Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v16i1.6013


Transitioning towards sustainability: The ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the integration of sustainable practices into business models


Transición hacia la sostenibilidad: el “qué”, “por qué” y “cómo” de la integración de prácticas sostenibles en los modelos de negocio


TEC Empresarial, Vol. 16, n°. 1, (January - April, 2022), Pag. 44 - 86 ISSN: 1659-3359


• Article received: 8 July, 2021 • Article accepted: 2 November, 2021 • Published online in articles in advance: 30 November, 2021

AUTHORS

Ines Diez-Martinez ORCID

Management Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Valencia, Spain. indiemar@alumni.upv.es. Email

Angel Peiro-Signes ORCID

Management Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Valencia, Spain. anpeisig@omp.upv.e. Email

Corresponding Author: Ines Diez-Martinez




ABSTRACT

Abstract

In today’s business ecosystem, sustainability is increasingly becoming a vital element to firms’ long-term prosperity. Sustainable considerations have evolved to turn a key element that firms wish to integrate into their business models. This new scenario has left countless companies struggling to adapt to these new times. The integration of sustainable practices is not an easy task. The complex web of stakeholders and interactions between participating actors complicate the identification of mechanisms that foster sustainability. Consequently, this paper explores what is the state-of-the-art of the integration of sustainable practices, including an analysis of why these practices are implemented and how their integration is ultimately effective. Results show that there is a wide variety of research, predominantly focused on the creation of frameworks and brainstorming tools to help companies integrate sustainable practices. Regarding what is the trigger of these sustainable initiatives, existing research expresses that sustainable integration is mainly triggered to fit new upcoming demands of legislation and society. Finally, about how these sustainable practices are integrated, strategies are applied across the entire value chain, on both products and processes. Regarding the relationship between the integration of sustainable practices and economic results, no tendency for a direct correlation was found.

Keywords: Sustainability, sustainability integration, sustainable business model, sustainable transition.

Resumen

En el ecosistema empresarial actual, la sostenibilidad se está convirtiendo cada vez más en un elemento vital para la prosperidad a largo plazo de las empresas. La sostenibilidad está ganando importancia paulatinamente, y actualmente se está convirtiendo en una tendencia imparable en todas las dimensiones de nuestro marco socioeconómico. Por lo tanto, el enfoque de las empresas hacia prácticas sostenibles también ha cambiado. El bajo perfil que tenía el tema de la sostenibilidad hace algunos años ahora está completamente olvidado. Las consideraciones de sostenibilidad han evolucionado para ser uno de los elementos clave que las empresas desean integrar en sus modelos de negocio. Este nuevo escenario ha dejado a innumerables empresas luchando por adaptarse a estos nuevos tiempos. La integración de prácticas sostenibles no es una tarea fácil. La compleja red de actores e interacciones entre entidades complica la identificación de mecanismos para fomentar la sostenibilidad. Consecuentemente, este documento explora cuál es el estado del arte de la integración de prácticas sostenibles, incluido un análisis de por qué se implementan estas prácticas y cómo su integración es finalmente efectiva. Los resultados muestran que existe una amplia variedad de investigaciones, principalmente centradas en la creación de marcos y herramientas de lluvia de ideas para ayudar a las empresas a integrar prácticas sostenibles. Con respecto al desencadenante de estas iniciativas sostenibles, las investigaciones existentes expresan que la integración sostenible se desencadena principalmente para adaptarse a las nuevas demandas futuras de la legislación y la sociedad. Finalmente, sobre cómo se integran estas prácticas sostenibles, las estrategias se aplican a lo largo de toda la cadena de valor, tanto en productos como en procesos. En cuanto a la relación entre la integración de prácticas sostenibles y los resultados económicos, no se encontró tendencia a una correlación directa.

Palabras clave: Sostenibilidad, integración de la sostenibilidad, modelo de negocio sostenible, transición sostenible.



Introduction

1. Introduction and research objectives


During the past 30 years, organisations, and governments all around the globe have encouraged the adoption of sustainable practices (Cohen, 2020). Matters such as the rise of global temperature, biodiversity loss, air pollution, or the threat of another health crisis are raising concerns worldwide and creating uncertainties across all dimensions of our society, highlighting the need to change our previous way of working. Sustainability is in the spotlight, along with the threat of an upcoming environmental and social crisis.

Within this context, companies are key stakeholders in the fight against climate change and other existing sustainable challenges. Some companies are at the forefront of the sustainability wave, with new practices that aim to improve their ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance. These are typically highly related to innovation and continuous improvement techniques (Carrascosa López et al, 2012). In recent years, companies have invested time and money in sustainable innovation (Mazzanti, 2018), looking for ways to integrate environmentally friendly practices (e.g., reducing emissions, saving energy) and products (e.g., electric cars, biodegradable plastics).

In general terms, sustainability has become a business imperative across all industries (Schrettle et al, 2014), where environmental proactivity plays a key role in companies’ development (Segarra Oña et al, 2012). However, this integration still presents different levels of maturity across industries due to the complexity of the topic. The overall objective of this study is to understand the integration of sustainable business models in firms. This objective is to be achieved by performing a review of the existing literature to help companies and other third-party organisations better understand the current as-is of sustainability integration. Focusing on better understanding enterprises’ transition towards more sustainable business models as the research theme is a way to provide context to the current business scenario and help companies position themselves to understand the sustainability challenge.

Looking at the integration of sustainability into business models, one of the first questions that one may ask revolves about the term “business model” and what are its implications when addressing sustainability. As discussed by DaSilva and Trkman (2014), generally, the term “business model” has been misunderstood and misused, being an expression for which there is no clear scope in both theory and practice. Several definitions exist, which integrate a variety of elements from the operational, strategic, economic and revenue models, implying a bundle of activities. Within this line of thought, a business model could be understood “as a system of interconnected and interdependent activities that determines the way the company "does business" with its customers, partners, and vendors” (Amit and Zott, 2012). As of today, the business model concept remains difficult to understand (Bigelow and Barney, 2021; Prescott and Filatotchev, 2021), and there is still a lack of consensus from both academics and practitioners.

As discussed by Bigelow and Barney (2021), who analysed the view of several authors regarding the use of this term, one thing in which authors agree is that the concept business model is not equivalent to the strategy. However, business model encompasses those elements that contribute to the performance of firms, both through innovation and change, in order to adapt to the market and update strategic plans. As discussed by Iheanachor et al (2021), in general terms, a business model may be defined as the “ability to create and capture value” and has a strong link with innovation. For sustainable business models, creating and capturing value would need to be performed while balancing the three pillars of sustainability, which are: environmental, social and economic (Bautista-Puig et al, 2021; Irsan and Utama, 2019; Barile et al, 2018). Based on this, when adding “sustainability” to the term “business model”, it may be considered as the capability of firms to add value while meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs, from the environmental, social, and economic perspectives.

Nonetheless, as of today, defining sustainable business models is still considered to be an arduous task. As discussed by Hallin et al (2021) sustainability remains a “contested concept”. Yet, for the term “sustainability” there are also well-accepted definitions, such as the definition of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), where sustainability is defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987). This holistic definition opens the door for sustainability to a wide spectrum of possibilities. It suggests that, for example, the integration of sustainability can be performed at different stages of the service or production process as well as be integrated into the nature of the interactions between the firm and its clients, providers, and partners.

Overall, a business model is a complex web of activities and actors in which interdependencies may make it difficult to identify what are the sustainable opportunities as well as the challenges that come along sustainability integration. Companies are going green targeting sustainable integration through different perspectives, and with complex triggers evidencing the need for change. In some cases, sustainability integration has become imperative due to regulations, policies, and treaties, such as the Treaty of Lisbon (2007/C 306/01) of the European Union. For example, eco-innovation is evidenced by elements such as environmental certifications (Miret-Pastor et al, 2011). As discussed by Wilson et al (2011), the regulation of the environment is one effective way to introduce sustainable friendly practices in firms, but only when this regulation is understood and properly enforced.

In other cases, firms are taking active roles to integrate sustainable practices motivated by an increasing demand from its customers. Consumers are showing a greater interest in green products and services, and this behaviour may also be acting as a catalyst for the integration of environmental practices. As stated by Darnall et al (2012), consumers are increasingly more knowledgeable about the environment, and this has influenced their decision-making purchasing criteria. As a result, this demand for green products has translated for companies into new opportunities for economic growth by integrating sustainable principles in their business models, and as a way to remain competitive.

There are occasions in which firms adopt environmentally friendly practices because the technological advancements have organically allowed it. As discussed by Ordieres-Meré et al (2020) a clear example of this phenomena is digitalisation. For example, Tenhunen and Pettinen (2010) show in their study that the movement from paper invoicing to electronic invoicing reduced the carbon footprint of the invoice by more than fifty percent. The use of electronic communications and documents rather than the traditional consumption of paper was heavily established across all firms until computers were an accessible affordable tool for companies. Although these technological advancements may not have had an environmental focus as a primary objective, their availability and implementation resulted in an improvement of the environmental performance of companies.

Moreover, sustainable models may also be the by-product of economic decisions. One example is the case of reducing the distance between different locations of a supply chain to save in transportation costs, which has simultaneously the positive impact of reducing emissions.

