Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Fedeli the challenges_of_transitions_towards_a_more_sustainable_business-business strategy

The challenges of transitions
towards a more sustainable business
Introducing THRIVE framework
Morris D Fedeli1,
Several obstacles face enterprises1 and their leaders during their transformation
journey towards sustainabilit...
Regarded as interdependent sides of the same coin (Braun et al. 2019), innovative
business strategies or bu...

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 23 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (13)

Similaire à Fedeli the challenges_of_transitions_towards_a_more_sustainable_business-business strategy (20)


Plus récents (20)

Fedeli the challenges_of_transitions_towards_a_more_sustainable_business-business strategy

  1. 1. The challenges of transitions towards a more sustainable business Introducing THRIVE framework Morris D Fedeli1, * 1 University of Southern Queensland *morris@fedeli.nu
  2. 2. 2 Abstract Several obstacles face enterprises1 and their leaders during their transformation journey towards sustainability. Shifting from a siloed and comfortable ‘Business as Usual’ approach to creatively leveraging on new opportunities requires radical innovation, worldwide integration, institutionalization of processes and the right business strategy. This study conceptually introduces The Holistic Regenerative Innovative Value Enterprise (THRIVE) framework and develops THRIVE platform and Sustainability Performance Scorecard (SPS) tool with visualizations in the form of pioneering ciambella charts. Operationalized at the meso-level, aided by machine learning and predictive analytics tools, THRIVE SPS tool transparently ranks the corporate sustainability performance of enterprises alongside their strategy or business model. Rooted in systems thinking, this study develops nascent design theory-knowledge through a design science research (DSR) approach, building on emerging science- based literature and illustrated by exemplary case studies. A holistic analysis of the projected phenomenon informs the kernel theory, building on established science- based first principles, together with reputable global data sources and purposely selected impact case studies. THRIVE SPS dashboard provides for the manipulation of engine weights and controls, allowing assessment of performance and forecasted effects of changes in regulations such as taxes or subsidies on carbon credits to be visualized. Contributing to a healthier planet, THRIVE framework and SPS tool aids enterprises transitioning from disclosure to exposure, thereby providing the necessary impetus for business leaders to compete with one another and individual consumers to reward enterprises that choose to do good to do well for the prosperity of all humankind. Keywords business strategy, business transformation, context-based sustainability, corporate sustainability performance, sustainability performance scorecard. 1 Authors use a range of terms interchangeably when referring to the entity under discussion in their studies. These include company, institution, organization, corporation, business, firm and enterprise. Wherever possible, this study standardizes on the word 'enterprise(s)' to mean the entity itself.
  3. 3. 3 INTRODUCTION Regarded as interdependent sides of the same coin (Braun et al. 2019), innovative business strategies or business models (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart 2010) represent our best source for tackling ever increasing systemic planetary crisis (Robèrt et al. 2013; Rockstrom 2009; Steffen et al. 2018). Yet following a comprehensive review, no study nor public tools were found connecting business models with strong sustainability (Neumayer 2010; Pelenc 2015) performance by means of context-based measurements (Haffar & Searcy 2018) and science-based targets (Adams et al. 2015; Bocken et al. 2014; Foss & Saebi 2016; Melkonyan et al. 2017). Studies reveal that business leaders and innovators report not knowing where to start in making the transition to sustainability (Breuer & Lüdeke-Freund 2017; Kurucz et al. 2017; Schaltegger et al. 2016a). By applying a precautionary principled stance (Costanza & Patten 1995), backcasting (Holmberg & Robèrt 2000; Voros 2003; Willard et al. 2013) emerges as a particularly relevant approach in aiding transition. With this technique, society envisions the future sought, and works backward to the present whilst setting milestones along the way. By defining the framework and tools to evaluate corporate sustainability performance of enterprises, guidance is provided during their transition to becoming sustainable and prompts enterprises to embrace a strive to thrive philosophy, requiring change at a scale, speed and scope unseen before (Baue & Thurm 2018; SBTi 2018). From an ecological economist risk minimization perspective (Broman et al. 2017) this study conceptualizes The Holistic Regenerative Innovative Value Enterprise (THRIVE) framework; providing the basis for formulating tools which openly rank corporate sustainability performance of enterprises alongside their business strategy. A business strategy is defined as the enactment of a set of business models (Wirtz et al. 2016) across the three pillars of sustainability, being the economic, social and environmental (Elkington 2004). Worthwhile noting is that an enterprise operates a combination or hybridization of business models (BMs)(Laasch 2017). Many attempts to date to report on the corporate sustainability performance of enterprises have amounted to little more than disclosures (Lydenberg et al. 2010; WBCSD 2017a), with several reports plagued by greenwashing (Najam et al. 2000). THRIVE framework and SPS tool delivers the impetus for enterprises to move from disclosure to exposure, ensuring sustainability risks are assessed as business risks (WBCSD 2017a).
