, P., 2020. Grassroots resistance to digital platforms and relational business model design to overcome it: a conceptual
framework. Strat. Sci. 5 (3), 271–291.
Ritala, P., Albareda, L., Bocken, N., 2021. Value creation and appropriation in economic, social, and environmental domains: recognizing and resolving the
institutionalized asymmetries. J. Clean. Prod. 290, 125796.
Roome, N., Louche, C., 2016. Journeying toward business models for sustainability: a conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation.
Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 11–35.
Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., Rousselle, T., 2010. From recipe to dinner: business model portfolios in the European biopharmaceutical industry. Long Range Plan. 43
(2–3), 431–447.
Salvador, F., Piller, F.T., Aggarwal, S., 2020. Surviving on the long tail: An empirical investigation of business model elements for mass customization. Long Range
Plan. 53 (4), 101886.
Seelos, C., Mair, J., 2007. Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: a strategic view. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 21 (4), 49–63.
Shipilov, A., Gawer, A., 2020. Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14 (1), 92–121.
Short, S.W., Bocken, N.M., Barlow, C.Y., Chertow, M.R., 2014. From refining sugar to growing tomatoes: Industrial ecology and business model evolution. J. Industr.
Ecol. 18 (5), 603–618.
Smith, W.K., Binns, A., Tushman, M.L., 2010. Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 448–461.
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L.D., Burgelman, R.A., 2018. An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: the disruptor’s gambit. J. Manag. Stud. 55 (7),
1278–1316.
Snihur, Y., Zott, C., 2020. The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: how business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Acad. Manag. J. 63 (2),
1–30.
Snihur, Y., Zott, C., Amit, R., 2021. Managing the value appropriation dilemma in business model innovation. Strat. Sci. 6 (1), 22–38.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R.N., Velamuri, S.R., 2010. Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long Range Plan. 43
(2–3), 383–407.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T.M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C.P., Barnosky, A.D., Cornell, S.E., Crucifix, M., et al., 2018.
Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 8252–8259.
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model.”. Organ. Environ. 21 (2), 103–127.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., Vives, L., 2010. An individual business model in the making: A chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 408–430.

12
Y. Snihur and N. Bocken Long Range Planning 55 (2022) 102182

Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Holmström, J., Romme, A.G.L., 2020. Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie
Model. Long Range Plan. 53 (4), 101850.
Teece, D.J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 172–194.
Teece, D.J., 2018. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long. Range Plan. 51 (1), 40–49.
Thompson, J.D., MacMillan, I.C., 2010. Business models: Creating new markets and societal wealth. Long Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 291–307.
Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy–a review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76–91.
Vaara, E., Lamberg, J.A., 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 41 (4), 633–657.
Waddock, S., 2012. More than coping: thriving in a world of wicked problems. Internat. Food Agribusiness Manag. Rev. 15, 127–132, 1030-2016–82860.
Williamson, P.J., 2010. Cost innovation: preparing for a ‘value-for-money’revolution. Long Range. Plan. 43 (2–3), 343–353.
Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., Ullrich, S., 2010. Strategic development of business models: implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Plan.
43 (2–3), 272–290.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010. Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long. Range Plan. 43, 308–325.
Zhang, H., Xiao, H., Wang, Y., Shareef, M.A., Akram, M.S., Goraya, M.A.S., 2021. An integration of antecedents and outcomes of business model innovation: a meta-
analytic review. J. Bus. Res. 131, 803–814.
Zhao, Y., Von Delft, S., Morgan-Thomas, A., Buck, T., 2020. The evolution of platform business models: Exploring competitive battles in the world of platforms. Long
Range Plan. 53 (4), 101892.
Zott, C., Amit, R., 2008. The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strat. Manag. J. 29 (1), 1–26.
Zott, C., Amit, R., 2010. Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 216–226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The business model: recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019–1042.

Yuliya Snihur is an associate professor of strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation at Toulouse Business School, France. Originally from Ukraine, she received her
PhD from IESE Business School, Spain. Her research explores business models, their innovation and evolution in new and established firms.

Nancy Bocken is professor and research coordinator in Sustainable Business at Maastricht University, Maastricht Sustainability Institute. She focuses on topics like
sustainable business model innovation, sufficiency, and experimentation. Next to her main role at Maastricht University, she is a Fellow at Cambridge Institute for
Sustainability Leadership, Visiting Professor at Lund University IIIEE, and Visiting Professor at Lappeenranta University of Technology amongst others. Before, she
worked at the University of Cambridge where she also obtained her Ph.D. funded by Unilever on radical eco-innovation. Nancy co-founded HOMIE who are pursuing
circular pay-per-use home appliances.

13