Taking all the above into consideration, the integration of sustainable business models may be possible through different tools and respond to a variety of triggers. As discussed by Becker et al. (2016) interrelated dimensions interact, and it is not a response or a single circumstance but a combination of elements that are in place simultaneously. The complexity of this integration could be discouraging to firms considering a transition to a greener model. This review will target the key aspects of sustainable integration to help companies and institutions address this change in their organisation. Considering this high-level of complexity, the first research question (RQ1) that arises is:

- Research question 1 (RQ1): What is the state-of-the-art of the integration of sustainable strategies into the business models of firms?

Linked to this first research question, it is also relevant to investigate the reason behind the need for this integration, especially considering how in the past few decades, globalisation and the access to information have revolutionised all markets, not only from the perspective of the operational and strategic elements of companies, but also from the point of view of new regulations and international standards. On top of this, consumer behaviour is also constantly evolving, where now consumers are increasingly realising that sustainability is a key matter and consumers are also able to understand better the role that they may play with their choices to construct a better society.

As discussed above, there might be several elements that act as a trigger for these sustainable strategies and in a constantly changing environment, it is often difficult to understand what are the triggers that may be influencing this integration. From regulation to consumers, passing through economic performance, many factors could foster companies’ active and passive behaviours toward sustainability. Companies are now integrating sustainability while before they were not, as in the past sustainability was often considered a “good to have” and not a “key element” in the decision making of a company. Hence, the second research question (RQ2) that this study addresses is related to the integration of these responsible practices:

- Research question 2 (RQ2): Why do companies integrate sustainability into their business models?

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that even under the umbrella of a single state-of-art and provided that even when companies’ triggers and motivations for sustainability are similar, companies may still differ in the way they implement sustainable practices. Consequently, after the “what” and the “why” have been defined, we can explore the “how”:

- Research question 3 (RQ3): How do companies effectively integrate sustainability in their business models?

Research question three (RQ3) refers to examining the effective integration of sustainable strategies into business models. This research question will be addressed by exploring the sustainable practices that companies integrate. Also, this analysis will examine the implications that integrating sustainable business models has had for firms.


Methods

2. Methodology


To fulfil the objective of promoting a better understanding of the integration of sustainable practices into business models, the present study consisted of a standalone review and an analysis of existing literature. As described by Okoli (2015), what characterises a rigorous standalone review is the fact that the review follows a methodological approach that could be followed by others reviewing the topic and where the scope is exhaustive and includes all suitable material. Consequently, this type of review leads to more accurate results as bias and chance effects are reduced (Reim et al, 2015). This type of review is also an appropriate method for the object of study, as the topic of sustainable business models has increasingly become more popular over the last years, which leads to a high volume of results.

The first step of the review is to define the object of study and questions to be answered. These questions need to be aligned with the problem statement. In this case, the complexity of companies transitioning to a more sustainable business model, where the “what”, “why” and “how” aim to help firms address the change towards sustainability in their organisation, by bringing clarity over the topic of sustainable business model integration.

Once the research questions were identified, it was possible to begin the search for the appropriate literature to answer them. In terms of data sources, as suggested by Aksnes and Sivertsen (2019), Aghaei Chadegani et al. (2013), Scopus is a well-known trusted source that provides comprehensive coverage of the world’s scientific and scholarly literature. Therefore, Scopus is selected, although it is worth mentioning that other databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar may also contain valuable information.

Regarding the search performed, the popularity of the topic guaranteed that numerous results were to be found. This high number of results needed to be further filtered, to avoid processing an overwhelming number of documents. Thus, among all results found, there was a need to review and identify those documents that better fit the aim of the research. The methodology followed to refine the search consists of the three steps proposed by Reim et al. (2015), shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Methodology steps followed to refine results.

Fuente: elaboración propia a partir de Strauss y Corbin (2002).

2.1 Identification of sources and application of practical screening

This first step is focused on the identification of publications to ensure the quality of the review, in this case by aiming at those journals that would be the most relevant for the scope of the search.

Regarding the selection of these journals, they needed to be journals related to the business and management area, as the topic of the review is related to trends in business models and management practices, as well as journals having an environmental component, since the focus is on sustainable business models. Additionally, as the scope of the research objectives includes analysing triggers for the integration of these models and practices, decision-making related sciences were also relevant. The main journals to focus were defined based on the journal list of Scimago (Scimago, n.d.), looking for journals that belong to categories and subcategories displayed in Table 1.


Table 1: Selected Scimago journal categories.

Category

Subcategory

Environmental science

Management, monitoring, policy and law

Waste management and disposal

Business, Management and Accounting

Strategy and management

Decision Science

Management science and operations research


The pre-selected journals were those in the Scimago list (year 2019) that belong to the categories described above. Additional filtering was performed to select journals: with at least a total of 1000 cites, references vs. documents ratio being over 50 (Ref./Docs >50) and cites vs. docs above 2 (Cites/Docs>2) and an H index above 60 were considered, where the H index refers to “journal’s number of articles that have received at least h citations during the whole period” (Scimago, n.d.).

After filtering according to the specified parameters, the remaining top 25 journals for each subcategory were screened (please note that for some categories the number of preselected journals after the filtering is already below 25, so pre-selection includes whatever is the number of journals compliant with the filtering criteria).

The final selection of source journals was made based on the review of the ‘Journal Description’ in order to select journals aligned with the aim of our research scope. Details of the selection are displayed in Appendix 1. When the same journal appears in more than one category, both categories are displayed. Considering the above, the final selection of sources to be used for the literature review includes 25 journals. These are displayed in Table 2.


Table 2: Selection of journals aligned with the aim of the research scope.

Title

Publisher

Academy of Management Journal

Academy of Management

Academy of Management Review

Academy of Management

Business Strategy and the Environment

John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Environmental Science and Policy

Elsevier BV

Global Environmental Change

Elsevier Ltd.

International Journal of Management Reviews

Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

International Journal of Production Economics

Elsevier

International Journal of Production Research

Taylor and Francis Ltd.

International Journal of Project Management

Elsevier BV

Journal of Cleaner Production

Elsevier Ltd.

Journal of Environmental Management

Academic Press Inc.

Journal of Management

SAGE Publications Inc.

Journal of Management Studies

Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Journal of Product Innovation Management

Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Management Decision

Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

Management Science

INFORMS

Organization Science

INFORMS

Organization Studies

SAGE Publications Ltd

Production and Operations Management

Wiley-Blackwell

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Elsevier

Strategic Management Journal

John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Sustainability

MDPI AG


2.2 Application of a theoretical screening criteria

Because the objective of this review is defined by the three research questions, only those articles that could be used to answer one of the previously stated research questions were included in the analysis. Looking into the details, at least one of the three criteria listed below needed to be met for the article to be included:

1. Articles that discuss the state-of-the-art for the integration of sustainable strategies into the business models of firms. Also, articles that analyse this state-of-the-art and explicitly propose new tools to be used for this integration are included.

2. Articles that investigate the reasons why firms decide to integrate sustainable practices, including articles that analyse market trends and provide a comprehensive view on the evolution of the integration of environmental, social and corporate governance practices.

3. Articles that discuss how are these sustainable management practices implemented across industries, for different services and products. Articles that include a discussion on the impact (e.g., economic performance, company growth etc.) that the integration of sustainable practices has had, would also be relevant to answer the third research question.

2.3 Final filter and reference analysis

In this final stage, those articles that met one of the three inclusion criteria were downloaded and read to perform an analysis of their content. A summary of the process is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Flow diagram of the review steps.


Results

3. Results


3.1 Initial scope of results: Bibliometric analysis

In this section we are going to analyse the first set of results corresponding to the scope of over 2500 initial articles identified, before applying the screening criteria. Overall, the search showed that the database results are distributed among a set of topics and sources. Firstly, as shown in Table 3, main topics are related to Business, Management and Accounting, aligned with the JCR journal categories and most of the journals found are in the list of selected sources, with the highest number of results being Sustainability (Switzerland) and the Journal of Cleaner Production. When looking into the scope of topic distribution, sustainability integration into business models seems to be the focus. Typically, there is a link with business management and social sciences.

Nevertheless, sustainability integration is also material from a technical perspective, such as in the fields of engineering, computer science, environmental science, and energy. This suggests that sustainable practices have a technological component that cannot be ignored, which translates into the fact that sustainability integration may have a strong dependency on technology developments. This technical innovation dependency is also evidenced through the source distribution of the integration of sustainable practices, where journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production or the Resources Conservation and Recycling journal appear as key source material.

Overall sustainability integration seems to be strongly linked to developments in the energy sector (Energies), production and manufacturing (Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources Conservation and Recycling), and computer science (International Journal of Information Management). However, as shown in Table 3, most results (69.2%) belong to sources where the percentage of publications is below 1.1%, which suggest that Sustainability integration is a widespread topic among different sources, present in a wide range of publications.


Table 3: Initial scope of results: Topic and Source distribution.