  4. 4. 4 Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) highlights how many business modes (BMs) fail and Clauss's (2016) study indicates that a validated business model innovation (BMI) measuring scale is not yet available. Operating at the meso scale (Thurm 2016), THRIVE framework establishes a uniform, integrated and standardized platform (http://www.strive2thrive.earth); which together with THRIVE sustainability performance scorecard (SPS) tool, ranks the sustainability performance of enterprises alongside their business model (BM). Thus THRIVE SPS illuminates the pathway for enterprises to move from statutory to voluntary disclosure in their quest towards sustainability through business model innovation (BMI) (Amit & Zott 2012). The meso scale is situated at the interface between the micro and macro environment where the greatest opportunity for positive change can occur (Baue & Thurm 2018). This makes THRIVE framework the most useful way forward in addressing Elkington (2018) revised triple bottom line approach. Furthermore, this compares favourably with the Sustainability Assessment of Farming and the Environment (SAFE) (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007) hierarchical framework, composed of principles, criteria, indicators and reference values organized in a structured way and used for assessing the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. The utility of the proposed THRIVE framework and Sustainability Performance Scorecard (SPS) tool encourages disruption (Bansal 2019) through radical innovation, compatible with natural science; driving maximum creativity within natural socio- environmental constraints (Gill & Hevner 2013; Pries-Heje & Baskerville 2014; Upward & Jones 2016). Ecological footprint analysis (Wackernagel et al. 2005) shows that humans are in ‘overshoot’ having used 1.7 Earths equivalent in providing the resources needed and absorbing waste (Michael Borucke et al. 2012). Thus the role of sustainability as a long-term corporate strategy and as a common practice (Ioannou & Serafeim 2019) must become mainstream. This paper firstly discusses the need to develop the THRIVE framework and SPS tool to assist enterprises address the sustainability challenge. It then turns to the adopted approach, emanating from the school of design science. Next it specifically outlines each aspect of the contribution made, building on established literature and impact studies. The conclusion encourages enterprises to use the THRIVE SPS tool to make positive change for the benefit of all humankind.
  5. 5. 5 PURPOSE As a transformative (Mertens 2007) conceptual study, this paper incorporates a comprehensive thematic analysis of the prevailing literature (theory) (Braun & Clarke 2006; Lapadat 2010; Maguire & Delahunt 2017) informed by several case studies (evidence) (Gomm et al. 2000; Johansson 2007; Perry 1998; Yin 2004). Secondary numerator performance data are derived from publicly published integrated corporate sustainability reports (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Reports, Carbon Disclosure Project datasets) and corporate websites by multinational enterprises worldwide (Szekely & Vom Brocke 2017). Denominator threshold and allocation data is sourced from global footprint initiatives (e.g., Global Footprint Network - GFN) and notable international agencies such as United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), and World Resources Institute (WRI). The unit of analysis is the business model (BM) (Teece 2017), although scholars do not uniformly agree on its definition (Zott et al. 2011). Indicators are calculated from material topics selected from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards (GRI Material Topics) mapped to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) (Linking the SDGs and GRI). Although studies show that GRI-based sustainability reports do not contain sufficient information needed for judging corporate sustainability performance or how quickly they are approaching sustainability (Barter 2015; Isaksson et al. 2009; McElroy 2017), the use of these material topics alongside the formulae and methods developed in this study allows for answering these questions. Enterprises recognize that they can only manage what is measured (Bansal & Song 2017), and thus are often accused of not measuring what matters. A Haffar and Searcy (2018) review of 463 environmental indicators found none to be context- based with a prevalence for self-referential indicators without context in many of the most commonly used reporting frameworks, such as the GRI and CDP. This study develops THRIVE framework and SPS tool which allows enterprises to publicly, transparently and accurately self-assess (without self-reference) their business model (BM) and corporate sustainability performance (impact) whilst adopting a context-based and science-based approach (SBTi Criteria and Recommendations 2018). This study thus supports enterprises by recognizing that innovations at the business model level (BMI) (Amit & Zott 2012; Foss & Saebi 2016; Kiron et al. 2013) are a precursor to business models for sustainability (Schaltegger et al. 2012;
  6. 6. 6 Schaltegger et al. 2016b) i.e., sustainable business models (SBM) (Lüdeke-Freund et al. 2018a). Whilst some argue that harmonizing measures globally may go against enterprises promoting their own narratives or value creation stories (2013), THRIVE SPS tool provides a sophisticated and standardized, long sought after means of scientifically comparing corporate sustainability performances. The extended version of this study incorporates a discussion on the theory of change as it relates to business models (Andriopoulus & Lewis 2009; Upward 2013) to ensure long-term systemic sustainable success by considering business enablers and moderators, such as leadership, culture, globalization, collaboration, risk, and regulation. APPROACH The study adopts a Systematic Design Science Research (DSR) approach (Aken 2004; Gregor & Hevner 2013; Hevner 2007; Winter & Aier 2016), integrating a pluralistic interdisciplinary method (Redclift 1998; Shrivastava & Guimarães-Costa 2016; von Bertalanffy 1968), acknowledging the role of societal and natural factors in accounting for sustainability issues (Persson et al. 2018), and the wicked nature of the projected phenomenon under investigation (Kurucz et al. 2017; Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek 2017). Initially, a kernel theory based on first principles is advanced (Gregor & Hevner 2013; Gregor & Jones 2007), together with illustrative case studies and other public data, to explain and provide justification for the underlying approach (March & Vogus 2010; Winter & Aier 2016). Adopting a high-level systems thinking perspective (Ackoff 1971; Gharajedaghi 2006; Williams et al. 2017), the study investigates corporate business models (BM) at the meso level, illuminating how novel business model design affects performance (Martin 2009; Zott & Amit 2007) and in support of the understanding that business strategy needs design and is about invention and thus requires innovation, as unguided novelty does not necessarily create value (Liedtka 2018). The flexibility of the holistic DSR approach aids in developing solutions to wicked problems (Foss & Saebi 2018) and best serves the corporate responsibility field (Visser 2012). Credibility is achieved by progressive focusing (Stake 1995) through prolonged engagement (Lincoln & Guba 1985), evaluation of multiple instances (Krefting 1991) and convergence of multiple secondary data sources (triangulation) (Knafl & Breitmayer 1989; Krefting 1991; Morse 1991), explicit documentation of choices made for included truths during discovery and evaluation (Guba 1981),
