Textbook Managing Sustainable Business Gilbert G Lenssen Ebook All Chapter PDF
Textbook Managing Sustainable Business Gilbert G Lenssen Ebook All Chapter PDF
Textbook Managing Sustainable Business Gilbert G Lenssen Ebook All Chapter PDF
G. Lenssen
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-sustainable-business-gilbert-g-lenssen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
https://textbookfull.com/product/challenges-in-managing-
sustainable-business-reporting-taxation-ethics-and-governance-
susanne-arvidsson/
https://textbookfull.com/product/business-and-the-sustainable-
development-goals-measuring-and-managing-corporate-impacts-norma-
schonherr/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-role-of-corporate-
sustainability-in-asian-development-a-case-study-handbook-in-the-
automotive-and-ict-industries-1st-edition-gilbert-lenssen/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-socio-economic-foundations-
of-sustainable-business-managing-in-the-fourth-industrial-
revolution-richard-pettinger/
Managing As Mission Nonprofit Managing for Sustainable
Change 1st Edition Lori Heninger
https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-as-mission-nonprofit-
managing-for-sustainable-change-1st-edition-lori-heninger/
https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-our-natural-
resources-6th-edition-william-g-camp/
https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-business-models-
lars-moratis/
https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-business-12th-
edition-william-g-nickels/
https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-international-business-
in-china-2nd-edition-xiaowen-tian/
Gilbert G. Lenssen · N. Craig Smith
Editors
Managing
Sustainable
Business
An Executive Education Case and
Textbook
Managing Sustainable Business
Gilbert G. Lenssen • N. Craig Smith
Editors
Managing Sustainable
Business
An Executive Education Case
and Textbook
A book of 32 Texts and Case Studies
from across a wide range of business sectors around
a managerial framework for Managing Sustainable
Business
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3311 GX Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Foreword by Doug Baillie
This book provides an excellent framework for managers to pursue sustainable busi-
ness in a strategic way. At the same time, it is a learning model, starting with the
foundations of risk management and stakeholder management and moving on to the
more complex challenges of strategic differentiation and business model innova-
tion. The most challenging part however is the organizational change management
and talent development which needs to follow or go hand in hand with the strategic
processes.
The wealth of case studies and supporting texts is derived from the legacy of
ABIS – The Academy of Business in Society where business schools and compa-
nies are working together to enhance the knowledge base for sustainable business.
The book follows the rationale of the business manager in a very practical manner,
and I hope it will be widely used in executive education and become a core part of
learning and talent development.
v
Foreword by Rudi Plettinx
vii
Foreword by Daniel Janssen
Before I joined Solvay S.A., I was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, the chair-
man of the Belgian Employers Association and one of the hundred founders of the
Club of Rome in 1968. I was convinced of the necessity of sustainability whether
environmental, social or ethical.
During my stay at the helm of Solvay S.A. (1984–2006), our global company
became even more global and even more conscious of the rising global sustainabil-
ity challenges. As a 150-year-old family-controlled company, we understood very
well what sustainability meant. My management colleagues and I, with the support
of my family shareholders, decided increasingly to take strategic decisions and
operational execution only when we could grow profitably in a sustainable way,
with due respect for environmental, social and ethical issues. With these principles
in mind, we have reorganized some businesses, we have sold businesses where we
could no longer see profitable growth with sustainability, and we have acquired
businesses where we could see growth with sustainable profitability.
This book offers managers a systematic approach for pursuing sustainable profit-
ability by integrating economic, social, environmental and ethical dimensions in
business strategy and decision-making. As a member of the INSEAD Advisory
Council, I have argued for a long time that the future of capitalism is in peril if –
despite its global and remarkable successes – business cannot control and minimize
its failures and excesses (greed, inequality, corruption, climate change, social injus-
tice, etc.). The solution must be a more sustainable market economy. I am convinced
that businesses, when profitable, sustainable and innovative, are a force for good,
for a better world. I think therefore that the business schools curriculum should
address the sustainability challenges in serious ways. I am very happy to see that
this book offers a down-to-earth framework for making this happen. I congratulate
the editors and the authors for their unique contribution to business education.
ix
Contents
xi
xii Contents
Joris-Johann Lenssen
In this chapter, we are presenting an outline of the conceptual framework for this
book. This framework is also a step-by-step model for managers to identify risks
and opportunities for sustainable business and therefore also a managerial frame-
work for decision making, as well as a supervisory framework for the board.
