Abstract
Humanity’s consumption of resources is many times greater than nature’s capacity for regeneration. Companies need to innovate their own business models to incorporate sustainability in all dimensions, as they are the main producers of greenhouse gases and environmental damage. However, obstacles such as dominant logics hinder the necessary processes. One way of overcoming these problems is to use sustainable business model patterns as an exemplary description of the business activities of existing and successful companies. The aim of this publication is to provide a holistic collection of relevant business model patterns for sustainability. The basis for this is the rich body of research in this area, which is, however, hampered by small-scale representations, overlaps, and problems of understanding. This will be addressed by conducting a comprehensive literature review, standardising, clustering, and eliminating duplication. The resulting database will enable sustainable business model innovation.
1. Introduction
Humanity consumes many times the resources that nature can regenerate. If continued, this overexploitation could cause lasting damage to the livelihoods of future generations, so a more sustainable economy must be sought. The goals to be achieved in this regard are described, for example, in the framework of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. However, achieving these goals requires a fundamental transformation of the economy, to which not only technological innovations, but also business models must contribute [1].
This contrasts with the fact that the business model of many companies was determined at a time when the importance of sustainability was significantly lower than it is today, and this has remained the same since then. It is, therefore, not suitable to meet the need of a sustainable business practice. Reasons for resistance to change include the “dominant logic” as the collective mindset of a company, which has emerged in the course of past successes and now makes a company blind to necessary changes [2]. The business model as a representation of the fundamental corporate logic is disproportionately affected by the inhibiting effect of the dominant logic [3,4,5].
The importance of the work is thus twofold. On the one hand, it is about enabling companies to meet the demands of their customers and, thus, to maintain their own competitiveness [6]. The business model, for example, is, together with product, service, and process innovations, the main field of innovation activity [7,8,9], but in contrast to product innovations, business model innovations offer longer-lasting competitive advantages [10,11,12] and, therefore, generate higher returns [13]. On the other hand, it is about contributing to environmental protection by adopting sustainable business practices.
Cumulatively, there is thus a need to integrate sustainability into the business model of companies [14]. Therefore, the following will focus on how this can be achieved, with the focus on a practical implementation.
The combination of business models and sustainability is called sustainable business models. These enable companies to achieve their sustainability goals [15] and, therefore, to meet the expectations of the public for more sustainable business models [16]. The results of this are, for example, greener products and packaging or new business models [17], which are created by including sustainable practices in the value proposition, value creation, and value capture activities of companies [18]. Nosratabadi, Mosavi, Shamshirband, Kazimieras Zavadskas, Rakotonirainy, Chau [19] see no comprehensive picture of how companies in different industries can implement sustainability in their business models. Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova, Evans [20] see a “a three-fold problem in sustainable business model innovation: (1) many business model innovation meetings and workshops are conducted, but the ideas are not followed up, (2) even promising sustainable business model concepts are not implemented, and (3) most implemented business models, especially in the start-up context, fail in the market”. Therefore, it is highly relevant for the field of business model innovation to provide tools for entrepreneurial practice that enable innovation [21,22,23]. As practitioners often rely on trial-and-error experimentation to innovate their business model and, therefore, have a high chance of failure [6,15,24] see methods and tools of business modelling as core challenge for creating sustainable business models.
The most relevant approach to overcome this is pattern-based innovation [2,25], which has proven its value in practice and enables business model innovations by adapting parts or the entirety [26]. The underlying mechanism refers to the recipe function and communication function of the business model. An example of this is the razor-blade business model pattern, which originated in the consumer goods industry, namely, men’s razors, and has spread to other industries, e.g., printers. Basically, the business model of one company can be used as an instrument to guide the design of a business activity envisaged for the future in another company [27,28]. The quality of a pattern-based business model innovation can be increased by a broad basic selection of possible patterns, as this allows different strategic objectives to be met in the best possible way, as well as the varying conditions in the companies. Therefore, it is important to know all accessible patterns, but a broad selection has the downfall that patterns face constraints based on a high diversity and overlaps among patterns [29]. Therefore, the research question is: Which business model patterns exist to create sustainable business models?
The aim here is to create a database as structured collections of different patterns which, thanks to their largely unambiguous presentation, enable the patterns to be used directly for innovation or to be further adapted to entrepreneurial requirements through measures such as the business model pattern combination matrix.
The challenges and, thus, weaknesses of the current research are that the patterns are heterogeneous. Some descriptions only consist of a few elements, while others describe holistic business models, and the underlying description frameworks also differ [29]. Therefore, a holistic representation of all known patterns is needed. To reach this, the patterns are structured based on a rigorous taxonomy-building approach.
Based on the relevance of the topic, there are already publications that pursue a similar goal. A distinction must be made between literature reviews and primary surveys. Representatives of the first kind are Comin, Aguiar, Sehnem, Yusliza, Cazella, Julkovski [30]; Ritala, Huotari, Bocken, Albareda, Puumalainen [31]; and Boons, Lüdeke-Freund [18] as the largest collection.
Primary surveys, on the other hand, are Clinton, Whisnant [32] or Zufall, Norris, Schaltegger, Revellio, Hansen [33]. The practically oriented approach, together with a broad literature selection, solves the problem that the literature reviews do not contain all the patterns found in the primary surveys. The primary surveys, on the other hand, lag behind the reviews in terms of the extent and number of patterns described. Furthermore, primary surveys usually have a sectoral focus, which stands in the way of general usability due to the resulting low total number of patterns described. An extended list analysis is, therefore, advisable.
