Paper presented at the International Sustainability Transitions conference 2018 (12-14 june) Manchester, UK. The Dutch agrifood regime is grinding to a halt. International economic pressures force Dutch farmers to further scale up and intensify their businesses, while food scandals and calamities as well as many and varied negative environmental impacts have led to an all-time low societal acceptance of the agrifood regime as well as a host of legislative measures to stifle further growth. Such a situation, in which regime pressures increasingly undermine the regime, represents a strong call for transition of the Dutch agrifood system.At the same time, new business models emerge: new players arrive, new logistical pathways come to the fore and innovative consumer and farmer relationships – food co-operatives – are forged. In a sense, the transition is already under way (cf. Hermans et al., 2010), with new business models forming an important backbone. However, the way forward is still a matter of great uncertainty and controversy: How do new business models relate to reconfiguring the Dutch agrifood system? We explore the hypothesis that different transition pathways put specific demands on the role of new business models. We studied various new business models in the Dutch agrifood system and their relations to three different transition pathways. Our research combines future exploration (backcasting) and analysis of new business models. In this research, we approach this question from two angles. First, we introduce a transition-oriented business model concept, in order to effectively link new business models to transition. Then we shortly touch upon the transition pathway typology introduced by Geels et al. (2016) and describe three different transition pathways for the Dutch agrifood system. We report on XX business models in each of these transition pathways. The paper ends with a discussion of the role of business models for different types of transition pathways.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: To facilitate the design of viable business models by proposing a novel business model design framework for viability. Design: A design science research method is adopted to develop a business model design framework for viability. The business model design framework for viability is demonstrated by using it to design a business model for an energy enterprise. The aforementioned framework is validated in theory by using expert opinion. Findings: It is difficult to design viable business models because of the changing market conditions, and competing interests of stakeholders in a business ecosystem setting. Although the literature on business models provides guidance on designing viable business models, the languages (business model ontologies) used to design business models largely ignore such guidelines. Therefore, we propose a business model design framework for viability to overcome the identified shortcomings. The theoretical validation of the business model design framework for viability indicates that it is able to successfully bridge the identified shortcomings, and it is able to facilitate the design of viable business models. Moreover, the validation of the framework in practice is currently underway. Originality / value: Several business model ontologies are used to conceptualise and evaluate business models. However, their rote application will not lead to viable business models, because they largely ignore vital design elements, such as design principles, configuration techniques, business rules, design choices, and assumptions. Therefore, we propose and validate a novel business model design framework for viability that overcomes the aforementioned shortcomings.
DOCUMENT
We aim to understand the interaction between shifting organizational field logics and field actors’ responses to reconcile logic plurality and maintain legitimacy through business model innovation. Drawing on a multimethod, longitudinal field study in the fashion industry, we traced how de novo and incumbent firms integrate circular logics in business models (for sustainability) and uncover how productive tensions in field logics lead to experimental spaces for business model innovation. Our findings showed a shift in the discourse on circular logic that diverted attention and resources from materials innovation (e.g. recycling) to business model innovation (e.g. circular business models). By juxtaposing the degree of field logic tension and the degree of business model innovation, we derive four types of business model hybridization responses that actors engaged in to maintain legitimacy – constrained, limited, integrated, and expanded. Our study generates new insights on business models for sustainability as vehicles for organizational field change.
DOCUMENT
Organisations operate in an increasingly dynamic environment. Consequently, the business models span several organisations, dealing with multiple stakeholders and their competing interests. As a result, the enterprise information systems supporting this new market setting are highly distributed, and their components are owned and managed by different stakeholders. For successful businesses to exist it is crucial that their enterprise architectures are derived from and aligned with viable business models. Business model ontologies (BMOs) are effective tools for designing and evaluating business models. However, the viability perspective has been largely neglected. In this paper, current BMOs have been assessed on their capabilities to support the design and evaluation of viable business models. As such, a list of criteria is derived from literature to evaluate BMOs from a viability perspective. These criteria are subsequently applied to six well-established BMOs, to identify a BMO best suited for design and evaluation of viable business models. The analysis reveals that, although none of the BMOs satisfy all the criteria, e3-value is the most appropriate BMO for designing and evaluating business models from a viability perspective. Furthermore, the identified deficits provide clear areas for enhancing the assessed BMOs from a viability perspective.
