Search results

PurposeThis paper aims to identify the archetypes of business models and illustrate how firms create, deliver and capture value by juxtaposing the firm's aspired value emphasis with its strategic agility.Design/methodology/approachThe two-by-two matrix is constructed based on an analysis of existing literature and conceptual development.FindingsWe advance a conceptualization of strategic agility to emphasize speed and flexibility as the main drivers, along with attention toward stakeholder expectations. Additionally, we unveil four different archetypes of business models based on the firm's aspired value emphasis (economic vs plus social/environmental) and the type of strategic agility (defensive vs proactive).Research limitations/implicationsStudies that empirically corroborate the proposed conceptualization of strategic agility are needed. In addition, empirical investigations on the evolutionary paths underlying the development of firms' business models are requested.Practical implicationsManagers learn about aspects and actions that they should pursue to shift from one business model archetype to another.Originality/valueWe identify the features – in terms of focus on all the components of the triple bottom line (or not) and in terms of strategic agility – that firms need to face or even anticipate environmental and social transformation.

PurposeFor a long time, managing the relationship between business and society has been one of the main topics of academic and business literature. Porter and Kramer have proposed a new interpretation of this relationship based on the mutual dependence that exists between corporations and society. Trying to put into practice the shared value principle, for‐profit companies engaging in strategic CSR have chosen to implement new hybrid business models. These models include the social business model and the inclusive business model. The purpose of the paper is to understand which characteristics distinguish social and inclusive business models and what kind of benefits and risks (for companies and for communities) are connected to each model.Design/methodology/approachIn order to identify the features of the inclusive business and social business models and the benefits and risks associated with these models, ten case studies were analyzed. Analysis of the business models was based on a theoretical framework developed through the analysis of the literature.FindingsThe findings of the research suggest two main conclusions. First, social and inclusive business models are similar in partner networks, use of knowledge and value chain, in the development of innovative distribution models (except for the cases in which the market considered is not in an emerging country) and in terms of social benefit. Second, the social and inclusive business models are different in terms of value proposition, governance systems, profits management model, social risks and economic profit equation.Research limitations/implicationsThe first limitation is that the case study analysis is based on documentary materials; for further investigation it might be useful to develop in‐depth interviews with key figures involved in the implementation of business models. Even though this descriptive study has allowed a first important step in taking a comparative analysis between the two business models, further research should strive to extend the analysis to all the hybrid business models that are being developed with the aim of creating shared value.Practical implicationsThe final propositions allow entrepreneurs and managers to better understand the characteristics of business models. Moreover, the theoretical framework is a conceptual instrument that is useful in analyzing and evaluating alternative ways to develop new business models – based on the "creating shared value" principle – in developing markets.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on comparing the characteristics of the social versus inclusive business models. Studies that compare business models in the social venturing space are limited. Moreover, the study addresses the similarity and differences between the two business models rather than focusing on the two models separately as the previous researches have done.

In this chapter the authors examine different methodologies for assessing the diverse impact of the Collaborative and Sharing Economies (henceforth, CSE) on many aspects of society, then make policy recommendations based on the outcomes of these assessments. The chapter briefly describes the multifarious CSE landscape, then goes on to enumerate the major frameworks currently used to evaluate and assess CSE impacts. It notes that there is no single methodology that can fully capture the wide variety of impacts, but identifies two methods as the most useful: multidimensional assessment, and Theory of Change (ToC) framework analysis. The chapter then elaborates on the benefits and drawbacks of each methodology, before suggesting the use of both methodologies in a mixed format. The authors undertake a brief literature review to examine recent approaches to impact assessment, and focus in on what those approaches have revealed from the points of view of social value, environmental impact, economy, and political impact, concluding with findings about 'rebound effects' in terms of indirect behavioural and other changes caused by CSE initiatives. The chapter maps out a suggested comprehensive inventory for multidimensional assessment, then describes a methodology for assessing the CSE and its impacts via the ToC Framework. It concludes with determining the implications on policy of the impact assessments. This section views policy through the lens of implications derived from the general impact of the CSE, and then via the impact assessment methods and tools derived from the ToC framework. In the first part it assesses considerations that need to be taken by policymakers due to CSE impacts on the market, government, the workforce, consumers, and the environment, and makes recommendations on each. In terms of impact assessment, it recommends more long-term and strategic actions to cope with the ongoing disruption caused by the CSE. In conclusion it recommends a robust and adaptive approach to assessing the impacts caused by flourishing and inevitable growth of the CSE.

The relationship between business and community is becoming increasingly important, especially with the current blurring of the boundaries between profit and not-for-profit sectors, and the growing number of hybrid organizations such as social enterprises. For these organizations, the assessment of social impact plays a strategic role in helping them understand to what extent their social mission has been accomplished. As a result of increasing interest in the practice of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), many models have been developed, but a system to classify them is still lacking, and so the overall picture remains rather fragmentary if not confusing. In this research, a hierarchical cluster analysis was developed based on a sample of 76 SIA models to group them in macro-categories and help social entrepreneurs choose the model that is best suited to the needs of their organization.