Value mapping for sustainable business thinking

Abstract

Pressures on business to operate sustainably are increasing. This requires companies to adopt a systemic approach that seeks to integrate consideration of the three dimensions of sustainability – social, environmental, and economic – in a manner that generates shared value creation for all stakeholders including the environment and society. This is referred to as sustainable business thinking. The business model concept offers a framework for system-level innovation for sustainability and provides the conceptual linkage with the activities of the firm such as design, production, supply chains, partnerships, and distribution channels. A value mapping tool has been presented in the literature to assist in sustainable business model innovation. This study explores the use of value mapping for broader sustainable business thinking, by reflection on its use in workshop settings. A range of new applications is identified which is expected to be of interest to business practitioners, policy makers, and academic researchers.

Full text

VALUE MAPPING FOR SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
THINKING
N.M.P Bocken 1
∗
, P. Rana 1,, S.W. Short 1,
1 Department of Engineering, Institute for Manufacturing,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Pressures on business to operate sustainably are increasing. This requires companies
to adopt a systemic approach that seeks to integrate consideration of the three
dimensions of sustainability - social, environmental and economic – in a manner that
generates shared value creation for all stakeholders including the environment and
society. This is referred to as sustainable business thinking.
The business model concept offers a framework for system-level innovation for
sustainability, and provides the conceptual linkage with the activities of the firm
such as design, production, supply chains, partnerships, and distribution channels. A
value mapping tool has been presented in the literature to assist in sustainable
business model innovation.
This paper explores the use of value mapping for broader sustainable business
thinking, by reflection on its use in workshop settings. A range of new applications
is identified which is expected to be of interest to business practitioners, policy
makers and academic researchers.
Keywords: sustainable consumption and production, stakeholders, business model,
business model innovation, shared value creation, systems thinking.
To cite this article: N.M.P. Bocken, P. Rana & S.W. Short (2015) Value mapping for sustainable business
thinking, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32 (1), 67-81, DOI:
10.1080/21681015.2014.1000399
∗ Corresponding author: nmpb2@cam.ac.uk

1. BACKGROUND
System level challenges for
sustainability such as climate change;
resource use and inequality are
increasing the pressure on businesses to
address sustainability through
significant changes in their everyday
business operations and behaviour. The
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development [1] in its Vision 2050
spells out the “must haves” for a
sustainable society, including
internalising the costs of externalities
(carbon, ecosystem services and water),
doubling agricultural output without
increasing land or water use, stopping
deforestation and increasing existing
forest yields.
The way businesses think and
operate needs to change considerably to
address such systemic challenges. In
particular, collaboration across a wider
set of stakeholders in the industrial
system is necessary to deliver
sustainability. A sustainable society
cannot be achieved if individual agents
advance their own interests
independently [2]. Decision-making on
sustainability involves value judgments
and ethical considerations - social,
economic and ethical analyses may be
used to inform these value judgments
and take into account a range of forms
of value, including human wellbeing,
cultural values and non-human values
[2]. As Krantz [3] proposes ‘companies
will need even bigger changes,
including new business models, greater
trust, and greater stakeholder
engagement’ based on a ‘long-term
vision’ for pursuing sustainability.
The framework of a ‘business
model’ might provide a structured way
for sustainable business thinking by
mapping the purpose, opportunities for
value creation across the network, and
value capture (how to generate revenue)
in companies. Various tools, such the
business model canvas [4], assist in the
design and innovation of business
models, whereas others assist in part of
the innovation process for business
models (e.g. eco-design and –ideation
tools; [5]; [6]). However, for
sustainable business model innovation a
wider range of stakeholders, including
environment and society, and value
creation, needs to be considered [7]. A
value mapping tool was developed to
assist in the design of sustainable
business models, by considering
different forms of value exchanges for a
range of stakeholders as part of the
business model [7] (Figure 1). Although
business model (re-) development is a
core component of sustainable business
transition, it only addresses part of the
transformation.

