Business research for sustainable development: How does sustainable business model research reflect doughnut economics?

Hausdorf, Michaela; Timm, Jana‐Michaela Article — Published Version Business research for sustainable development: How does sustainable business model research reflect doughnut economics? Business Strategy and the Environment Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Hausdorf, Michaela; Timm, Jana‐Michaela (2022) : Business research for sustainable development: How does sustainable business model research reflect doughnut economics?, Business Strategy and the Environment, ISSN 1099-0836, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 32, Iss. 6, pp. 3398-3416, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3307 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/288105 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Business research for sustainable development: How does sustainable business model research reflect doughnut economics? Michaela Hausdorf | Jana-Michaela Timm Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Socioeconomics, Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany Correspondence Michaela Hausdorf, Faculty of business, Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Socioeconomics, Hamburg University, Rentzelstraße 7, Hamburg 20146, Germany. Email: [email protected] Funding information Excellence Strategy of the German Federal and State Governments, Grant/Award Number: Transfer@UHH; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Grant/Award Number: Dissertation grant Abstract In this study, we explore sustainable business model (SBM) research through the lens of doughnut economics (DE). By conducting an integrative literature review, we analyse concepts that reflect the seven principles of DE at the business model level. We identify 23 SBM concepts and develop a framework that draws on cognitive science theory to distinguish between seven abstract and 16 concrete concepts. The contribution of our study is threefold: First, the framework enhances the theoretical understanding of SBM concepts that mirror DE. Second, our study presents seven unique avenues for shifting the SBM research agenda. Third, the findings have the potential to inspire SBM innovation in practice. KEYWORDS business strategy, ecological economics, multi-level, stakeholder value, sustainability, sustainable development, transition, value creation 1|INTRODUCTION Research on sustainable business models (SBMs) is a young and dynamic stream of research that explores how companies propose, create, deliver and capture value (Lüdeke-Freund, 2020; Lüdeke- Freund et al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017; Méndez-Le on et al., 2022; Preghenella & Battistella, 2021). Recently, scholarly interest has moved towards the question of how SBMs foster broader sustainability transitions and, in turn, how such transitions spawn novel SBMs (Aagaard et al., 2021; Proka et al., 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2022). SBM researchers stress the need to develop new ways of thinking to design SBMs that boost comprehensive transitions towards a sustainable development of business and society as a whole (Aagaard et al., 2021; Birkin et al., 2009; Madsen, 2020; Schaltegger et al., 2022; Shakeel et al., 2020). To inspire this research discourse and, thus, SBM innovation towards sustainability, in this study, we look at SBM literature through a novel lens: doughnut economics (DE) (Raworth, 2012,2017). We explore the underlying concepts of key SBM articles from the perspective of the economic mindset DE in order to answer the research question: How does key SBM research reflect DE? We conduct an integrative literature review of SBM literature and inductively explore SBM concepts mirroring the seven principles of DE. The contribution of our study is threefold: First, we present a framework illustrating seven abstract and 16 concrete concepts that reflect DE at the SBM level. This framework enhances the theoretical understanding at the intersection of both streams of research. Moreover, it supports SBM scholars in evaluating their own work according to DE principles and in integrating the concepts into their future research. Second, as a consequence from our findings, we present seven unique avenues for shifting the SBM research agenda. Third, our study has the potential to encourage SBM innovation in practice, as practitioners can be inspired by the SBM concepts identified in this study as an entry point for business model innovation that contributes to broader sustainability transitions. Received: 17 June 2022 Revised: 29 October 2022 Accepted: 6 November 2022 DOI: 10.1002/bse.3307 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2022 The Authors. Business Strategy and The Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 3398 Bus Strat Env. 2023;32:3398–3416. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse This article is structured as follows: In Section 2, we present information on the background of SBM and DE and discuss why it is procreative to link the two concepts. After that, we introduce our methodological approach in Section 3, which is followed by the presentation of our findings in Section 4. In Section 5, we discuss our findings and, finally, draw our conclusions in Section 6. 2|BACKGROUND Business models describe the architecture of a business and strongly influence its outcomes in terms of environmental, social and economic sustainability (Lüdeke-Freund, 2020; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017). Schaltegger et al. (2016, p. 6) propose that ‘a business model for sustainability helps describing, analyzing, managing, and communicating (i) a company's sustainable value proposition to its customers, and all other stakeholders, (ii) how it creates and delivers this value, (iii) and how it captures economic value while maintaining or regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational boundaries’. Growing academic interest makes SBM research an emerging field of research (Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017; Preghenella & Battistella, 2021). In the face of worldwide societal and environmental challenges (Edwards, 2021; Ripple et al., 2019), scholars increasingly examine how SBMs can contribute to the socio-ecological transformation (Aagaard et al., 2021; Bidmon & Knab, 2018; Bocken & Short, 2021; Bonfanti et al., 2022; Hofmann, 2019; Jolink & Niesten, 2015; Proka et al., 2018; Rivera, 2019; van Waes et al., 2018). For example, scholars argue that ‘existing or novel business models drive transitions by facilitating the stabilization process of technological innovation and supporting their breakthrough’(Bidmon & Knab, 2018, p. 903). Scholars refer to this field of research as ‘business models for sustainability transitions’(Aagaard et al., 2021, p. 2). In order to develop business models that profoundly foster broader sustainability transitions, a novel way of thinking is necessary (Casarejos et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2020). New societal challenges in rapidly changing environments make traditional approaches to solving problems ineffective (Casarejos et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2020; Santa-Maria et al., 2021). It becomes vital to rethink conceptualisations of business models and the way scholars explore them (Aagaard et al., 2021; Madsen, 2020; Shakeel et al., 2020). We suggest to rethink SBM research through the lens of DE. The British economist Kate Raworth (2017) developed DE in response to current societal challenges (Edwards, 2021; Raworth, 2012). She argues that DE is an economic mindset suitable to tackle 21st-century challenges, as it holistically considers planetary boundaries and social needs as the basis for economic and social activities (Leach et al., 2013; Raworth, 2012; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Thereby, Raworth (2017) builds her argumentation partly on ecological economics, a field of research that has been established more than 30 years ago (Costanza, 1991; Dale, 2020; Daly, 2007; Faber, 2008; Røpke, 2004). As ecological economics is a broad and diverse field of research that encompasses various competing schools of thought (Lucas, 2010; Seager, 2008; Spash, 2017), Raworth (2017) consolidated some of these theories and enriched them by ideas from other fields