Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Sustainable business model experimentation by understanding

ecologies of business models
Nancy Bocken a, b, c, *, Frank Boons d, Brian Baldassarre b, e
a
Lund University, IIIEE, Tegn
ersplatsen 4, 223 50, Lund, Sweden
b
Delft University of Technology, Industrial Design Engineering, Product Innovation Management, Landbergstraat 15, 2628, CE Delft, Netherlands
c
School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
d
University of Manchester, Sustainable Consumption Institute & Alliance Manchester Business School, Manchester, M13 9P, UK
e
THANKS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sustainable business model innovation is about creating superior customer and firm value by addressing
Received 22 December 2017 societal and environmental needs through the way business is done. Business models require intentional
Received in revised form design if they are to deliver aspired sustainability impacts. Scant research has been done on ‘ecologies’ of
9 October 2018
different business models in order to understand and improve these and create positive impact on the
Accepted 14 October 2018
environment, society, economy and other key stakeholders. Hence, in this paper a novel framework is
presented to enable a systemic form of sustainable business model experimentation. The framework is
based on the recognition of three key issues which have not yet been sufficiently incorporated in the
Keywords:
Sustainable business models
literature on sustainable business models: construct clarity, boundary setting and uncertainty about
Business model for sustainability outcomes. These concepts are discussed first. Building on earlier work, the resulting framework in-
Experimentation corporates potential side-effects and boundary setting based on the concept of an ‘ecology of business
Collaboration models’. Second, an approach is proposed that could stimulate more profound forms of sustainable
Business model design business model innovation: The Ecology of Business Models Experimentation map. Third, the approach is
Sharing economy illustrated through two cases. The approach could help minimise symbiotic dependency on less sus-
tainable business models; help destroy unsustainable business models by outcompeting them; and
maximise contributions to favourable institutional infrastructures for more sustainable business models.
This paper contributes to research on sustainable business model innovation, design and experimenta-
tion by providing a potential approach for ‘business model ecology redesign’.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental value and optimise value for itself as well as for a
wider network of stakeholders, including Society and Environment
Sustainable business models are currently a major focus in ac- as stakeholders, thus optimising value for the ‘system’ (Stubbs and
ademic literature, and also among business practitioners and policy Cocklin, 2008). However, creating ‘shared value’ across stake-
makers dealing with the ecological and social impact production holders is difficult to realise in practice (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
and consumption systems. Yet there is uncertainty about the Tools such as the Triple Layer Business Model Canvas (Joyce and
outcome of business model innovations for sustainability (Mont, Paquin, 2016), Flourishing business canvas (Upward and Jones,
2002; Tukker, 2004, 2015; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017). 2016) and Value Mapping Tool (Bocken et al., 2013) have been
Sustainable business model innovation is about creating superior developed to support a systemic view on sustainable business
customer and firm value through addressing societal and envi- modelling.
ronmental needs (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). To this end, a We argue for a more inclusive perspective when experimenting
company should actively seek to create positive societal and with sustainable business models (Weissbrod and Bocken, 2017).
This follows from considering three key issues: construct clarity,
boundary setting and uncertainty about outcomes. These issues
* Corresponding author. Lund University, IIIEE, Tegnersplatsen 4, 223 50, Lund, were identified from reviewing literature on sustainable business
Sweden. models and build on findings in earlier work of the authors in this
E-mail address: nancy.bocken@iiiee.lu.se (N. Bocken).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.159
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1499

field (e.g., Boons, 2009; Boons, 2013; Bocken et al., 2013; Boons and model design and experimentation. This invokes a perspective
Bocken, 2018). We argue that taking these into account in a where innovation is not a form of managerially controlled design
meaningful way in the process of (re)developing business models, (as is sometimes implicit in the business model innovation litera-
will increase positive societal and environmental outcomes, as well ture), but rather a process of collaborative learning and experi-
as financial viability. mentation (Roome and Louche, 2016). In this process of
The first issue is construct clarity: there is a lack of clarity con- experimentation, the system boundary becomes a topic of
cerning the context in which sustainable business model experi- consideration, as it affects who is involved in the process of
mentation takes place and consequently on the sustainable developing the business model for sustainability. Often sustainable
business model construct itself (Boons, 2013; Schaltegger et al., business model innovation is initiated by a focal firm but will
2016). Business model innovation potentially optimises only spe- quickly involve other stakeholders such as customers, supplier and
cific elements such as the value proposition, value creation and partners, NGOs, and the government, who jointly shape the new
value delivery, and value capture (Richardson, 2008) rather than business model (Bocken et al., 2013; Keskin et al., 2013).
increasing systems-wide impact. This is related to the lack of clarity The aim of this paper is to develop and illustrate a framework for
on what constitutes a business model, which has been identified in sustainable business model experimentation that addresses these
the literature on business models in general, as well as for business interrelated issues. The framework enables sustainable business
model innovation (Zott et al., 2011; Foss and Saebi, 2017; Ritter and models that minimise negative impact and generate significant
Lettl, 2018). In the sustainable business model literature the prob- positive value for a network of stakeholders, including society and
lem is similar, with the added complication of multiple definitions environment, and not only the firm (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008;
of sustainability (Schaltegger et al., 2016; Boons and Lüdeke- Bocken et al., 2013). Boons and Bocken (2018) present an ‘ecology
Freund, 2013). of business models’ to create greater awareness of business model
The second issue follows from the first one, and concerns interdependencies in business model design. Building on this, and
boundary setting: since there is no fixed frame of reference on the other work on sustainable business models and experimentation,
context in which sustainable business model innovation takes and insights on changing interactions and boundaries and rebound
place, it is extremely difficult to assess the impact of sustainable effects in business models, this paper explores a novel method to
business models. In fact, the expected, unexpected and direct and help design and experiment with business models that create
indirect positive and negative impacts resulting from a business greater positive environmental and societal value overall. The
model vary depending on how boundaries are traced around the approach is illustrated with two case companies of start-ups aiming
system of analysis. Here the lack of construct clarity complicates an to pursue sustainable business model innovation.
adequate assessment of comprehensive impacts. This issue is not
only an academic problem; it relates to expectations of sustainable 2. Literature review
business models in practice. This leads into process-oriented in-
terpretations of sustainable business models, in which boundaries We review the literature on sustainable business models to
are not given, but rather become defined in the process of business clarify how the three interrelated issues introduced above have
model innovation. Thus, Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013) define been dealt with up till now. Section 2.1 deals with the impact of
sustainable business models as a process of engaging affected sustainable business models and uncertainty about outcomes.
stakeholders to achieve consensus about what impacts should be Section 2.2 is about the sustainable business model construct and
considered rather than defining key indicators for impact from the boundaries and Section 2.3 is about ways to develop new business
start. This implies that boundaries are drawn in the process of models using (joint) experimentation. Business experimentation is
defining, modifying and sustaining a business model, and impli- about businesses exploring the diverse possibilities they could
cation that resonates with systems theory. This approach allows the create value from and understanding what works in which
inclusion of rebound effects in assessing impacts. Rebound effects particular situations in a real-life business context (Bocken et al.,
refer to “a behavioural or other systemic response to a measure 2017, 2018b) and relevant as an approach to deal with the three
taken to reduce environmental impacts that offsets the effect of the issues. Drawing on this, in Section 2.4 a conceptual framework is
measure.” (Hertwich, 2005, 86). A simple example would be taking created that could support sustainable business model design and
the measure of installing energy saving lightbulbs. If this leads experimentation.
users to leave on lights longer than they used to, then the potential
energy saving is offset by a behavioural change instigated by the 2.1. Impact of sustainable business models
measure.
The third issue is a consequence of the first two, and concerns Sustainable business models arguably hold the promise to
uncertainty about outcomes: since it is difficult to assess the impact deliver ‘systems-level’ innovation (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund,
of sustainable business models, concrete outcomes cannot easily be 2013), but such models need to be designed with upfront intent
predicted, and thus implementing a new business model can lead to deliver the desirable impacts (Mont and Tukker, 2006). Several
to undesired rebound effects. While recently studies question the categorisations of sustainable business models have been created
size of rebound effects (Gillingham et al., 2013), the size of such by academics and business practitioners ((Boons (2013), Bocken
effects depend on what system boundary is drawn (Sorrell, 2007), et al. (2013), Clinton and Whisnant (2014) and Wells (2013),
leading to uncertainty about outcomes. This relates to the extent to Accenture (2014), Bakker et al. (2014), and Bocken et al. (2016)).
which desired impacts can and will be managed. For example, in a Building on this work a more profound understanding is needed
business model focused on ‘creating value from waste’, waste about the actual impacts of such business models. Table 1 sum-
streams elsewhere may be sustained rather than reduced (Bocken marises potential positive and negative effects associated with
et al., 2013). Regarding systems boundaries, the work of Flood sustainable business models and shows that despite the potential
(2002) is relevant. His approach allows organisations and stake- environmental or societal benefits of each innovation, unintended
holder groups to critically assess their own system boundaries and negative consequences are materialise, which, through greater
those of actors they affect to develop more inclusive ways of dealing awareness, may be mitigated.
with shared problems and opportunities. We posit that this Business models come with intended and unintended conse-
approach can be fruitfully employed in the process of business quences, of which rebound effects are of particular importance
 1500
Table 1
Summary of sustainable archetypes and impacts (adapted from Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2017, based on Bocken et al., 2013 and Ritala et al., 2018).