Topic distibution

Source distribution

Business, Management and Accounting

25.4%

Sustainability (Switzerland)

10.1%

Social Sciences

15.5%

Journal Of Cleaner Production

8.6%

Engineering

10.4%

Technological Forecasting And Social Change

2.6%

Computer Science

9.2%

IEEE Access

2.0%

Environmental Science

9.2%

International Journal Of Management Reviews

1.8%

Energy

6.8%

Business Process Management Journal

1.3%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance

6.1%

Energies

1.2%

Decision Sciences

5.0%

Industrial Marketing Management

1.1%

Medicine

2.4%

International Journal Of Information Management

1.1%

Arts and Humanities

1.9%

Resources Conservation And Recycling

1.1%

Other

8.1%

Other

69.2%


The view on the split of documents by year, displayed in Figure 3, show an increasing interest in the topic as the volume of articles published is increasing each year. There is an increasing interest in exploring this topic, with an increase in the number of publications within a scope of seven years that amounts to roughly 400%. Therefore, results show that this topic has lately gained relevance for academics.

Regarding the region, in Figure 4, United States of America is the country with the highest number of results, followed by United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Australia, China, India and Spain. Overall, results suggest a wider popularity of the topic in USA and UK, but these results may be misleading due to the scope of research including English publications but not for example, publications made in languages such as French, Chinese or Italian. Therefore, to study the popularity of the topic across regions, this analysis does not provide trustworthy results as other languages would need to be included.

Figure 3: Initial scope of results: Documents by year (created using Microsoft Excel).

Figure 4: Initial scope of results: Documents by region (created using Microsoft Excel)

3.2 Selected studies: Analysis of articles selected for screening

Articles included for the analysis are distributed among 16 of the 25 pre-selected journals as shown in Table 4. Journals from which most articles were selected also correspond to the journals with the highest number of articles found in the search.

To complement the table above, Appendix 2 presents the detailed list of selected articles included in the review, disclosing authors, title, year and the journal in which the paper was published. Each of the articles has been given a code (e.g., A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.) to ease the identification of the article throughout the review. Code numbering is given in alphabetical order based on authors’ name.

3.2.1 Classification of selected studies

To process the results obtained, articles have been classified based on the three research questions introduced in the first section of this paper. A summary of this classification of results per research question is shown in Table 5, where articles are disclosed by code according to the mapping presented in Appendix 2.


Table 4: Selected articles: Source distribution.

Journal

Percentage

Academy of Management Review

4.00%

Business Strategy and the Environment

10.67%

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

4.00%

Environmental Science and Policy

1.33%

International Journal of Management Reviews

5.33%

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

1.33%

International Journal of Production Economics

1.33%

International Journal of Production Research

5.33%

International Journal of Project Management

4.00%

Journal of Cleaner Production

21.33%

Journal of Environmental Management

1.33%

Journal of Management

1.33%

Journal of Product Innovation Management

1.33%

Management Decision

1.33%

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

10.67%

Sustainability (Switzerland)

25.33%


Table 5: Classification of articles based on main research question addressed (mapping details in Appendix 2).

RQ1

A-1 A-3 A-5 A-6 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-17 A-18 A-20 A-24 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-35 A-36 A-39 A-41 A-43 A-44 A-47 A-49 A-51 A-53 A-54 A-57 A-65 A-68 A-69 A-70 A-73

RQ2

A-2 A-4 A-7 A-22 A-25 A-27 A-28 A-32 A-33 A-34 A-37 A-46 A-48 A-50 A-52 A-55 A-61 A-63 A-64 A-66 A-67 A-72 A-75

RQ3

A-8 A-12 A-16 A-19 A-21 A-23 A-26 A-38 A-40 A-42 A-45 A-56 A-58 A-59 A-60 A-62 A-71 A-74


3.3 Answers to the research questions

3.3.1. What is the state-of-the-art of the integration of sustainable strategies into the business models of firms?

Related to the state-of-the-art of the integration of sustainable business models in firms, results typically show approaches based on the creation of frameworks and similar tools to promote brainstorming in companies.

A summary of the main tools found across the review is presented in Appendix 3. Each tool is displayed alongside the corresponding paper code (mapped through Appendix 2), authors, and research area. Additionally, whether the approach of the tool is mainly qualitative or quantitative is also included. Finally, when tools aim to be applicable across different industries and regions, they have been classified as ‘generic’, whereas those tools specific to a given industry or region have been considered to be ‘specific’.

Results show that most of the tools and frameworks are linked to sustainable innovation, production, and supply chain related topics. There is also a strong link with circular economy, which is identified as a key research area of the integration of sustainable practices as it is a model for production and consumption heavily linked to a more efficient use of resources, away from linear economy patterns often based on a “take-make-consume-throw away” philosophy.

3.3.2. Why do companies integrate sustainability into their business models?

Results related to sustainability influence factors and triggers are summarized in Appendix 4. Overall, a total of 33 factors have been identified and summarised in this table. These triggers have been classified based on whether they are external to the firm or coming from aspects related to the internal stakeholders and conditions within the organisation. As defined by Zinovieva et al (2016), enterprise’s internal factors are those that depend on the enterprise’s operational arrangement, whereas external factors are those external to the companies’ operational arrangement, thus, the environment surrounding the firm. A total of 15 of these factors are external to the organisation while 18 elements have been identified as internal. External factors include a competitive environment, customer behaviour and initiative from international organisations among others. Internal factors are mainly those such as firms’ strategic positioning and the inclination to co-creation and cooperation, among others. Appendix 4 shows a compilation of these external and internal factors that make companies integrate sustainability. This summary is specified per article selected, indicating the code and authors for each article, which allows the identification of the article using Appendix 2. Alongside these, the rationales for the integration of sustainable practices are classified based on whether the factors are external or internal to the firm.

3.3.3. How do companies apply sustainable business models?

Results related to how firms integrate these business models are shown through exemplary cases in Appendix 5. This table outlines the cases found during the review, stating code and author, which can be linked through Appendix 2 to each of the articles’ details. A short description for each case is given. Additionally, the table also states the main characteristics to contextualise these cases, by indicating the industry or research area and the region.

Cases are presented across a wide range of industries. Predominantly, high climate impact industries are found, such as manufacturing, transportation and oil, gas and mining. There is a tendency to target carbon intensive industries, but also other industries are included such as tourism and hospitality, evidencing that the focus goes beyond purely environmental impact areas and focuses on other sustainable matters as a whole, including social goals, and in the case of the airline industry, even specifically targeting the UN Global Development Goals (SDGs).

Among results, there is also a link with circular economy, where the integration of sustainable practices is performed alongside the integration of a circular economy philosophy, which is aligned with the models and state-of-the-art results obtained for the first research question.


Discussion

4. Discussion


The purpose of this review was to show an overview of the integration of sustainability in business models. To cover the wide scope of research performed about this topic, three research questions linked to the “what”, the “why” and the “how” of sustainability integration were posed.

Considering the first research question, related to the state-of-the-art of the integration of these strategies into business models, results showed a variety of approaches. In the majority of cases, such as for Amini and Bienstock (2014), Berkowitz (2018) or Morioka and de Carvalho (2016), the proposal is a generic framework that companies, or institutions could use to brainstorm on sustainable strategies and assess their potential before the investments are made. The integration of sustainable practices is also directly linked with the innovation capabilities of a firm (Adams et al, 2016; Berkowitz, 2018; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). Thus, from this connection between sustainable integration and innovation, concepts such as eco-innovation arise directly targeting sustainability through innovation and evidencing the strong link between the two concepts.

This showcases the fact that we are currently in a transition period, in which there is still a need to innovate in order to become sustainable. As of today, companies will not be ready to face the environmental and social challenges unless their product and processes evolve to address the new market needs.

As per the frameworks’ baseline, these frameworks are typically focused on the sustainable challenge to overcome and the value proposition of overcoming the challenge, as for example in the case of Morioka and de Carvalho (2016). Sustainable challenges and value propositions are typically identified across different stages within the production process, often targeting a move from the linear economy to a more circular economy-oriented setup. It is possible to find frameworks to integrate sustainability for almost any operational activity, but the most common is through supply chain efficiency initiatives such as proposal to incentivize waste reduction (Bautista-Lazo and Short, 2013).

Additionally, the implementation of these brainstorming-products and procedures to capture value are addressed. As per the question about how to measure the value that a sustainable practice brings, existing literature presents “value” as not only to be measured for the social and environmental dimensions, but in terms of economic returns (Adams et. al, 2016). Economic performance is often presented as a quantitative measure to capture direct value of a given practice, but only after the capabilities and resources are in place. Typically, in parallel to the production process, economic performance is addressed through the concept of circular economy, and how it can be achieved along with environmental quality and social prosperity.

In many cases, instead of the driving factors, the barriers and challenges are analysed such as De Jesus Pacheco et al (2019) or Vezzoli et al (2015) and in others, the focus is on risks (Birkel et al, 2019). These frameworks help sustain the argument that sustainable integration is achievable not only by the presence of triggers, but also due to the absence of barriers that need to be removed prior to a company being able to become more sustainable friendly.

Frameworks that target sustainable enablers and challenges, were also found with a specific focus on a region e.g., (Oberhofer & Fürst 2013; Schraven et al, 2019), industry e.g., (Barth and Ulvenblad, 2017; Yip & Bocken, 2018) or research area e.g., (Buenk et al, 2019). Targeting a specific set of firms that share common characteristics results in the creation of more tangible frameworks. This is because they can include specific indicators. There is also common ground for standardisation across companies belonging to the same industry and/or being part of the same social and economic scenarios. This addresses one of the key challenges found today, which is the fact that there is a lack of standards to measure and compare environmental and social performance across firms. This sustainable performance monitoring is still very far in maturity compared to the measurement of financial performance indicators and one of the key topics addressed by regulators and institutions today, so that in the short-term future we would be able to measure how sustainable a company is by applying a common terminology (for example, as targeted in Europe through the EU Taxonomy).