of research with the intention to develop DE as a novel economic mindset (Dale, 2020). In her comprehensive book on DE, Raworth (2017) presents seven principles: Principle (1) ‘change the goal’recommends to shift the economic goal from a focus on growth towards ‘meet the needs of all within the means of the planet’(Raworth, 2017, p. 32). Principle (2) ‘see the big picture’suggests to acknowledge the role of regulation, society and commons in theorising on economies instead of solely focussing on markets. Principle (3) ‘nurture human nature’criticises the concept of homo economicus in economic theory and draws a more complex image of human nature, viewing humans as ‘social, interdependent, approximating’people (Raworth, 2017, p. 23). Principle (4) ‘get savvy with systems’proposes a shift from mechanical towards systems thinking in economic theorising. Principle (5) ‘design to distribute’recommends to develop economies that fulfil fundamental needs of every human being, building on a just distribution of income and property (Raworth, 2017). Principle (6) ‘create to regenerate’calls for a shift towards a regenerative economy and encourages to not just ‘do no harm’to the environment but actively give something back to nature (Raworth, 2017). Principle (7) ‘be agnostic about growth’suggests to develop economies that make societies thrive— whether they financially grow or not. Currently, DE is gaining attention and positive resonance in theory (Dearing et al., 2014; Hajer et al., 2015; Leach et al., 2013; Luukkanen et al., 2021) and practice (Amsterdam, 2021; Regen Melbourne, 2021; Santa-Maria et al., 2021). However, most research on DE applies the concept at the global, country or regional level (Klapper et al., 2021). For example, Brannigan (2020), Casarejos et al. (2021), Dale (2020), Dearing et al. (2014), Gross (2020) and Olsson (2020) analyse the implications of DE for global and regional socialpolitical as well as social-ecological systems. Luukkanen et al. (2021) and Roy et al. (2021) investigate the relationship between globalisation, sustainability, and socio-economic development. We have identified four studies that connect DE to the business level (see Edwards, 2021; Preluca, 2021; Schoenmaker & Schramade, 2018; Stopper et al., 2016). For example, Edwards (2021) builds on DE to develop a ‘pluralist and integrative growth perspective’(p. 3088) at the business level. Stopper et al. (2016) propose a sustainability model for manufacturing business organisations based on DE. They adapt the parameters introduced in the visual framework by Raworth (which represents the first of the seven principles of DE) to manufacturing small and middle-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, in their work, the authors are focusing on the first of the seven principles and do not address the other six principles of DE. We propose that apart from these studies, some principles of DE might be encapsulated in SBM research. With a first screening before we started our study, we found that, for example, circular or closed-loop business models (e.g., Santa-Maria et al., 2021) may represent regenerative design traits as proposed in DE. Understanding how SBM research reflects DE already today helps operationalise the seven principles. This may prevent DE from HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3399 missing its mark and running into the void, as it currently misses operationalised design details (Hajer et al., 2015). As ‘critical transitions can occur at any scale’(Dearing et al., 2014, p. 228), the effects of a large number of single business models accumulate and affect global socio-economic systems (Loorbach et al., 2010). Hence, SBM research may act as a catalyst for DE (Aagaard et al., 2021; Bolton & Hannon, 2016). Moreover, we propose that SBM research can benefit from DE, as the seven principles of DE can foster novel SBMs by inspiring business model innovation towards sustainability. For example, DE may contribute to growth agnostic, regenerative and distributive SBM. 3|METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH In order to answer our research question ‘How does key SBM research reflect DE?’, we conducted an integrative literature review as presented by Toronto and Remington (2020). An integrative literature review is a structured, rigorous and reproducible approach for assessing and understanding a body of literature on a specific research question (Torraco, 2005). The methodology is recommended as a sound approach to generate novel knowledge and to bridge fundamental research gaps (Mukhuty et al., 2022). Figure 1presents our methodological approach. In a first step, we identified the need for a review at the intersection of SBM and DE research and formulated a research question as outlined in the previous parts. Building on that, we identified the sample, decided on a search strategy and formulated criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles. We identified relevant key SBM articles by searching for the terms ‘sustain*’AND ‘business model’in the topic OR abstract OR keywords in the database Business Source Complete (via EBSCO Host). This led to 3043 results in total. Thereof, we identified 2139 journal articles. We filtered for English journal articles and screened the remaining 2062 articles by checking whether the business model concept constituted a core issue. To do so, we screened the titles and abstracts of the articles. We excluded the papers from further analysis if the business model concept made up only a side topic. Moreover, we checked the understanding of sustainability applied in the articles. We excluded articles if they only referred to economic sustainability. If they dealt with either economic and environmental, or economic and social perspectives, or the holistic view of sustainability, including the economic, environmental, social and cultural perspectives, we included them in the further analysis. Our screening led to the exclusion of 1562 articles, resulting in a sample of 500 articles. In order to elaborate deeply on the reflection of each of the seven DE principles in these papers, we decided to put a limit on the number of publications. A number of 40 publications made a profound elaboration realistic for our team of two researchers. We decided to select the 40 ‘key’SBM articles for this deep analysis. Focussing on key articles guarantees to include the ‘nucleus’in a field of research and is in line with comparable literature reviews (see, e.g., Betancourt Morales & Zartha Sossa, 2020). We propose that this ‘nucleus’of SBM research also affects the broader field of research. To identify key SBM articles, we considered two academic measures for scholarly impact: the author-level productivity measured by an authors' number of publications in SBM research (Cortés et al., 2016) and the publications' number of citations (Goodall, 2006). According to the normative theory of citations, the more often a certain research article is cited, the more essential it is for research development (Goodall, 2006; Thor et al., 2018). Thus, we first sorted our list of 500 papers by the number of citations and added information FIGURE 1 Integrative literature review methodology used in this study 3400 HAUSDORF AND TIMM TABLE 1 Final sample of 40 SBM publications Authors Year Title Journal Citations Baldassarre et al. 2020 Addressing the design-implementation gap of SBM by prototyping: A tool for planning and executing small-scale pilots Journal of Cleaner Production 15 Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. 2017 Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design Journal of Cleaner Production 107 Bocken, N. M. P., & Geradts, T. H. 2020 Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities Long Range Planning 24 Bocken, N. M. P., & Short, S. W. 2016 Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 129 Bocken, N. M. P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. 2016 Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 576 Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. 2015 Value mapping for sustainable business thinking Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering 131 Bocken, N. M. P., Schuit, C. S., & Kraaijenhagen, C. 2018 Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 90 Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. 