Environmental Social Economic

1. Maximise 2. Closing resource 3.Substitute with 4.Deliver functionality, 5. Adopt a 6.Encourage 7. Repurpose for 8. Inclusive value 9. Develop
material & loops renewables and not ownership steward-ship sufficiency society/ creation sustainable scale up
energy efficiency natural processes role environment solutions

Short definition Do more with fewer Reuse materials and Use of non-finite Provide services that Proactively engage Solutions that Seek to create Sharing resources, Delivering
resources, generating products; turn waste materials and energy satisfy users' needs with all actively seek to positive value for knowledge, sustainable
less waste, emissions into feedstocks for sources without having to own stakeholders to reduce end-user all stakeholders, in ownership and solutions at a large

N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

and pollution other products/ physical products ensure their long- consumption particular society wealth creation, scale to maximise
processes. term health and and environment inclusive value benefits for society
well-being generation and the
environment
Innovations Lean manufacturing Cradle-to-cradle Cleantech Rental/lease Community Consumer Social enterprises Collaborative Open Innovation
within this Dematerialization Industrial symbiosis Renewable energy (e.g. Pay per use development education and b-corporations platforms platforms
archetype Increased functionality Extended producer solar, wind) Product-service Biodiversity Demand Non-profits Collaborative Incubators
responsibility Biomimicry combinations protection management Hybrid models consumption Slow/patient
Choice editing Slow fashion Net positive Peer-to-peer and capital
Frugal businesses initiatives Sharing models
Typical Enhance efficiency and Reduces waste Reduces use of finite Can encourage the right Ensuring long-term Actively reduce Deliver positive Sharing resources, Achieve scale e
positive improve resource use Turns waste into value/ resources, waste and behaviours with well-being of consumption societal (e.g. skills and from small
impacts Cost savings new business lines pollution manufacturers and planet (e.g. forests) Encouraging community knowledge and sustainability pilot
Generate new revenue Supports long-term users and society (e.g. community development) distribute wealth or start-up to large
streams energy supply Can reduce the need for health) sufficiency, value Leverage resources scale project or
Contributes to ‘green physical good Ensuring long-term sustainable living Deliver positive and talents business
economy’ viability of the Long-term environmental (e.g. Create new Create industry-
value network customer loyalty, afforestation) value business wide change for
and new repair and Prepare for a opportunities sustainability
service markets resource capacity Create
for long-term breakthrough
business innovation
sustainability
Possible May generate May lead to quicker ‘Carbon lock in’ and More product/service More product/ Potential price Potential to remain If not combined Focus on scale
negative incremental change sales cycles and more NIMBY prevent uptake usage service usage premium for niche without with efficiency might detract from
side-effects only material use Embedded footprint of If not combined with If not combined consumers policy changes improvements, it sustainability
May lead to rebound May sustain waste production (e.g. solar efficiency with efficiency Remaining niche Potential to remain may lead to limited purposes
effects streams because panels) improvements, it may improvements, it because it goes niche within environmental Risk of unproven
May lead to job losses ‘waste ¼ value’ Lack of recyclability have negligible may have negligible against “growth” current capitalist improvement radical innovation
consideration of (solar- environmental impact environmental principles framework May induce more
based) products improvement impact product/service use
improvement due to wider
accessibility
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1501