  7. 7. 7 maintenance of chain of evidence (Lincoln & Guba 1985) and narratives/reflexive analysis of records (Ruby 1980) thus improving trustworthiness. Furthermore, this experienced researcher, acting as the instrument, is careful to avoid confirmation bias by ensuring objectivity (Good & Brophy 1985), whilst dictating the framework (Agar 1986), showing expertise in the subject matter (Miles et al. 2014), demonstrating good investigative skills (Miles et al. 2014), strong interest in conceptual/theoretical knowledge (Miles et al. 2014), structural coherence (Guba 1981) and a multi-disciplinary approach (Miles et al. 2014). If possible, and time permitting the final stages involve the peer review by subject domain experts from around the world (Delphi Study) (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Transferability is improved through thick descriptions of cases (Geertz 1973), using selective maximum variation of nominated samples (Patton 2002), and longitudinal triangulation of data sources (Krefting 1991; Morse 1991) with explicit general research dimensions as indicated in Table 1, to aid in understanding the researcher’s worldview and approach (Krefting 1991); and includes an index of case studies reviewed (Krefting 1991). As a transdisciplinary study, theoretical triangulation of perspectives is explicit (Knafl & Breitmayer 1989; Krefting 1991; Morse 1991). Together with audits, this ensures comparable conclusions, including a detailed step by step description of the thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006) and case study (CS) (Baxter & Jack 2008; Perry 1998; Yin 2012) methods employed, thus ensuring dependability and confirmability (Kielhofner 1982). By using multiple illustrative DesignResearchDimensions Worldview Ontology Epistemology Paradigm Atheist / Realist Rationalist Critical Realist Approach Design/Method Lens/Framework/Type Systematic Design Science / Thematic Analysis (Literature/Case Studies) Transformative / Exploratory / Observational General Logic Outcome Ethics Reductive Cross-Sectional Basic Applied Humanist Table 1. Design Research Dimensions used by the Author in this study.
  8. 8. 8 example cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007), latent interpreted themes (Ruby 1980) showing coherence (credibility) (Maguire & Delahunt 2017) and consistency (dependability) between the claims and the data (Javadi & Zarea 2016) further aid reflexivity (Hyett et al. 2014) through sense-making and quantification of the thematic analysis (TA) during the creation of the set of patterns (Lapadat 2010). Thus, rigor and trustworthiness are achieved by way of addressing the above issues of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Krefting 1991). Case study construct validity is achieved through the evaluation of multiple data sources (Baxter & Jack 2008; Creswell et al. 2011; Luck et al. 2005) coupled with the maintenance of the chain of evidence (Tranfield et al. 2003); and reliability by development of the thematic analysis (TA) database thereby further enhancing rigor (Healy & Perry 2000; Huberman & Miles 2002). Both theory and method triangulation is sought (Tobi & Kampen 2018). Multiple secondary data sources are included in a codebook for consistency and transparency (Rowley 2002), thus providing triangulation and verification (Hyett et al. 2014), and thereby improving the trustworthiness and credibility of the study. This study contributes to theory, methodology as well as empirically (Gregor & Hevner 2013). CONTRIBUTION This study takes a strong sustainability (Bjørn & Røpke 2018; Landrum 2017; Neumayer 2010; Pelenc 2015), deep ecology (Naess 1973), multi-capital (Howitt & Thurm 2018; McElroy & Thomas 2015), values-based (Breuer & Lüdeke-Freund 2017) and science-based stance (SBTi 2018) with material topics evaluated within context (Faber & Hadders 2015; McElroy 2013, 2017; McElroy et al. 2008; UN Environmental Program 2015) i.e., based on inner and outer limits and allocations (Raworth 2012; Reporting 3.0 2018). The Holistic Regenerative Innovative Value Enterprise (THRIVE) framework and associated Sustainability Performance Scorecard (SPS) tool (Table 2) resulting from this study, categorically identifies successful sustainable business models (Bocken et al. 2014; Fellmann et al. 2018; Lüdeke-Freund et al. 2018b; Remane et al. 2017) thereby encouraging enterprises to adopt sustainable practices (Evans et al. 2017; Pansera & Randles 2013). A comprehensive literature review reveals this is the first study to envision showcasing a quantitative sustainability performance score alongside categorical business model pattern identifications. THRIVE framework provides a methodological contribution to a strongly sustainable future (Heikkurinen 2019; Stal 2018) as well as forming the basis of practical
  9. 9. 9 practitioner’s tools such as the THRIVE SPS. The THRIVE SPS tool assesses the corporate sustainability performance of enterprises at the business model level (Evans et al. 2017) and identifies which category of business models or strategies are more successful than others. THRIVE tools are licensed under creative commons, published in journals and made available to academia, business leaders and the public (Creative Commons Website). The THRIVE SPS echoes initiatives by the newly formed World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) (Oppenheim et al. 2017) and their most recent development of the Seafood Stewardship Index (WBA 2018). Their sustainability ranked ‘league’ tables aim to closely align performance with the SDGs. There are other initiatives or case studies that report on corporate sustainability performance (Morioka et al. 2016), although not categorizing based on BM. These include Climate Counts (Climate Counts 2013), The Wikirate Project (Wikirate 2018), S&P Global Trucost (Aldhous 2019); the individual ExxonMobil Integrated Report (Eccles & Krzus 2018); and GIIN: Impact Investing in SEA (Global Impact Investing Network 2018) which focuses on a whole country or sector. A plethora of individual self-assessment tools exist, however most notable are the strongly sustainable F2B2 (Kendall & Willard 2015) and the VMDBee tools (Man 2019). In a number of other efforts that rank the sustainability performance of enterprises, there is a lack of methodological transparency or in THRIVE Rank Enterprise Name Industry Classification BM pattern SP scorecard Sustainability Performance Scorecard 1 Enterprise A Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology and Life Sciences P6.1 0.503 2 Enterprise B Technology Hardware and Equipment P11.1 0.625 3 Enterprise C Consumer Durables, Household and Personal Products P8.4 0.768 4 Enterprise D Food and Beverage Processing P7.4 0.891 5 Enterprise E Electric Utilities and Independent Power Producer P4.3 1.106 6 Enterprise F Banks, Diverse Financials, Insurance P7.1 1.282 ** For illustration purposes only ** SPS: 0 <= score <= 1 means strongly sustainable enterprise, score > 1 means NOT a strongly sustainable enterprise. Context-based Sustainability Performance Scorecard (SPS) values are calculated based on figures from public sources covering a range of material topics. Business model (BM) patterns from Lüdeke-Freund et al. (2018). Industry classification is derived from GRI Business Activity Groups (BAG). Italicized values are masked and anonymized. Table 2. Sustainability Performance Scorecard (SPS). Sample of an instantiation.