2013 A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling Corporate Governance 217 Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. 2014 Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles Research Policy 216 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 776 Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. 2015 Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability The Journal of Technology Transfer 99 Christensen, T. B., Wells, P., & Cipcigan, L. 2012 Can innovative business models overcome resistance to electric vehicles? Better place and battery electric cars in Denmark Energy Policy 95 Curtis, S. K., & Mont, O. 2020 Sharing economy business models for sustainability Journal of Cleaner Production 18 Di Vaio, A., Boccia, F., Landriani, L., & Palladino, R. 2020 Artificial intelligence in the agri-food system: Rethinking SBM in the COVID-19 scenario Sustainability 17 Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., & Faccer, K. 2017 Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models' stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context Technological Forecasting and Social Change 56 Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y. 2017 Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models Business Strategy and the Environment 233 Ferasso, M., Beliaeva, T., Kraus, S., Clauss, T., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. 2020 Circular economy business models: The state of research and avenues ahead Business Strategy and the Environment 27 Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. 2020 A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability Journal of Business Ethics 48 Gall, M., Wiener, M., de Oliveira, C. C., Lang, R. W., & Hansen, E. G. 2020 Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate Resources, Conservation and Recycling 11 (Continues) HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3401 TABLE 1 (Continued) Authors Year Title Journal Citations quality, business model, and societal impacts Gao, P., & Li, J. 2020 Understanding SBM: A framework and a case study of the bike-sharing industry Journal of Cleaner Production 9 Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. 2016 Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process—A workshop based on a value mapping process Journal of Cleaner Production 125 Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. 2018 Business models and supply chains for the circular economy Journal of Cleaner Production 177 Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. 2020 A typology of circular start-ups: An analysis of 128 circular business models Journal of Cleaner Production 35 Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A., Luedeke- Freund, F., Upward, A., & Willard, B. 2017 Relational leadership for strategic sustainability: Practices and capabilities to advance the design and assessment of SBM Journal of Cleaner Production 62 Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. 2017 Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy? Journal of Cleaner Production 83 Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. 2018 The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation Sustainable Production and Consumption 57 Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N. M. P., Dahlbo, H., & Aminoff, A. 2018 Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? Journal of Cleaner Production 122 Pedersen, E. R. G., & Netter, S. 2015 Collaborative consumption: Business model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 63 Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N. M. P., Albareda, L., & Puumalainen, K. 2018 Sustainable business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study Journal of Cleaner Production 72 Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. 2016 Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues Organization and Environment 176 Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. 2012 Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 409 Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. 2008 Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model” Organization and Environment 494 Todeschini, B. V., Cortimiglia, M. N., Callegaro-de-Menezes, D., & Ghezzi, A. 2017 Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges Business Horizons 78 Tunn, V. S. C., Bocken, N. M. P., van den Hende, E. A., & Schoormans, J. P. L. 2019 Business models for sustainable consumption in the circular economy: An expert study Journal of Cleaner Production 61 Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. 2017 Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models Journal of Cleaner Production 181 Vasileiadou, E., Huijben, J. C. C. M., & Raven, R. P. J. M. 2016 Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands Journal of Cleaner Production 58 Velter, M. G. E., Bitzer, V., Bocken, N. M. P., & Kemp, R. 2020 Sustainable business model innovation: The role of boundary work for multistakeholder alignment Journal of Cleaner Production 12 3402 HAUSDORF AND TIMM on the authors' performance in SBM research, i.e., an authors' number of journal articles published in this given field of research. Finally, we selected the 30 most cited publications by top authors from our list of 500 articles. These studies were published by authors with between five and 34 SBM publications and were cited between 72 and 776 times. As more novel publications are typically not among the most cited ones, these would not have been included in our sample. To integrate them nevertheless, we repeated the process explained above for the SBM literature of 2020 and 2021. This is important, as an integrative review should include both recently published and older articles (Torraco, 2005). Among our initial list of 500 articles, 169 papers were published in 2020 and 2021. We sorted those by the number of citations, added information on the authors' performance in SBM research and selected the 10 most cited publications by top authors from our list of 169 papers that were published in 2020 and 2021. These studies were published by authors with between two and 11 SBM publications and were cited between nine and 48 times. Finally, our sample consisted of 40 most cited articles by top authors from SBM research published between 2005 and 2021 (as presented in Table 1). We used thematic analysis to assess and synthesise the concepts that mirror the seven principles of DE among the SBM literature in our sample (Toronto & Remington, 2020). This interpretative approach to synthesise knowledge from a field of research aims at developing a conceptual understanding beyond the knowledge gained from individual studies (Morrow & Mowatt, 2015; TM et al., 2021). The work by Braun and Clarke (2006) as well as Toronto and Remington (2020) guided our analysis. For each of the seven principles, we applied the following procedure: First, we got familiar with each of the research articles by reading and rereading them and tagged quotes that addressed the focal DE principle. We used the software MAXQDA in this process. Second, we inductively generated codes that pointed towards SBM concepts for the principle in focus. This leads to 71 codes in total for all DE TABLE 1 (Continued) Authors Year Title Journal Citations Wells, P., & Seitz, M. 2005 Business models and closed-loop supply chains: A typology Supply Chain Management 97 Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., & Rana, P. 2017 Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation Journal of Cleaner Production 108 Yip, A. W., & Bocken, N. M. P. 2018 SBM archetypes for the banking industry Journal of Cleaner Production 78 FIGURE 2 Thematic analysis (exemplary for doughnut economics' Principle 1 ‘change the goal’) HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3403 principles together. Third, we iteratively grouped the codes to 23 concepts. 