Figure 1. Value mapping tool. Source: Bocken et al. [7]. Note: this version of the tool includes open spaces so that
participants can use to add their own key stakeholders or elaborate on specific ones (e.g. society to be split up into
‘global society’ and ‘local communities’)
The multi-stakeholder perspective
on value as expounded in Freeman’s
stakeholder theory [8] embedded in the
value mapping tool is considered to be
powerful, and may have relevance to
other aspects of business planning, but
to-date there are very few practical tools
offering such an approach. Business
model transformation is a top-level
planning activity, yet, to achieve most
impact, consideration of value
throughout business operations planning
activities is also required.
This research seeks to extend the
use of value mapping to other areas of
business planning that are important
determinants of positive sustainability
outcomes such as product and process
design, which are not typically included
in the business model planning process.
As such, this research investigates how
the value mapping tool might be used
more broadly to facilitate ‘sustainable
business thinking’ – an approach to
integrate social, environmental and
economic sustainability into business
thinking and operation, in a manner that
generates shared value creation for all
stakeholders including the environment
and society. This is investigated by
reflection on the tool’s use in different
workshop contexts. The research
question this paper addresses is: How
might value mapping as a tool and
process be used for sustainable business
thinking?
Society
Environment
Customers
Suppliers and Partners
Employees
Investors and
Shareholders
Purpose

2. LITERATURE
The linkages between the key
concepts – sustainable business
thinking, sustainable business model
innovation, shared value creation
(multi-stakeholder), and the value
mapping tool are discussed in the
following sections. This section aims to
illustrate how these key concepts
facilitate or support sustainable business
thinking. Figure 2 visualises the
connections between these concepts.
Sustainable business thinking, as
defined in this paper, is a way of
thinking in which businesses are viewed
as a positive force, which contributes to
society and environment while
generating a profit. Sustainable business
model innovation represents a sub-set of
sustainable business thinking, which
building on Boons & Lüdeke-Freund
[9], is described as innovation to the
way business is done by creating a
competitive advantage through superior
customer value while contributing
positively to the company, society, and
environment while minimising harm.
Value mapping is an approach for
ideation and analysis for sustainable
business model innovation involving
mapping the value captured, missed and
destroyed and new opportunities for a
range of stakeholders. It is an approach
to identify failed value exchanges to
develop new opportunities.
Clarifying the value logic of doing
business, and integrating stakeholder
concerns including (society and
environment) in the thinking process, is
expected to not only be useful for
sustainable business model innovation,
but also for wider sustainable business
thinking. Figure 2 below illustrates the
relationship between the concepts, and
the dotted area of the value mapping
shows the potential extension of the tool
for broader sustainable business
thinking.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework developed in this research.
Sustainable business thinking
Sustainable business model innovation
Value mapping
Innovation to the way business is done by generating
competitive advantage through superior customer value
while contributing positively to the company, the
environment and society and minimising harm
!
A way of thinking in which business is viewed as a
positive force, which contributes to society and the
environment, while still generating a profit.
An approach to generate catalysts for
sustainable business model
innovation by mapping the value
captured, missed, destroyed and new
opportunities for a range of
stakeholders