As set out in the introductory chapter, the key to sustainable business is in achiev-
ing the right balance between managing competitiveness and profitability for attrac-
tive returns to shareholders with managing the political, social and ecological
context of the business which in turn can enhance competitiveness and profitability.
Managing the context of the business is focused on both protecting value against
sustainability risks and creating new value from sustainability opportunities. In
managing context, the business is perceived as generating benefits for all stakehold-
ers (including its shareholders) and as a credible and trustworthy player for these
stakeholders.
Sustainable business is achieved by integrating context issues into the business
model and competitive strategy, laying the foundations for long-term profitable
growth. The model we propose is designed in six steps which are the six modules of
the book:
xv
xvi Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
This first level of analysis deals with the accountabilities for inside-out impacts (or
“externalities”) of the company on its ecological, social and governance/political
environment (ESG). Most companies have considerable positive impacts in terms
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xvii
1
Donaldson, T., and Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integra-
tive social contracts theory. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2).
xviii Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
Risks are mostly inherent in the externalities of the business model and the busi-
ness strategy and thus are at the heart of the company’s existence. These exposures
of the business model and business strategy can be life-threatening to any
business.
Risk management is implemented by:
Business models consist of different parts and each part can carry specific risks.
Typically, a business model defines the way the business creates, delivers and cap-
tures value. It consists of different parts (Al-Debei and Avison, 2010):
–– The value proposition, i.e. the value created for customers (price, quality,
service)
–– The market segment and types of customers (sensitivity, political)
–– The structure and span of the value chain from suppliers to customers
–– The revenue-generating processes and systems (pricing, margin setting, exploita-
tion of quasi-monopolistic positions)
–– The position of the business in the value network or the “ecosystem” it forms part
of, i.e. the vertically and horizontally extended value chain and relevant
stakeholders
Consequently business models with different foci have different risks. For exam-
ple, business models based on low cost and price leadership (e.g. Walmart,
McDonald’s and FedEx) are vulnerable in different ways compared to business
models based on product leadership (e.g. Apple, Fidelity Investments, BMW and
Pfizer), where the brand value is more at stake. Also different strategies have spe-
cific risks: Geographical expansion and new market development, for example,
maybe risky, since companies start operating in new territories with unknown com-
plexities in the social contract fabric and the political context, e.g. BP in Columbia,
Google in China, Walmart in Mexico, Shell in Russia and GSK in South Africa.
Manifest risks can be analysed in terms of their type (like environmental,
social, governance/political risks) and the degree which can be evaluated in a
matrix of control and repercussions. The areas of risks are defined by the spans of
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xix
vertical and horizontal integration in the value chains and may be located in the sup-
ply chain, in the distribution chain (including product liabilities), in production
facilities, in joint ventures, in mergers and acquisitions (hence importance of ESG
due diligence) and in geographic and associated cultural risks in new markets.
Negative effects may be a combination of financial losses through costs, fines,
litigation, share price erosion, market share losses, damage to reputation which
increases transaction costs, diminished brand value which depresses margins and
thus profitability, valuable management time spent on managing crises and the
aftermaths instead of growing the business.
Underlying risks may be:
however unintended side effects which indirectly allowed child labour to persist.
Companies like Nike had thousands of suppliers from many countries and found it
impossible to control standards in the supply chain and concentrate on quality rela-
tions with fewer suppliers. Cooperation between the industry sector and the WTO
was required to adapt trade agreements and avoid unintended consequences. Nike
assumed industry leadership to help significantly in making this happen.
Companies like Walmart, McDonald’s and Lidl enjoy low-cost supply conditions
but have low margins in sales and distribution. Apparel brands such as Nike have of
course a much more profitable business model, which is based on low cost in the
supply chain and high margins in the sales and distribution chain. Returns, certainly
without any investment in manufacturing and other assets, can be extraordinary.
However, the rule often holds that considerably higher returns bear significant risks.
Many more companies, such as Apple, source from low-cost countries and sell at
high brand premiums in developed markets. But such business models become
threatened over time from both ends by emerging issues: the cost basis on the sup-
ply end and the brand damage which may erode margins at the distribution and
marketing end.