The contribution of this publication is to provide this list by creating the largest coherent database on business model patterns in the context of sustainability currently available. This means that all potentially relevant patterns can be found in one place, and these have also been classified according to the most likely outcomes, allowing direct application relative to the company’s goals. Not relevant are sustainability strategies such as the 10 common circular economy strategies (i.e., recover, recycling, repurpose, remanufacture, refurbish, repair, reuse, reduce, rethink, refuse) [34]. Although these include aspects of the business model patterns, as these also reflect generally valid constructs of action, they are above in scope.
2. Definition of Core Constructs
Before the scientific approach is presented, the underlying constructs must be defined so that they can be made clear.
2.1. Business Model
Every company, regardless of its industry, business activity, or even the intention to make a profit, has a business model [35,36], which is superior in achieving a competitive advantage for product or service innovations [13].
The origin of the term is heterogeneous. The concept itself was first introduced in 1954 by the publication The Practice of Management by Peter Drucker [11,37,38]. Other early representatives are Bellman, Clark, Malcolm, Craft, Ricciardi [39], which also does not represent the modern understanding of a business model. The topic only gained significant scientific relevance around the year 2000 [40].
There is no generally accepted definition in science of what a business model is, but a large number of different definitions [41] are used in parallel in scientific discourse. In this context, Gassmann, Frankenberger, Sauer [42] list seven schools of thought for understanding the business model. This publication is based on the recombination school because it describes business model innovation best. The business model, as a combination of constant basic dimensions, is therefore a kind of blueprint for corporate activity [42]. The following definitions of the construct are considered under this premise, so that the working definition can be determined by comparing similarities and differences (Table 1).
Table 1.
Definition of the construct business model.
The overall view of the sources shows that the business model is primarily based on the following dimensions. Firstly, there is the value proposition. This includes all dimensions that create a benefit for the customer of the company [49] and, as such, is the portfolio of products and services provided by the company that creates value for the customer or solves problems [36]. Secondly, there is the value capturing dimension, which is the totality of costs and revenues. Thirdly, the customer segments must be taken into account. The question here is: “Who is the customer?” [50]. It is, therefore, a question of which target groups are addressed by the service offered [36]. Finally, it is relevant that not only the individual elements, but also their interaction, has a defining effect. There is, thus, a kind of system in which the elements influence each other, which is scientifically described by the terms “ interlocking” [51] or “interrelation” [52]. The systematic structure is described, for example, by Magretta [50] or by Afuah, Tucci [53], who wrote that a business model is a “system that is made up of components, linkages between the components, and dynamics”.
Cumulatively, the business model is understood in this paper as the sum of the components value proposition, value capturing dimension, customer segment, and revenue mechanism, as well as their interactions with each other.
2.2. Business Model Innovations
Business model innovations are decisive for the absolute success of a company, just as they are for the competitive position [54,55,56]. These are superior in the sustainability of the achieved competitive advantage to process innovations, as well as product innovations, which is based on the fact that the imitation of a whole system of activities is significantly more complex to copy than it is to imitate individual products or processes [10]. The construct of business model innovation does not have a clear monochrome line of descent and, thus, definition. In order to enable an understanding of the term, it is put into relation to the respective current paradigms, referring to the work of Ghaziani, Ventresca [40], which illustrated the meaning of the term business model innovation in the scientific discourse between 1975 and 2000 (Table 2).
Table 2.
Core dimensions of business model innovation based on Ghaziani, Ventresca [40], Lambert, Davidson [57] and Amit, Zott [45].
Even under this paradigm, there is no uniformly accepted definition of the term [2,58]. In order to obtain a working definition, a construction is made based on the existing understanding of the business model and the available definitions. For this purpose, relevant definitions of the construct business model innovation are considered first (Table 3).
Table 3.
Definitions of the construct business model innovation.
Focusing on the recombination school as a formative dimension of understanding, the following working definition emerges. The basic idea here is that two or more components of the business model must be affected in order to be called a business model innovation. Thus, if only one component of the business model is changed and the others remain unchanged, one can assume that it is a process or product innovation [65,66]. If, for example, only the benefit promise is innovated, but not the basic value creation logic, a product or service innovation exists [2].
A business model innovation is, thus, the deliberate innovation of two or more components of the business model, whereby these are primarily the value proposition, the value creation activities, the customer segment, and the revenue mechanism, but may also be any other business model component as a secondary consideration.
2.3. Sustainable Business Model Innovation
Sustainable business model innovation links the field of business model innovation with sustainability through the implementation of sustainable dimensions and concepts in the design and application of business models [67]. This merger is increasingly seen as the basis for competitive advantage [68]. The effectiveness of business model innovations is, thus, confirmed in the field of sustainability. However, the positive effects are not limited to the executing company itself, but also affect the surrounding environment, including global benefits. For example, a business model that puts sustainable consumption at the centre can contribute to combating climate change or improve the living conditions of local communities [69]. The intended social or natural outcome thus distinguishes the post-sustainable business model innovation from the traditional business model innovation. To shed more light on this and to create a working definition, several definitions are considered below, based on Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova, Evans [20] (Table 4).
Table 4.
Definition of the construct sustainable business model innovation.
Building on the existing understanding of business model innovation, the following working definition thus emerges.
A sustainable business model innovation is the redesign of an existing business model, with the aim of achieving a sustainable output besides or as a substitute of a commercial intention. For this, at least two dimensions of the business model are subjected to innovation.
2.4. Business Model Patterns and Sustainable Business Model Patterns
The concept of business model patterns appears under different names, such as business model configurations [75] or business model archetypes [71].
The recombination of existing business models or their simple adaptation account for 90 percent of all business model innovations [76]. Business models are mostly independent of industries and, therefore, enable knowledge transfer and learning from best practices [77].