2.1 Sustainable business thinking
Significant shifts are required in
the way of thinking by aspiring
entrepreneurs, existing managers in
businesses, and the new generation of
business managers, designers and
engineers who will think about and
develop solutions. It requires a change
in thinking about business that seeks to
integrate consideration of the three
dimensions of sustainability - social,
environmental and economic –
(Elkington [10]) in a manner that seeks
to align positive value creation for all
stakeholders including the environment
and society at all levels and through all
activities of the business. This may be
referred to as “sustainable business
thinking” – defined here as a way of
thinking in which business is viewed as
a positive force, which contributes to
society and the environment, while still
generating a profit. This shift in
thinking and re-evaluating the role of
businesses to integrate the triple bottom
line and shared value creation into the
way business is done has already been
advocated by a range of authors
including Elkington [10]); Ehrenfeld
and Hoffman[11]; Porter and Kramer
[12]; Bocken et al. [13]). The aim of
this paper is to address how this change
in thinking can be stimulated.
2.1.1 Tools for sustainable
business thinking and gaps
Various tools have been developed
for product design focusing on
environmental performance such as Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA; defined in
[14]), eco-design [5] and eco-ideation
[6]. LCA addresses the environmental
aspects and potential environmental
impact throughout a product's life cycle
from raw material acquisition through
production, use, end-of-life treatment,
and disposal, and includes the
development of an inventory of inputs
and outputs, potential impacts and an
interpretation of the results [14]. In eco-
design, the engineer’s task includes
selecting appropriate material,
designing products for recycling, reuse
and remanufacture, while
management’s challenge is to ensure
that the different players like raw
material suppliers, recyclers, employees
and consumers understand and achieve
the environmental goals [5]. Eco-
ideation is a process to generate ideas
that help reduce the environmental
impact of products across a product life
cycle [6]. These tools can provide
important background information (e.g.
LCA, about the environmental impacts
of products) or give people qualitative
insights on certain aspects of product
design (e.g. eco-design). However, with
exceptions, tools such as LCA tend to
be narrowly used on a limited range of
parameters such as energy and carbon,
rather than offering a holistic
perspective for analysis embracing all
stakeholder considerations, and
particularly social dimensions.
At the business model innovation
level, tools such as the “business model
canvas” by Osterwalder and Pigneur [4]
have been developed, which give
insights on the specific elements of a
business model, but do not focus on
sustainability necessarily. The focal
point of the business model canvas is
the value proposition for the customer,
and limited stakeholders (i.e. those in
the supply chain such as partners and
suppliers) are considered. However,
stakeholders such as ‘society’ and
‘environment’ are excluded from the
canvas.
To conduct stakeholder analysis,
several tools have been identified, such
as stakeholder maps, actor-linkage
diagrams and social-network analysis
[15]. Stakeholder maps are visual mind
maps, which show the main
stakeholders in a system (e.g. industry),
actor-linkage diagrams indicate types of

relationships between stakeholders and
can take the shape of visual maps,
Venn-diagrams, matrices and tables,
and Social Network Analysis (SNA)
aims to model patterns in relationships
between actors (e.g. a retailer and a
NGO), which often takes a matrix
format where each field shows the
presence and type of relationship [15].
Although focused on stakeholder
mapping, these tools do not necessarily
help identify value creation for
sustainability.
A number of scholars have
identified the need for more
comprehensive tools to assist firms in
embedding sustainability at the core of
doing business: Robèrt et al. [16]
provides a review of existing tools for
sustainability, whereas Waage [17]
identifies the need for holistic
sustainability approach within the
product design process and offers a
framework for such integration. Allee
[18] suggests the use of value network
analysis (VNA) - improving firm
performance by understanding the
dynamics of value creation in financial
and non-financial terms, including
economic and societal impact.
However, the work on VNA is still
emerging.
The value mapping tool (Figure 1)
is considered as a tool for further
exploration in this paper, because it
provides a simple and visually engaging
format to help businesses create value
for the company, society and
environment from the core of their
business and the network. It aims to
provide a framework for companies to
rethink their existing business models or
design sustainable business models
from the outset. As the business model
connects various organisational
functions (see Section 2.3), it is
proposed that the tool can also be used
more broadly for ‘sustainable business
thinking’.
2.2 Sustainable business model
innovation
A range of authors view the
business model as an important driver
for (sustainable) innovation – see for
example Teece [19] and Chesbrough
[20] who investigated business model
innovation, and Yunus et al. [21],
Johnson and Suskewicz [22] Thompson
and MacMillan [23], Boons and
Lüdeke-Freund [9] and Bocken et al.
[13] who focus on sustainable business
model innovations.
A business model conceptually
describes how a company does business
[24]. As Zott and Amit [25] argue,
business models focus on the logic of
how value is created for all
stakeholders, not just how it is captured
by the focal firm. Business models
emphasise a system-level holistic
approach toward explaining how firms
“do business”, they show activities
performed by the focal firm as well as
by partners, suppliers, and customers
[17]. Business models are often
perceived from a value creation
perspective that focuses on satisfying
customer needs, economic return and
compliance [26]. For sustainability
thinking this focus is too narrow, and
raises the need for a more holistic view
of value that integrates social and
environmental goals, to ensure
balancing or ideally alignment of all
stakeholder interests to deliver
‘sustainable value’ creation.
Sustainable business models
consider a wider group of stakeholders
than just customers and shareholders,
and explicitly consider society and
environment as stakeholders [26; 13].
They seek to internalise the benefits and
harms to society and the environment
by the way business is done.
Sustainable business model innovation
is concerned with innovation in the way
business is done by generating
competitive advantage through superior
customer value while contributing