(Hertwich, 2005). The size of rebound effects depend on what In the context of business models, intentional design combined
system boundary is drawn, but in areas like space heating and with continuous attention to system boundaries as employed by
personal automotive transport direct rebound effects have been stakeholders, is needed to deliver sustainability; and in assessing
observed across different studies, indicating that energy savings in impact, it is crucial to acknowledge that business models are
one area will lead to ‘energy spending’ in other areas (Sorrell, intertwined, and their sustainability impact is affected by other
2007). Therefore, consumers who are saving money through a car business models (Boons and Bocken, 2018). To this end, Boons and
sharing business model, might spend more money on other ‘stuff’ Bocken (2018) introduced the idea of an ‘Ecology of Business
or flights (see e.g. Chitnis et al., 2013; Verboven and Vanherck, Models’ arguing that business models would need to be understood
2016). Second, companies rely on other business models to sus- in their wider context:
tain theirs. Maxwell et al. (2011) in Verboven and Vanherck (2016)
refer to the necessity for resource intensive infrastructures (e. g.  The shaping of individual business models takes place in an
telecommunications) for product service systems. However, while institutional context, which provides rules that are conducive to
the boundaries of the business model expand, the total impact certain forms or providing products and services.
might be mitigated if the company chooses the most sustainable  Such shaping occurs in the context of other business models
alternatives. The company Tesla for example has been contributing  Some of which compete with the new business model, while
to the market for electric vehicles through supporting the devel- others are complementary, or even provide vital inputs for the
opment of an electric charging infrastructure together with, and new business model.
benefitting public and private actors (Wieland et al., 2017). The  The ecological impact of a business model is difficult to assess as
startup company Riversimple is moving away from car ownership this impact is shaped by the interaction with other business
to access aiming to replace fossil-fuel based car technology with models.
hydrogen-fuel based technology through its business together with  This eventually determines the material, energy and labour
various stakeholders (Wells, 2018; Bocken and Short, 2016). The flows associated with the provision of products and services.
business model innovation thus has to be viewed in its wider  To understand how the provisioning of goods and services im-
influencing context (Boons and Bocken, 2018). We argue that pacts on the natural ecosystem a closer look is taken at a
designing better business models requires insight in relevant localized business ecosystem rather than an individual business
rebound effects and the potential for companies to influence these model.
impacts.
This list was based mainly on a critique of ‘sharing business
2.2. Sustainable business model innovation and boundaries models’ (Belk, 2014), which feed on the existence of other (poten-
tially unsustainable) business models. However, it is argued here
Boundary setting is essential to any innovation challenge for a that this list is also suitable in the broader business model context,
business: in which areas does a company want to innovate and how as business models are interdependent by nature. Business model
far can (and should) its impacts reach? Boundaries are also essen- design considerations are thus influenced by interactions with
tial in areas such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a systematic other business models; the value chains, products and in-
approach to understand and manage an organization's impact on frastructures used, sustained and competed with (see Table 2).
sustainable development by using a life cycle perspective that can
prevent negative impacts from being shifted elsewhere within the 2.3. Experimentation with new sustainable business models
life cycle (ISO, 2016). A limited number of studies have used LCA
(principles) to assess the environmental impact of new sustainable Experimentation is an important trigger for sustainability
business models (e.g., Goedkoop et al., 1999; Lindahl et al., 2014; transitions (Hilde n et al., 2017) and has been regarded as a key
Manninen et al., 2018). However, more work is needed to assess component of transitions research (Schot and Geels, 2008), Busi-
the full impacts of sustainable business models (Tukker, 2015). ness experimentation for sustainability is context-sensitive and
It is almost impossible to draw a clear line on where re- aims to either explore the diverse possibilities that a business could
sponsibility of a business lies, especially in the context of business create value from (inside-out view) or understand how context
model innovation, which implies that system boundaries will be factors pose specific requirements to new business models
redrawn. Critical systems theory (Ulrich, 2003) provides an (outside-in view) (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016: Bocken et al., 2017).
approach to deal with the complexities of human interaction where It is a systematic approach to identifying, testing and learning about
system boundaries are an issue that require ongoing work. It builds value creation strategies that could be adopted by a business
on the work of Habermas and Luhmann (1971) which posits that (Weissbrod and Bocken, 2017). The label ‘experimentation’ high-
human beings necessarily reduce the complexity with which they lights the iterative nature of a process of trial and error, a reality
are confronted, by employing system boundaries which exclude which is absent from terms such as business model design and
actors, interests and contextual events from consideration. In social business model innovation.
interaction, system boundaries are relevant as they may not overlap Business experimentation is rooted in fields such as effectua-
completely, or even conflict, resulting in miscommunication and tion, a set of decision-making principles that can help entrepre-
lack of understanding and legitimacy. Based on this work different neurs to operate in situations of high uncertainty (Sarasvathy,
strands of theorizing on social systems, Flood (2002) describes an 2009; Keskin, 2015), start-up work (e.g., Ries, 2011), and research
approach which allows organisations and stakeholders to critically on organisational change (Chesbrough, 2010). Within practice,
assess their own system boundaries and those of actors they affect, business experimentation has been applied to create better value
to develop inclusive ways of dealing with shared problems and propositions for customers in a low resource/time/cost way for
opportunities. This approach could assist in the process of business start-ups (Ries, 2011; Blank, 2013). Rather than performing a full-
model innovation, being a multi-stakeholder and value-stream scale pilot, companies would engage in smaller activities such as
process, where business boundaries are challenged, new value is A/B split testing (e.g. running two different advertisements to
created and partnerships are formed in a process of collaborative investigate which one gets most traction), mock-up web pages (to
learning and experimentation (Kraaijenhagen et al., 2016; Roome test demand for a new service) or focus groups (Ries, 2011;
and Louche, 2016). Osterwalder et al., 2014). Schuit et al. (2017a) applied these
1502 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

Table 2
Ecologies of business models e business model design considerations. Adapted from Boons and Bocken (2018).

Business model design consideration Examples

Product design - Design for low embedded carbon footprint (material/resource use per product)
- Product reusability (e.g. reparability)
- Product use phase (e.g. energy and water use in the product use phase)
Value chain - Forward logistics
- Reverse logistics
Infrastructure - Dependency on existing infrastructures (e.g. buildings, networks)
- Building ‘sustainable infrastructures’ (e.g. electric car charging network)
Business model dependency - Dependency on other products (e.g. mobile phones)
- Dependency on existing value chains (e.g. delivery networks)
- Dependency on infrastructures (e.g., public spaces)
Interactions with existing business models - Neutral e A and B do not affect each other
- Mutualism e growth in A stimulates growth in B
- Symbiosis e A benefits from presence of B
- Competition e A detracts from growth in B and vice versa
- Parasitism e A is harmed by presence of B
- Dominance e A controls the resource flows to B, C, D
Rebound effects - Any unforeseen negative (or positive) effects not yet captured in the above considerations

techniques to a range of sustainable start-up firms, pursuing sus- However, work from more than a decade ago (Mont, 2002; Tukker,
tainability as part of their business purpose. More recently business 2004) argued for the need to ‘design’ better business models (in
experimentation has been suggested and applied to a sustainable particular, product service systems), which has been reiterated as a
business context as a key capability to transition to a sustainable research agenda (Tukker, 2015). To achieve the most beneficial
business (Antikainen et al., 2017; Weissbrod and Bocken, 2017). environmental and social effects through a viable business model
Chesbrough (2010) also suggested that large businesses need to with a superior value proposition (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund,
experiment with their business models to remain competitive. 2013), the business model needs to be consciously set up to do
Such experimentation would need to take into account sustain- so. Yet in a dynamic and complex environment (Eisenhardt and
ability goals to address the world's most pressing sustainability Martin, 2000), this requires experimentation to ensure long-term
challenges. business competitiveness (Chesbrough, 2010) and start address-
The purpose of experimentation is to test assumptions about the ing sustainability issues as fundamental ways in which business is
future business; build legitimacy across stakeholder groups (in- done (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).
ternal and external) by joint collection and dissemination of in-
formation; and have a low resource, low visibility to others, and
2.4.1. The Ecology of Business Models Experimentation map
low-cost method to do so, in turbulent business environments
The Ecology of Business Models Experimentation (EBME) map
with increasing pressures (Miller, 2016; Schuit et al., 2017b). In a
(Fig. 1) brings together the notion of interaction and influence in
business setting, experiments focus on testing ‘hypotheses’ about
product/service and business model design from Boons and Bocken
the potential future business: e.g. what type of customers are
(2018) and ISO (2016), as well as insights from sustainable business
interested in a new service and how does the proposition need to
modelling and experimentation for sustainability (Schuit et al.,
be formulated? (Ries, 2011). While business model experimenta-
2017a, b).
tion is traditionally described through a build-measure-learn loop
The EBME map seeks to address the issues of construct clarity,
(Blank, 2013; Ries, 2011), it has also been framed as an iterative
boundary setting, and rebound effects associated with sustainable
interplay between analysis and design (Baldassarre et al., 2017;
business model design identified in this paper as follows. The
Keskin, 2015). Keskin (2015) explicitly refer to ‘stakeholder in-
experimentation process starts with an input, which could be a new
teractions and design experiments’ while Baldassarre et al. (2017)
sustainable business idea or a current business model to improved.
introduce a ‘talking, thinking, testing’ experimentation loop.
The experimentation process starts with an analysis of de-
Furthermore, according to Keskin (2015) and Schuit et al. (2017a)
pendencies with other business models. Here, the purpose of the
this experimental interplay takes place through specific practices
firm is stated or reiterated: e.g. what are the aims and how can the
of analysis and design.
business pursue these? (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008). The notion of an
Moving beyond a focus on start-ups, experimentation is ex-
‘Ecology of business models’ forms the basis to experiment by
pected to become increasingly important in turbulent business
analysing and designing sustainable business models. The re-
environments. Recent literature suggests that experimentation
lationships between the ‘organisms’ in an ecology are routed in the
building on lean start-up principles of ‘build, measure, learn &
fact that they make use of an interrelated set of resources and
pivot’, an iterative approach to trialling new business models, could
infrastructure (Boons and Bocken, 2018). This can be defined in
be a useful starting point for sustainable and circular business
terms of dependencies. To explain, businesses may depend on other
model experimentation (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016;
products (e.g. mobile phones for apps), existing value chains (e.g.
Weissbrod and Bocken, 2017).
delivery networks) or on infrastructures (e.g., public spaces) to exist
(Table 2). After the analysis phases, design phases follow, where
2.4. Research gap and framework potential options to modify, destroy or create dependencies and
innovate sustainably through new partnerships are explored. Ul-
To date, research on sustainable business models has largely timately, these lead to a revised business model, put in context
focused on conceptualizing sustainable business models though a within and ecology of business models, which represents the
strategy perspective (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken output of the process. It has to be kept in mind that the experi-
et al., 2013; Upward and Jones, 2016; Joyce and Paquin, 2016). mentation process is iterative nature, meaning that there is
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1503