  10. 10. 10 some cases the source data set may be proprietary (thus subject to bias), as in the case of RobecoSAM (RobecoSAM List of Companies), the ‘big 4’ accounting and consulting firms, and Corporate Knights (Corporate Knights 2018 Global 100 Issue). Some, like TruePrice (TruePrice Website) evaluate the specific ‘trucost’ of raw materials in set regions only, such as coffee, palm oil, milk, and bananas. And finally, in some cases, sustainability reports simply reflect the level of disclosure (e.g., DJSI) (López et al. 2007) without adequately addressing each material topic (UN Environmental Program 2015; WBCSD 2017a) nor attempting to systematically measure the actual sustainability performance of the enterprises concerned (Lydenberg et al. 2010). THRIVE SPS assists enterprises and consumers at large with a better understanding of their impact based on its actual footprint (Rees 2000) across all three pillars of sustainability: the economic, social and environmental (Elkington 1997). This is achieved by summation of each quotient based on the enterprise’s impact on each material topic, proportional to its allocation (Daly 1992). Each quotient is calculated as the actual impact (numerator) divided by the allotted impact (denominator) multiplied by its weight (Figure 1). It is argued by many as to what these weights (Bjørn & Røpke 2018) and normalizations (Huang et al. 2015) ought to be across sectors, industries, and pillars; with some arguing these should be simply omitted and others that they ought to be industry or sector-specific (Eccles 2012; Sironen et al. 2014). THRIVE SPS model supports any and all such variations in its calculation SP score = 1 𝑛 × ෍ 𝑤𝑖 × | xi ei | n i = 1 where 0 ≤ xi ei ≤ 1 for strong sustainability, and 𝑤𝑖 is the weight applied to each specific material topic i (i.e., usually 1; e.g., set to over 1 to model legislative changes affecting topic) xi actual impact by the Enterprise on material topic i (i.e., measured based on true performance) ei allocated footprint for material topic i (e.g., based on Global Footprint Network datasets) i material topic under evaluation (e.g., Diversity and Equal Opportunity) n total number of material topics (e.g., 36 for GRI Standard or 17 for SDGs) Figure 1. Formula for the calculation of the sustainability performance score as detailed in this study.
  11. 11. 11 engine, enabling the use of material topic weights as triggers for transition. For example, weights may be employed to model the introduction of a government tax on certain goods or services, or be used as a catalyst to encourage enterprises to switch to more renewable resources by attributing higher weights (Ioannou & Serafeim 2019) to certain material topics. Whilst THRIVE SPS engine supports multiple weights and thus algorithms, the key to its usefulness is consistency of method across material topics in order to effect fair comparisons (IIRC 2013). Numerator values are based on actual performance relative to the inner (threshold) and outer (ceiling) measurement, as espoused by GTAC (Reporting 3.0 2018) and similar groups, being aware of congruency in units of measure and the related issue of normalization across all material topics. In some cases where global data is missing, allocations may be based on gross domestic product (GDP), even though this is not the best method (Faria & Labutong 2015), and subject to refinement based on a more meaningful measure. Denominator data is sourced from the open data and method platform provider Global Footprint Network’s (GFN) (Global Footprint Network Homepage 2019) ‘measure what you treasure’ service, or from other notable and reputable sources: United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), World Resources Institute (WRI), Eurostat and others. The support for granularity within THRIVE framework means that the SPS dashboard may be used to see performance on an international, national or sector by sector basis or even year-on-year within an enterprise or cumulative within a sector. Together with the custom produced ‘Ciambella Chart’ (Figure 2), it provides a quick and easy direct visualization of an enterprise’s sustainable impact across GRI topics or SDGs goals (Linking the SDGs and GRI). Thus, unlike the sustainable value add (SVA) method (Figge & Hahn 2005) based exclusively on GDP which fails to measure the actual sustainability performance of an organization within context (Huang et al. 2015) - much less from a strong sustainability perspective - the THRIVE SPS method is similar to the approach advocated by the multi-capital scorecard (MCS) (McElroy & Thomas 2015) and sustainability quotient for social footprints (McElroy et al. 2008) where a clear absolute binary identification of ‘is sustainable’ (green) or ‘not sustainable’ (red) is achieved. Whilst this study advocates the use of the GRI material topics (GRI Material Topics), Bailey and Eccles (2018) argue for using the sustainability factors as identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) mapped to the objectives of the
  12. 12. 12 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Moreover, whilst there are no set metrics specified, the suggested framework agnostic Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) IRIS+ (IRIS. 2019) metrics provide data clarity and comparability, across the 169 targets, and 230 measurable indicators of the SDGs (2019, 2019). Whilst the specifics of the IRIS+ metrics are outside the scope of this paper, business leaders may use these internally consistent IRIS+ metrics to manage what is measured (Prusak 2019), and moreover ensure they are measuring what matters, within context, using science-based targets (Assessing Corporate Emissions Performance through the Lens of Climate Science 2013; SBTi Criteria and Recommendations 2018; UN Environmental Program 2015) and uniform units of measure (IIRC 2013) thus ensuring fair comparisons. CONCLUSION The strong theoretical basis employed by the framework together with public domain science-based datasets ensures a broadly useful THRIVE platform and SPS tool that can be used by several actors: consumers, business analysts, researchers, government and business leaders. For example, consumers may use the system to decide which enterprise they should transact with; business analysts to guide enterprises in engaging in certain activities or strategies; researchers to analyze trends and effectiveness of business models for sustainability; governments to forecast the effects of legislative actions; and by business leaders pursuing a competitive advantage. Figure 2. Sample Ciambella Chart developed by the Author.