positively to the company, the
environment and society and
minimising harm (building on [27]).
An example of a business model
that might deliver greater social and
environmental benefit is the car club
model, where customers pay for a
service to use the car, rather than
buying and owning the car itself [28].
Cars are accessible to those who could
previously perhaps not afford this by
changing the value proposition
(product/ service), value creation (e.g.
‘making cars available’ through a
service rather than selling them), and
value capture (pay per hour of use). The
fact that customers need to pay per use
may make them think before they use
the car, and subsequently reduce their
car usage [28]. Car sharing models may
deliver better utilisation of cars and so
reduce need for construction of new
cars, further contributing to mitigation
of environmental impact.
2.3 The connection between the
business model and organisational
functions
The business model provides the
conceptual logic, which connects
functional activities in a business such
as finance, marketing, R&D,
procurement, product design and
manufacturing to one another [4, 29].
Business model innovation for
sustainability can drive innovation
across internal business functions,
across supply chains and, on a broader
level, across industries. Figure 3 offers
a conceptual framework for a
sustainable business model, which
shows the interconnectedness, including
the value proposition (benefits or
product/service offering to customer
and society and environment, customer
segments and relationships), value
creation (resources, suppliers and other
partners who help create value) and
value capture mechanism (cost
structures and revenue streams, value
capture for society and environment).
Figure 3. Conceptual sustainable business model framework. Source: adapted from Richardson [30] and Osterwalder
and Pigneur [31], Bocken et al. [13] and Short et al. [32]
Innovation for sustainability more
generally needs to capture the
challenges of a complex context and
span across company boundaries [33].
Szekely and Strebel [33] describe three
types of innovation, which show the
linkages between innovation for
sustainability and business functions:
!"#$%&'(%")*+&&,&-%#./%(0&
&
12&3')/.)%45&&
62&7%4*$('%45&
82&9.4:(.;$)*+&'<"++%#45&&
=2&>"(:+%(4&"+-&4$??#.%(45&&
@2&A%'<+*#*B0&"+-&?(*-$':&
C%":$(%4&
!
How!is!value!provided?!
&
!"#$%&'"?:$(%&
&
D2&E*4:&4:($':$(%&,&(%/%+$%&
4:(%"F45&&
GH2&!"#$%&'"?:$(%&C*(&I%0&"':*(4&
.+'#2&%+/.(*+F%+:&,&4*'.%:0&
GG2&J(*K:<&4:(":%B0L&%:<*4&
!
How!does!the!company!make!
money!and!capture!other!forms!of!
value?!
!"#$%&?(*?*4.)*+&
&
G2&>(*-$':L&4%(/.'%5&&
M2&E$4:*F%(&4%BF%+:4&"+-&
(%#")*+4<.?45&&
N2&!"#$%&C*(&'$4:*F%(5&4*'.%:05&"+-&
%+/.(*+F%+:&&
!
What!value!is!provided!and!to!
whom?!!