Fig. 1. The Ecology of Business Models Experimentation (EBME) map. Developed from Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); Boons (2002); Maxwell et al. (2011); Stubbs and Cocklin
(2008); Boons and Bocken (2018); Bocken et al. (2013); Ries (2011); Schuit et al. (2017a, b), and Weissbrod and Bocken (2017). Note. BM refers to Business Model.

constant interplay between analysis and design based on a set of 2. Destroy: Seek to destroy unsustainable business models by
experimentation practices. outcompeting them on their key resources (e.g. Can we develop
Step 1: What are the sustainability aims of the business? up a car sharing service to destroy the car ownership model?);
The first step is about defining the sustainability aims of the 3. Create: Maximise contribution to favourable institutional infra-
business. Such aims can be defined by exploring, managing and structure for more sustainable business models (e.g. Can we
reconfiguring dependencies through business experimentation - a create a platform-based business model to boost adoption of
key idea from the management literature (Pfeffer and Salancik, existing car sharing services?)
1978). It is proposed that dependencies can be destroyed, modi-
fied or created: These concepts are used in a novel way to frame the company's
purpose or aims (Step 1, Table 3 and Fig. 1).
1. Modify: Reduce dependency on less sustainable business models Step 2: To what extent does the business model depend on
(e.g. is it possible to use electricity from renewables instead of others and how?
fossil fuels within the business model of an electric car sharing The second step is about identifying the types of dependencies
service?); in place from existing infrastructure, products/services and
1504 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

Table 3
Key questions associated with different steps.

Phase Questions/steps Relevant sources

Analyse 1. What are the sustainability aims of the business? This question is about the business - Stubbs and Cocklin (2008); Bocken
purpose in light of which business models it seeks to replace or ‘destroy’ which et al. (2013)
contribution it wants to emphasise, or symbiotic dependencies (e.g. on fossil fuels) the
business seeks to minimise.
2. To what extent does the business model depend on others and how? This question helps - Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); Maxwell
to identify the key dependencies between the focal company's business model and et al. (2011); Boons and Bocken
others it depends on? (building on the idea of interlinkages between business models) (2018)
3. What is the nature of the dependencies, i.e., what are the interactions with those business - Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); Boons
models? (building on concepts such as competition, symbiosis and other ecological and Bocken (2018)
relationships)
Design 4. How can positive value be increased and negative value reduced? The current value - Bocken et al. (2013, 2017)
captured, negative value (value missed, destroyed) and potential new value
opportunities are identified here (building on the value mapping tool in). Here, an
exploration of potential partners also takes place: Who can you partner up with to
create more positive value through your business model?
Experiment
Use activities such as conversational interviews, co-creation sessions, or A/B Facebook or website testing as - Ries (2011) Weissbrod and Bocken
practices to experiment by discovering and testing new business model possibilities. (2017); Schuit et al. (2017a, b)

resources (Table 1). The most profound dependencies relate to new value opportunities (Step 4 in Table 3 and Fig. 1). The different
existing infrastructures: the fact that business models are forms of value are related to multiple stakeholders at the same
embedded in the same institutional infrastructure. This infra- time, also including society and the environment. This final design
structure is to some extent a result of the presence of the particular step is geared towards the generation of new business models
business models in the ecology. For example, an electric car sharing based on partnerships and collaborations that foster shared value
service is dependent upon the infrastructure of electricity pro- dimensions for multiple stakeholders across multiple business
duction and distribution and this context determines the actual models. For example, a web platform to access innovative car
impact. Business models are embedded in a particular context of sharing services can stimulate sales of individual car sharing
governance mechanisms through which they become linked companies; or a partnership between a public transport company
(Iaione, 2016). This notion stems from the observation that de- and a bike sharing company in cities can increase the uptake of both
pendencies are seldom symmetric. Given that asymmetric de- services. In this example, negative value is potentially reduced
pendency translates into risk and reduced bargaining power, the because the combination of bike sharing and public transport
dependency perspective on supply chain relations is based on the constitutes a viable alternative to the use of self-owned cars for
idea that dependencies need to be managed in a way that reduces commuting. The result is an ecology of sustainable business models
risks and improves stable access to resources at the lowest that represents context, gives a frame of reference for a more
(transaction) costs possible. Using the purpose and aims as a basis, realistic sustainability assessment and ultimately reduces uncer-
the current business dependencies are explored (Step 2, Table 3 and tainty about outcomes in the design phase.
Fig. 1). The next section will lay out the case studies that were devel-
Step 3: What is the nature of the dependencies? oped to demonstrate the approach in Fig. 1.
The third step entails giving a closer look at the dependencies
that were identified and determine their nature. According to
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) and Boons (2002) and Boons and
Bocken (2018), three high-level forms of dependencies are 3. Methodology
possible. The first is neutrality: when both business models do not
affect each other. The second is competitive dependency, a situation This paper explores how organisations can design and experi-
in which business models compete for the same resources, ment with sustainable business models to optimise sustainable
including time of users. A third form is symbiotic or mutualistic value creation for a network of stakeholders, by creating and
dependency. This occurs when the output of one business model building on a greater level of consciousness about the dependencies
constitutes an input for another or when the presence of one and interactions between business models. The research objective
business model leads to growth in another. Such dependency oc- is addressed through a case study methodology, which is the
curs for instance between business models that deliver smart de- preferred strategy for exploratory research on contemporary issues
vices, the provision of wireless services, and the designers of (Yin, 1994). To gain an understanding of the business experimen-
software for such devices (apps). Growth in each of these facilitates tation process two illustrative cases are presented: THANKS and
further growth in the others. Step 3 in Table 3 and Fig. 1 deals with HOMIE. These are also used to explore the application and useful-
such dependencies. ness of this the EBME map. The two case companies had gone
Step 4: How can positive value be increased and negative value through multiple experiments for sustainability and are analysed
reduced? from two angles:
While the first three steps are about analysing business model
dependencies, the fourth and final step is about business model 1) What constituted the process of experimentation? What prac-
design and it is done by exploring how positive value can be tices did actors use to explore opportunities for value creation
increased and negative value reduced, around the four business and capture and how did sustainability enter into those
model dimensions from the value mapping tool (Bocken et al., practices?
2013), namely value created, captured, missed, destroyed, and 2) What dependencies with other business models are important
for the business model as it unfolded?
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1505