The emerging and maturing issues of today are without a doubt climate change
(especially since the COP21 Summit in December 2015) and environmental foot-
prints in general, along with related issues such as erosion of water reserves, emis-
sions testing and performance of automobiles. But other issues are also seemingly
maturing, like inequality in general, access to medicines, corporate tax avoidance
and tax competition between countries from which companies benefit, fugitives and
migration and programmed obsolescence of electrical and electronic products.
Executives might be tempted to be dismissive of corporate responsibility in these or
only accept a small part of responsibility, but the bets are out on how long this
defensive attitude can last and when it results in a “too little, too late” blame in the
medium term or even short term.
Simon Zadek proposes an excellent model for use in the executive education
classroom, which links issue maturity to the appropriate organisational response
(see Zadek’s chapter on Organisational Learning). Using the case of Nike in the
1990s, Zadek describes how companies go through an individual learning process
and others can learn from its experience. He states that “Companies don’t become
model citizens overnight. Nike’s metamorphosis from the poster child for irrespon-
sibility to a leader in progressive practices reveals the five stages of organisational
growth”. Nike’s business model of producing high-end consumer products in low-
cost countries and selling in high-price markets is similar to that of many other
companies. But under the pressure of activists, the company was forced to act.
Zadek introduces five discernible stages of how companies handle corporate respon-
sibility, relative to issue maturity. This is illustrated in the figure below and dis-
cussed in detail in the chapter.
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xxiii
Business stakeholders are affected by the business while they also have an effect on
it. The stakeholder view of the corporation allows for a clear view on all those
groups and organisations with which the business is interdependent and which
need to be closely monitored during management processes to provide checks and
balances. The stakeholder view we introduce here is not opposed to a “shareholder
view”. Shareholders, investors at large, are also stakeholders themselves, albeit that
they exert considerable powers via the financial markets and based on corporate law.
But the considerable powers of other stakeholders work in different ways, often
indirect and on different timescales. Moreover, stakeholders may be perceived as
pulling the business in different directions, maybe ultimately tearing it apart and
destroying it. The task of management is to counteract the competing forces
around common purpose and common interest. At times, trade-offs and compro-
mises need to be made, but more value can be created by finding new innovative
solutions, new creative approaches that can go beyond pedestrian compromise.
The resource-based approach to business strategy considers all stakeholders to
be sources of information and knowledge which can be key in gaining comparative
advantage (Post, Preston & Sachs 2004). The entire relational capital with stake-
holders can be leveraged for advantage. Furthermore, the capability to manage this
and achieve binding purpose with stakeholders is a key element of the set of
capabilities that constitute comparative advantage. This model distinguishes
three types of stakeholders:
xxiv Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
The media including the press, TV, radio, Internet and social networks are giving
voice to stakeholders but act sometimes as stakeholders in their own right. However,
stakeholders can be sources of both risk and opportunity. A stakeholder man-
agement model of the business should distinguish between risk and opportunities
with each stakeholder and manage these accordingly. Stakeholder management cre-
ates firm value by minimising risk and maximising opportunity in relationships with
stakeholders.
Risks and opportunities provided by stakeholders may vary, and accord-
ingly, different weightings of stakeholders should be undertaken. In knowledge-
based industries, human resources carry more risks and opportunities compared to
physical asset-based companies like oil companies, who in turn need to attach more
risks to environmental activists and regulators. All stakeholders are important, but
some more than others, depending on the industry sector and the specific business
model and business strategy of the company.
Stakeholders of particular high risk but also of potential high opportunity are
NGOs. Since the early 1990s, NGOs have been challenging companies more openly
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xxv
for taking on their responsibilities towards society. This is particularly risky for
companies with a home market in Europe and North America, with strong brand
equity, scale and standardisation and with industry leadership status. According to
Elkington and Fennel (1998), NGOs can have four roles in this regard (sharks,
orcas, sea lions and dolphins) and each requires different risk-minimising and
opportunity-enhancing strategies. Sharks and orcas tend to be confrontational and
tend to polarise and act more (sharks) or less (orcas) by instinct and in groups.
NGOs like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Human Rights Watch would fall
into these categories. Sea lions and dolphins on the other side are much more
inclined towards co-operation. While sea lions would accept funding from compa-
nies and tend not to be very critical, dolphins see their independence as essential in
a co-operation. NGOs like Oxfam, Caritas, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty
International and Save the Children can be fit into these categories. Many NGOs
start out as sharks with confronting campaigns and as much distance from compa-
nies as possible. It is of high importance for companies to manage the different roles
of NGOs carefully to mitigate the risk but also find opportunities to collaborate.