An example of this is the razor–razorblade pattern, which was developed by King Camp Gillette for razors during the First World War, but is now used in a wide range of industries, such as printers or vacuum cleaners. Business model patterns have a double nature, as they are descriptive constructs, which have a reality-describing effect through the representation of existing business models, and performative constructs, since business model innovations can arise through these (application in the company) [2]. A pattern is, therefore, the embodiment of a problem solution, which has been proven in practice [78] (Table 5).
Table 5.
Definitions of the construct business model pattern.
Cumulated, a pattern in this paper is understood to be a fixed design of a business model, which is at the same time kept abstract and can be used to generate business model innovations. This is an explicit use of the recombination school. Sustainable business model patterns are based on the definition of sustainable business model innovation, patterns that aim to increase the sustainability of the relevant sub-framework.
According to Nemeth [82] and Weltgen [83], the following business model characteristics are central to the impact of business model patterns (Table 6).
Table 6.
Special characteristics of a business model.
The presentation of business model patterns is commonly done in the form of databases. Databases exist as both sector-specific and general. In the context of this publication, this can be illustrated using databases in the context of sustainability patterns. Relevant representatives are Curtis [87] (sharing economy) and Zufall, Norris, Schaltegger, Revellio, Hansen [33] (smartphone), which each have lists with a clear focus on one sector. On the other hand, there are also lists without a sector reference, such as Clinton, Whisnant [32] or even databases like Remane, Hanelt, Tesch, Kolbe [88], which see sustainability only as a field of a listing without preceding restrictions. Lüdeke-Freund, Carroux, Joyce, Massa, Breuer [89] represents the largest listing of models in the context of sustainability, and these were compiled within the context of a literature review and, therefore, are not subject to the database.
3. Materials and Methods
This requires a meta-perspective, which is achieved through three steps. The first step is to collect all available business model samples based on a literature review. The second step is to create a taxonomy. The last step is to assign the patterns to outcome dimensions and exclude duplicates and irrelevant patterns. Results can be seen in (Table 7).
Table 7.
Research design overview.
3.1. Literature Review on the Topic of Sustainable Business Model Patterns
The review was based on the recommendations of Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, Jackson [90]. The databases EconBiz, Business Source Complete, ABI INFORM Complete, and Google Scholar form the basis of the data. In these, only English-language articles from scientific publications were searched for, and a further subdivision according to quality characteristics, such as the source-normalised impact per paper, CiteScore, SCImago journal rank (SJR), or h-index, was not carried out in order to also include practical results.
The second step was the selection of keywords. Central to this was the idea that the wording could differ between different authors, which has already become apparent in the context of the definition of the core structures. The search terms were selected here based on a similarity approach. This means that relevant sources were identified in an iterative process based on the initial search terms: sustainability and business model innovation. The keywords used in these sources were then used for further searches based on a relevance assessment. The focus was on human judgement as the gold standard in the evaluation of unsupervised methods [91]. The final search terms were composed of all possible combinations of verbalisations of the underlying constructs: business model, pattern, and sustainability (Table 8).
Table 8.
Search terms.
The search terms used for “article title, abstract, keywords and if possible for the research body” were, on the one hand, the field of business model patterns and, on the other hand, the sector of sustainability, which together formed the search entries.
The next step was the discovery of further relevant publications through source analysis of the data material that was indexed so far. However, no further hits resulted from this, so it can be assumed that the patterns presented here largely reflect the current state of research.
All searches were conducted between 6 January 2022 and 10 October 2022, and 17 relevant publications were found. In total, 125 patterns could be extracted, and a focus on case studies emerged, which was due to the underlying research literature.
3.2. Creation of a Taxonaomy
The goal of the second phase was the creation of a taxonomy for the classification of patterns and, consequently, integrating them in the database. Taxonomies enable the user to classify objects according to similarities and differences, so that the user can describe, understand, and analyse the patterns easier [94]. In addition, taxonomies can also be used as a foundation for sense-making [95] and to simulate innovation [96]. The focus here is on pattern classification, so that all design decisions are aligned with this paradigm.
The taxonomy development process according to Möller, Stachon, Azkan, Schoormann, Otto [97] was used, as it relates specifically to the subject of business model innovation. This makes it more suitable than comparable approaches that have a broad focus. In addition, the form of presentation as a morphological analysis allows easy application to different application scenarios and, thus, flexibility with regard to the object of research. The form of presentation here is a simple table, with forms as described by Khan [98] and Khan [99] or AlMobark [100].
- Object of Analysis: All company types are valid.
- Data Collection: Systematic Literature Review
- Data Sampling: Selective/Comprehensive
- Development: The approach of Nickerson, Varshney, Muntermann [94] was used as it enables deep insights into the topic and also provides a practical results.
- Industry Scope: Generic
- Technology Scope: Generic but focus on sustainability
- Depth of Analysis: Wide
- Representation: Exclusivity
- Visualisation: Table
- Further Application: (Arche-)Types
- Clustering Tool: Outcome proximity
In order to build the taxonomy dimensions, an adapted version of the approach according to Nickerson, Varshney, Muntermann [94] was used, as it is the most used scheme in this regard (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Process of taxonomy dimension determination based on Nickerson, Varshney, Muntermann [94].
The first step is about determining meta characteristics. The choice is based on the purpose of the taxonomy [94]. Thus, after designing a business model, it is necessary to measure the performance in regard to sustainability, but above all, to understand the central elements that are responsible [101]. A pattern must, therefore, provide information about the possible outcome in terms of sustainability and the key elements addressed in the business model.