The two cases are illustrative in nature and build on various engagement into sustainability issues. Its starting point was an
sources: the recollections of the authors about the process and identified market opportunity for energy saving solutions centred
practices, company data, public data (e.g. company website) and on sustainable behavioural change within large office buildings.
discussions with stakeholders (e.g. co-founders) to verify the pro- This environmental objective is coupled with the social objective of
cess and practices, based on the logic on cases presented by Thomas creating awareness on broader sustainability issues while fostering
(2011). Two of the authors are co-founders of the start-ups ana- healthy practices at the individual level.
lysed, which provides an opportunity for unusual data access. This
allowed for an understanding of the processes and practices of 4.1.2. Business experimentation practices
experimentation as well as the dependencies with other business The business model was developed through an iterative inter-
modes considered. A limited number of cases may be justified play of analysis and design phases based on a set of experimenta-
when cases are unusually revelatory or provide unique access tion practices (Blank, 2013; Keskin, 2015). The experimentation
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Yin, 1994). practices were carried out in a series of three iterations, which
The case approach was retrospective (Thomas, 2011) and gradually saw the initial idea developing into a more structured
investigated whether design and experimentation with sustainable business model. The first iteration entailed the following practices:
business models took into account the broader perspective pre- interviewing the energy manager of a company, creating booklets
sented in Fig. 1. The analysis consisted of plotting the case company to gather feedback from twenty office workers, conducting a day of
activities, processes and rationales onto the EBME map. The text in ethnographic observations into an office space, conducting a cre-
section 4 and Figs. 3 and 4 were verified with others involved in the ative session with ten office workers, running a brainstorming
start-ups (other co-founder plus the CEO at HOMIE and a service session. The second iteration entailed the following practices:
designer and concept developer for THANKS) for validation pur- digital service prototyping to test the concept, conducting follow up
poses. The multiple inputs helped create a rich picture of the pro- interviews with ten office workers, interviewing the sustainability
cesses of experimentation, taking into account the multiple manager of one company, interviewing a manager from a non-
viewpoints from those most closely involved with the start-ups. profit organization, running a brainstorming session. The third
iteration entailed the following practices: physical service proto-
3.1. Sample of case companies: THANKS and HOMIE typing to test the concept, conducting follow up interviews with
four office workers, interviewing five sustainability managers from
THANKS is a new venture which started in 2014 at Delft Uni- different companies, running a brainstorming session. All the
versity of Technology within the framework of the Climate-KIC practices within these three iterations were periodically com-
Netherlands. Background research revealed a market opportunity plemented with additional online market research.
for energy saving solutions focused on sustainable behavioural
change within large office buildings. The objective of THANKS was 4.1.3. Analysis of dependencies and interactions with other business
to develop the business model for a new venture providing a ser- models
vice to encourage energy saving behaviour at the workplace. The During the analysis phases, the experimentation practices
idea eventually evolved into a business model built around the aimed at gradually uncovering and understanding potential de-
following concept: empower office workers to make an impact by pendencies and interactions of the business idea with other exist-
making a small donation to NGOs (using the sustainability budget ing business models (Boons and Bocken, 2018). Specifically, the
of their company) every time they perform a sustainable action (e.g. focus was put on dependencies and interactions of the prospective
taking the stairs instead of the elevator). This mechanism simul- service and business model aiming to nudge employees into energy
taneously brings a benefit to NGOs, who receive donations, and to saving actions at the workplace. It was progressively learned that
companies, who engage their employees and improve their public for many companies, energy saving is part of a broader Corporate
image. In parallel, data about sustainable actions is collected and Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy, which is a key business model
sold by THANKS to company clients through a monthly service activity to foster long term competitive advantage through
subscription. employee engagement and improved public image. It was learned
HOMIE is a new venture which started in 2016 as a spin-off of that donations to NGOs are often an important part of CSR next to
Delft University of Technology. It is also part funded by the Dutch all those energy efficiency initiatives that were found as compli-
government (STW Take-off grant). The aim of HOMIE is to provide mentary or in competition with the idea under development.
consumers access to high quality appliances while stimulating THANKS started exploring how it could contribute favourably to
sustainable consumption patterns through a pay per use business existing business models (such as those by NGOs) rather than
model. HOMIE started with offering customers washing machines detracting from these. Furthermore, employee engagement also
on a pay per use basis: washing machines are installed in cus- emerged as a key activity of the Human Resources department
tomers’ homes for free and they only pay each time they use the (HR), which is interested healthy behavioural patterns beyond
washing machine. The company thus adopts a pure pay per use simple energy saving actions. Hence, THANKS wanted to increase
business model and only charges the customer when the washing positive contributions within the business. From the HR's
machine gets used. A low temperature wash costs less than a high perspective, tracking sustainable/healthy behaviour provides a
temperature one to stimulate sustainable consumption. Moreover, financial business case, because such metrics can be related to
paying per wash aims to make people more conscious about often health insurance fees for the employees. Finally, NGOs also have a
they wash. business model of their own. A large part of their revenue streams
relies on company donations but their value proposition to society
4. Results and the environment involves as well raising individual awareness.
There was a possibility for THANKS to strengthen the internal
4.1. THANKS case business prospects as well as better supporting complimentary
business models (NGOs).
4.1.1. Sustainability aims and starting point
THANKS aims to provide a service to encourage energy saving 4.1.4. Increasing positive and reducing negative value
actions at the workplace, while creating broader interest and During the design phases, the experimentation practices aimed
1506 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

at gradually embedding triple bottom line sustainability into the

business model using a value mapping lens (Bocken et al., 2013;
Hall, 2011). Specifically, the focus was put on constructing mutu-
ally beneficial interactions amongst the business model of donating
companies, beneficiary NGOs and the new venture being started.
The value opportunity was found in a gap of value missed inside
CSR activities belonging to the business model of companies
donating to NGOs. Specifically: such donations aim to foster Fig. 2. THANKS business model and symbiotic dependencies in a schematic way.
employee engagement but fall short here because employees are
not directly involved with transactions. In parallel, experimentation
4.2. HOMIE case
activities highlighted a strong drive from their side to make a
sustainable impact on a personal level, presenting an opportunity
4.2.1. Sustainability aims and starting point
to engage them individually. This was achieved by empowering
HOMIE started off with an environmental proposition e a cir-
them to donate small amounts from the CSR budget to NGOs every
cular business model that aims to drive sustainable consumption as
time they made a sustainable or healthy action (taking the stairs,
well. However, it quickly started to develop a social proposition too
going vegetarian for lunch). Consequently, a sustainable value
by purposely offering affordable high-quality appliances and also
proposition was defined: on the environmental side, measuring
catering for lower-income households. Its customer groups roughly
and reporting the impact of employees' sustainable actions inside
include customers who care about sustainability; those looking for
office buildings; on the social side, raising sustainability awareness
affordable options; those who are looking for flexibility; and those
of employees, empowering them to make an impact and encour-
who do not value product ownership and are seeking for
aging them to perform healthy actions on a daily basis; and on the
alternatives.
economic side, making a more efficient use of the companies’ CSR
budget (Baldassarre et al., 2017).
4.2.2. Business experimentation practices
Value creation largely builds upon pre-existing CSR processes
The experiments at HOMIE centred around the following high-
and related business interactions with NGOs. Concerning infra-
level work streams: technical prototyping and value proposition
structure, experimentation practices with prototypes highlighted
refinement (e.g. advertising experiments, desk research, mailings,
the need for a physical interface to allow employees making the
washing habit interviews, and pay per use pricing) to create a
donations. This point was addressed through the design of a
fitting customer proposition while stimulating sustainable behav-
hardware-software combination based on employee badges and a
iour (Bocken et al., 2017).
network of NFC sensors designed ad-hoc in order to partly leverage
The first technical experiments were focused on developing a
onto existing infrastructure and behavioural patterns. This was
prototype that works, i.e., developing a connected washing ma-
necessary to foster acceptance but also resulted in value destroyed,
chine that enables a pay per use business model. While the com-
namely the physical resources needed to build the sensor network.
pany did not have a direct partner yet, and mainly focused on
Finally, value capture is based on charging service costs to
testing new potentially ‘risky’ business models for incumbents to
companies.
stimulate sustainable consumption and the circular economy,
HOMIE decided to buy an existing quality washing machine and
‘hack’ it to enable pay per use. This meant that for the time being,
4.1.5. Sustainable business model output design for a circular economy (e.g. design for easy repair and
The output of the sustainable business model design and remanufacturing) was out of scope as the company focused on
experimentation process consisted of the development of THANKS testing the user case and driving sustainable consumption (see also
- the name for the new venture and related business model. The Manninen et al., 2018). However, through being close to the
main feature of the business model of THANKS is that it is based on customer and through its pay per use business model, it could
a dependency. Without NGOs, this business model could not exist easily facilitate good use practices, maintenance and repair.
and at the same time, it strengthens the business model of NGOs The value proposition experiments initially included workshops
and company clients by reinforcing a symbiotic relationship. The and testing of different advertisements to investigate which value
business model of THANKS builds upon the mutually beneficial proposition would appeal most to the customer. Variations on
interaction of these two other business models: the business model advertisement focus (e.g. saving money, the environment, and
of donating companies and the business model of recipient NGOs in combinations) were tested online for best fit with the business
the context of CSR. By plugging into this interaction with its own model and customer traction. Furthermore, based on interviews
business model, THANKS reinforces the mutualistic interactions with prospective customers, a pricing scheme was developed to
and creates two more, namely the interaction between THANKS encourage customers to wash at lower temperatures. For example,
and companies and the interaction between THANKS and NGOs. In a cold wash is significantly cheaper than a hot wash, to stimulate to
the first mutualistic interaction, THANKS provides employee stimulated lower temperature washes. By paying per use, it was
engagement and data to companies, receiving service subscriptions expected that customers would also wash less due to increased
in turn. In the second mutualistic interaction, THANKS gives awareness and salience (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009). While many
mission support to NGOs receiving in turn sales channels to better experiments of those experiments happened at the same time, each
reach its target customers. This interaction of three business customer received similar interventions as part of the experimen-
models (Fig. 2) fosters triple bottom line shared value creation, tation process (Table 4). The interventions in Table 4 are aimed at
where THANKS and its company clients represent the economy- finding out whether the pay per use business model could actually
oriented stakeholders whereas the employees and NGOs repre- reduce the number of washes and could stimulate lower temper-
sent society and the environment. Fig. 3 summarises the THANKS ature washes. Each customer would go through the same cycle to
case using the EBME experimentation map. be able to compare the data and interventions which are based on
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1507