incremental innovation (novelty at the
product, service and process level),
radical innovation (wider sphere of
activity and closer interaction with
suppliers, regulators and other
stakeholders); and game-changing
innovation (profound transformation of
the practices, structures and the very
aims of business). Value is no longer
created by firms acting in isolation, but
by firms acting together through
informal arrangements or formal
alliances [34]. Porter and Kramer [12]
discuss the ‘shared value creation’
concept, which ‘focuses on identifying
and expanding the connections between
societal and economic progress’. They
highlight the need to reconceive and
innovate products, markets and value
chain activities to broaden the ‘value
perspective’. Moreover, innovation is
not restricted anymore to corporations:
‘everyone’ can become an entrepreneur
in new peer-to-peer models such as
peer-to-peer lending [e.g. 35], home
rental [36] and car sharing [28]. In the
most impactful sense, innovation for
sustainability transforms infrastructures
and the very premises of the way
business is done. This is especially the
case for more radical and game-
changing types of innovation, which
involve multiple stakeholders and
fundamentally challenge the way
business is done.
It is recognised that innovation for
sustainability should occur at multiple
levels of an organisation from the
strategic level down to the details of
manufacturing systems and product
design [17, 18]. These levels can be
integrated within the overarching
context of the business model [17, 33].
For example, business model innovation
for sustainability is clearly linked to
areas such as sustainable manufacturing
and design, which are at the core of
manufacturing organisations.
Sustainable manufacturing as described
by Rashid et al. [37] is characterised by
strategies such as waste minimisation,
material and resource efficiency, and
eco-efficiency, the latter being defined
as creating more value with reduced
waste, resource use and toxicity [38].
Eco-design adopts a life-cycle approach
to tackle the greatest impacts across the
product’s life cycle, whereas
sustainable design takes a holistic
approach, including concerns for ethics,
dematerialisation, empowerment,
sharing, as well as eco-design [39]. This
demonstrates the connectedness of
innovation for sustainability across
organisational functions and levels.
For sustainable business thinking
to become more widespread in
companies it needs to become an
integral part of doing businesses,
integrated throughout all the activities
of business.
2.4 The value mapping tool and
process
A value mapping tool has been
presented in the literature to assist in
providing a systemic approach to the
generation of new business model ideas
for sustainability that uses a multi-
stakeholder perspective and explores
both positive and negative forms of
value creation. It aims to help
companies align value creation for all
stakeholders including the environment
and society at all levels and through all
activities of the business. The value
mapping tool was developed to assist in
sustainable business modeling and aims
to assist users in:
• Understanding the positive and
negative aspects of value in a
network of stakeholders
• Identifying conflicting values
(i.e. where one stakeholder
benefit creates a negative for
another stakeholder)
• Identifying opportunities for
sustainable business model
redesign – especially to

improve societal and
environmental impact – based
on qualitative value judgments
The value mapping tool takes a
multi-stakeholder perspective and
considers different forms of value. It
considers multiple forms of value: value
captured, value missed, value destroyed
and new value opportunities [7]. Value
captured represents the positive benefits
delivered to stakeholders (i.e. the value
proposition for multiple stakeholders).
Value missed represent cases where
stakeholders fail to capitalise on
existing assets, capabilities and
resources, are operating below best
practice, or fail to receive benefits they
seek from the network. Value destroyed
are negative outcomes of the business
(sometimes referred to as ‘negative
externalities’; see e.g. Chertow &
Ehrenfeld [40]) and concerns the
damaging social and environmental
impacts of business (e.g. over-use of
resources). Ultimately, firms will need
to go beyond ‘damage control’ and seek
out new value creation opportunities to
deliver novel solutions to social and
environmental problems that begin to
address the wider sustainability
challenges directly [see e.g. 41]. The
multi-stakeholder approach of the tool
seeks to identify and reduce conflicts
and trade-offs between different
stakeholder groups and assist in better
aligning positive outcomes for all
stakeholders. This approach is crucial
for understanding and exploring
sustainability and can and must be
applied at all levels for successful
sustainability innovation: it does not
only concern strategy-making but also
needs to involve product designers and
production engineers who design the
products and processes for
sustainability.
The value mapping process
typically consists of four simple
brainstorms:
• Brainstorm 1: The purpose of
the business is discussed. Why
is the business here in the first
place? What is the product or
service offered?
• Brainstorm 2: What value is
created for different types of
stakeholders? What positive
value is created and what
negative value do the
stakeholders mitigate?
• Brainstorm 3: What is the
value destroyed or missed or
negative outcomes for any of
the stakeholders? Is the
business missing an
opportunity to capture value, or
wasting value in its existing
operations? For example, are
assets, capacity and capabilities
under-utilised? Are potentially
useful materials going to
landfill?
• Brainstorm 4: This brainstorm
is intentionally put at the end
and is about blue-sky thinking.
The focus is on turning the
identified negatives into
positives to ensure a win-win
for all stakeholder groups.
What new positive value might
the network create for its
stakeholders through
introduction of activities and
collaborations? What can you
learn from competitors,
suppliers, customers or even
other industries to further
enhance stakeholder alignment
and sustainability outcomes?
Before the session, there may be an
introduction on sustainability
(depending on the background
knowledge of participants) including
some inspiring examples of how other
businesses have pursued business model
innovation for sustainability. After the
brainstorms a selection process might
take place to decide upon the best
options to pursue by the organization.