Top
Performing
Group*
cally not successful, even on its own terms and has undermined the legitimacy and stability
of the market economy. It will end up destroying the very shareholder value it proclaims to
defend and grow.2
And so, unfortunately, it happened as predicted by John Kay with companies like
Daimler Benz, Marks & Spencer, Vodafone and others. Shareholders, customers,
staff, suppliers and other stakeholders paid dearly for the aberration Kay denounced
in a radical way as “unfit for wealth creation in free markets”. It took these compa-
nies often more than a decade to turn themselves around with new management,
renewed business purpose and renewed attention to value creation with stakeholders
and ultimately for shareholders.
A seminal contribution in strategy was Michael E. Porter’s five forces model (1980)
which profoundly influenced the thinking of researchers and practitioners in busi-
ness strategy around the world since the 1980s. In essence, Porter argued from a
rather external, industry-based perspective that the goal of the strategist is to under-
stand and cope not only with competition but with customers, suppliers, potential
entrants and, inevitably, also substitute products. These five forces define an indus-
try’s structure and shape the nature of competitive interaction within any industry
sector.
Originally Porter was sceptical about social issues affecting business, but he
started to integrate the idea of sustainable business in his strategy model, recognis-
ing that ESG issues form part of the competitive context in the medium and long
term. His concept of shared value is the vehicle for this, which was first published
with Mark Kramer in the Harvard Business Review in 2006. In this book, we repub-
lished the subsequent publication in 2011, again with Mark Kramer, which expands
further on their core thesis of CSV (creating shared value): that businesses can
create economic value and value for society in mutually beneficial ways, that
this creates comparative advantage for the business and that the value for
stakeholders and society is more sustainable since it is underpinned with eco-
nomic fundamentals.
In an interview in 2013 with Gerard Baker, editor-in-chief of the Wall Street
Journal3, Porter famously made a plea “to open our thinking for creating economic
value by addressing social issues”. He compared what companies like Nestlé and
Illycaffè are doing as examples of CSV with the fair trade approach, which is for
Porter an example of CSR. Fair trade asks for a contribution from consumers in
order for coffee farmers to be paid a fair price for their crops. This is aimed at the
2
John Kay in keynote speech to EABIS colloquium 2004 at Vlerick Business School.
3
http://unfold.tetrapak.com/research-and-reports/michael-porter-on-how-new-business-models-can-
create-shared-value
xxviii Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
ethical consumer segment which is limited in size and volatile when consumer
priorities change. Instead, Illy pioneered a restructuring of the supply chain by cut-
ting costs and investing in the skills and knowledge of farmers to produce higher-
quality coffee (see Illy case study in this book). As a result, the farmers’ income
went up considerably and this was based on economic fundamentals, whereas in the
case of fair trade, it was dependent on the goodwill of consumers. At the same time,
Illy strengthened its competitive advantage by ensuring access to high-quality sup-
plies in a sustainable way.
A growing number of noteworthy global companies (Nestle, Coca-Cola, Johnson
& Johnson, IBM, Umicore, General Electric, Unilever, GSK and others) have
already embraced the shared value concept through three sets of strategies:
They also strive for forming partnerships including NGOs who become partners
instead of adversaries. Local NGOs are often very well placed to take over certain
roles in the value chain, e.g. ensuring that medicines, provided by pharmaceutical
companies at discount prices, find their way to the patients instead of into the black
market.
Despite some irrefutable examples of companies, across many industries, bene-
fitting from implementing shared value strategies, there still remain some lingering
“yes, but” cautionary sentiments. Some fear that the consequences of shared value
practices have not been fully explored and all the implications might not have been
fully considered.
Furthermore, stakeholder pressure may force companies to become a more sus-
tainable business, but it does not necessarily follow that the company or its market-
place will actually become more sustainable. An example is Hydro Polymers
Limited, a division of Norsk Hydro ASA, which dramatically changed its strategy
due to outside pressure from Greenpeace activists. However, the rest of the industry
questioned Hydro Polymers’ motivation to commit to a more sustainable solution.
Moreover, China had become a major producer PVC often using environmentally
unfriendly technologies. Chinese PVC is, not surprisingly, much cheaper. If
European regulators do not prohibit the importation of “Made in China PVC”, the
question remains whether the end users will demand a shared value with a more
sustainable solution such as offered by Hydro Polymers or prefer to purchase the
Chinese PVC at the lower price.