Fig. 3. THANKS case using the EBME experimentation map.

behaviour change and sustainable consumption research (Bocken the lack of time and resources to test everything. HOMIE's focus in
et al., 2018a). In this way, the impact of introducing a pay per use the first year was on investigating whether the pay per use business
business model coupled with interventions and the impact on model works in general (with customers, practicalities etc) and
sustainable consumption can be tested. whether it would drive sustainable consumption patterns. Because
HOMIE is a start-up, it could not yet influence all aspects like
4.2.3. Analysis of dependencies and interactions with other product design, which is done by large incumbent appliance
business models manufacturers; due to the lack of facilities, resources and R&D
During the experimentation phase, the scope of HOMIE's busi- capabilities to redesign existing appliances, so this is yet out of
ness experimentation practices became more focused, because of scope.
1508 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

Fig. 4. HOMIE case using the EBME experimentation map.

HOMIE through its business model now creates parasitic de- WiFi dependency is less reliable, HOMIE is looking into developing
pendency: the business model relies on OEM manufacturers. its own connectivity with partners.
Furthermore, although HOMIE wants to challenge existing take-
make-dispose business models, by experimenting with a pay per 4.2.4. Increasing positive and reducing negative value
use business model, HOMIE also keeps in place existing business During the business model design phases, experimentation
models by creating dependencies: it acquires existing washing focused on driving sustainable consumption patterns (Table 4). The
machines via retailers and manufacturers and develops a ‘pay per experiments started with interviews to test user behaviour, fol-
use’ model using these. It also started off using customers' WiFi lowed by a free month, then introducing the pay per use model,
networks, creating another dependency. However, because the followed by providing informative mailings, social comparisons,
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1509

Table 4
HOMIE - Sample of customer interventions for each HOMIE customer (based on Bocken et al., 2018a).

Timing Design intervention Description summary

Pre-wash Interview Before washing machine installation, customers are interviewed to gain insight on their washing
behaviour.
Month 1 (M1) Free month The first month is considered a test month, in which users get a full month of washing for free.
Feedback M1 No specific feedback. Customers can access their usage information on the website but this
information is not proactively shared.
Month 2 (M2) Introduce pay-per-use The first paid month of washing.
Feedback M2 Introduce informative mailing Feedback received: Washing behaviour basics: Amount of washes, Temperature, Types of washes
Month 3 (M3) The second paid month of washing.
Feedback M3 Comparison current vs previous month Feedback received: Washing behaviour basics þ Comparison washing behaviour (Individual
compared washing behaviour between M1 and M2)
Month 4 (M4) The third paid month of washing.
Feedback M4 Introduce social comparison Feedback received: Washing behaviour basics þ Comparison Washing Behaviour þ Social
Comparison (Individual washing behaviour compared to average of your user type)
Month 5 (M5) The fourth paid month of washing.
Feedback M5 Introduce goal setting Each user receives specific & personalised washing goal, aiming to lower the number of washes and
total energy consumption.

introducing goals, and then multiple feedbacks simultaneously. By tracker designers (to reduce reliance on customer WiFi), banks
using knowledge from sustainable design and behaviour change (financing and facilitating pay per use) and various other societal
literature on effective interventions (e.g. Bhamra et al., 2008, 2011; actors (e.g. building societies, student associations etc.). The part-
Thaler and Sunstein, 2009) interventions were gradually intro- nering work is the important next phase of experimentation in the
duced starting with relatively basic ones (information) to more business model to optimise positive value creation in the start-up's
‘advanced’ ones (social comparison and goal setting) after having network. Fig. 4 summarises the HOMIE case using the EBME
introduced ‘pay per use’. Each customer is compared against him or experimentation map.
herself e hence the months of intervention correspond to when the
customer enters their contract with HOMIE.
Information about user behaviour is regularly collected to verify 5. Discussion and conclusions
the sustainability outcomes of the business model and in-
terventions. An earlier conference paper demonstrated that the pay Sustainable business models are a popular theme in academic
per use business model led to more sustainable consumption pat- literature as well as with business practitioners and policy makers
terns, but the introduction of mailings showed mixed effects (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016; Lüdeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017).
(Bocken et al., 2018a). Through its business model experimentation While experimentation has been recognised as an important
and close contact with the customer HOMIE also found out that trigger for climate change transitions (Hilden et al., 2017) and is an
customers have a lot of questions about how to do the laundry. This important feature of transitions research (Schot and Geels, 2008),
initial value missed was turned into an opportunity: the close ties the research on sustainable business model experimentation as the
with the customer and mailings gives the company the opportunity driver for resolving societal and environmental issues is still
to create more positive impact and reduce negative impact by emerging (e.g. Antikainen et al., 2017; Bocken et al., 2017) and has
giving advice on the laundry process. In some cases, the aspired roots in business experimentation as a recent field (e.g.
sustainability benefits led to (accidental) misuse of the washing Chesbrough, 2010). In addition, the impact of ‘ecologies of business
machine e a form of value destroyed. Customers sometimes over- models’ and the wider context in which business model innovation
loaded machines to reduce the number of washes (saving money takes place to create positive impact is poorly understood (Boons
and the environment), which led to failure of the machine. How- and Bocken, 2018). This paper presents a novel framework, “The
ever, this knowledge was used in later mailings to educate Ecology of Business Models Experimentation map” to enable a
customers. systemic form of sustainable business model experimentation and
Although HOMIE does not design and (re)manufacture, it does create positive impact across networks of organisations. Through
try and influence longevity of the washing machines in other ways. its orientation on extended experimentation rather than instanta-
As a form of maintenance and cleaning the washing machine, neous design, the proposed framework resonates with a processual
HOMIE started to offer a free 90  C wash once every so often to perspective on sustainable business models, i.e. the sequence of
improve the longevity of the washing machine. In this way, HOMIE events through which a firm, in conjunction with other actors,
seeks to influence product longevity and further stimulate sus- shapes the business model along a shared definition of sustain-
tainable behaviour. ability (Roome and Louche, 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016).
We argue that the three key issues identified in this paper -
construct clarity, boundary setting and uncertainty about actual
4.2.5. Sustainable business model output outcomes - need to be at the heart of such an experimentation, or
The (ongoing) output of the experimentation process is the learning process (Roome and Louche, 2016). Building upon Flood
startup ‘HOMIE’, a business operating a business-to-consumer pay (2002), we provide guidelines to support practitioners in the pro-
per use business model for home appliances in the Netherlands cess of experimentation and joint sustainable business model
installing appliances in people's homes for free. While the business innovation:
has largely focused on building its own infrastructure and capa-
bilities, the next stage of the business consists of partnering. HOMIE 1. As a multi-actor process of shaping future outcomes, individuals
is exploring partnerships with washing machine manufacturers (to (representing organisations) involved in the joint development
streamline the business model and influence product design), of a sustainable business model need to critically assess the
1510 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