1 Thereby, we went through an iterative process of reviewing and rereading the publications and, respectively, adapted the codes and concepts. During the process, two categories inductively emerged and helped to further group the concepts: abstract and concrete concepts. According to cognitive science theory, abstract concepts refer to unspecific concepts (Galbraith & Underwood, 1973; Wiemer- Hastings & Xu, 2005). They have been used in a normative way, i.e., to express how a SBM should be but lacked further information on how this normative requirement can be further operationalised. In contrast, concrete concepts refer to specific terms. These have been described more detailedly in the sample articles. Differentiating between abstract and concrete concepts is important as it indicates in which way SBM research reflects DE principles. Abstract concepts are less imaginable and realisable. Consequently, abstract concepts would indicate potential for a more specific and concrete reflection of DE principles at the SBM level. Finally, we developed a framework to visualise our insights in form of a meta-synthesis (Campbell et al., 2003; Sandelowski et al., 1997). Figure 2provides an overview of the thematic analysis, exemplary for the first principle of DE, ‘change the goal’. 4|FINDINGS We were able to identify 23 SBM concepts mirroring DE. Among them are seven abstract and 16 concrete concepts. The principles ‘create to regenerate’and ‘change the goal’are inherent in nearly all publications in our sample. ‘Get savvy with systems’and ‘see the big picture’are reflected through abstract concepts by more than half of the articles in our sample. Considerably fewer articles mirror these principles through concrete concepts. The principles ‘design to distribute’,‘nurture human nature’and ‘be agnostic about growth’show the greatest potential for a more in-depth reflection in key SBM research. Furthermore, our findings show that none of the seven principles of DE is inherent in all articles and none of the articles addresses all of the seven principles of DE. In order to make our findings more accessible, we present for each principle how SBM articles in our sample reflect these (see Table 2as a summary and Figure 3for a visualisation). 4.1 |Change the goal 34 articles in our sample reflect the first principle ‘change the goal’. Among these articles, we identified three concepts mirroring this principle: the abstract concept ‘environmental, social, and economic sustainability as the goal of SBMs’and the two concrete concepts ‘sustainability performance measurement and reporting’and ‘sustainable business modelling tools and frameworks’. Similarly, 34 out of 40 publications address this principle through the abstract concept ‘environmental, social, and economic sustainability as the goal of SBMs’. For example, Stubbs and Cocklin (2008, p. 121) propose that SBMs convey a business ‘purpose, vision and/or mission in terms of social, environmental, and economic outcomes’. All these articles have in common that they apply a holistic understanding of sustainability, which is in line with Raworth's call for acknowledging environmental and social concerns in concert with economic activities. Similarly, Manninen et al. (2018) call for a ‘more holistic view of value that integrates social and environmental goals, to ensure balancing or ideally alignment of all stakeholders’(p. 414). In their work on SBM innovation, Evans et al. (2017) expressed such a holistic understanding in relation to the value dimensions of SBMs. They state that ‘sustainable value incorporates economic, social and environmental benefits conceptualized as value forms’(p. 601) and ‘each of the three sub-systems must be viable and healthy if the planet system is to flourish’(p. 602). 27 out of 40 publications reflect the principle ‘change the goal’ through more concrete concepts such as ‘sustainability performance measurement and reporting’and ‘sustainable business modelling tools and frameworks’. For example, Bocken et al. (2013) developed a value mapping tool to help firms create value propositions better suited for sustainability in which they try ‘to engender a holistic perspective that incorporates all three dimensions of sustainability within the business planning process’(p.482). Stubbs and Cocklin (2008, p. 122) propose that social and environmental indicators ‘are integrated into internal performance measurement systems to ensure that a “sustainability mindset”is embedded throughout the organization’. 4.2 |See the big picture A total of 27 articles in our sample reflect the second principle ‘see the big picture’. Among these articles, we identified three concepts: the abstract concept ‘holistic stakeholder perspective’and the two concrete concepts ‘multi-dimensional flows between a focal SBM and all stakeholders’and ‘analysing the holistic business environment as part of SBM’. 25 out of 40 publications reflect the principle through the abstract concept ‘holistic stakeholder perspective’. For example, Evans et al. (2017, p. 601) propose that ‘SBMs require a system of sustainable value flows among multiple stakeholders including the natural environment and society as primary stakeholders’. Kurucz et al. (2017) also call for a holistic stakeholder perspective by arguing that difficult challenges need transdisciplinary approaches and bringing together governments, businesses, civil society and academia. The authors present a ‘strongly sustainable business model canvas’ (p. 201), encompassing human and non-human actors and their fundamental needs. The second concept is a more concrete one: ‘multi-dimensional flows between a focal SBM and all stakeholders’. A total of 10 out of 40 publications incorporate this concept. One of the most salient examples is the article by Freudenreich et al. (2020). The authors stress the need to consider multiple stakeholders and the mutual 3404 HAUSDORF AND TIMM TABLE 2 Abstract and concrete SBM concepts reflecting DE DE principles SBM concepts reflecting DE SBM articles in our sample integrating the SBM concepts No. of articles integrating the conceptAbstract Concrete 1. Change the goal Environmental, social and economic sustainability as the goal of SBMs Baldassarre et al. (2017), Baldassarre et al. (2020), Bocken et al. (2013), Bocken et al. (2015), Bocken et al. (2018), Bocken and Geradts (2020), Bocken and Short (2016), Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Carayannis et al. (2015), Curtis and Mont (2020), Di Vaio et al. (2020), Dreyer et al. (2017), Evans et al. (2017), Ferasso et al. (2020), Freudenreich et al. (2020), Gall et al. (2020), Gao and Li (2020), Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), Geissdoerfer et al. (2018), Henry et al. (2020), Kurucz et al. (2017), Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2018), Manninen et al. (2018), Ritala et al. (2018), Schaltegger et al. (2012), Schaltegger et al. (2016), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008), Todeschini et al. (2017), Tunn et al. (2019), Vasileiadou et al. (2016), Velter et al. (2020), Wells and Seitz (2005), Yang et al. (2017), Yip and Bocken (2018) 34 Sustainable business modelling tools and frameworks Baldassarre et al. (2017), Baldassarre et al. (2020), Bocken et al. (2013), Bocken et al. (2015), Bocken et al. (2018), Bocken and Short (2016), Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Carayannis et al. (2015), Curtis and Mont (2020), Evans et al. (2017), Freudenreich et al. (2020), Gao and Li (2020), Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), Geissdoerfer et al. (2018), Henry et al. (2020), Kurucz et al. (2017), Manninen et al. (2018), Schaltegger et al. (2012), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008), Velter et al. (2020), Yang et al. (2017), Yip and Bocken (2018) 22 Sustainability performance measurement and reporting Bocken and Geradts (2020), Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Evans et al. (2017), Ferasso et al. (2020), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) 5 2. See the big picture Holistic stakeholder perspective Baldassarre et al. (2017), Bocken et al. (2013), Bocken et al. (2015), Bocken et al. (2018), Bocken and Short (2016), Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Christensen et al. (2012), Di Vaio et al. (2020), Di Vaio et al. (2020), Dreyer et al. (2017), Evans et al. (2017), Ferasso et al. (2020), Freudenreich et al. (2020), Gall et al. (2020), Gao and Li (2020), Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), Geissdoerfer et al. (2018), Henry et al. (2020), Kurucz et al. (2017), Lüdeke- Freund and Dembek (2017), Manninen et al. (2018), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008), Todeschini et al. (2017), Tunn et al. (2019), Vasileiadou et al. (2016) 25 Multidimensional flows between a focal SBM and all stakeholders Baldassarre et al. (2017), Bocken et