In the second step, we defined ending conditions. Here, the conditions according to Nickerson, Varshney, Muntermann [94] must be considered first, which are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive characteristics of the taxonomy dimensions and the fact that neither new dimensions or characteristics were added, merged, or split in the last iteration.
The empirical-to-conceptual approach was taken in the first iteration, with 125 patterns considered enough to meet the demands for an empirical approach, so that an initial structure could be created [94]. In the first step, the identification of a new subset of objectives will be combined with the identification of common characteristics. The outcome is replaced by the business model canvas according to Osterwalder, Pigneur, Clark [36]. This approach was chosen because potential outcomes could not match the canvas, as it is recognised in science and the practice framework [48] and offers applicability in a wide range of scenarios. El Sawy, Pereira [102] shows 26 business model approaches, with the triangle of Gassmann, Frankenberger, Csik [76], the framework of Abdelkafi, Makhotin, Posselt [26], and the STOF model [103] as the most common examples. These would have been alternatives, but are either not recognised enough or are too shallow in depth to make a reasoned decision when the patterns are substantially similar. An example of the latter is the model of Gassmann, Frankenberger, Csik [76], which has significantly fewer fields compared to the canvas. In order to identify common characteristics of the patterns, they were coded in relation to the business model canvas dimensions. Grouping the dimensions into the taxonomy was not totally bypassed, as the dimensions of the business model canvas were used. The results of the analysis were formulated to provide a basis for acting as an axis in the diagram.
The conceptual-to-empirical approach was used in the second approach in order to create outcome dimensions. The first step was the exclusion of duplicates and patterns with no relevance for sustainability, as well as obviously unsuitable hits, which were characterised by the fact that the topic of the patterns was not dealt with or no new patterns were developed. The basis for this is the resource-based view, as the patterns are used to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage based on an innovation of the business model. Therefore, the subsets of objectives were established. The identification of common characteristics was performed once again, and the focus was on a qualitative approach to the subject matter, as this was easy to access due to the uniform structure of the patterns. The search for outcome dimensions was started with the inclusion of the existing categories of Lüdeke-Freund, Froese, Schaltegger [104]. These dimensions were further developed, and the patterns that could not be assigned were again searched for commonalities. The procedure here is based on the first iteration, in which deviations in the individual patterns in the existing clusters were coded regarding the results to be expected in the company after implementation.
The new dimensions here are auxiliary, new target group, and information. In order to determine if the clusters are finished, i.e., distinguishable from each other, semi-structured interviews with four people out of the target group of professionals with relevant work experience employed in relevant positions were conducted. The process of taxonomy building ended with meeting the ending criteria. Results of the process can be seen in (Table 9).
Table 9.
Taxonomy Y axis dimensions.
The result of this is a taxonomy with two axes. On the X-axis, the dimensions of the business model canvas are plotted according to Osterwalder, Pigneur, Clark [36], and these visualise the focal points of the business model. These are not described individually here, but reference is made to the underlying work. The Y-axis, on the other hand, shows the outcome dimensions.
After the taxonomy was created, all patterns were transferred into it. In addition, the following dimensions were added: Name of the pattern, Description, and Case study company. The description was used to summarise the content of the individual pattern in the context of one sentence, so that it is clear what the core understanding of the pattern is. The use of the same dataset for method and results enhances the results by increasing the coherence between patterns and the framework. Central to this is the idea of circularity, as set out in grounded theory, as an iterative development for the holistic development of the field of events.
3.3. Creation of the Database through Classification of the Patterns
The starting point is again semi-standardised interviews with the four experts, in which they give subjective input as to whether the patterns overlap. For those patterns that have a possibility of proximity, we used a qualitative approach, with the focus on description and case study companies.
The second step is using a taxonomy to finally cluster all the patterns in order to generate a usable database. The following matrix defines which dimensions of the business model are addressed by which cluster and, thus, together with the definitions of the outcome dimensions (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Focus points of the business model per outcome cluster.
Here, black stars represent the focus of a single business model patterns; however, this does not mean that the other dimensions are not addressed, but rather that a focus is defined for the purpose of demarcation.
4. Results
In total, 17 relevant publications were found, from which 125 usable samples could be extracted to include in the merger process (Table 10). These are, on the one hand, broad lists without a direct reference to the industry. On the other hand, with an almost balanced ratio of publications, there are sector-specific databases. The largest listing of 45 entries by Boons, Lüdeke-Freund [18] was not included here, as this is a literature review. Table A1 on the appendix shows the relevant sources in detail. Not all authors provided information on the survey method, but it can be said that case studies are the most important source of patterns, followed by theoretical considerations that result from the existing research literature.
Table 10.
Original sources of sustainable business model patterns.
From these publications, it was possible to collect patterns of 92 sustainable business models, with the results can be seen in Table 11. Therefore, the total number of patterns described in a publication could be more than doubled. This shows the rapid development of the field of sustainability. One can see that the fields of application of the patterns are widely spread, so that patterns are directly available for a large number of fields of application.
Table 11.
Sustainable business model patterns.
There are two basic types of application for business model patterns. Firstly, they can be used unchanged as a basis for business model innovations. Secondly, they can be adapted, for which Abdelkafi, Makhotin, Posselt [26] is an example in the scientific field. By adapting business model patterns for the application purpose of electromobility, the possibility of a transfer becomes apparent. Tools to be used in practical work in the company are, for example, the “pattern combination matrix” according to Echterfeld, Amshoff, Gausemeier [81], or by applying an adapted form of “morphological analysis” as described by Seidenstricker, Linder [115] or Lüdeke-Freund, Gold, Bocken [105]. Further development of the patterns can take place, for example, through creativity techniques, such as “association” or “confrontation” [81] or the “6-3-5 method” [116]. In general, a variety of creativity techniques offer starting points for pattern innovation.