Focused on the mechanisms for sustainability, many studies discuss topics related to lean manufacturing, such as waste reduction, as the key towards the integration of sustainable practices (Ansari and Kant, 2017; Bautista-Lazo and Short, 2013; Dieste et al, 2019; Gbededo et al, 2018). However, as discussed by Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), there is sometimes very limited visibility over the implementation and measurement of value for these frameworks. Also, research seems to be mainly theoretical and qualitative.

None of the reviewed authors propose quantitative models. Quantitative models may be difficult to construct since they would need to be based on internal elements of the company, and those indicators are likely to vary across companies. For the development of quantitative models, it would probably be interesting to establish first common measurable indicators within the same sector. At some point, it may even be possible to build quantitative models including cross-sector indicators able to compare different industries. This way, companies with fewer resources (SMEs) would be able to monitor their performance in terms of sustainability. Currently, quantitative measurements, such as numerical and / or letter-based indicators could be quite complex to use. They are often not well known and are impractical for companies that do not produce corporate reports.

Moving on to the second research question, it enquires about why firms decide to apply these sustainable strategies and develop new business models. Sustainability practices seem to be used more and more to complement strategic management decisions as an increasing trend justified by a social conscience adapting to consumers that increasingly have positive bias towards ecologic and socially responsible products (Shao, 2019; Ludeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). The creation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), proposed by the United Nations in 2015, is a clear reflection of the emerging social conscience. SDGs were catalysts for companies to innovate and integrate environmental and social considerations to address the different goals (Cordova and Celone, 2019; Eichler and Schwarz, 2019), such as SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). These goals shed a light of sustainable targets and goals recognised by the international community, facilitating the integration of policies across sectors (Le Blanc, 2015).

Likewise, in the context of the fourth industrial revolution, corporate social responsibility could represent a competitive advantage for organisations. It can act as an enabler for cocreation in an environment in which collaboration between institutions is key for the success of a firm as it is required to maintain competitive value (Adamik and Nowicki, 2019). Overall, companies applying these strategies do not seem to be a trend or fashion that would eventually disappear. Environmental and social considerations are becoming a fundamental part of any organisation that wants to succeed long-term (Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx, 2018; Ludeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). Consequently, companies are facing a new socio-economic scenario, in which the concept of hybrid organisations, those that combine enterprise with a social purpose, is increasingly becoming more and more fluid (Doherty et al, 2014).

Also, from the analysis of the results, it can be discussed that both internal and external factors that justify the integration of sustainability within an organisation are interrelated, such as in the research presented by Adamik and Nowicki (2019) or Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx (2018). In these cases, there is a blurred line separating internal and external influences. In the end, internal aspects such as the organisation’s vision and goals (Doherty et al, 2014; Singh et al, 2019) are strategic positions reflecting the ethics of stakeholders, who are inherently part of society. Thus, being simultaneously producers and consumers of the same goods, and challenging firms’ approach towards sustainability from both external and internal perspectives simultaneously.

About the third research question, sustainable practices are applied through all dimensions of the organisation and involve the entire supply chain. From integrating environmental considerations during products’ research and development phase (Guzzo et al, 2019) to the manufacturing phase, such as integrating sustainable manufacturing techniques (Cherrafi et al, 2016). The integration of environmental considerations also goes beyond the manufacturing of products and involves other elements such as logistics with the integration of sustainability overlapping the concept of circular economy in many cases (e.g., Guzzo et al., 2019; Ingemarsdotter et al,2019; Schraven et al., 2019). When looking into existing frameworks, such as the “Circular Model Navigator” of the Business Model Innovation Lab (Business Model Innovation [BMI] Lab, 2021), use cases are linked to the main dimensions presented in its circular canvas: make, use and recover. The implementation of circular strategies typically integrates these elements and includes these dimensions, which would be the case for the use cases presented in Appendix 5, such as the practices stated by Guzzo et al. (2019). Practices also cover the four dimensions presented in BMI’s canvas: product design, metrics, financing, packaging and logistics, not only integrating circular economy elements through the application of lean and six sigma, but also leveraging on new technologies such as the use of internet of things (IoT) to foster sustainability.

Regarding the integration of sustainable practices across industries, it seems to be specially consolidated in sectors such as manufacturing, automotive, consumer goods and transportation. Additionally, as discussed in the study of the stat-of-the-art, innovation is directly linked to sustainable integration, and this is playing a key role in new emerging sectors. A clear example is how IoT (Internet of Things) of things is an enabler to trigger new and more sustainable business models that reinforce circular economy (Ingemarsdotter et al., 2019).

Similarly, the use cases found prove that sustainable business practices are applied all around the globe (Guzzo et al., 2019), despite countries having differences about the external factors surrounding the firm, such as governmental legislation or consumer’s culture. Emerging economies seem to also be realising that sustainability as one of the keys for success (Banihashemi et al, 2017; Wieczorek, 2018).

When looking into the measurement of value proposed in conceptual frameworks, it seems that one of the key indicators included, economic returns, is not a tangible outcome of the implementation of these strategies. Performing a deep dive analysis into the implications of these practices’ implementation, cases such as the one presented by Rotondo et al (2019), show in their example of the low-cost airline industry that the relationship between the integration of social sustainable practices and the improvement of firm’s economic results seems to be neither automatic nor direct. Overall, there seems to be limited visibility over the tangible economic returns that the integration of these practices has. It seems to be difficult to differentiate between the benefits obtained as a result of the integration of the practices and those due to other strategic actions. Perhaps by working on the measurable indicators as proposed before, it is possible to later evaluate that impact. In any case, as discussed by Gong et al (2018) there are many proposed metrics that discuss environmental and social implications. Also, it could be argued that the exact calculation of how much the implementation of these practices entail is probably not so important. What would be key is effectively identifying a continuous trend towards a more sustainable business.



Concluding

5. Conclusions


This systematic review shows that the research area related to the integration of sustainable business models that target improvement on the companies’ ESG performance is a widely studied topic in which there is an emerging interest. This review included the analysis on the state-of-the-art of the integration of these practices (what), the rationale behind them (why) and the implication of the implementation of these sustainable initiatives (how), answering the previously stated research questions.

- Research question 1 (RQ1): What is the state-of-the-art of the integration of sustainable strategies into the business models of firms? Regarding the state-of-the-art, most tools are qualitative frameworks and there are limited quantitative tools that can be used by firms. Thus, there are limited examples of KPIs and metrics that companies can use to measure the sustainability impact of a given practice or business model. Consequently, a research gap identified is the lack of frameworks that include quantitative metrics to measure the level of impact of the integration of these practices and business models. Related to this, there are research opportunities linked to the development of ways to capture the direct value of these business models using quantitative indicators.

Additionally, most tools found during the research are generic, typically providing a holistic view, which could potentially create difficulties when firms try to use them, as they would have to tailor the framework to the characteristics of their industry. Therefore, there would be a research opportunity in tailoring some of these generic models for a set of industries or applications.

- Research question 2 (RQ2): Why do companies integrate sustainability into their business models?

When analysing why companies apply these sustainable business models, several external and internal factors are identified. They are all factors that catalyse sustainability for an organisation. Additionally, many studies also show how external factors (e.g., government policies, customer’s view) help trigger some of the internal factors that foster the integration of sustainable business models, such as the changes in the companies’ vision/mission and organisational structure. However, there is limited study on those factors that are internal to the organisation and also contribute and influence external agents thus promoting sustainable business models both externally and internally to the organisation. In the end, this is creating a chicken-and-egg dilemma and there are research opportunities to further study this situation in which firm’s internal triggers ultimately act as a catalyst of sustainable business models through influencing stakeholders in their external systems.

- Research question 3 (RQ3): How do companies effectively integrate sustainability in their business models?

Related to the use cases of the third research question, selected articles allowed the review of concrete examples of how sustainable business models integration could be performed through a wide scope of targets, sectors and regions. Over the different cases, there are some common challenges, especially when it comes to measuring the success of the integration and capturing value. There seems to be a general lack of visibility of the economic impact of sustainable strategies and there are many possibilities to continue research and ultimately being able to standardise the measurement of the success of these integrations across industries.

Regarding the conclusions for institutions and governments, as described in Appendix 4, initiatives from international organisations and Government initiatives are two key triggers identified as factors on which sustainability integration is thriving. Therefore, it would make sense for these institutions and governments to continue progressing on the development of further initiatives and regulate as they seem to have a positive effect on sustainability integration for companies.

For practitioners, one of the key aspects is that a competitive environment is also a key factor to trigger innovation, thus, triggering sustainability innovation. Regarding the internal factors, firm’s vision and mission, and its strategy, seem to be key to trigger sustainability integration. These have a focus on firm’s management practices and its inclination towards cooperation and co-creation. Thus, cooperation and co-creation seem to be necessary elements to navigate through markets that become more competitive by the day. In these scenarios, it seems to be difficult for a single company to excel without partnering with other organisations.