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xxix
In their critique of Porter’s and Kramer’s concept of creating shared value (CSV),
Crane and co-authors acknowledge the popularity that the concept has gained in the
business and academic literature4, its role in advancing social goals to strategic lev-
els and its articulation of a clear government role in responsible behaviour and that
it adds rigour to ideas like “conscious capitalism”. At the same time, the authors
also state several shortcomings: (1) the concept is unoriginal, (2) it ignores the ten-
sions inherent to responsible business activity, (3) it is naive about business compli-
ance and (4) it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation’s role in society
(Crane et al 2014). We appreciate the criticisms (in italics) and provide counterargu-
ments for each, in defence of Porter, as follows:
1. Porter and Kramer claim that the CSV concept is a novelty while at the same
time it bears similarity to existing concepts of CSR, stakeholder management
and social innovation.
Porter and Kramer integrate some dimensions of these concepts indeed but
package them in a model and a language which is understood by managers. More
importantly, they do not start from societal issues and how companies should be
held “responsible”, which results in CSR programmes. Porter follows an entirely
different logic: he asks how corporate strategy can embrace ESG issues to make
the business more sustainable. He sees ESG issues as strategic opportunities for
the business and not as normative imperatives.
2. Many corporate decisions that are related to social and environmental problems
do not present themselves as potential win-wins but rather as dilemmas. When
faced with a dilemma, world views, identities, interests and values collide and
Porter doesn’t address the tensions between social and economic goals; instead,
he only sees “win-wins”.
But Porter never claimed that all solutions can be “win-wins”. However, he
suggests, similarly to Ed Freeman, the founder of stakeholder theory, that when
confronted with conflicts between economic and social goals, managers should
not complacently seek for compromises and trade-offs or pursue one at the
expense of the other. Instead, these conflicts should be seen as potential sources
of innovation, delivering solutions that may achieve both economic and social
goals. Sustainable business and sustainable economic and social development
will require substantial innovations.
3. Furthermore, the examples they provide might be pioneers in some aspects of
their operations while, at the same time, being criticised for harmful effects of
their products.
The reality is very simply that companies like Nestlé get it right in some areas
of their value chain while not in other parts (yet) and should be encouraged
indeed to practise continuous improvement. If Nestlé uses Porter (who is a
4
Crane, Andrew, Palazzo Guido, Spence Laura, Matten, Dirk, Contesting the Value of Shared
Value, California Management Review, vol 56/2, Winter 2014.
xxx Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
ember of the board) and CSV to “greenwash” its more controversial parts of
m
the business, it should be criticised for this. But this does not diminish the value
of CSV itself.
4. According to critics, research shows that initiatives with the goal of promoting
sustainability for social and environmental gains only survive in economic terms,
ensuring longevity of quality supply for the purchasing company over social and
environmental needs of consumers or suppliers. There are indeed examples
where a CSV initiative proved not sustainable, but to generalise from this is short
sighted.
5. Despite the ambitious approach to reshape capitalism, CSV doesn’t address the
deep-rooted problems that are at the centre of capitalism’s legitimacy crisis.
Porter’s own model of competitive strategy would need to be overturned.
Reforming capitalism is a big subject indeed and the claim that CSV is the
panacea to this is indeed an exaggerated claim. The incomplete and unfinished
reform and governance of financial markets that induce notorious short-termism
seems more important. Business needs to pursue profitability and competitive-
ness within clear frameworks of fair play, transparency and the rule of law and
with a perspective of long-term value creation. CSV alone will not restore the
legitimacy of capitalism but it might be a major contribution to it.
Porter and Kramer’s main contribution is to have coined a concept which
managers can embrace and which connects with their mindset, more than any
other concept on sustainable business. It serves the purpose of advancing the
mainstreaming of sustainable business as a concept for business generally and
for silencing the diehards of the old school who refuse to accept any important
role business can or should play in sustainable development. But of course it is
not a panacea. We publish a response to Porter which gives a thoughtful com-
mentary on the importance of a normative motivation for managers to protect the
integrity of their actions in applying CSV. (See Chap. 17).