The starting point in any case is a collection of patterns, as the presented research demonstrates.
5. Discussion & Limitations
The taxonomy presented here is not the first attempt to organise the field of sustainable business model innovations. The field was covered by both initial surveys (e.g., [32]) and literature reviews (e.g., [89]).
First of all, it must be stated whether the aim of the work is to collect a holistic collection of relevant business model patterns for sustainability to be realised. Compared to Boons, Lüdeke-Freund [18], as the most extensive collection of patterns to date, the number of patterns has more than doubled. By including both sector-related publications and those with a broad focus, it was also possible to take a holistic view. Against this background, it can be assumed that the present publication is the most comprehensive collection of samples to date.
This is also supported by the fact that the patterns reflect the three-pillar model of sustainable development. Thus, ecological patterns and outcomes are pursued, as well as economic and social ones. Thus, the representation of the underlying construct is given, whereby it should be critically noted that there is a focus on the topic of ecology. However, this corresponds to the public discussion and the requirements induced by external legislation, such as the circular economy or waste avoidance.
In the following, it must also be clarified whether the underlying goal of using the collection to realise business model innovations in order to achieve more sustainability can be achieved. The basic research direction is scientifically validated, as the cited publications on the topic of sustainable business model innovation show the fundamental fit of the idea. Csik [2] showed, for example, that the use of business model patterns can increase creativity in the business model innovation process so that it delivers better results. In the case of sustainable business model innovation, Linder, Williander [117] proposed additional problem areas, such as the likelihood and impact of product obsolescence. The communicative function of patterns can counteract this by increasing the level of understanding of all involved. However, a well-founded evaluation and quantification of the positive influence is still pending. The determination of the positive correlation is subject to many problem areas, starting with the design of a functioning and effective business model [118]. Challenges can still arise because patterns, as publicly available information, do not create a comparative competitive advantage, as theoretically everyone has access to them. In this regard, the fact that 90 percent of all business model innovations are the recombination of already existing patterns is relevant [76]. Therefore, the pattern itself is not the relevant outcome, but the database itself is the core element, as it provides different patterns in a structured way that yields combinations, for example, through tools such as the pattern combination matrix” according to Echterfeld, Amshoff, Gausemeier [81], or by applying an adapted form of “morphological analysis”, as described by Seidenstricker, Linder [115] or Lüdeke-Freund, Gold, Bocken [105]. In addition, the underlying publications of the samples show that a strong practical orientation prevails. It can, therefore, be assumed that they are close to application. Thus, the present publication can stimulate sustainable business model innovations; nonetheless, how well this works is still the subject of future research.
Finally, the aim of the survey was to strike a balance between sound methodology and easy accessibility for practitioners in the companies. The dedicated focus on the needs of the target group is reflected in the differentiation of the application fields of the pattern. The output dimension of the taxonomy is, with 14 dimensions, much more fine-grained than comparable publications, such as Lüdeke-Freund, Gold, Bocken [105]. Yet, they use a more differentiated involvement of external parties. The decision to entrust only one person is made against the background of the greater consistency of the results, but at the same time, this also represents a limitation. The evaluation shows that a level of target group orientation comparable to other publications has been achieved.
Moreover, the used taxonomy is a model, and as such, it represents reality in a condensed way. The business model itself is also a simplified representation of the entrepreneurial activity. Cumulatively, therefore, success factors may have been distorted or forgotten during the iterative simplification, either because they were not considered relevant or because their relevance only emerges from the interaction with the other factors. This cannot be ruled out, but in the context of the application of the designs, a combination of these is sought, so that this is of secondary importance.
Further, the contributions to the patterns are not evenly distributed, but a few authors like Clinton, Whisnant [32], with 20 patterns, have a disproportionate share. This is mitigated by the fact that the patterns are merged, and the accumulations are broadly based collections without a specific sectoral reference.
One factor that has a limiting effect is that the existing literature is evaluated. Relevant patterns can, therefore, not be part of the enumeration, as these have not yet been described scientifically, although they already exist in practice. In addition, patterns may be missing because publications like Xia-Bauer, Vondung, Thomas, Moser [119], based on the focus on patterns in the context of companies, were not included. Further, only formulated patterns were transposed in order to enable a sound comparison, which excludes publications such as Reuter [120]. Cumulatively, this is a minor problem due to the small number of excluded patterns, but it can be seen as the first point of future research fields. New patterns are continuously emerging due to the pressure on companies to adapt [16]. Together with the general fact that business model patterns are in danger of disregarding important and new patterns [121], there is a need to repeat the survey in the future.
Finally, the coding was only performed by one person, so bias may have resulted. The orientation towards existing categories should counteract this, but that can only partially compensate for the disadvantage.
6. Direction for Future Studies & Implications
Further research is needed on how to increase the effectiveness of pattern-based innovation. Here, for example, the process-oriented approach according to Gausemeier et al. (2017) [25], which is strongly oriented towards the manufacturing industry, could be a starting point.
In addition, there are publications that show that circular business models gain greater acceptance through digital technologies [122]. Whether this effect can also be observed in the context of sustainable pattern-based business model innovations needs to be explored. If the focus is placed more on the sustainability aspect, the publication of Reim, Sjödin, Parida [123] with the “Circular business model decision tree” is a relevant starting point.