system boundary they (implicitly) draw on when thinking about value creation.
their activities. This means that they need to clarify their notion
of the business model and see how it aligns with other stake- 5.1. Limitations and future research
holders. This requires mental models and framings to deal with
such complexity. Our approach in Fig. 1 provides such a mental A small number of start-up cases operating only in the Dutch
model: building on an ecology of business models it serves as a context constitutes an empirical limitation of this work. Further-
tool to acknowledge and work with this complexity. more, the EBME map has only been used as an illustrative tool to
2. As a multifaceted process, involved actors need to develop ways map cases retrospectively and as such provides an illustration of
of integratively working on and periodically assessing the the approach rather than a compressive assessment of its merits. In
evolving business model in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, future research, it could be explored and applied as a brainstorming
value created, and fairness. This includes the precise definition or action-research type of tool and method to support redesign of
of these terms, i.e. they need to find joint understandings of ecologies of business models and businesses more generally.
value created, fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. This relates Although challenging, this could be done as a multi-actor approach,
to work on sustainable business experimentation (Weissbrod common in transitions research (Kemp et al., 2007), involving
and Bocken, 2017) which calls for regular ‘check-ins’ to under- stakeholders from adjacent businesses, but also public actors to
stand whether key sustainability goals are still being met explore barriers and opportunities. Finally, the EBME map was
through the evolving business model innovation process. The initially developed with an environmental focus in mind because
EBME experimentation map may be used for such joint issues such as rebound effects have predominantly been explored
assessments. from an environmental perspective. While the cases also include
3. As a process in time, involved actors need to be aware of the examples of practices of social sustainability, the approach could be
relevance of timing of activities, as well as the reality that it takes extended to more prominently include social impacts.
time to develop, and some involved actors have a different sense To conclude, this work aims to contribute to research and
of time that needs to be accommodated. This relates in part to practice on sustainable business model design and innovation.
different time horizons: it may take a longer time for customers Perhaps analogously to the work on life cycle thinking and
to adopt new behaviours than firms are used to in assessing the assessment, it calls for a broadening of systems boundaries and
viability of an offering. It also relates to the fact that involved taking a systems-view on such innovation. The framework and
firms may have different investment timelines. In that case, the process presented in Fig. 1 would provide just the starting point to
boundary work involved in business model experimentation is achieve this. Future work can expand on the frameworks and
about findings ways of accommodating such differences. processes explored in this paper to develop better business models
with a wider positive societal and environmental impact. This calls
The questions below (also in Table 3) provide a starting point to for further research on sustainable business model design and
reflect on the fundamentals of the business and interactions with experimentation taking a systems-level perspective. While the
others, while helping to identify ways to collaborate with stake- topic of experimentation is not new and has been discussed in
holders and improve sustainable value creation systematically. business (Chesbrough, 2010) and entrepreneurship literature (e.g.
Blank. 2013), transitions research (e.g. Schot and Geels, 2008) and
1. What are the sustainability aims of the business? This question is as an overall approach to start necessary climate change mitigation
about the business purpose in light of which business models it transitions (Hilden et al., 2017), this paper has provided an exper-
seeks to replace or ‘destroy’, which contribution it wants to imentation approach with a central role for business actors in
emphasise or create, or negative dependencies the business sustainability transitions. Fruitful future research avenues could be
seeks to modify or minimise. the integration of this work with transitions management litera-
2. To what extent does the business model depend on others and how? ture, which has proposed the embedding of a business model
This question helps to identify the key dependencies between perspective to elucidate the dynamics of innovation (Sarasini and
the focal company's business model and others it depends on. Linder, 2018). Finally, it is recommended that sustainability
3. What is the nature of the dependencies, i.e., what are the in- assessment, design and experimentation work take into account
teractions with those business models? This step considers ecologies of business models to create systems-level change for
neutrality, competition and mutualism as overall dependencies. sustainability.
4. How can positive value be increased and negative value reduced?
The current value captured and created, negative value and
Acknowledgements
potential new value opportunities are identified here. An
exploration of potential partners also takes place: Who can you
We would like to thank Hidde-Jan Lemstra and Colin Bom for
partner up with to create more positive value through your
their support with the HOMIE case; We would also like to thank
business model?
Diego Mazo and Vittorio Garofano for support with the THANKS
case.
Taken as reflective steps in a multi-actor experimentation pro-
cess, these questions provide an input to sustainable business
model development. References
The illustrative cases of THANKS and HOMIE shed light on how
Accenture, 2014. Circular Advantage Innovative Business Models and Technologies
such questions are addressed in the business model development to Create Value in a World without Limits to Growth. Available at: https://www.
processes of two start-ups. Through experimentation and greater accenture.com/t20150523T053139__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/
awareness of the ecology of business models in which they are Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Strategy_6/Accenture-
Circular-Advantage-Innovative-Business-Models-Technologies-Value-Growth.
situated, they are able to contribute to greater levels of value cre- pdf. (Accessed 30 August 2017).
ation. Whereas start-ups have been identified in the literature who Antikainen, M., Aminoff, A., Paloheimo, H., Kettunen, O., 2017. Designing circular
take such an integrative approach, such as Riversimple (Wells, business model experimentation- Case study. In: The Proceedings of the 2017
ISPIM Forum, Toronto, Canada, 19-22 March 2017. ISBN 978-952-335-019-9.
2018), the framework in Fig. 1 could support future development Antikainen, M., Valkokari, K., 2016. A framework for sustainable circular business
of sustainable business models with greater overall sustainable model innovation. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev. 6 (7), 5e12.
 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512 1511