For academics, research should continue to better understand sustainability integration and to continue standardizing the language used across the topic. Considering other challenges encountered throughout the study, it is worth to comment on the lack of consistency regarding sustainability terminology. Also, some relevant studies may have not been identified during the search process due to the constraints on the sources, defined scope, and preselection of results. Other methodological possibilities could be considered to extend the systematic review along with the classification of findings. Despite of the previously mentioned challenges and limitations, the objective of the search was met. Answers to the three research questions presented were given. Insightful information was found for all research questions, enabling an analysis of existing literature and the identification of current trends, gaps and opportunities for future research


Appendix

APPENDIX


Appendix 1: Selection of journals aligned with the aim of the research scope.

Title

SJR

H index

Total Cites (3years)

Cites / Doc. (2years)

Ref. / Doc.

Category

Selected

Academy of Management Journal

11,190

304

3254

9.32

102.34

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Academy of Management Review

7,482

260

1226

10.15

90.34

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Applied Energy

3,607

189

53715

10.15

56.67

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Biomass and Bioenergy

1,110

169

3847

3.98

53.73

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

Biotechnology for Biofuels

1,522

84

4941

5.1

60.53

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Business Strategy and the Environment

1,828

94

1717

6.16

77

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management; Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Climate Policy

1,889

62

1143

4.31

58.73

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

0,974

66

1043

5.31

75.5

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

2,074

97

1264

8.95

183.09

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

Yes

Ecological Engineering

1,122

118

6260

3.84

54.33

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Ecotoxicology

0,764

86

1189

2.63

57.16

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Energy Policy

2,168

197

11957

5.81

56.31

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

1,234

87

1186

4.53

68.5

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Environmental Science and Policy

1,823

105

3636

5.23

61.42

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Fish and Fisheries

3,001

100

1613

7.17

115.59

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Food Policy

2,189

95

1556

4.59

54.06

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Forest Ecology and Management

1,249

166

6476

3.36

71.46

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Forest Policy and Economics

1,127

64

1572

3.51

63.35

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Global Environmental Change

4,304

162

3855

11.5

81.03

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Human Relations

2,519

124

1264

5.42

79.75

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Industrial Management and Data Systems

1,390

96

2053

4.79

60.7

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Information Processing and Management

1,192

94

1534

6.9

60.17

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation

1,172

92

3755

4.46

55.81

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation

1,623

86

2905

5.04

57.66

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

International Journal of Hospitality Management

2,217

106

3189

8.43

76.16

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

International Journal of Management Reviews

3,482

96

1181

12.27

152.04

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

2,187

129

1794

6.83

84.94

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

International Journal of Production Economics

2,379

172

6779

7.02

62.05

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

Yes

International Journal of Production Research

1,776

125

7754

6.39

57.95

Decision Science: Management science and operations research; Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

International Journal of Project Management

2,659

134

2839

8.87

85.11

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology

0,661

111

3067

2.89

50.16

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

Journal of Cleaner Production

1,886

173

72709

8.3

59.05

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Journal of Corporate Finance

1,566

91

1710

3.29

65.19

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Journal of Environmental Management

1,321

161

18044

6.24

60.17

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law; Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

Yes

Journal of Environmental Quality

0,884

160

1606

2.25

55.8

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law; Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

Journal of Financial Economics

11,999

240

2726

6.79

51.03

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Journal of Hazardous Materials

2,010

260

23676

9.52

51.17

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

Journal of International Business Studies

4,994

184

1781

10.28

103.01

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Journal of Knowledge Management

1,752

106

1912

7.25

96.76

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Journal of Management

6,982

208

3784

11.42

105.7

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE

1,255

62

1169

3.93

67.5

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Journal of Management Studies

4,608

172

1273

6.69

99.71

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Journal of Product Innovation Management

3,128

135

1043

6.43

85.87

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Land Use Policy

1,479

103

6848

4.18

63.62

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Landscape and Urban Planning

1,740

149

3819

6.15

65.92

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Management Decision

0,862

91

1463

3.7

74.51

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

Yes

Management Science

5,439

237

3854

4.57

51.69

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management; Decision Science: Management science and operations research

Yes

Marine Policy

1,295

86

3719

3.47

56.83

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Ocean and Coastal Management

0,822

77

2346

2.77

66.7

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Omega

2,579

131

2581

7.28

53.07

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management; Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Organization Science

5,557

224

1014

3.98

92.58

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Organization Studies

2,967

140

1232

5.54

74.84

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Production and Operations Management

2,843

102

1577

3.83

55.82

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

Yes

Production Planning and Control

1,394

70

1700

5.59

79.38

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management; Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Research Policy

3,246

224

3837

6.91

80.99

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management; Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Resources Policy

1,204

64

1946

4.54

55.74

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

No

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

2,215

119

7538

8.98

59.98

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

Yes

Science of the Total Environment

1,661

224

66632

7.14

64.48

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No

Strategic Management Journal

8,430

269

3584

7.08

79.9

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

Yes

Sustainability

0,581

68

26822

2.97

60.56

Environmental science: Management, monitoring, policy and law

Yes

Tourism Management

3,068

179

6900

9.66

74.85

Business, Management and Accounting: Strategy and management

No

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

2,109

120

4271

5.05

55.41

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review

2,302

103

3008

6.18

52.05

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Transportation Research, Part C: Emerging Technologies

3,342

116

7044

8.36

52.01

Decision Science: Management science and operations research

No

Water Research

2,932

285

25602

9.7

58.06

Environmental science: Waste management and disposal

No


Appendix 2: List of selected articles.

Code

Authors

Title

Year

Journal

A-1

Aarseth et al

Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature review

2017

International Journal of Project Management

A-2

Adamik and Nowicki

Pathologies and paradoxes of co-creation: A contribution to the discussion about corporate social responsibility in building a competitive advantage in the age of Industry 4.0

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-3

Adams et al.

Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review

2016

International Journal of Management Reviews

A-4

Adjei-Bamfp et al

The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: A systematic literature review

2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-5

Amini and Bienstock

Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research

2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-6

Ansari and Kant

Exploring the Framework Development Status for Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Synthesis and Future Research Directions

2017

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-7

Athwal et al

Sustainable Luxury Marketing: A Synthesis and Research Agenda

2019

International Journal of Management Reviews

A-8

Banihashemi et al.

Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries

2017

International Journal of Project Management

A-9

Barros et al

Selection of tailored practices for supply chain management

2013

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

A-10

Barth and Ulvenblad

Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A systematic literature review

2017

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-11

Bautista-Lazo and Short

Introducing the All Seeing Eye of Business: A model for understanding the nature, impact and potential uses of waste

2013

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-12

Benos et al

Harnessing a 'currency matrix' for performance measurement in cooperatives: A multi-phased study

2018

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-13

Berkowitz

Meta-organizing firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: A conceptual framework

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-14

Birkel et al.

Development of a risk framework for Industry 4.0 in the context of sustainability for established manufacturers

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-15

Boons and Lüdeke-Freund

Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda

2013

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-16

Brès et al

Pluralism in Organizations: Learning from Unconventional Forms of Organizations

2018

International Journal of Management Reviews

A-17

Bressanelli et al

Challenges in supply chain redesign for the Circular Economy: a literature review and a multiple case study

2019

International Journal of Production Research

A-18

Buenk et al.

A framework for the sustainability assessment of (Micro)transit systems

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-19

Butler and Szromek

Incorporating the value proposition for society with business models of health tourism enterprises

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-20

Büyüközkan and Karabulut

Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature review and future directions

2018

Journal of Environmental Management

A-21

Caldera et al

Exploring the characteristics of sustainable business practice in small and medium-sized enterprises: Experiences from the Australian manufacturing industry

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-22

Charlo et al

Financial performance of socially responsible firms: The short- and long-term impact

2017

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-23

Cherrafi et al.

The integration of lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions for developing a specific model

2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-24

Cherrafi et al

A framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability performance

2017

International Journal of Production Research

A-25

Cillo et al

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review

2019

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

A-26

Cioca et al

Sustainable development model for the automotive industry

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-27

Cordova and Celone

SDGs and innovation in the business context literature review

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-28

Crane

Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation

2013

Academy of Management Review

A-29

de Jesus Pacheco et al.

State of the art on the role of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving in Sustainable Product-Service Systems: Past, Present, and Future

2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-30

de Jesus Pacheco et al.

Overcoming barriers towards Sustainable Product-Service Systems in Small and Medium-sized enterprises: State of the art and a novel Decision Matrix

2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-31

Dieste et al.

The relationship between lean and environmental performance: Practices and measures

2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-32

Doherty et al.

Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda

2014

International Journal of Management Reviews

A-33

Eichler and Schwarz

What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-34

Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx

Sustainability in the collaborative economy: A bibliometric analysis reveals emerging interest

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-35

Foucrier and Wiek

A process-oriented framework of competencies for sustainability entrepreneurship

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-36

Gbededo et al.

Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis: A systematic review of approaches to sustainable manufacturing

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-37

Ghadimi et alA

Sustainable supply chain modeling and analysis: Past debate, present problems and future challenges

2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-38

Gong et al.

Inside out: The interrelationships of sustainable performance metrics and its effect on business decision making: Theory and practice

2018

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-39

Govindan and Hasanagic

A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective

2018

International Journal of Production Research

A-40

Guzzo et al.