Many managers consider the business model they are operating in as a given, the
best or even the only way to be profitable in a particular industry sector. However,
there are very different business models to choose from in a given industry. To begin
with, there are three generic value propositions:
Operational Excellence by cost leadership, e.g. in oil exploration (Shell, BP), food
chains (Mc Donald’s) and retail (Walmart, H&M)
Product-Service Leadership by product development, innovation and branding, e.g.
in footwear (Nike), pharmaceutical (Merck, GSK) and ITC (Google, Apple,
Microsoft)
Total Customer Solutions by delivering complete solutions by integrated projects,
e.g. IBM Smarter Planet, Energy Solutions Companies (EON) and Private Banks
(ING)
These different value propositions might exist in the same industry. In the solar
power industry, three value propositions and associated business models exist:
These business models are not necessarily competing with each other. These are
different ways of creating, delivering and capturing value in one industry. Similarly,
in the IT industry, there are different business models to be found. Apple, Google,
IBM, Microsoft and Lenovo not only have different value propositions to their cus-
tomers. The entire business models behind their propositions are very different.
In addition to innovations in products, services and processes, as discussed in the
previous chapter, business can create competitive advantage or avoid erosion of cur-
rent, often highly profitable market positions by exploring new business models.
IBM realised that its PC business would over time not be able to compete with
Chinese market entrants and sold the business to a Chinese newcomer Lenovo at a
time when the market value of the PC business was still high. IBM moved up the
value chain into a Total Customer Solution value proposition with the Smarter
Planet initiative and a business operating model behind it which is significantly dif-
ferent (see Chap. 25). IBM thus positions itself in the sustainability transformation
with an innovative business model.
BP Solarex was a market leader in the solar industry in 2000. It scaled back its
business model to a pure Operational Excellence proposition (manufacturing and
distributing solar panels), inspired by the idea of focusing on “core competences”,
xxxii Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context
a fashion already on its way out. Experiments with Total Customer Solutions as
described above were halted and abolished. Ten years later, BP was forced to close
most manufacturing facilities at high cost in the face of stiff cost competition from
China. In 2000, BP would have been able to sell these facilities at considerable
market value and move up the value chain. In 2010, it was too late.
Particular interest should be paid to business model innovation for sustainability.
The Boston Consulting Group has developed the following generic model:
Sustainability in strategy and business model
Which customer
segments do we target?
Business model
Business model innovation may be focused on the industry sector model, the
entrepreneurial model or the financial model. These three dimensions of the busi-
ness model are discrete, but they may be interdependent.
The industry sector model: Business model innovation changes the entire indus-
try: Google, IBM and Dell.
The entrepreneurial model: Business model innovation changes the value chain in
major ways: Umicore, Illy and IPOed Batteries. In this last case, a move to focus
on core competencies in materials development was complemented by creating
a network of partnerships and outsourced activities.
The financial model: Business model innovation creates entirely new pricing mod-
els: eBay and Apple’s iPod.
Managing Sustainable Business in a Global Context xxxiii
1. Which current needs will the business model address—or which new needs will
it create?
2. Which innovative activities can create value by meeting these needs?
3. How can these activities be linked in innovative ways?
4. Who will perform which activities and which innovative governance will be
needed?
5. How will value be created and delivered for each stakeholder?
6. How can value be co-created by engagement with the communities?
7. Which revenue models will make the business model sustainable?
Business model innovation is neither about minor changes to the business model
to capture easy gains in costs and efficiency nor about a compliance-driven adapta-
tion to gradually minimise negative impacts.
Business model transformations for sustainability have specific requirements in
terms of significantly enhanced social and environmental positive impacts.
SustainAbility’s 2014 report on business model transformation for sustainability
(see Chap. 22) describes 20 business model innovations for sustainability in five
categories:
Environmental impact
Social impact
Financial innovation
Base of the pyramid
Diverse impact
Nigel Roome, a major contributor to the theory and practice of business model
innovation for sustainability, and Céline Louche explain the key characteristics of a
business model for sustainability as describing, analysing, managing and
communicating:
(i) A company’s sustainable value proposition to its customers and all other
stakeholders
(ii) How it creates and delivers this value
(iii) How it captures economic value while maintaining or regenerating natural,
social and economic capital beyond its organisational boundaries
Furthermore, they argue that sustainable value for customers and shareholders
can only be created by creating value to a broader range of stakeholders. A business
is embedded in a stakeholder network and—in spite of the fact that a business model
is a market-oriented approach—particularly a business that contributes to
5
Raphael Amit and Christoph Zott, “Creating Value through Business Model Innovation” in MIT
Sloan Management Review March 2012.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.