This also shows the scientific contribution, which, in addition to new research directions, consists in the presentation of all known patterns, which enables other researchers to easily find out the current state of research. Thus, both the application-related research environment, such as Abdelkafi, Makhotin, Posselt [26], benefit, as well as basic research. More generally, a contribution is made to the establishment of sustainable business models in the context of scientific discourse. Practical contributions include outlining the scope of possible sustainable business models and, therefore, acting like a stimulus-based business model innovation technique, as Csik [2] showed that evaluating existing business models can increase creativity in the business model innovation process so that it delivers better results. Finally, by referring to relevant role models and, thus, activating the analyse and communication function of the business model, this publication enables innovations to be implemented more quickly and more likely.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Sources of the business model patterns.
Table A1.
Sources of the business model patterns.
| Source | Source | Name of the Publication |
|---|---|---|
| [88] | International Journal of Innovation Management | The Business Model Pattern Database—A Tool For Systematic Business Model Innovation |
| [105] | Journal of Industrial Ecology | A Review and Typology of Circular Economy Business Model Patterns |
| [106] | OECD Publishing | Why New Business Models Matter for Green Growth |
| [107] | Nordic Innovation | Green Business Model Innovation |
| [32] | SustainAbility Inc | 20 Business Model Innovations for Sustainability |
| [108] | Journal of Cleaner Production | Analysis of the growth of the e-learning industry through sustainable business model archetypes: A case study |
| [26] | International Journal of Innovation Management | Business model innovations for electric mobility what can be learned from existing business |
| [31] | Journal of Cleaner Production | Sustainable business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study |
| [33] | Journal of Cleaner Production | Business model patterns of sustainability pioneers—Analyzing cases across the smartphone life cycle |
| [87] | Journal of Cleaner Production | Business model patterns in the sharing economy |
| [109] | Nordic Council of Ministers | Moving towards a circular economy |
| [110] | Entrepreneurship Research Journal | Monetizing Social Value Creation–A Business Model Approach |
| [111] | International Finance Corporation | Accelerating Inclusive Business Opportunities: Business Models that Make a Difference |
| [20] | Journal of Cleaner Production | Sustainable business model innovation: A review |
| [112] | Sustainable Production and Consumption | Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability |
| [113] | Sustainability | Characterisation and Environmental Value Proposition of Reuse Models for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: Reusable Packaging and Products |
| [114] | IS4CE 2020 Conference of the International Society for the Circular Economy | The Evolution of Reuse and Recycling Behaviours |
References
- Rashid, A.; Asif, F.M.; Krajnik, P.; Nicolescu, C.M. Resource Conservative Manufacturing: An essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csik, M. Muster und das Generieren von Ideen für Geschäftsmodellinnovationen. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bouchikhi, H.; Kimberly, J. Escaping the Identity Trap. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2003, 44, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cavalcante, S.; Kesting, P.; Ulhøi, J. Business model dynamics and innovation: (Re)establishing the missing linkages. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1327–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, K.; Spring, M. The sites and practices of business models. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011, 40, 1032–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, L.L.; Rindova, V.P.; Greenbaum, B.E. Unlocking the Hidden Value of Concepts: A Cognitive Approach to Business Model Innovation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2015, 9, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fichman, R.; Dos Santos, B.; Zheng, Z. Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2014, 38, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelton, R. Integrating Product and Service Innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 2009, 52, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Voss, C.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Z. Modes of service innovation: A typology. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 1358–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raphael, A.; Zott, C. Creating Value Through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.W.; Lafley, A.G. Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Matzler, K.; Bailom, F.; Friedrich von den Eichen, S. Geschäftsmodellinnovationen. In Unternehmensführung: State of the Art und Entwicklungsperspektiven; [die Herausgeberinnen nehmen nun den 65. Geburtstag von Richard Hammer zum Anlass, mit dieser Festschrift ihre Wertschätzung gegenüber dem Jubilar zum Ausdruck zu bringen]; De Gruyter Oldenbourg: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy Leadersh. 2007, 35, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestre, W.J.; Fonseca, A.; Morioka, S.N. Strategic sustainability integration: Merging management tools to support business model decisions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2052–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Medeiros, J.F.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, H.; Jørgensen, S.; Pedersen, L.J.T.; Skard, S. Experimenting with sustainable business models in fast moving consumer goods. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 270, 122302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable Business Models: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Designing Business Models and Similar Strategic Objects: The Contribution of IS. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, S.; Spieth, P. Business Model Innovation: Torwards an integrated future reseach agenda. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1340001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veit, D.; Clemons, E.; Benlian, A.; Buxmann, P.; Hess, T.; Kundisch, D.; Spann, M. Business Models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sosna, M.; Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R.N.; Velamuri, S.R. Business Model Innovation through Trial-and-Error Learning. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 383–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gausemeier, J.; Wieseke, J.; Echterhoff, B.; Koldewey, C.; Mittag, T.; Schneider, M.; Isenberg, L. Mit Industrie 4.0 zum Unternehmenserfolg: Integrative Planung von Geschäftsmodellen und Wertschöpfungssystemen; Heinz Nixdorf Institut, Universität Paderborn: Paderborn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Abdelkafi, N.; Makhotin, S.; Posselt, T. Business model innovations for electric mobility: What can be learned from existing business. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1340003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baden-Fuller, C.; Morgan, M.S. Business Models as Models. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doganova, L.; Eyquem-Renault, M. What do business models do? Res. Policy 2009, 38, 1559–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weking, J.; Hein, A.; Böhm, M.; Krcmar, H. A hierarchical taxonomy of business model patterns. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 447–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comin, L.C.; Aguiar, C.C.; Sehnem, S.; Yusliza, M.-Y.; Cazella, C.F.; Julkovski, D.J. Sustainable business models: A literature review. Benchmarking Int. J. 2020, 27, 2028–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritala, P.; Huotari, P.; Bocken, N.; Albareda, L.; Puumalainen, K. Sustainable business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clinton, L.; Whisnant, R. Model Behavior: 20 Business Model Innovations for Sustainability; Sustain Ability Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zufall, J.; Norris, S.; Schaltegger, S.; Revellio, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business model patterns of sustainability pioneers—Analyzing cases across the smartphone life cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labes, S.; Hahn, C.; Erek, K.; Zarnekow, R. Geschäftsmodelle im Cloud Computing. In Digitalisierung und Innovation; Keuper, F., Hamidian, K., Verwaayen, E., Kalinowski, T., Kraijo, C., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013; pp. 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Clark, T. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markides, C.C. Game-Changing Strategies: How to Create New Market Space in Established Industries by Breaking the Rules, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008. Available online: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0827/2008009622-d.html (accessed on 25 December 2022).