Circular innovation framework: Verifying conceptual to practical decisions in sustainability-oriented product-service system cases

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-41

Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, and Figge

Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames

2014

Academy of Management Review

A-42

Ingemarsdotter et al.

Circular strategies enabled by the internet of things-a framework and analysis of current practice

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-43

Kalmykova, Sadagopan and Rosado.

Circular economy - From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools

2018

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-44

Kumar, Sezersan, Garza-Reyes, Gonzalez, and Al-Shboul,

Circular economy in the manufacturing sector: benefits, opportunities and barriers

2019

Management Decision

A-45

Lake, Acquaye, Genovese, Kumar, and Koh

An application of hybrid life cycle assessment as a decision support framework for green supply chains

2015

International Journal of Production Research

A-46

Leitão, de Brito, and Cubico

Eco-innovation influencers: Unveiling the role of lean management principles adoption

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-47

Liu, Bai, Liu and Wei

A framework of sustainable service supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda

2017

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-48

Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek

Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy?

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-49

Luthra, Govindan and Mangla

Structural model for sustainable consumption and production adoption—A grey-DEMATEL based approach

2017

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-50

Machado, Pinheiro de Lima, Gouvea da Costa, Angelis, and Mattioda

Framing maturity based on sustainable operations management principles

2017

International Journal of Production Economics

A-51

Martens and Carvalho

Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project managers' perspective

2017

International Journal of Project Management

A-52

Melander

Achieving Sustainable Development by Collaborating in Green Product Innovation

2017

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-53

Morioka and de Carvalho

A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business

2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-54

Muñoz and Cohen

Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead

2018

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-55

Nave and Ferreira

Corporate social responsibility strategies: Past research and future challenges

2019

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

A-56

Oberhofer and Fürst

Sustainable development in the transport sector: Influencing environmental behaviour and performance

2013

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-57

Prieto-Sandoval, Jaca, Santos, Baumgartner, and Ormazabal

Key strategies, resources, and capabilities for implementing circular economy in industrial small and medium enterprises

2019

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

A-58

Ranjbari, Morales-Alonso, and Carrasco-Gallego

Conceptualizing the sharing economy through presenting a comprehensive framework

2018

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-59

Rizzi, Bartolozzi, Borghini, and Frey

Environmental Management of End-of-Life Products: Nine Factors of Sustainability in Collaborative Networks

2013

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-60

Rotondo et al.

The social side of sustainable business models: An explorative analysis of the low-cost airline industry

2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-61

Sahamie, Stindt, and Nuss

Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable Operations - An Application to Closed-Loop Supply Chains

2013

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-62

Schraven et al.

Circular transition: Changes and responsibilities in the Dutch stony material supply chain

2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-63

Shao

Sustainable consumption in China: New trends and research interests

2019

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-64

Singh et al.

Stakeholder role for developing a conceptual framework of sustainability in organization

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-65

Stephan, Patterson, Kelly, C., and Mair,

Organizations Driving Positive Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes

2016

Journal of Management

A-66

Stewart and Niero

Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector

2018

Business Strategy and the Environment

A-67

Susur, Hidalgo, and Chiaroni,

A strategic niche management perspective on transitions to eco-industrial park development: A systematic review of case studies

2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-68

Tirabeni, De Bernardi, Forliano, and Franco,

How can organisations and business models lead to a more sustainable society? A framework from a systematic review of the industry 4.0

2019

Sustainability (Switzerland)

A-69

Vezzoli et al.

New design challenges to widely implement 'Sustainable Product-Service Systems'

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-70

Watson, Wilson, Smart, and Macdonald,

Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation

2018

Journal of Product Innovation Management

A-71

Wieczorek

Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy

2018

Environmental Science and Policy

A-72

Wry and York

An identity-based approach to social enterprise

2017

Academy of Management Review

A-73

Yip and Bocken

Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry

2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

A-74

Yun et al.

Metallurgical and mechanical methods for recycling of lithium-ion battery pack for electric vehicles

2018

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

A-75

Zhao, Chang, Hwang, and Deng

Critical factors influencing business model innovation for sustainable buildings

2017

Sustainability (Switzerland)


Appendix 3: Results related to the integration of sustainability in business models.

Code

Authors

Tool

Research area

Approach

Generalization level

A-1

Aarseth et al.

Sustainability strategies to be used project organisation, its host, or both in collaboration

Sustainable production

Qualitative

Generic

A-3

Adams et al.

Sustainability-oriented innovation model

Sustainable innovation

Qualitative

Generic

A-5

Amini and Bienstock

Framework for corporate sustainability

Corporate sustainability

Qualitative

Generic

A-6

Ansari and Kant

Framework for sustainability in supply chain management

Sustainability in supply chain

Qualitative

Specific

A-9

Barros et al.

Practices to reduce waste

Waste management

Qualitative

Generic

A-10

Barth and Ulvenblad

Framework for sustainable business models in the agri-food sector

Sustainability in agri-food sector

Qualitative

Specific

A-11

Bautista-Lazo and Short

Waste-related approach model

Waste management

Qualitative

Generic

A-13

Berkowitz

Framework for meta-organizing firm's capabilities for sustainable innovation

Sustainable innovation

Qualitative

Generic

A-14

Birkel et al.

Sustainability risk framework for established manufacturers

Sustainability risk analysis

Qualitative

Specific

A-15

Boons and Lüdeke-Freund

Analysis of technological, social and organisational innovation

Sustainable innovation

Qualitative

Generic

A-17

Bressanelli et al.

Levers to overcome challenges in circular economy

Sustainability in supply chain

Qualitative

Generic

A-18

Buenk et al.

Framework for the sustainability assessment of (micro)transit systems

Sustainable transportation

Qualitative

Specific

A-20

Büyüközkan and Karabulut

Analysis of sustainable performance frameworks

Performance reporting

Qualitative

Generic

A-24

Cherrafi et al.

Framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma

Lean manufacturing

Qualitative

Generic

A-29

de Jesus Pacheco et al.

Model for sustainable product-service systems

Inventive problem solving

Qualitative

Generic

A-30

de Jesus Pacheco et al.

Decision matrix to enhance Sustainable Product-Service Systems in Small and Medium-sized enterprises

Sustainable Product-Service Systems

Qualitative

Generic

A-31

Dieste et al.

Model to connect lean and environmental performance

Lean manufacturing

Qualitative

Generic

A-35

Foucrier and Wiek

Framework for sustainability entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship

Qualitative

Generic

A-36

Gbededo et al.

Model for life cycle sustainability analysis

Sustainable manufacturing

Qualitative

Generic

A-39

Govindan and Hasanagic

Practices towards circular economy

Circular economy

Qualitative

Generic

A-41

Hahn et al.

Business case frames in corporate sustainability

Corporate sustainability

Qualitative

Generic

A-43

Kalmykova et al.

Implementation tools for circular economy

Circular economy

Qualitative

Generic

A-44

Kumar et al.

Opportunities for circular economy in manufacturing

Circular economy

Qualitative

Specific

A-47

Liu et al.

Framework of sustainable service supply chain management

Supply chain management

Qualitative

Generic

A-51

Martens and Carvalho

Factors of sustainability in project management

Project management

Qualitative

Generic

A-53

Morioka and de Carvalho

Framework for sustainability performance

Sustainability performance

Qualitative

Generic

A-54

Muñoz and Cohen

Practices to overcome challenges related to sustainable entrepreneurship

Sustainable innovation

Qualitative

Generic

A-57

Prieto-Sandoval et al.

Set of strategies to help SMEs implement circular economy

Circular economy

Qualitative

Specific

A-65

Stephan et al.

Framework for Positive Social Change Strategies

Corporate sustainability

Qualitative

Generic

A-68

Tirabeni et al.

Sustainability framework

Industry 4.0

Qualitative

Generic

A-69

Vezzoli et al.

Model of design challenges to widely implement 'sustainable product-service systems'

Sustainable design

Qualitative

Generic

A-70

Watson et al.

Framework addressing stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation

Sustainable innovation

Qualitative

Generic

A-73

Yip and Bocken

Model of sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry

Sustainable banking

Qualitative

Specific


Appendix 4: Factors fostering the integration of sustainability practices.

Code

Authors

External factors

Internal factors

A-2

Adamik and Nowicki

- Competitive environment

- Economic and social tensions

- Inclination towards co-creation and collaboration with other organisations

A-4

Adjei-Bamfp et al.

N/A

- Deployment of electronic and internet technologies

A-7

Athwal et al.

- Customer behaviour

- Social tensions

- Firm’s organisation concerns

A-22

Charlo

- Societal changes

- Customer behaviour

- Firm’s strategic positioning

A-25

Cillo et al.

- Customer behaviour

- Initiatives from international organisations

- Firm’s strategic positioning

- Inclination towards co-creation and collaboration with other organisations

A-27

Cordova and Celone

- Initiatives from international organisations

N/A

A-28

Crane

- Initiatives from international organisations

- Internal policies

A-32

Doherty et al.