  13. 13. 13 Designed to provoke transformative change, THRIVE SPS ranking tool provides a transparent public platform to encourage enterprises to embrace the circular economy (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017; WBCSD 2017b; Webster 2015) through contributing their fair share. It achieves this by arming business leaders with the knowledge to actively compete and excel among their peers through alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN Global Compact 2018) in order to do good to do well. It also empowers individuals with the ability to actively stimulate competition among enterprises for greater global shared value creation and collaborative peaceful partnerships for people, planet, profit with purpose and prosperity (Kolk et al. 2017). Future As tri-impact integrated reporting (<IR>) becomes the norm featuring comprehensive and complex levels of analysis and automation (Lai et al. 2016; Lydenberg et al. 2010), newer technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) , Big Data and Analytics (BDA) (Eccles & Krzus 2018) brings us a step closer to the next leap towards dynamic Integrated Report Generator Tools (IRTG). These technologies are ultimately only as good as the underlying frameworks that dictate how data is to be compiled, reports constructed and as accurate and reliable as the source datasets are. This study serves to bridge this gap by contributing to the framework and toolsets necessary to inform these comparisons. Thus, business transformation for sustainability benefits from the more sophisticated THRIVE SPS engine, featuring granular and accurate denominator data and integrated reporting at the global macro level and interactive real-time querying of an enterprise’s sustainability performance, truly closing the loop on sustainability and the circular economy.
  14. 14. 14 REFERENCES Ackoff, RL (1971), 'Towards a system of systems concepts', Management Science, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 661-671. Adams, R, Jeanrenaud, S, Bessant, J & Overy, P (2015), 'Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review', International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 18, pp. 18-205. Agar, MH (1986), Speaking of ethnography, vol. 2, Sage. Aken, JEv (2004), 'Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules', Journal of Management Studies, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219-246. Aldhous, P (2019), Do You Know Which Companies Are Tackling Climate Change, Buzzfeed, viewed 26/04/2019. Amit, R & Zott, C (2012), 'Business Model Innovation: Creating value in times of change', MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 41-49. Andriopoulus, C & Lewis, MW (2009), 'Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation', Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 696-717. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614688> Assessing Corporate Emissions Performance through the Lens of Climate Science, (2013), A Collaborative Study between Climate Counts and the Center for Sustainable Organizations. Bailey, J & Eccles, R (2018), Interview: Investing for Returns Can Support Sustainable Development, Insights, Neuberger Berman. Bansal, P (2019), 'Sustainable Development in an Age of Disruption', Academy of Management Discoveries, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 8-12. <https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amd.2019.0001> Bansal, P & Song, H-C (2017), 'Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate Responsibility', Academy of Management Annals, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 105-149. <https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Annals/ANNALS-2015-0095.R5.pdf> Barter, N (2015), 'W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, The Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting', Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 197-198. Baue, B & Thurm, R (2018), Reporting 3.0 - Context for Thriveable Transformation, Reporting 3.0. Baxter, P & Jack, S (2008), 'Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers', The Qualitative Report, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 2. <http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2> Bjørn, A & Røpke, I (2018), 'What does it really mean to be a strongly sustainable company? – A response to Nikolaou and Tsalis', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 198, pp. 208-214. Bocken, NMP, Short, SW, Rana, P & Evans, S (2014), 'A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes', Journal of Cleaner Production,
  15. 15. 15 vol. 65, pp. 42-56. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613008032> Braun, M, Latham, S & Cannatelli, B (2019), 'Strategy and business models: why winning companies need both', Journal of Business Strategy. Braun, V & Clarke, V (2006), 'Using thematic analysis in psychology', Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101. Breuer, H & Lüdeke-Freund, F (2017), 'Values-Based Network and Business Model Innovation', International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 35. Broman, G, Robèrt, K-H, Collins, TJ, Basile, G, Baumgartner, RJ, Larsson, T, Huisingh, D, Institutionen för strategisk hållbar, u, Blekinge Tekniska, H, Fakulteten för, t & Institutionen för, m (2017), 'Science in support of systematic leadership towards sustainability', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 1-9. Casadesus-Masanell, R & Ricart, JE (2010), 'From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics', Long Range Planning, vol. 43, no. 2-3, pp. 195-215. Clauss, T (2016), 'Measuring business model innovation conceptualization, scale development, and proof of performance', R & D Management. Climate Counts (2013), Assessing Corporate Emissions Performance Through the Lens of Climate Science, Climate Counts and Center for Sustainable Organizations. Costanza, R & Patten, BC (1995), 'Defining and predicting sustainability', Ecological Economics, vol. 15, pp. 193-196. Creswell, JW, Klassen, AC, Clark, VLP & Smith, KC (2011), Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. Daly, HE (1992), 'Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable', Ecological Economics, vol. 6, pp. 185-193. Eccles, RG (2012), 'The Need for Sector-Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards', Journal of Applied Corporate Finance., vol. 24, no. 2. Eccles, RG & Krzus, MP (2018), Constructing ExxonMobil's First Integrated Report An Experiment, <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3145369>. Eisenhardt, KM & Graebner, ME (2007), 'Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges', The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 25-32. <http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/stable/20159839> Elkington, J (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Elkington, J (2004), 'Enter the Triple Bottom Line', in The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. Elkington, J (2018), '25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It.', 2018. 21/08/2018, Available from: <https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line- heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it> Evans, S, Vladimirova, D, Holgado, M, Fossen, KV, Yang, M, Silva, EA & Barlow, CY (2017), 'Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models', Business Strategy and the Environment.