Bakker, C., Hollander, M. d., van Hinte, E., Zijlstra, Y., 2014. Products that Last: Technology.
Product Design for Circular Business Models. TU Delft Library, Delft. Kraaijenhagen, C., Van Oppen, C., Bocken, N., 2016. Circular Business. Collaborate &
Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N.M.P., Jaskiewicz, T., 2017. Bridging sus- Circulate. Circular Collaboration, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Available at:
tainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: a process for circularcollaboration.com.
sustainable value proposition design. J. Clean. Prod. 147, 175e186. Lindahl, M., Sundin, E., Sakao, T., 2014. Environmental and economic benefits of
Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption Integrated Product Service Offerings quantified with real business cases.
online. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1595e1600. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 288e296.
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., Tang, T., 2008. Sustainable Use: Changing Consumer Behaviour Lüdeke-Freund, F., Dembek, K., 2017. Sustainable business model research and
through Product Design. Changing the Change: Design Visions, Proposals and practice: emerging field or passing fancy? J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1668e1678.
Tools, Turin, 2008 (Proceedings). Lüdeke-Freund, F., Massa, L., Bocken, N., Brent, A., Musango, J., 2016. Business
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., Tang, T., 2011. Design for sustainable behaviour: using products Models for Shared Value: How Sustainability-oriented Business Models
to change consumer behaviour. Des. J. 14 (4), 427e445. Contribute to Business Success and Societal Progress. Network for Business
Blank, S., 2013. The Four Steps to the Epiphany. K&S Ranch. Sustainability South Africa, Cape Town.
Bocken, N.M., Mugge, R., Bom, C.A., Lemstra, H.J., 2018a. Pay-per-use business Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N., Dahlbo, H., Aminoff, A., 2018.
models as a driver for sustainable consumption: evidence from the case of Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value
HOMIE. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 498e510. propositions? J. Clean. Prod. 171, 413e422.
Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B., 2016. Product design and Maxwell, D., Owen, P., McAndrew, L., Muehmel, K., Neubauer, A., 2011. Addressing
business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Engineering. 33 the Rebound Effect. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/
(5), 308e320. eussd/pdf/rebound_effect_report.pdf. (Accessed 14 September 2017).
Bocken, N., Schuit, C., Kraaijenhagen, K., 2018b. Experimenting with a circular Miller, K., 2016. Visionary leadership: learning from exemplary organizations. In:
business model: lessons from eight cases. Environmental innovation and so- Vecchi, A., Buckley, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Fashion Man-
cietal transitions 28, 79e95. agement and Merchandising. IGI Global, pp. 1e32.
Bocken, N.M.P., Weissbrod, I., Miller, K., Holgado, M., Evans, S., 2017. Business model Mont, O., 2002. Clarifying the concept of product-service system. J. Clean. Prod. 10,
experimentation for circularity: "Sustainability in a large international clothing 237e245.
retailer”. Econ. Pol. Energy Environ. 1e2, 85e122. Mont, O., Tukker, A., 2006. Product Service Systems: reviewing achievements and
Bocken, N., Short, S., 2016. Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: experi- refining the research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (17), 1451e1560.
ences and opportunities. Env. Innov. Societ. Transit. 18, 41e61. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., 2014. Value Proposition Design:
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A value mapping tool for sustainable How to Create Products and Services Customers Want. John Wiley & Sons, New
business modelling. Corp. Govern. 13 (5), 482e497. Jersey.
Boons, F., 2002. Greening products: a framework for product chain management. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations: a Resource
J. Clean. Prod. 10 (5). Dependence Approach. Harper and Row Publishers, NY.
Boons, F., 2009. Creating Ecological Value: an Evolutionary Approach to Business Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (1/2),
Strategies and the Natural Environment, Creating Ecological Value: an Evolu- 62e77.
tionary Approach to Business Strategies and the Natural Environment. Richardson, J., 2008. The business model: an integrative framework for strategy
Boons, F., 2013. Organizing within dynamic ecosystems: conceptualizing socio- execution. Strat. Change 17 (5-6), 133e144.
ecological mechanisms. Organ. Environ. 26 (3), 281e297. Ries, E., 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous
Boons, F., Bocken, N., 2018. Towards a sharing economy e innovating ecologies of Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Random House LLC.
business models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (in press). Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puumalainen, K., 2018. Sustainable
Boons, F., Ludeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation. business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: a longitudinal content analysis
State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19. study. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 216e226.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Ritter, T., Lettl, C., 2018. The wider implications of business-model research. Long
Range Plan. 43 (2), 354e363. Range Plann. 51 (1), 1e8.
Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S.K., Jackson, T., 2013. Turning lights into Roome, N., Louche, C., 2016. Journeying toward business models for sustainability: a
flights: estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. En- conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation.
ergy Pol. 55, 234e250. Organ. Environ. 29 (1), 11e35.
Clinton, L., Whisnant, R., 2014. Model Behavior: 20 Business Model Innovations for Sarasvathy, S.D., 2009. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Edward
Sustainability. SustainAbility, London. Elgar Publishing.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities Sarasini, S., Linder, M., 2018. Integrating a business model perspective into transi-
and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 25e32. tion theory: the example of new mobility services. Env. Innov. Societ. Transit.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strat. 27, 16e31.
Manag. J. 1105e1121. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2016. Business models for sustain-
Flood, R.L., 2002. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. ability. A Co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation
Routledge. and transformation. Organ. Environ. 12, 1e26.
Foss, N., Saebi, T., 2017. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how Schot, J., Geels, F.W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 43 (1), 200e227. journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strat.
Gillingham, K., Kotchen, M.J., Rapson, D.S., Wagner, G., 2013. Energy policy: the Manag. 20 (5), 537e554.
rebound effect is overplayed. Nature 493 (7433), 475e476. Schuit, C., Baldassare, B., Bocken, N., 2017a. Sustainable Business Model Experi-
Goedkoop, M., van Haler, C., te Riele, H., Rommers, P., 1999. Product Service- mentation Practices: Evidence from Four Start-ups. Product Lifetimes and the
systems, Ecological and Economic Basics. Report for Dutch Ministries of Envi- Environment (PLATE), 8-10 November 2017.
ronment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ). Schuit, C.S.C., Kraaijenhagen, C., Bocken, N.M.P., 2017b. Kickstarting Circular Busi-
Habermas, J., Luhmann, N., 1971. Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnolo- ness Experimentation - from Product Ownership to Customer Experience.
giedWas leistet die Systemforschung? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Innoboost & TU Delft.
Hall, T.J., 2011. The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus. Sorrell, S., 2007. The Rebound Effect: an Assessment of the Evidence for Economy-
Rev. 86 (1), 4. wide Energy Savings from Improved Energy Efficiency.
Hertwich, E.G., 2005. Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”.
perspective. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (1e2), 85e98. Organ. Environ. 21 (2), 103e127.
Hilden, M., Jordan, A., Huitema, D., 2017. Special issue on experimentation for Thaler, R., Sunstein, C., 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth,
climate change solutions editorial: the search for climate change and sustain- and Happiness. Penguin books Ltd., London.
ability solutions-The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. J. Clean. Prod. Thomas, G., 2011. A typology for the case study in social science following a review
169, 1e7. of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual. Inq. 17 (6), 511e521.
Iaione, C., 2016. The CO-city: sharing, collaborating, cooperating, and commoning in Tukker, A., 2004. Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustain-
the city. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 75 (2), 415e455. ability? Bus. Strat. Environ. 13 (4), 246e260.
ISO, 2016. Life Cycle Perspective - what ISO14001 Includes. Avaailable at: https:// Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economye a
committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc207sc1/files/Lifecycle%20perspective%20% review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76e91.
20March%202016.pdf. (Accessed 9 September 2017). Ulrich, W., 2003. Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically
Joyce, A., Paquin, R., 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to design systemic discourse. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 54 (4), 325e342.
more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135 (1), 1474e1486. Upward, A., Jones, P., 2016. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models:
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science.
managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Organ. Environ. 2 9 (1), 97e123.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14 (1), 78e91. Verboven, H., Vanherck, L., 2016. The sustainability paradox of the sharing economy.
Keskin, D., Diehl, J., Molenaar, N., 2013. Innovation process of new ventures driven UWF Umw. Wirtsch. Forum 24 (4), 303e314.
by sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 50e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. Weissbrod, I., Bocken, N.M.P., 2017. Developing sustainable business experimenta-
2012.05.012. tion capabilityeA case study. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (Part 4), 2663e2676.
Keskin, D., 2015. Product Innovation in Sustainability-oriented New Ventures: a Wells, P., 2013. Business Models for Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chel-
Process Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of tenham, UK.
1512 N. Bocken et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1498e1512

Wells, P., 2018. Degrowth and techno-business model innovation: the case of Riv- Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, second ed. Sage, New-
ersimple. J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2), 1704e1710. bury Park, CA.
Wieland, H., Hartmann, N.N., Vargo, S.L., 2017. Business models as service strategy. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., 2011. The business model: recent developments and
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 45 (6), 925e943. future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019e1042.