- Social policies (e.g., Fairtrade)

- Firm’s vision and mission definition

- Firm’s organisational form

A-33

Eichler and Schwarz

- Societal changes

- Initiatives from international organisations

N/A

A-34

Ertz and Leblanc-Proulx

- Competitive environment

- Inclination towards co-creation and collaboration with other organisations

A-37

Ghadimi et al.

N/A

- Profitability

A-46

Leitão et al.

N/A

- Firm’s management system

A-48

Ludeke-Freund and Dembek

- Customer behaviour

- Authoritative institutions research

- Firm’s vision and mission definition

- Pricing models

A-49

Luthra et al.

- Government initiatives

- Initiatives from international organisations

- Competitive environment

- Firm’s strategic positioning

A-50

Machado et al.

N/A

- Firm’s strategic positioning

- Performance management system

- Internal policies

A-52

Melander

N/A

-Innovation

-Inclination towards co-creation and collaboration with other organisations

A-55

Nave and Ferreira

N/A

- Firm’s strategic positioning

- Altruistic motivations

A-61

Sahamie et al.

- Academic research agenda

- Inclination towards co-creation and collaboration with other organisations

A-63

Shao

- Customer behaviour

N/A

A-64

Singh et al.

- Government initiatives

- Customer behaviour

- Cost-saving / Economic returns

- Firm’s vision and mission definition (social value)

A-66

Stewart and Niero

- Government policies

- Cost-saving

A-67

Susur et al.

N/A

- Firm’s strategic positioning

A-72

Wry and York

N/A

- Firm’s vision and mission definition (social value)

A-75

Zhao et al.

- Environmental policies and legislations

- Technology innovation

- Market demands

- Social and cultural standards

- Entrepreneurship

- Organisational learning


Appendix 5 Cases reflecting the integration of sustainable business models.

Code

Authors

Case description

Industry/

Research area

Region

A-8

Banihashemi et al.

Critical success factors for sustainability integration into project management practices

Construction

Developing countries

A-12

Benos et al.

Development of agricultural cooperatives and performance measurement

Agriculture

Not specific

A-16

Brès et al.

Management of pluralism and tensions related to hybrid organisations

Not specific

Not specific

A-19

Butler and Szromek

Actions to complement existing business models and give them the characteristics of a sustainable business model

Health tourism

Not specific

A-21

Caldera et al.

Establishment of what constitutes a sustainable business practice for day-to-day operations

Manufacturing

Australia

A-23

Cherrafi et al.

Achieving sustainability through lean and six sigma integration tools and techniques

Manufacturing

Not specific

A-26

Cioca et al.

Actions to address sustainability and SDGs

Automotive

Not specific

A-38

Gong et al.

Sustainable measurements: Use of metrics to report on sustainable performance

Aerospace, Building Materials, Automotive, Technology, Plastic, Engineering

Food, Beverage, Tobacco

Chemical, Medical, Pharmacy

Mining, Oil, Gas, Natural Stone

Consumer goods

Not specific

A-40

Guzzo et al.

Practices for circular economy (e.g., key partners, key activities, product features, customer relationships, channels)

Farming

Built environment

Clothing

Consumer goods

Industrial machinery

Maritime industry

Medical devices

Mobility

Oil, gas and mining

Waste management

Spain

Australia, China, France, Italy, Sweden

Austria, Sweden

Austria, Brazil, France, Iran, South Korea

Greece*, Sweden

Denmark*

Italy*

China, Europe, North America, South Korea

Chile, China

Sweden

(*inferred)

A-42

Ingemarsdotter et al.

Circular strategies enabled through IoT

Car sharing and transportation

Consumer goods

Office management systems

Not specific

A-45

Lake et al.

Application of hybrid life cycle assessment as a decision support framework

Steel industry

Not specific

A-56

Oberhofer and Fürst

Implementation of environmental management

Road freight transport

Austria

A-58

Ranjbari et al.

Application of a sharing economy framework

Car sharing and transportation

Lodging hospitality

Not specific

A-59

Rizzi et al.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) implementation

Automotive

Not specific

A-60

Rotondo et al.

Enhancing the social side of sustainable business models

Low-cost airline

Not specific

A-62

Schraven et al.

Circular transition in supply chain

Stony material

Netherlands

A-71

Wieczorek

Sustainability transitions

Not specific

Developing countries

A-74

Yun et al.

Recycling of components

Automotive

Not specific


References

Referencias


Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., & Andersen, B. (2017). Project sustainability strategies: A scopus literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1071-1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006

Adamik, A., & Nowicki, M. (2019). Pathologies and paradoxes of co-creation: A contribution to the discussion about corporate social responsibility in building a competitive advantage in the age of industry 4.0. Sustainability, 11(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184954

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068

Adjei-Bamfo, P., Maloreh-Nyamekye, T., & Ahenkan, A. (2019). The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001

Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Aksnes, D.W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Amini, M., & Bienstock, C.C. (2014). Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.016

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating Value Through Business Model Innovation. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creating-value-through-business-model-innovation/

Ansari, Z.N., & Kant, R. (2017). Exploring the framework development status for sustainability in supply chain management: A systematic literature synthesis and future research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(7), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1945

Athwal, N., Wells, V.K., Carrigan, M., & Henninger, C.E. (2019). Sustainable Luxury Marketing: A Synthesis and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(4), 405-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12195

Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, M.R., Golizadeh, H., & Sankaran, S. (2017). Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1103-1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.014

Barile, S., Quattrociocchi, B., Calabrese, M., & Iandolo, F. (2018). Sustainability and the Viable Systems Approach: Opportunities and Issues for the Governance of the Territory. Sustainability, 10, 790.

Barros, A.C., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., & Blanco, E.E. (2013). Selection of tailored practices for supply chain management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 33(8), 1040-1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2011-0264

Barth, H., & Ulvenblad, P. (2017). Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620

Bautista-Lazo, S. & Short, T. (2013). Introducing the all-seeing eye of business: A model for understanding the nature, impact and potential uses of waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.011

Bautista-Puig, N., Elba, M., & Elías, S.-C. (2021). Analysis of Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainability Core: A Bibliometric Overview. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 15(4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2020.10026529

Becker, C., Betz, S., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easterbrook, S.M., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N., & Venters, C.C. (2016). Requirements: The Key to Sustainability. IEEE Software 33(1), 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2015.158

Benos, T., Kalogeras, N., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., & Pennings, J.M.E. (2018). Harnessing a 'currency matrix' for performance measurement in cooperatives: A multi-phased study. Sustainability, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124536

Berkowitz, H. (2018). Meta-organizing firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 175, 420-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.028

Bigelow, L.S. & Barney, J.B. (2021). What can Strategy Learn from the Business Model Approach? Journal of Management Studies, 58, 528-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12579

Birkel, H.S., Veile, J.W., Muller, J.M., Hartmann, E., & Voigt, K.I. (2019). Development of a Risk Framework for Industry 4.0 in the Context of Sustainability for Established Manufacturers. Sustainability, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020384

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007

Brès, L., Raufflet, E., Boghossian, J. (2018). Pluralism in organizations: Learning from unconventional forms of organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 364-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12136

Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2019). Challenges in supply chain redesign for the Circular Economy: a literature review and a multiple case study. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7395-7422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1542176

Buenk, R., Grobbelaar, S.S., & Meyer, I. (2019). A framework for the sustainability assessment of (micro)transit systems. Sustainability, 11(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215929

Business Model Innovation (BMI) Lab (2021). Designing Circular Business Models: From Ideation to Implementation. Retrieved from https://bmilab.com/blog/2021/01/27/designing-circular-business-models-from-ideation-to-implementation

Butler, R.W., & Szromek, A.R. (2019). Incorporating the value proposition for society with business models of health tourism enterprises. º, 11(23) https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236711

Büyüközkan, G., & Karabulut, Y. (2018). Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature review and future directions. Journal of Environmental Management, 217, 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.064

Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C., & Dawes, L. (2018). Exploring the characteristics of sustainable business practice in small and medium-sized enterprises: Experiences from the australian manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 338-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.265

Carrascosa López, C., Peiró Signes, A., & Segarra Oña, M. del V. (2012). Relación entre Mejora Continua, Innovación y Compromiso Medio Ambiental de la Gerencia, un Estudio Empírico (An empirical study of the relationships between management´s continuous improvement, innovation and environmental commitment). TEC Empresarial, 6(3), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v6i3.630

Charlo, M.J., Moya, I., Muñoz, A.M. (2017). Financial performance of socially responsible firms: The short- and long-term impact. Sustainability, 9(9), 1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091622

Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., & Benhida, K. (2016). The integration of lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions for developing a specific model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 828-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101

Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., & Mokhlis, A. (2017). A framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability performance. International Journal of Production Research, 55(15), 4481-4515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1266406

Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1012-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1783

Cioca, L., Ivascu, L., Turi, A., Artene, A., & Gaman, G.A. (2019). Sustainable development model for the automotive industry. Sustainability, 11(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226447

Cohen, M.J. (2020). Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption transition? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1740472

Cordova, M.F., & Celone, A. (2019). SDGs and innovation in the business context literature review. Sustainability, 11(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247043

Crane, A. (2013). Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0145

Darnall, N., Ponting, C., & Vazquez-Brust, D., (2012). Why consumers buy green. In book: Green-Growth: Managing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy (1st ed.), Chapter 15, Springer. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2610.2727