  16. 16. 16 Faber, NR & Hadders, H (2015), 'Rethinking the social contract: measuring and reporting sustainability in context', in Global Cleaner Production & Sustainable Consumption Conference, Elsevier Science, Sitges, Spain, Faria, P & Labutong, N (2015), A Review of Climate Science Based GHG Target Setting Methodologies for Companies, CDP. Fellmann, M, Koschmider, A, Laue, R, Schoknecht, A & Vetter, A (2018), 'Business process model patterns: state-of-the-art, research classification and taxonomy', Business Process Management Journal. Fereday, J & Muir-Cochrane, E (2006), 'Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development', international journal of qualitative methods, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 80-92. Figge, F & Hahn, T (2005), 'The Cost of Sustainability Capital and the Creation of Sustainable Value by Companies', Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 9, no. 4. Foss, NJ & Saebi, T (2016), 'Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation', Journal of Management, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 200-227. Foss, NJ & Saebi, T (2018), 'Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems', Long Range Planning, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 9-21. Geertz, C (1973), Chapter 1: Thick Description: Towards an Interpretative Theory of Culture, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, NY. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233821164_Thick_Description_Towar d_an_Interpretive_Theory_of_Culture> Geissdoerfer, M, Vladimirova, D & Evans, S (2018), 'Sustainable business model innovation: A review', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 198, pp. 401-416. Geissdoerfer, M, Savaget, P, Bocken, NMP & Hultink, EJ (2017), 'The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm?', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 143, pp. 757-768. Gharajedaghi, J (2006), Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture - 2nd Ed, Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier. Gill, TG & Hevner, AR (2013), 'A Fitness-Utility Model for Design Science Research', ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-24. Global Footprint Network Homepage, (2019), viewed 10/5/2019. Global Impact Investing Network (2018), The landscape for impact investing in South East Asia, GIIN. Gomm, R, Hammersley, M & Foster, P (2000), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts, annotat;1; edn, Sage Publications, London, United Kingdom. Good, TL & Brophy, JE (1985), School Effects. Occasional Paper No. 77. Gregor, S & Jones, D (2007), 'The Anatomy of a Design Theory', Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 312-335. Gregor, S & Hevner, AR (2013), 'Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact', MISQ, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 337-355. Guba, EG (1981), 'Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries', Educational Communication and Technology Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 75. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777>
  17. 17. 17 Haffar, M & Searcy, C (2018), 'The use of context-based environmental indicators in corporate reporting', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 192, pp. 496-513. Healy, M & Perry, C (2000), 'Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm', Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 118-126. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750010333861> Heikkurinen, B (2019), Strongly Sustainable Societies Organising Human Activities on a Hot and Full Earth, Routledge, NYC. Hevner, AR (2007), 'A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research', Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 2. Holmberg, J & Robèrt, K-H (2000), 'Backcasting a framework for strategic planning', International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 291-308. Howitt, R & Thurm, R (2018), From Monocapitalism to Multicapitalism 21st Century System Value Creation, <https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/sustainability/2018/06/07/executive- perspective-from-monocapitalism-to-multicapitalism-21st-century-system-value> Huang, L, Wu, J & Yan, L (2015), 'Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators', Landscape Ecology, vol. 30, pp. 1175-1193. Huberman, A & Miles, M (2002), 'Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research', in The Qualitative Researcher's Companion, ch 2, pp. 36-64. Hyett, N, Kenny, A & Dickson-Swift, V (2014), 'Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports', International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, vol. 9, p. 23606. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24809980> IIRC (2013), Capitals: Background Paper for <IR>, ACCA NBA. Ioannou, I & Serafeim, G (2019), Corporate Sustainability & Strategy, Harvard Business School, IRIS. (2019), Impact Reporting and Investment Standards plus, viewed 17/05/19. <https://iris.thegiin.org/standards/> Isaksson, R, Mi Dahlgaard‐Park, S & Steimle, U (2009), 'What does GRI‐reporting tell us about corporate sustainability?', The TQM Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 168-181. Javadi, M & Zarea, K (2016), 'Understanding Thematic Analysis and its Pitfall', Journal of Client Care, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-39. Johansson, R (2007), 'Case Study Methodology', Open House International, vol. 32, no. 3. <http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/28743028/case-study- methodology> Kendall, G & Willard, B (2015), Future-fit Business Benchmark, Future-Fit Foundation. Kielhofner, G (1982), 'Qualitative research: Part one paradigmatic grounds and issues of reliability and validity', The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 67-79. Kiron, D, Kruschwitz, N, Haanaes, K, Reeves, M & Goh, E (2013), 'The innovation bottom line - How companies that see sustainability as both a necessity and an
  18. 18. 18 opportunity, and change their business models in response, are finding success.', MIT Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group. Knafl, K & Breitmayer, B (1989), Qualitative nursing research: a contemporary dialogue, Aspen Publishers, Inc, MD. Kolk, A, Kourula, A & Pisani, N (2017), 'Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals What do we know and how to proceed', Transnational Corporations, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 9-32. Krefting, L (1991), 'Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness', The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 45, no. 3. Kurucz, EC, Colbert, BA, Lüdeke-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, vol. 140, Part 1, pp. 189-204. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616301561> Laasch, O (2017), 'How the Leopard Got Its Spots: Commercial and Responsibility Logics in FTSE100 Business Models', in Academy of Management Proceedings, London, Lai, A, Melloni, G & Stacchezzini, R (2016), 'Corporate Sustainable Development: is ‘Integrated Reporting’ a Legitimation Strategy?', Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 165-177. Landrum, NE (2017), 'Stages of Corporate Sustainability: Integrating the Strong Sustainability Worldview', Organization & Environment, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 287-313. Lapadat, JC (2010), 'Thematic Analysis', in Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, ch 4. Liedtka, J (2018), 'Why Design Thinking Works', Harvard Business Review. Lincoln, YS & Guba, EG (1985), Naturalistic inquiry, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California. López, MV, Garcia, A & Rodriguez, L (2007), 'Sustainable Development and Corporate Performance: A Study Based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 285-300. Luck, L, Jackson, D & Usher, K (2005), 'Case study: a bridge across the paradigms', Nursing Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 103-109. Lüdeke-Freund, F & Dembek, K (2017), 'Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy?', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 168, pp. 1668-1678. Lüdeke-Freund, F, Bohnsack, R, Breuer, H & Massa, L (2018a), 'Research on Sustainable Business Model Patterns', in Sustainable Business Model Innovation, Palgrave. Lüdeke-Freund, F, Carroux, S, Joyce, A, Massa, L & Breuer, H (2018b), 'The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation', Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 15, pp. 145-162. Lydenberg, S, Rogers, J & Wood, D (2010), From Transparency to Performance - Industry-Based Sustainability Reporting on Key Issues, The Hauser Center for non- profit Organizations at Harvard University & Initiative for Responsible Investment.
  19. 19. 19 Maguire, M & Delahunt, B (2017), 'Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by- Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars', All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 3. Man, Hd (2019), VMDBee Website, viewed 09/05/2019. <https://vdmbee.com/> March, ST & Vogus, TJ (2010), 'Design science in the management disciplines', in Design research in information systems, Springer, pp. 195-208. Martin, RL (2009), The Design of Business Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Press. McElroy, M (2013), Corporate Sustainability Management A Context-Based Approach. McElroy, M (2017), 'Is It Possible That GRI Has Never Really Been About Sustainability Reporting at All?', 2018. Available from: <https://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/new_metrics/mark_mcelr oy/it_possible_gri_has_never_really_been_about_sustainability_r> [Accessed 21/08/2018]. McElroy, MW & Thomas, MP (2015), 'The MultiCapital Scorecard', Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 425-438. McElroy, MW, Jorna, RJ & van Engelen, J (2008), 'Sustainability quotients and the social footprint', Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 223-234. Melkonyan, A, Gottschalk, D & V.P, VK (2017), 'Sustainability assessments and their implementation possibilities within the business models of companies', Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 12, pp. 1-15. Mertens, DM (2007), 'Transformative Paradigm', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 212-225. Michael Borucke, David Moore, Gemma Cranston, Kyle Gracey, Katsunori Iha, Joy Larson, Elias Lazarus, Juan Carlos Morales, Mathis Wackernagel & Galli, A (2012), 'Accounting for demand and supply of the Biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework', Ecological Indicators, vol. 24, no. 2013, pp. 518-533. Miles, MB, Huberman, AM & Saldana, J (2014), Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, Third edn, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, Califorinia. Morioka, SN, Evans, S & Carvalho, MMd (2016), 'Sustainable Business Model Innovation: Exploring Evidences in Sustainability Reporting', Procedia CIRP, vol. 40, pp. 659-667. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827116001669> Morse, JM (1991), 'Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation', Nursing research, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 120. <https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199503000-00005> Naess, A (1973), 'The shallow and the deep long-range ecology movement. A summary.', Inquiry, vol. 16, pp. 95-100. Najam, A, Bergesen, HO, Parmann, G & Thommessen, ØB (2000), World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?, Earthscan Publications, London. <http://www.wbcsd.org/>
  20. 20. 20 Neumayer, E (2010), 'Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms', Journal of Australian Political Economy. Oppenheim, J, Boyd, O, Campbell, G, Dewan, N, Evans, A, George, M, George, S, Klintworth, G, Kortenhorst, A, McLeod, D, Potocnik, J, Sawers, C & Shah, A (2017), Better Business, Better World, The report of the Business & Sustainable Development Commission. Pansera, DM & Randles, PS (2013), Innovation for sustainability (I4S): Final Case Studies Report, Academy of Business in Society, MIT Sloan Management Review. Patton, MQ (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Pelenc, J (2015), Weak Sustainability versus Strong Sustainability. Perry, C (1998), 'Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing', European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, no. 9/10, pp. 785-802. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810232237> Persson, J, Hornborg, A, Olsson, L & Thorén, H (2018), 'Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences', Ecology and Society, vol. 23, no. 4. Pries-Heje, J & Baskerville, RL (2014), 'Management Design Theories', in HAL, pp. 277-296. Prusak, L (2019), What Can’t Be Measured, viewed 10/5/2019. Raworth, K (2012), A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut. Redclift, M (1998), 'Dances with wolves Interdisciplinary research on the global environment', Global Environmental Change, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 177-182. Rees, WE (2000), 'Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats', Ecological Economics, vol. 32, pp. 371-374. Remane, G, Hanelt, A, Tesch, JF & Kolbe, LM (2017), 'The Business Model Pattern Database — a Tool for Systematic Business Model Innovation', International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 21, no. 01. Reporting 3.0 2018, An Invitation to Support the Formation of a Global Thresholds & Allocations Council. Robèrt, K-H, Broman, GI & Basile, G (2013), 'Analyzing the Concept of Planetary Boundaries from a Strategic Sustainability Perspective: How Does Humanity Avoid Tipping the Planet?', Ecology and Society, vol. 18, no. 2. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05336-180205> Rockstrom, J (2009), 'Planetary Boundaries Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity', Nature, vol. 461, no. 24. Rowley, J (2002), 'Using case studies in research', Management Research News, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 16-27. Ruby, J (1980), 'Exposing yourself: reflexivity, anthropology, and film', Semiotica, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 153-180. SBTi (2018), The IPCC 1.5°C report and what it means for science-based targets. SBTi Criteria and Recommendations, (2018), Science Based Targets.