al. (2013), Bocken et al. (2015), Dreyer et al. (2017), Evans et al. (2017), Freudenreich et al. (2020), Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), Manninen et al. (2018), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008), Vasileiadou et al. (2016) 10 Analysing the holistic business environment as part of SBM Bocken et al. (2013), Curtis and Mont (2020), Gao and Li (2020), Schaltegger et al. (2016)4 3. Nurture human nature Cooperative, social view of human nature Bocken et al. (2015), Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013), Freudenreich et al. (2020), Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) 4 (Continues) HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3405 literature in this field due to our sampling strategy might provide abstract and concrete concepts beyond those identified up to now. Hence, our findings provide valuable insights into how key SBM articles reflect DE, but generalisations on the entire field of SBM literature cannot be drawn. As a response to this shortcoming, we invite SBM scholars to our seventh avenue for future research: Avenue (7) Identify further abstract and concrete SBM concepts that mirror the seven DE principles by exploring a broader literature base. Yet, the sample chosen for this study represents the most cited SBM articles by top SBM authors, and we are positive that this ‘nucleus’of SBM research has considerable effects on the broader field of research. Consequently, we suggest to particularly explore concepts that mirror those principles that bear the greatest potential for future research: ‘design to distribute’,‘nurture human nature’and ‘be agnostic about growth’. 6|CONCLUSIONS With this study, we open up the stage for research at the intersection of SBM research and DE. We shed light on how key SBM articles reflect DE principles by conducting an integrative literature review. Our findings present 23 SBM concepts mirroring DE. Among them, we identified seven abstract concepts and 16 concrete concepts. With our study, we contribute to the following aspects: First, we introduce our Sustainable Business Model Framework for Doughnut Economics that enhances the theoretical understanding at the intersection of SBM and DE. This framework supports SBM scholars in reflecting their own work with regard to whether, to what extent and how it integrates the principles of DE. Moreover, SBM researchers can utilise the framework in order to enrich their future work. Second, building on the first contribution, our study adds to SBM research by presenting seven unique avenues for shifting the SBM research agenda. These avenues aim to inspire future SBM research to further integrate the principles of DE. This can foster the development of innovative SBM concepts that contribute to broader sustainability transitions. Especially those principles that bear the potential for a more in-depth reflection in key SBM research can inspire novel business models. For example, with our findings, we would like to stimulate the exploration of growth agnostic and distributive SBMs that build on a cooperative view of human nature. Moreover, the proposed avenues encourage future studies to identify further abstract and concrete SBM concepts mirroring DE. Third, our study contributes to SBM innovation in practice. The SBM concepts identified can inspire practitioners to integrate DE in their business model innovation processes. SBM innovations might foster the implementation of DE at the business model level in practice and foster broader sustainability transitions. Still, further research on concrete frameworks on how to integrate SBM is needed. The work of the doughnut economics action lab (DEAL) has recently published their Doughnut Design for Business tool, which provides great practical guidance for implementing DE at the business level. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by funds from the Excellence Strategy of the German Federal and State Governments, provided by Hamburg University through Transfer@UHH funds. Further support was provided by Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. (open access agreement with Springer Nature). CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors certify that they have no conflict of interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. We certify that the article is the authors' original work. The article has not received prior publication and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. On behalf of all co-authors, the corresponding author shall bear full responsibility for the submission. This research has not been submitted for publication nor has it been published in whole or in part elsewhere. We attest to the fact that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation and agree to its submission to Business Strategy and the Environment Journal. ORCID Michaela Hausdorf https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1082-4081 Jana-Michaela Timm https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8891-6344 ENDNOTES 1 Toronto and Remington (2020, p. 67) refer to such concepts as themes. However, we decided that the term concepts is more appropriate in our research context. 2 These studies were not part of our sample as they did not belong to the 40 publications with the most significant influence among SBM research. According to our sampling strategy, we included the 30 most cited articles overall and 10 most cited articles in 2020 and 2021. REFERENCES Aagaard, A., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Peter Wells, P. (2021). Business models for sustainability transitions: How organisations contribute to societal transformation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-77580-3 Amsterdam. (2021). Policy: Circular economy, https://www.amsterdam.nl/ en/policy/sustainability/circular-economy/ (accessed 7 December 2021). Attanasio, G., Preghenella, N., De Toni, A. F., & Battistella, C. (2022). Stakeholder engagement in business models for sustainability: The stakeholder value flow model for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(3), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2922 Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., & Jaskiewicz, T. (2017). Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner Production,147, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2017.01.081 Baldassarre, B., Konietzko, J., Brown, P., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N. M. P., Karpen, I. O., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). Addressing the designimplementation gap of sustainable business models by prototyping: A tool for planning and executing small-scale pilots. Journal of Cleaner Production,255,120295.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120295 3412 HAUSDORF AND TIMM Betancourt Morales, C. M., & Zartha Sossa, J. W. (2020). Circular economy in Latin America: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(6), 2479–2497. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 2515 Bidmon, C. M., & Knab, S. F. (2018). The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New linkages between business model and transition research. Journal of Cleaner Production,178, 903–916. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.198 Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.581 Bocken, N. M. P., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 Bocken, N. M. P., & Geradts, T. H. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning,53(4), 101950. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lrp.2019.101950 Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,32(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2014.1000399 Bocken, N. M. P., Schuit, C. S., & Kraaijenhagen, C. (2018). Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,28,79–95. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eist.2018.02.001 Bocken, N. M. P., & Short, S. W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,18,41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist. 2015.07.010 Bocken, N. M. P., & Short, S. W. (2020). Transforming business models: Towards a sufficiency-based circular economy. In Handbook of the circular economy. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781788972727.00028 Bocken, N. M. P., & Short, S. W. (2021). Unsustainable business models— Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production,312, 127828. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2021.127828 Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078 Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy,43(2), 284–300. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2013.10.014 Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy,45(9), 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2016.05.003 Bonfanti, A., Mion, G., Brunetti, F., & Vargas-Sánchez, A. (2022). The contribution of manufacturing companies to the achievement of sustainable development goals: An empirical analysis of the operationalization of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment,1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3260 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 Brannigan, F. (2020). The Liverpool city region doughnut: A means for securing a green and resilient recovery? Policy Briefing,012,2–9. https://doi.org/10.17638/03090892 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa Brozovic, D. (2020). Business model based on strong sustainability: Insights from an empirical study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 763–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2440 Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation,5(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019. 04.001 Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., & Donovan, J. (2003). Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine,56(4), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0277-9536(02)00064-3 Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9330-y Casarejos, F., Bastos, C. R., Rufin, C., & Frota, M. N. (2018). Rethinking packaging production and consumption vis-à-vis circular economy: A case study of compostable cassava starch-based material. Journal of Cleaner Production,201, 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.08.114 Casarejos, F., Rufin, C., & Engel, I. (2021). Regenerative democracy for envisioning and fostering flourishing societies. Sustainability,13(11), 5808. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115808 Christensen, T. B., Wells, P., & Cipcigan, L. (2012). Can innovative business models overcome resistance to electric vehicles? Better place and battery electric cars in Denmark. Energy Policy,48, 498–505. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.054 Cortés, L. M., Mora-Valencia, A., & Perote, J. (2016). The productivity of top researchers: A semi-nonparametric approach. Scientometrics, 109(2), 891–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2072-5 Cosenz, F., Rodrigues, V. P., & Rosati, F. (2020). Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(2), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2395 Costanza, R. (1991). Ecological economics: A research agenda. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2(2), 335–357. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0954-349X(05)80007-4 Curtis, S. K., & Mont, O. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,266, 121519. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519 Dale, G. (2020). Rule of nature or rule of capital? Physiocracy, ecological economics, and ideology. Globalizations,18,1–18. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14747731.2020.1807838 Daly, H. E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Dearing, J. A., Wang, R., Zhang, K., Dyke, J. G., Haberl, H., Hossain, M. S., Langdon, P. G., Lenton, T. M., Raworth, K., Brown, S., Carstensen, J., Cole, M. J., Cornell, S. E., Dawson, T. P., Doncaster, C. P., Eigenbrod, F., Flörke, M., Jeffers, E., Mackay, A. W., …Poppy, G. M. (2014). Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change,28, 227–238. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012 Dekhili, S., & Achabou, M. A. (2013). Price fairness in the case of green products: Enterprises' policies and consumers' perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment,22(8), 547–560. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.1763 Di Vaio, A., Boccia, F., Landriani, L., & Palladino, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the agri-food system: Rethinking sustainable business models in the COVID-19 scenario. Sustainability,12(12), 4851. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12124851 Dreyer, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hamann, R., & Faccer, K. (2017). Upsides and downsides of the sharing economy: Collaborative consumption business models' stakeholder value impacts and their relationship to context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,125,87–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.036 HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3413 Edwards, M. G. (2021). The growth paradox, sustainable development, and business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(7), 3079– 3094. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2790 Emanuelsson, E. A. C., Charles, A., & Shivaprasad, P. (2021). A regenerative business model with flexible, modular and scalable processes in a post- Covid era: The case of the spinning mesh disc reactor (SMDR). Sustainability,13(12), 6944. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126944 Enthoven, M. P., & Thelken, H. N. (2022). Activists' and social entrepreneurs' approaches towards consumer culture: Providing a protective space for sustainability transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment,1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3086 Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., & Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment,26(5), 597– 608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939 Faber, M. (2008). How to be an ecological economist. Ecological Economics, 66(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.017 Ferasso, M., Beliaeva, T., Kraus, S., Clauss, T., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2020). Circular economy business models: The state of research and avenues ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(8), 3006–3024. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2554 Figge, F., Young, W., & Barkemeyer, R. (2014). Sufficiency or efficiency to achieve lower resource consumption and emissions? The role of the rebound effect. Journal of Cleaner Production,69, 216–224. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.031 Franco, M. A. (2019). A system dynamics approach to product design and business model strategies for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production,241, 118327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 118327 Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,166(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-019-04112-z Freudenreich, B., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). Developing sufficiency-oriented offerings for clothing users: Business approaches to support consumption reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production,247, 119589. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119589 Galbraith, R. C., & Underwood, B. J. (1973). Perceived frequency of concrete and abstract words. Memory & Cognition,1(1), 56–60. https:// doi.org/10.3758/BF03198068 Gall, M., Wiener, M., de Oliveira, C. C., Lang, R. W., & Hansen, E. G. (2020). Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate quality, business model, and societal impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,156, 104685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104685 Gao, P., & Li, J. (2020). Understanding sustainable business models: A framework and a case study of the bike-sharing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,267, 122229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2020.122229 Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process—A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of Cleaner Production,135, 1218–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 07.020 Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S. N., de Carvalho, M. M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production,190, 712–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2018.04.159 Gold, S., Chowdhury, I. N., Huq, F. A., & Heinemann, K. (2020). Social business collaboration at the bottom of the pyramid: The case of orchestration. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(1), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2363 Goni, F. A., Chofreh, A. G., Orakani, Z. E., Klemeˇ s, J. J., Davoudi, M., & Mardani, A. (2021). Sustainable business models: A review and framework development. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 23(3), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01886-z Goodall, A. H. (2006). Should top universities be led by top researchers and are they? A citations analysis. Journal of Documentation,62(3), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610666529 Gross, P. L. (2020). Better together? How the doughnut economics action lab organizes communities for transformative action. Leading Complex Organizations. Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., De Boer, Y., Rockström, J., Ludwig, K., & Kok, M. (2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability,7(2), 1651–1660. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su7021651 Heikkurinen, P., Young, C. W., & Morgan, E. (2019). Business for sustainable change: Extending eco-efficiency and eco-sufficiency strategies to consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production,218, 656–664. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.053 Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2020). A typology of circular start-ups: An analysis of 128 circular business models. Journal of Cleaner Production,245, 118528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2019.118528 Hofmann, F. (2019). Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transitions? Journal of Cleaner Production,224, 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.115 Jolink, A., & Niesten, E. (2015). Sustainable development and business models of entrepreneurs in the organic food industry. Business Strategy and the Environment,24(6), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 1826 Khmara, Y., & Kronenberg, J. (2018). Degrowth in business: An oxymoron or a viable business model for sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production,177, 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.182 Klapper, R. G., Upham, P., & Blundel, R. K. (2021). Insider perspectives on growth: Implications for a nondichotomous understanding of ‘sustainable’and conventional entrepreneurship. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(3), 1481–1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2710 Kostakis, V., Latoufis, K., Liarokapis, M., & Bauwens, M. (2018). The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases. Journal of Cleaner Production,197, 1684–1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 09.077 Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A., Luedeke-Freund, F., Upward, A., & Willard, B. (2017). Relational leadership for strategic sustainability: Practices and capabilities to advance the design and assessment of sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production,140, 189–204. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.087 Leach, M., Raworth, K., & Rockström, J. (2013). Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity, in ISSC and UNESCO, World Social Science Report 2013 (pp. 84–89). Changing Global Environments, OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. Liute, A., & De Giacomo, M. R. (2022). The environmental performance of UK-based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(3), 810–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2919 Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J. C., Whiteman, G., & Rotmans, J. (2010). Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment,19(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.645 Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(8), 1159–1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2059 Lucas, M. T. (2010). Understanding environmental management practices: Integrating views from strategic management and ecological economics. Business Strategy and the Environment,19(8), 543–556. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.662 3414 HAUSDORF AND TIMM Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and business models: Integrative framework and propositions for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(2), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2396 Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption,15, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2018.06.004 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 Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2021). Quantification of doughnut economy with the sustainability window method: Analysis of development in Thailand. Sustainability,13(2), 847. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su13020847 Madsen, H. L. (2020). Business model innovation and the global ecosystem for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production,247, 119102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119102 Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N. M. P., Dahlbo, H., & Aminoff, A. (2018). Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? Journal of Cleaner Production,171, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017. 10.003 McDonald, P. (2018). Sustainability management: Research insights from social cognitive neuroscience. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1355–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2184 Méndez-Le on, E., Reyes-Carrillo, T., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2022). Towards a holistic framework for sustainable value analysis in business models: A tool for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2871 Meriläinen, S., Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2000). The masculine mindset of environmental management and green marketing. Business Strategy and the Environment,9(3), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) 1099-0836(200005/06)9:3<151::AID-BSE243>3.0.CO;2-Y Mion, G., Loza Adaui, C. R., & Bonfanti, A. (2021). Characterizing the mission statements of benefit corporations: Empirical evidence from Italy. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(4), 2160–2172. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.2738 Mjahed Hammami, S., Chtourou, S., & Al Moosa, H. (2018). A holistic approach to understanding the acceptance of a community-based renewable energy project: A pathway to sustainability for Tunisia's rural region. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(8), 1535–1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2211 Morrow, J., & Mowatt, S. (2015). The implementation of authentic sustainable strategies: I-SITE middle managers, employees and the delivery of 100% pure New Zealand. Business Strategy and the Environment,24(7), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1897 Mukhuty, S., Upadhyay, A., & Rothwell, H. (2022). Strategic sustainable development of Industry 4.0 through the lens of social responsibility: The role of human resource practices. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(5), 2068–2081. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3008 Nesterova, I. (2020). Degrowth business framework: Implications for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production,262, 121382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121382 Norris, S., Hagenbeck, J., & Schaltegger, S. (2021). Linking sustainable business models and supply chains—Toward an integrated value creation framework. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(8), 3960–3974. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2851 Olsson, D. (2020). The transformative potential of resilience thinking: How it could transform unsustainable economic rationalities. Alternatives, 45(2), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420938284 Pedersen, E. R. G., & Netter, S. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Business model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,19(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JFMM-05-2013-0073 Preghenella, N., & Battistella, C. (2021). Exploring business models for sustainability: A bibliographic investigation of the literature and future research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(5), 2505–2522. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2760 Preluca, A. (2021). Doing business in the doughnut: The sustainability of worker co-operatives. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/ smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1566878&dswid=8770 (accessed 16 August 2021). Proka, A., Beers, P. J., & Loorbach, D. (2018). Transformative business models for sustainability transitions. In Sustainable business models (pp. 19–39). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 73503-0_2 Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., Disterheft, A., Mascarenhas, A., Deutz, P., Spangenberg, J. H., Montaño, M., Olayide, O., & Sohal, A. (2020). Rethinking sustainability: Questioning old perspectives and developing new ones. Journal of Cleaner Production,258, 120769. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120769 Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st- century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. Regen Melbourne. (2021). About Regen Melbourne, https://www.regen. melbourne/ (assessed 7 December 2021). Ripple, W., Wolf, C., Newsome, T., Barnard, P., Moomaw, W., & Grandcolas, P. (2019). World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience,70(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ biab079 Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N. M. P., Albareda, L., & Puumalainen, K. (2018). Sustainable business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: A longitudinal content analysis study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170(1), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159 Rivera, J. (2019). An integral model for the implementation of environmental policy strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment,28(5), 909– 920. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2331 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., …Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,461, 472–475. https:// doi.org/10.1038/461472a Røpke, I. (2004). The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecological Economics,50(3–4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2004.02.012 Roy, A., Basu, A., & Dong, X. (2021). Achieving socioeconomic development fuelled by globalization: An analysis of 146 countries. Sustainability,13(9), 4913. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094913 Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health,20(4), 365– 371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365:: AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E Santa-Maria, T., Vermeulen, W. J., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2021). How do incumbent firms innovate their business models for the circular economy? Identifying micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(4), 1308–1333. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.2956 Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization and Environment,29(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1086026615599806 Schaltegger, S., Loorbach, D., & Hörisch, J. (2022). Managing entrepreneurial and corporate contributions to sustainability transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment,1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 3080 HAUSDORF AND TIMM 3415 Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development,6(2), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012. 046944 Schoenmaker, D., & Schramade, W. (2018). Principles of sustainable finance. Oxford University Press. Schrader, C., Freimann, J., & Seuring, S. (2012). Business strategy at the base of the pyramid. Business Strategy and the Environment,21(5), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.727 Seager, T. P. (2008). The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment,17, 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.632 Shakeel, J., Mardani, A., Chofreh, A. G., Goni, F. A., & Klemeˇ s, J. J. (2020). Anatomy of sustainable business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production,261, 121201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 121201 Spash, C. L. (2017). Routledge handbook of ecological economics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679747 Stål, H. I., Bengtsson, M., & Manzhynski, S. (2022). Cross-sectoral collaboration in business model innovation for sustainable development: Tensions and compromises. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(1), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2903 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science,347, 6223. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Stopper, M., Kossik, A., & Gastermann, B. (2016). Development of a sustainability model for manufacturing SMEs based on the innovative DE framework. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists,2,16–18. Stubbs, W. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Business Strategy and the Environment,26(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10. 1002/bse.1920 Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”.Organization & Environment,21(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1086026608318042 Thor, A., Bornmann, L., Marx, W., & Mutz, R. (2018). Identifying single influential publications in a research field: New analysis opportunities of the CRExplorer. Scientometrics,116(1), 591–608. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-018-2733-7 TM, A., Kaur, P., Ferraris, A., & Dhir, A. (2021). What motivates the adoption of green restaurant products and services? A systematic review and future research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2224–2240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2755 Todeschini, B. V., Cortimiglia, M. N., Callegaro-de-Menezes, D., & Ghezzi, A. (2017). Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Business Horizons,60(6), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bushor.2017.07.003 Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (Eds.). (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-37504-1 Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review,4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 Tunn, V. S. C., Bocken, N. M. P., van den Hende, E. A., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2019). Business models for sustainable consumption in the circular economy: An expert study. Journal of Cleaner Production,212, 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 11.290 Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. (2017). Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. Journal of Cleaner Production,168, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.047 van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J. P., & Raven, R. (2018). Business model innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application to bike sharing. Journal of Cleaner Production,195, 1300–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 05.223 Vasileiadou, E., Huijben, J. C. C. M., & Raven, R. P. J. M. (2016). Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production,128, 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.028 Velter, M. G. E., Bitzer, V., Bocken, N. M. P., & Kemp, R. (2020). Sustainable business model innovation: The role of boundary work for multistakeholder alignment. Journal of Cleaner Production,247, 119497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119497 Wells, P., & Seitz, M. (2005). Business models and closed-loop supply chains: A typology. Supply Chain Management, An International Journal,10(4), 249–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13598540510612712 Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science,29(5), 719–736. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33 Yang, M., Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., & Rana, P. (2017). Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production,140, 1794–1804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.07.102 Yip, A. W., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2018). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,174, 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.190 How to cite this article: Hausdorf, M., & Timm, J.-M. (2023). Business research for sustainable development: How does sustainable business model research reflect doughnut economics? Business Strategy and the Environment,32(6), 3398–3416. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3307 3416 HAUSDORF AND TIMM