DaSilva, C.M., Trkman, P. (2014). Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not, Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379-389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.004

de Jesus Pacheco, D. A., ten Caten, C. S., Jung, C. F., Navas, H. V. G., Cruz-Machado, V. A., & Tonetto, L. M. (2019). State of the art on the role of the theory of inventive problem solving in sustainable product-service systems: Past, present, and future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.289

de Jesus Pacheco, D.A., Ten Caten, C.S., Jung, C.F., Sassanelli, C., & Terzi, S. (2019). Overcoming barriers towards Sustainable Product-Service Systems in Small and Medium-sized enterprises: State of the art and a novel Decision Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 903-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.152

Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., Garza-Reyes, J.A., & Anosike, A. (2019). The relationship between lean and environmental performance: Practices and measures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.243

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028

Eichler, G.M., & Schwarz, E.J. (2019). What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature. Sustainability, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020522

Ertz, M., & Leblanc-Proulx, S. (2018). Sustainability in the collaborative economy: A bibliometric analysis reveals emerging interest. Journal of Clean Production, 196, 1073-1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.095

Foucrier, T., & Wiek, A. (2019). A process-oriented framework of competencies for sustainability entrepreneurship. Sustainability, 11(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247250

Gbededo, M.A., Liyanage, K., & Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2018). Towards a life cycle sustainability analysis: A systematic review of approaches to sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.310

Ghadimi, P., Wang, C., & Lim, M.K. (2019). Sustainable supply chain modeling and analysis: Past debate, present problems and future challenges. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.005

Gong, M., Simpson, A., Koh, L., & Tan, K.H. (2018). Inside out: The interrelationships of sustainable performance metrics and its effect on business decision making: Theory and practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.001

Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 278-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141

Guzzo, D., Trevisan, A.H., Echeveste, M., & Costa, J.M.H. (2019). Circular Innovation Framework: Verifying Conceptual to Practical Decisions in Sustainability-Oriented Product-Service System Cases. Sustainability, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123248

Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463-487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341

Hallin, A, Karrbom-Gustavsson, T, & Dobers, P. (2021). Transition towards and of sustainability—Understanding sustainability as performative. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30, 1948-1957. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2726

Iheanachor, N., David-West, Y., & Ovemeso Umukoro, I. (2021). Business model innovation at the bottom of the pyramid – A case of mobile money agents. Journal of Business Research, 127, 96-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.029

Ingemarsdotter, E., Jamsin, E., Kortuem, G., & Balkenende, R. (2019). Circular strategies enabled by the internet of things-a framework and analysis of current practice. Sustainability, 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205689

Irsan, I., & Utama, M. (2019). The Political Law on Coal Mining in the Fulfilment of People’s Welfare in Indonesia. Sriwijaya Law Review, 3(1), 11-25, https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol3.iss1.202.pp11-25

Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy – From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034

Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Gonzalez, E.D.R.S., & AL-Shboul, M.A. (2019). Circular economy in the manufacturing sector: benefits, opportunities and barriers. Management Decision, 57(4), 1067-1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-1070

Lake, A., Acquaye, A., Genovese, A., Kumar, N., & Koh, S.C.L. (2015). An application of hybrid life cycle assessment as a decision support framework for green supply chains. International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6495-6521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.951092

Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582

Leitão, J., de Brito, S., & Cubico, S. (2019). Eco-innovation influencers: Unveiling the role of lean management principles adoption. Sustainability, 11(8), Article 2225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082225

Liu, W., Bai, E., Liu, L., & Wei, W. (2017). A framework of sustainable service supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Sustainability, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030421

Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1668-1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.093

Luthra, S., Govindan, K., & Mangla, S.K. (2017). Structural model for sustainable consumption and production adoption—A grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.018

Machado, C.G., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E., Angelis, J.J., & Mattioda, R.A. (2017). Framing maturity based on sustainable operations management principles. International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.020

Martens, M.L., & Carvalho, M.M. (2017). Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project managers' perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1084-1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.004

Mazzanti, M. (2018). Eco-innovation and sustainability: dynamic trends, geography and policies, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(11), 1851-1860. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1486290

Melander, L. (2017). Achieving Sustainable Development by Collaborating in Green Product Innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1095-1109. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1970

Miret-Pastor, L., Segarra-Oña, M.V., & Peiró-Signes, A. (2011). ¿Cómo medimos la Ecoinnovación? Análisis de indicadores en el Sector Turístico (How to rate Ecoinnovation? A tourism sector indicator´s analysis), TEC Empresarial, 5(2), 15-25.

Morioka, S. N., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2016). A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of Cleaner Production 136, 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104

Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300-322. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000

Nave, A., & Ferreira, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility strategies: Past research and future challenges. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 885-901. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1729

Oberhofer, P., & Fürst, E. (2013). Sustainable development in the transport sector: Influencing environmental behaviour and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(6), 374-389. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1750

Okoli, C. (2015). A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743

Ordieres-Meré, J., Prieto Remón, T., & Rubio, J. (2020). Digitalization: An Opportunity for Contributing to Sustainability From Knowledge Creation. Sustainability, 12, 1460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041460

Prescott, J.E., & Filatotchev, I. (2021). The Business Model Phenomenon: Towards Theoretical Relevance. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 517-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12610

Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., Santos, J., Baumgartner, R.J., & Ormazabal, M. (2019). Key strategies, resources, and capabilities for implementing circular economy in industrial small and medium enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1473-1484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1761

Ranjbari, M., Morales-Alonso, G., & Carrasco-Gallego, R. (2018). Conceptualizing the sharing economy through presenting a comprehensive framework. Sustainability, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072336

Reim, W., Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models and tactics – a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003

Rizzi, F., Bartolozzi, I., Borghini, A., & Frey, M. (2013). Environmental Management of End-of-Life Products: Nine Factors of Sustainability in Collaborative Networks. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22 (8). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1766

Rotondo, F., Corsi, K., & Giovanelli, L. (2019). The social side of sustainable business models: An explorative analysis of the low-cost airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 806-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.345

Sahamie, R., Stindt, D., & Nuss, C. (2013). Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable Operations - An Application to Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(4), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1771

Schraven, D., Bukvić, U., Di Maio, F., & Hertogh, M. (2019). Circular transition: Changes and responsibilities in the Dutch stony material supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.035

Schrettle, S., Hinz, A., Scherrer-Rathje, M., & Friedli, T. (2014). Turning sustainability into action: Explaining firms' sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, Part A, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.030

SCImago, (n.d.). SJR - SCImago Journal Country Rank [Portal]. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com

Segarra Oña, M. del V., Merello Giménez, P., Segura Maroto, M., Peiró Signes, A., & Maroto Álvarez, C., (2012). Proactividad Medioambiental en la Empresa: Clasificación Empírica y Determinación de Aspectos Clave (Environmental proactiveness in the company: an empirical categorization and its key components). TEC Empresarial, 6(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v6i1.583

Shao, J. (2019). Sustainable consumption in China: New trends and research interests. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(8), 1507-1517. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2327

Singh, A., Sushil, Kar, S., & Pamucar, D. (2019). Stakeholder role for developing a conceptual framework of sustainability in organization. Sustainability, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010208

Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations Driving Positive Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1250-1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316633268

Stewart, R., & Niero, M. (2018). Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7). https://doi.org/1005-1022. 10.1002/bse.2048

Susur, E., Hidalgo, A., & Chiaroni, D. (2019). A strategic niche management perspective on transitions to eco-industrial park development: A systematic review of case studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140, 338-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.002

Tenhunen, M., & Penttinen, E. (2010). Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Paper vs. Electronic Invoicing. ACIS 2010, Proceedings 95. http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2010/95

Tirabeni, L., De Bernardi, P., Forliano, C., & Franco, M. (2019). How can organisations and business models lead to a more sustainable society? A framework from a systematic review of the industry 4.0. Sustainability, 11(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226363

Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Diehl, J.C., & Kohtala, C. (2015). New design challenges to widely implement 'sustainable product-service systems'. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061

Watson, R., Wilson, H.N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E.K. (2018). Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(2), 254-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394

Wieczorek, A.J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 84, 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008

Wilson, C.D.H., Williams, I.D., & Kemp S. (2011). An Evaluation of the Impact and Effectiveness of Environmental Legislation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Experiences from the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(3), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.720

World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], W. C. o. E. a. D. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. United Nations.

Wry, T., & York, J.G. (2017). An identity-based approach to social enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437-460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0506

Yip, A.W.H, & Bocken, N.M.P. (2018). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry, Journal of Clean Production, 174, 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.190

Yun, L., Linh, D., Shui, L., Peng, X., Garg, A., Loan Phung LE, M.., Asghari, S., & Sandoval, J. (2018). Metallurgical and mechanical methods for recycling of lithium-ion battery pack for electric vehicles. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.025

Zhao, X., Chang, T., Hwang, B., & Deng, X. (2017). Critical factors influencing business model innovation for sustainable buildings. Sustainability, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010033

Zinovieva, C.G., Kuznetsova, M.V., Dorfman, T. V., Limarev, P. V., & Limareva, J. A. (2016). Study of external and internal factors affecting enterprise’s stability. Advances in Systems Science and Applications, 16(1), 62-71. Retrieved from https://ijassa.ipu.ru/index.php/ijassa/article/view/357