DOCUMENT
New Dutch agrifood business models are emerging in response to economic, social and ecological pressures: new players arrive, new logistical pathways come to the fore and innovative consumer and farmer relationships – food coöperatives – are forged. How do new business models relate to reconfiguring the Dutch agrifood system? Our research combines future exploration (backcasting) and analysis of new business models. We developed three agrifood transition scenarios with various groups of stakeholders. For each scenario, we then analysed a specific, representative business model to explore the different roles of business models in agrifood transition. Business models in the “Added value in and with the countryside” already exist and occupy a niche in the market. However, a breakthrough of these business models require large-scale institutional and behavioural change. Business models in the “New products, specific markets” exist but are rare. They usually concern high-value specialist products that could result in widespread market change, but might require little institutional change. The “Sustainable production methods” most resembles the current system. Some associated business models become successful, but they have difficulty distinguishing themselves from conventional produce, which raises questions about whether business models are able to drive a transition in this direction. Thus, our results lend credence to the hypothesis that different transition pathways offer specific potential for and requirements of new business models.
DOCUMENT
Amidst escalating environmental and social challenges, this study explores regenerative business models’ definition and characteristics. While sustainable models have made considerable strides in research, policy, and practice, the advent of regenerative business models offers a progressive leap forward. Regenerative business models aspire to contribute to ecological restoration and societal well-being. The regenerative business model concept is, however, still in its infancy and lacks a comprehensive definition. Our study aims to expand this knowledge, using a Delphi-inspired approach that builds on the knowledge of academic and business experts. Our approach includes three rounds of surveys: an open-ended survey, a survey for rating and ranking the earlier responses of all participants, and a final survey to select key characteristics. We investigate patterns and distinctions among regenerative, regenerative business, and regenerative business models, and analyze their positioning vis-a-vis circular and net-positive models. Findings underscore that organizations adopting regenerative business models focus on planetary health and societal well-being. They generate value across multiple stakeholder levels, including nature, societies, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and employees. Despite overlapping with circular and net-positive models, regenerative business models also emphasize interdependencies between humans and nature, and provide a more holistic approach, centered on restoration rather than mere mitigation.
DOCUMENT
The BMT provides the building blocks to develop a logic for a business model. In such a model the nature of value creation, how value creation is organized, and how transactions are taking shape are operationalized so that they meet the proposition. Practice shows that at present business models aimed at capturing multiple value creation can be divided into three major categories: (1) platform business models, (2) community-based (or collective) business models, and (3) circular business models. The three archetypes differ mainly in the way in which they create value, as well as the objective, the mechanism through which value creation takes place, and the infrastructural and technological requirements. When using the BMT, it is useful to consider at an early stage which business model archetype is dominant in the realization of the intended value proposition. Choosing a business model archetype might look straightforward, but it can be quite a tricky task.
LINK
The pervasive use of media at current-day festivals thoroughly impacts how these live events are experienced, anticipated, and remembered. This empirical study examined event-goers’ live media practices – taking photos, making videos, and in-the-moment sharing of content on social media platforms – at three large cultural events in the Netherlands. Taking a practice approach (Ahva 2017; Couldry 2004), the author studied online and offline event environments through extensive ethnographic fieldwork: online and offline observations, and interviews with 379 eventgoers. Analysis of this research material shows that through their live media practices eventgoers are continuously involved in mediated memory work (Lohmeier and Pentzold 2014; Van Dijck 2007), a form of live storytelling thatrevolves around how they want to remember the event. The article focuses on the impact of mediated memory work on the live experience in the present. It distinguishes two types of mediatised experience of live events: live as future memory and the experiential live. The author argues that memory is increasingly incorporated into the live experience in the present, so much so that, for many eventgoers, mediated memory-making is crucial to having a full live event experience. The article shows how empirical research in media studies can shed new light on key questions within memory studies.
MULTIFILE
Are the so-called “new” business models focused on “sharing” actually promoting new behaviour or are they simply using old behaviour of the provider/consumer in a new technological environment? Are the new tech companies in the sharing economy with their “new” business models grabbing too much power, unnoticeably?
DOCUMENT