  21. 21. 21 Schaltegger, S, Freund, FL & Hansen, EG (2012), 'Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability', International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 2. Schaltegger, S, Hansen, EG & Lüdeke-Freund, F (2016a), 'Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues', Organization & Environment, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3-10. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281812267> Schaltegger, S, Lüdeke-Freund, F & Hansen, EG (2016b), 'Business Models for Sustainability: A Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation', Organization & Environment, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 264- 289. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026616633272> Shrivastava, P & Guimarães-Costa, N (2016), 'Achieving environmental sustainability: The case for multi-layered collaboration across disciplines and players', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 116, pp. 340-346. Sironen, S, Seppälä, J & Leskinen, P (2014), 'Towards more non-compensatory sustainable society index', Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 587-621. Stake, RE (1995), The art of case study research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. <https://www.slideshare.net/pavan7soni/the-art-of-case-study-research-by-robert- stake-1995> Stal, H (2018), 'Business Models based on Strongly Sustainable Entrepreneurship - Insights from a Systematic Literature Review'. Steffen, W, Rockstrom, J, Richardson, K, Lenton, TM, Folke, C, Liverman, D, Summerhayes, CP, Barnosky, AD, Cornell, SE, Crucifix, M, Donges, JF, Fetzer, I, Lade, SJ, Scheffer, M, Winkelmann, R & Schellnhuber, HJ (2018), 'Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene', Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, vol. 115, no. 33, pp. 8252-8259. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30082409> Szekely, N & Vom Brocke, J (2017), 'What can we learn from corporate sustainability reporting? Deriving propositions for research and practice from over 9,500 corporate sustainability reports published between 1999 and 2015 using topic modelling technique', PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 4, p. e0174807. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28403158> Teece, DJ (2017), 'Business models and dynamic capabilities', Long Range Planning. Thurm, R (2016), Integral Thinking Booklet V1.2, A|Head, Netherlands. Tobi, H & Kampen, JK (2018), 'Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework', Qual Quant, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1209-1225. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29674791> Tranfield, D, Denyer, D & Smart, P (2003), 'Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review', British Journal of Management, vol. 14, pp. 207-222. UN Environmental Program (2015), Raising the Bar - Advancing Environmental Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting, UN. UN Global Compact (2018), Integrating the SDGs into corporate reporting: A practical guide, United Nations Global Compact.
  22. 22. 22 Upward, A (2013), 'Towards an ontology and canvas for strongly sustainable business models: A systemic design science exploration'. Upward, A & Jones, P (2016), 'An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible with Natural and Social Science', Organization & Environment, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 97-123. Van Cauwenbergh, N, Biala, K, Bielders, C, Brouckaert, V, Franchois, L, Garcia Cidad, V, Hermy, M, Mathijs, E, Muys, B, Reijnders, J, Sauvenier, X, Valckx, J, Vanclooster, M, Van der Veken, B, Wauters, E & Peeters, A (2007), 'SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems', Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 120, no. 2-4, pp. 229-242. Visser, W (2012), The Future of CSR: Towards Transformative CSR, or CSR 2.0. von Bertalanffy, L (1968), 'General Systems Theory - Foundation, Development and Applications', in George Braziller NY. Voros, J (2003), 'A generic foresight process framework', Foresight, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 10-21. Wackernagel, M, Chad Monfreda, Dan Moran, Paul Wermer, Steve Goldfinger, Diana Deumling & Murray, M (2005), 'National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005 the underlying calculation method'. WBA (2018), Seafood Stewardship Index, World Benchmarking Alliance. WBCSD (2017a), Reporting Matters - Striking a balance between disclosure and engagement, WBCSD. WBCSD (2017b), CEO Guide to the Circular Economy - The future of business is circular. Webster, K (2015), The Circular Economy: A wealth of flows, Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing. Willard, B, Upward, A, Leung, P & Park, C (2013), Towards a Gold-standard Benchmark for a Truly Sustainable Business, Gold-standard Benchmark for ESG Performance, The Natural Step, Canada. Williams, A, Kennedy, S, Philipp, F & Whiteman, G (2017), 'Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 148, pp. 866-881. Winter, R & Aier, S (2016), 'Design Science Research in Business Innovation', in Business Innovation: Das St. Galler Modell, ch 25, pp. 475-498. Wirtz, BW, Pistoia, A, Ullrich, S & Göttel, V (2016), 'Business Models: Origin, Development and Future Research Perspectives', Long Range Planning, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 36-54. Yin, R (2012), Application of case study research 3rd ed, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Yin, RK (2004), 'Case Study Methods', Complementary Methods for Research in Education. <www.cosmoscorp.com/docs/aeradraft.pdf> Zott, C & Amit, R (2007), 'Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms', Organization Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 181-199. Zott, C, Amit, R & Massa, L (2011), 'The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research', Journal of Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1019-1042.
  23. 23. 23