- Bellman, R.; Clark, C.E.; Malcolm, D.G.; Craft, C.J.; Ricciardi, F.M. On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game. Oper. Res. 1957, 5, 469–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaziani, A.; Ventresca, M.J. Keywords and Cultural Change: Frame Analysis of Business Model Public Talk, 1975–2000. Sociol. Forum 2005, 20, 523–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DaSilva, C.M.; Trkman, P. Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gassmann, O.; Frankenberger, K.; Sauer, R. Exploring the Field of Business Model Innovation: New Theoretical Perspectives; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmers, P. Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electron. Mark. 1998, 8, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raphael, A.; Zott, C. Value creation in E-business. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, D.W.; Zhao, Q. Internet Marketing, Business Models, and Public Policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2000, 19, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zott, C. Amit Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massa, L.; Tucci, C.L.; Afuah, A. A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 73–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Change 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magretta, J. Why Business Models Matter. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Johnson, M.; Christensen, C.; Kagermann, H. Reinventing Your Business Model. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, M.; Schindehutte, M.; Allen, J. The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afuah, A.; Tucci, C.L. Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text and Cases; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hamel, G. Leading the Revolution; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, W.C.; Mauborgne, R. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant, expanded ed.; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Matthyssens, P.; Vandenbempt, K.; Berghman, L. Value innovation in business markets: Breaking the industry recipe. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2006, 35, 751–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, S.C.; Davidson, R.A. Applications of the business model in studies of enterprise success, innovation and classification: An analysis of empirical research from 1996 to 2010. Eur. Manag. J. 2013, 31, 668–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecocq, X.; Demil, B.; Ventura, J. Business Models as a Research Program in Strategic Management: An Appraisal based on Lakatos. M@N@Gement 2010, 13, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markides, C. Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2006, 23, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comes, S.; Berniker, L. Business Model Innovation. In From Strategy to Execution: Turning Accelerated Global Change Into Opportunity; Pantaleo, D.C., Pal, N., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amit, R.H.; Zott, C. Business Model Innovation: Creating Value in Times of Change. SSRN Electron. J. 2010, 23, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yunus, M.; Moingeon, B.; Lehmann-Ortega, L. Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 308–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhold, S. Business Model Innovation How Incumbent Organizations Adopt Dual Business Models. Ph. D. Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzeland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Henderson, R.M.; Clark, K.B. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zollenkop, M. Geschäftsmodellinnovation: Initiierung Eines Systematischen Innovationsmanagements für Geschäftsmodelle auf Basis Lebenszyklusorientierter Frühaufklärung. Zugl.: Bamberg, Univ., Diss., 2006 (1. Aufl.). Gabler Edition Wissenschaft Schriften zum Europäischen Management. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. Available online: http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=752400 (accessed on 20 December 2022). [CrossRef]
- Shakeel, J.; Mardani, A.; Chofreh, A.G.; Goni, F.A.; Klemeš, J.J. Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Shared Value: Die Brücke von Corporate Social Responsibility zu Corporate Strategy. In Corporate Social Responsibility; Schneider, A., Schmidpeter, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M. Sharing economy: A comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; Wijsman, K. Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process—A workshop based on a value mapping process. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1218–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roome, N.; Louche, C. Journeying toward Business Models for Sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 11–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taran, Y.; Nielsen, C.; Montemari, M.; Thomsen, P.; Paolone, F. Business model configurations: A five-V framework to map out potential innovation routes. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 19, 492–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gassmann, O.; Frankenberger, K.; Csik, M. Geschäftsmodelle Entwickeln: 55 innovative Konzepte mit dem St. Galler Business Model Generator 2., überarbeite und erweiterte Auflage; Hanser: München, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Girotra, K.; Netessine, S. OM Forum—Business Model Innovation for Sustainability. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2013, 15, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borchers, J.O. A pattern approach to interaction design. AI Soc. 2001, 15, 359–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weill, P.; Vitale, M. Place to Space: Migration to Ebusiness Models; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Amshoff, B.; Dülme, C.; Echterfeld, J.; Gausemeier, J. Business model patterns for disruptive technologies. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2015, 19, 1540002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echterfeld, J.; Amshoff, B.; Gausemeier, J. How to use Business Model Pattern for exploiting disruptive Technologies. In Technology, Innovation and Management for Sustainable Growth, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT 2015), Cape Town, South Africa, 8–11 June 2015; Pretorius, L., Thopil, G.A., Eds.; Curran Associates Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 2294–2313. [Google Scholar]