Appendix 1 includes illustrative
examples of value destroyed, missed,
and new opportunities to help populate
the tool. The process is discussed more
fully in Bocken et al. [7]. Although
initially developed for generation of
new business model ideas for aspiring
and existing businesses, the authors
propose that the value mapping tool
may be used for wider purposes of
‘sustainable business thinking’.
It should be noted that the value
mapping tool has a few limitations,
which include: it is mainly suited for
qualitative assessment and it has mainly
been used for initial assessment of
value, and not for in-depth analysis.
3. RESEARCH METHOD
This paper investigates the
following research question: How can
value mapping as a tool and process be
used to enhance sustainable business
thinking?
The method is visualised in Figure
4. The method is based on reflection on
experiences of using the value mapping
tool with practitioners through
workshops and discourse with
practitioners on using the value
mapping tool. Observations,
complemented with a workshop
evaluation schedule (available upon
request), were used to collect data.
Figure 4. Method applied in this paper.
First, feedback from use of the tool
in former workshops described in
Bocken et al. [7], and a range of
discussions with practitioners who have
adopted the tool, led to the notion that
the tool could be used for wider
sustainable business thinking. In this
exploratory phase, the authors identified
education, life cycle thinking and
product/ process design and systems
thinking as additional uses of the tool.
Second, a total of twenty workshop
sessions were conducted and analysed
to seek to test and validate new
potential uses of the tool. These twenty
workshops took place in Europe and the
US between 2012 - 2014 (numbers 1-12
in Table 1). Subsequently, the
experiences of using the tool with
different groups - students, NGOs, start-
ups and established small and large
companies – were collated using a
workshop evaluation schedule to
develop the range of potential uses of
the value mapping tool for sustainable
business thinking. The experiences of
using the tool were collected by the
workshop evaluation schedule including
queries on:
1. The brainstorming outputs of
the workshop (actual ideas
generated)
20 Workshops
run and
analysed to
assess other
uses of the tool
(♯ 1-12
in Table 1)
Additional
uses of value
mapping to
encourage
sustainable
business
thinking
Experiences of
using the tool
with students,
NGOs, start-ups,
small and large
companies
Workshop
evaluation
schedule
Identifying
additional
uses of value
mapping tool
from previous
workshops
and
practitioner
discussions

2. Usability and effectiveness of
the tool to capture sustainable
innovation
3. Additional opportunities for
using the tool
4. Any other feedback by the tool
users
Finally, the workshop evaluation
schedules were scanned in particular to
identify additional opportunities (points
3 and 4). This process led to the
identification and preliminary validation
of potential additional uses of the tool to
assist in sustainable business thinking.
These are shown in Table 1.
No.
Workshop
Use of tool in workshop
Additional uses identified
Finished workshops
1
Workshop with Engineering Masters
Students in Genoa, Italy, October 2012
A case study exercise to explore
sustainability issues of companies
Education - it was used as a
teaching and analysis tool to
explore sustainability issues of
companies. The exercise
contributed towards case study
write-up.
2
Workshop - Sustainable business
modelling for circular economy,
Netherlands, November 2012
Ideation for NGOs, small and large
companies
Education about circular economy
and sustainable business models,
life cycle thinking for future
products
3
Workshop – Start-up in the automotive
sector, London, July 2013
Clarify the needs and expectations of
each stakeholder group
Collaboration - identification and
awareness of conflicts, while
opening debate over impacts, trade-
offs and compromises.
4
Eight workshops with start-ups in
logistics/ transport, software and
hardware products and various
manufacturing sectors (e.g.
photovoltaics) Cambridge, Aug 2013 –
July 2014
Provide additional focus and insight
into a strategy development process
for start-up companies
Integration with other tools in a
strategy workshop used to inform
roadmapping sessions to formulate
future strategies for start-ups
5
Workshop – System integrator SME and
Finnish research institute, Finland,
September 2013
Sustainable business model
development – evaluating a new
offering
Broader strategy development:
revisiting the existing vision and
business model of the company
6
Workshop - Sustainable business
modelling, October 2013. Student
sustainability entrepreneurship prize,
Yale university, USA.
Ideation and education on sustainable
business models for aspiring
entrepreneurs
Education on sustainable business
models for start-ups, future product
and process design

