Abstract

     This paper develops an ordonomic approach to the governance of sustainable business model innovation (SBMI). We clarify the distinctive roles of optimization and governance for the management of sustainable value networks and develop a sustainability cube as a new management tool for the governance of SBMI. Our cube helps management to identify and overcome social dilemmas within value networks, i.e. to form and reform relevant business relationships, thus creating and tapping second-order win-win-win potentials. Furthermore, our cube encourages management to interpret negative externality problems as “missing markets”, i.e. as an entrepreneurial challenge and as a business opportunity to serve as yet unmet needs. Finally, our cube offers an avenue to develop and strengthen the specific management competencies that foster a successful governance of SBMI.

Introduction

     After having promoted the sustainability concept of a “triple bottom line” (TBL) for 25 years, Elkington (2018) is rather disillusioned and (self-)critical of what, in effect, has become an accounting concept. Looking back, he clarifies his initial goal—and identifies what went wrong (para. 8, emphasis in original): “[T]he original idea was wider still, encouraging businesses to track and manage economic (not just financial), social, and environmental value added—or destroyed. … [T]he TBL wasn’t designed to be just an accounting tool. It was supposed to provoke deeper thinking about capitalism and its future, but many early adopters understood the concept as a balancing act, adopting a trade-off mentality.” He further elaborates (para. 13, emphasis in original): “TBL’s stated goal from the outset was system change—pushing toward the transformation of capitalism. … It was originally intended as a genetic code, a triple helix of change for tomorrow’s capitalism, with a focus … on breakthrough change, disruption, asymmetric growth (with unsustainable sectors actively sidelined), and the scaling of next-generation market solutions.” Looking ahead, he states (para. 16 f.): “[W]e need a new wave of TBL innovation and deployment. … Hence the need for a ‘recall.’ I hope that in another 25 years we can look back and point to this as the moment [we] started working toward a triple helix for value creation, a genetic code for tomorrow’s capitalism, spurring the regeneration of our economies, societies, and biosphere.”

Conclusion and outlook

     This paper develops an ordonomic approach to the governance of SBMI. We clarify the distinctive roles of optimization and governance for the management of sustainable value networks and develop a sustainability cube as a new management tool for the governance of SBMI. Our cube helps management to identify and overcome social dilemmas within value networks, i.e. to form and reform relevant business relationships, thus creating and tapping second-order win-win-win potentials. Furthermore, our cube encourages management to interpret negative externality problems as “missing markets”, i.e. as an entrepreneurial challenge and as a business opportunity to serve as yet unmet needs. Finally, our cube helps management to develop and strengthen the specific competencies that foster a successful governance of SBMI.

     As an outlook, we would like to emphasize several limitations of our contribution in this paper, which may stimulate further research.

     First, we deliberately skipped an important aspect. Since we wanted to concentrate on sustainability opportunities beyond the organizational boundaries of the firm, we edited out the ordonomic strategy of individual self-commitments. We therefore concentrate on perceiving the organization and its interior structures as a monolithic block. On the one hand, this assumption needs to be highlighted as a serious limitation of our tool, but on the other hand it provides a vital starting point for complementary further research on intra-organizational challenges such as culture, mind-set, etc. (see e.g., Evans et al., 2017; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018) and tensions’ management in SBMI (see e.g., Schultz, 2022a). Hence, managers using the cube must be constantly aware of this blind spot. Further research could explore the possible interplay between the three commitment strategies (external relations management) embodied in the cube and the one we left out (internal relations management). For the latter, we would like to hint to an initial ordonomic contribution along those lines cf. Will and Pies (2018).