- Nemeth, A. Geschäftsmodellinnovation: Theorie und Praxis der Erfolgreichen Realisierung von Strategischen Innovationen in Großunternehmen. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Weltgen, M. Systematische und Institutionalisierte Geschäftsmodellinnovation: Eine Explorative Studie in deutschen Konzernen. Schriften zur Unternehmensentwicklung; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polos, L.; Hannan, M.; Carroll, G. Foundations of a Theory of Social Forms. Ind. Corp. Change 2002, 11, 85–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; Bock, A.J. The Business Model in Practice and its Implications for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 83–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGrath, R.G. Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, S.K. Business model patterns in the sharing economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1650–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Remane, G.; Hanelt, A.; Tesch, J.; Kolbe, L. The Business Model Pattern Database: A Tool For Systematic Business Model Innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 1750004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Carroux, S.; Joyce, A.; Massa, L.; Breuer, H. The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 15, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Easterby-Smith, M.; Thorpe, R.; Jackson, P.R. Management and Business Research, 5th ed.; Sage Publ.: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Dahdul, W.; Manda, P.; Cui, H.; Balhoff, J.P.; Dececchi, T.A.; Ibrahim, N.; Lapp, H.; Vision, T.; Mabee, P.M. Annotation of phenotypes using ontologies: A gold standard for the training and evaluation of natural language processing systems. Database J. Biol. Databases Curation 2018, 2018, bay110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gächter, S.; Johnson, E.J.; Herrmann, A. Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Theory Decis. 2022, 92, 599–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linder, J.; Cantrell, S. Changing Business Models: Surveying the Landscape; Accenture Institute for Strategic Change: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Nickerson, R.C.; Varshney, U.; Muntermann, J. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 336–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregor, S.; Hevner, A.R. Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, S. The Importance of Classification to Business Model Research. J. Bus. Model. 2015, 3, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möller, F.; Stachon, M.; Azkan, C.; Schoormann, T.; Otto, B. Designing business model taxonomies—Synthesis and guidance from information systems research. Electron. Mark. 2021, 33, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S. Business Intelligence Aspect for Emotions and Sentiments Analysis. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Information and Communication Technologies (ICEEICT), Tamil Nadu, India, 5–7 April 2023; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S. Data Visualization to Explore the Countries Dataset for Pattern Creation. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2021, 17, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlMobark, B.A.A. A Quantitative Approach for Data Visualization in Human Resource Management. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 2023, 22, 133–139. [Google Scholar]
- Broccardo, L.; Zicari, A. Sustainability as a driver for value creation: A business model analysis of small and medium entreprises in the Italian wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Sawy, O.A.; Pereira, F. Business Modelling in the Dynamic Digital Space; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuver, M.; de Bouwman, H.; Haaker, T. Business model roadmapping: A practical approach to come from an existing to a desired business model. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1340006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Froese, T.; Schaltegger, S. The role of business models for sustainable consumption: A pattern approach. In A Research Agenda for Sustainable Consumption Governance; Mont, O., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Gold, S.; Bocken, N.M.P. A Review and Typology of Circular Economy Business Model Patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 36–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltramello, A.; Haie-Fayle, L.; Pilat, D. Why New Business Models Matter for Green Growth; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriksen, K.; Bjerre, M.; Øster, J.; Bisgaard, T. Green Business Model Innovation; Nordic Innovation: Oslo, Norway, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Calvo, N.; Villarreal, Ó. Analysis of the growth of the e-learning industry through sustainable business model archetypes: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiørboe, N.; Sramkova, H.; Krarup, M. Moving towards a Circular Economy; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohrmann, S.; Raith, M.; Siebold, N. Monetizing Social Value Creation—A Business Model Approach. Entrep. Res. J. 2015, 5, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, B.; Ishikawa, E.; Geaneotes, A.; Baptista, P.; Masuoka, T. Accelerating Inclusive Business Opportunities: Business Models That Make a Difference; International Finance Corporation: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bocken, N.M.; Harsch, A.; Weissbrod, I. Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 799–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muranko, Ż.; Tassell, C.; van der Zeeuw Laan, A.; Aurisicchio, M. Characterisation and Environmental Value Proposition of Reuse Models for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: Reusable Packaging and Products. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tassell, C.; Aurisicchio, M. The Evolution of Reuse and Recycling Behaviours: An Integrative Review with Application to the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Industry. In Proceedings of the Conference of the International Society for the Circular Economy, online, 17 October 2022; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/43323870/The_Evolution_of_Reuse_and_Recycling_Behaviours_An_Integrative_Review_with_Application_to_the_Fast_Moving_Consumer_Goods_Industry (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Seidenstricker, S.; Linder, C. A morphological analysis-based creativity approach to identify and develop ideas for BMI: A case study of a high-tech manufacturing company. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, T.; Tilly, R.; Bodenbenner, P.; Seltitz, A.; Schoder, D. (Eds.) Geschäftsmodellinnovation in der Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung zu Business Model Canvas und Co. Wirtsch. Proc. 2015, 2015, 87. [Google Scholar]
- Linder, M.; Williander, M. Circular Business Model Innovation: Inherent Uncertainties. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slávik, Š.; Bednár, R.; Mišúnová Hudáková, I. The Structure of the Start-Up Business Model—Qualitative Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia-Bauer, C.; Vondung, F.; Thomas, S.; Moser, R. Business Model Innovations for Renewable Energy Prosumer Development in Germany. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuter, E. Hybrid business models in the sharing economy: The role of business model design for managing the environmental paradox. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 603–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amshoff, B. Systematik zur Musterbasierten Entwicklung Technologie-Induzierter Geschäftsmodelle. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Charnley, F.; Knecht, F.; Muenkel, H.; Pletosu, D.; Rickard, V.; Sambonet, C.; Schneider, M.; Zhang, C. Can Digital Technologies Increase Consumer Acceptance of Circular Business Models? The Case of Second Hand Fashion. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reim, W.; Sjödin, D.; Parida, V. Circular business model implementation: A capability development case study from the manufacturing industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2745–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