7
Sustainability innovation workshop,
November 2013. Student social
entrepreneurship prize, Yale University,
USA.
Ideation and education on sustainable
business models (also non-profit,
social entrepreneurs) for aspiring
entrepreneurs
Education; opportunities for
aspiring entrepreneurs
8
Workshop – Manufacturing engineering
students in Cambridge UK, March 2014
Ideation and education on sustainable
business models for engineering
students
Education, about sustainability and
business model innovation for
sustainability
9
Two eco-design workshops, three days
each in February 2014, in France, using
the extended value mapping tool (with a
French translation)
Support eco-designers with the
integration of multiple stakeholder
concerns in design. Sequence of tools:
simplified LCA (3h), EcoASIT (3h),
BEC diagram, Value mapping (3h).
Eco-design concept improvement
for existing industrial products to
reduce environmental impact and
improve societal impact
10
Workshop –Executive Training
Sustainability, Cambridge UK, July
2014. Six subgroups brainstorming
about ‘systems’: mobility, food,
housing, clothing, communication and
cleaning
Systems thinking / considering
systemic sustainability issues and the
consequences for a manufacturer for
an executive training course.
Systems thinking, education
11
Workshop – Sustainability Summer
School for multi-disciplinary audience,
New York, USA. June-July 2014
Education about sustainable business
models
Education, Systems thinking
12
Workshop – for Product innovation
platform in the Netherlands (6 groups of
up to 8 people)
Experiencing how to rethink business
models for sustainability
Education, Systems thinking
Table 1. Uses of the value mapping tool. Note: No. 4 refers to eight workshop sessions.
4. FINDINGS
The value mapping tool was
developed as an idea generation tool in
the business modelling context, but
appears to have potential other purposes
which are presented in this section.
Table 1 shows that usage of the tool
was explored for multiple areas. It is
suggested that the concepts of multi-
stakeholder value creation, alignment of
interests, a system perspective, and
understanding different forms of value
(missed/destroyed, etc.) embodied in
the value mapping tool can also be
useful at the product/process level, the
organisational level, the competitive
positioning strategy level, the financial
system level, and at institutional policy
making level. The findings from use of
the tool in workshops are described in
Section 4.1, followed by a brief case
study in Section 4.2.

4.1 Findings from use of the tool in
workshops
Through evaluation of the actual
uses of the tool during the workshops, a
range of potential uses of the value
mapping tool for sustainable business
thinking were identified and explored.
These include:
1. Ideation for entrepreneurs/start-
ups who can design and refine
their business model ideas
(based on uses of the tool
described in Bocken et al. [7]
and sessions no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and
7 in Table 1).
2. Ideation for existing companies,
looking to reinvent or
reconfigure their business
models (based on uses of the
tool described in Bocken et al.
[7] and sessions no. 2 and 5 in
Table 1).
3. Education – to help students
consider sustainability
dimensions of businesses more
fully and more generally, raise
awareness about the broader
issues of business (un)
sustainability (based on sessions
no. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in Table
1).
4. Product and process design and
life cycle thinking to get product
designers to think more broadly
about the range of stakeholders
during the product design phase
and process designers to
consider the wider societal and
environmental impacts of
manufacturing (based on
sessions no. 2 and 9 in Table 1).
5. Systems thinking to help
participants think about the
value captured, missed,
destroyed and the new
opportunities for ’systems’
around us (e.g. food, mobility,
housing) (based on sessions 2,
10 and 11 in Table 1).
6. Evaluation and screening of
business model options to
evaluate and compare potential
business model innovations and
strategies (based on sessions 4
and 5 in Table 1).
7. Collaboration with suppliers and
customers seems integral to
conventional business model
(re-design). The tool could
facilitate a high-level assessment
of the value derived by different
stakeholders from potential
future collaborations. It can help
draw out conflicts and create
awareness of varying needs and
objectives (based on session 3 in
Table 1).
4.2 Case study: Education and
rethinking business models
This section includes a case study
to present an example of how the value
mapping tool has been used in practice.
The value mapping tool was used in a
product innovation management
business community (Table 1, session
12). The purpose was to introduce the
concept of sustainable business model
innovation and learn how to apply this
concept. Figure 5 summarises one of the
sub group’s outcomes of using the value
mapping tool with an imaginary
example of baby strollers.
Feedback from participants
included that the tool was “intuitive”,
“easy to use”, that it was an “enjoyable
experience”, and it led to new ways of
thinking about sustainability. Whereas it
was only a short session (2 hours), the
participants felt that they experienced
the challenges and opportunities of
designing new sustainable business
models or redesigning existing business
models for sustainability.

Figure 5. Consolidated outcome of use of the value mapping tool in session 12; Table 1.
5. DISCUSSION: VALUE
MAPPING FOR
SUSTAINABLE
BUSINESS MODEL
THINKING
Value mapping as a tool and
process was originally developed for
sustainable business modelling –
helping companies rethink their
business models for sustainability. The
tool was developed based on the
observation that companies seeking to
operate sustainably need to consider and
align multiple types of value generated,
missed and destroyed for different
stakeholders, including value for society
and environment, before thinking about
new opportunities to generate new
economic value [building on, 7].
As mentioned in the previous
section, the use of the tool and process
at various workshops triggered the
notion of its application for ‘sustainable
business thinking’. The additional uses
were explored and validated through
twenty subsequent workshops. The
following sections discuss the potential
uses of the value mapping tool for
sustainable business thinking in greater
detail.
5.1 Initial intended uses: Ideation for
start-ups and established firms
This section includes the initial
intended uses of the value mapping
tool: business model (re-) thinking for
Society(
Environment(
Customers(
Suppliers(and(Partners(
Employees(
Investors(and(
Shareholders(
Purpose(
A safe place
for my child,
mobility,
convenience
Steady
stream of
income,
long-lasting
contracts
A workplace
place to be
proud of;
contributing
to happiness
and safety
I don’t
benefit from
long-lasting
products and
reuse Strollers
don’t get
recycled and
get disposed
of
Strollers are
only used for
a limited time
Good
strollers are
not
affordable for
everyone
Deposit on
strollers to
ensure take-
back after
use
I might need
another
stroller if I
have another
child
Opportunity
to use the
product more
in the home
too
Good
strollers are
too
expensive
for me
Sharing with
other
families,
across
generations
Reusable
long-lasting
stroller
Leasing
strollers
Being a
small
explorer,
making a
good start
I need
business
continuity
High societal
well-being
made
affordable
Val ue
opportunity
Val ue
destroyed
Value missed
Val ue
captured
Opportunity
develop new
prototypes
for reuse
Sell
maintenance
service and
spare parts
Education
through baby
strollers
Lifetime
mobility
(stroller
becomes
bike etc.)
Recover
material (e.g.
fabric for
new product
(e.g. baby
chair)

businesses of different sizes and
maturity. For start-ups the tool could be
used to encourage thinking about how
to best design their business models so
they are sustainable from the outset. In
this case (especially when the start-up
idea is not yet well-developed), it can
be beneficial to look at related
incumbent industries first. For example,
a start-up in the food industry might
benefit from first jointly developing
value maps from well-known brands
before scrutinising their own business
models during a value mapping session.
Start-ups in particular may have
difficulty in identifying their immediate
customers (very often they focus on the
end users) and articulating the benefits
to them. Even if there are several
relevant stakeholders (different
customers, suppliers and partners),
smaller companies may have only
considered one or two. This tool helps
them to identify and understand broader
network of stakeholders.
Established companies can use the
tool to start the redesign of their current
business models. In existing firms it can
serve as a useful tool to stimulate
discussion, raise awareness, engage
with the broader range of stakeholders,
and begin the process of changing
perspectives. The challenge here is to
identify actions for the short, medium
and long-term, because business model
change in large incumbent companies
faces significant barriers due to the
institutionalisation of existing mental
models and physical infrastructures. As
such, it is likely to be an incremental
and often difficult transition process
[42, 43].
5.2 Additional uses of the tool
This section contains the additional
uses of the tool identified in this
research. In addition to the uses
identified in Bocken et al. [7] discussed
in Section 5.1, the tool was validated for
the potential uses identified in the
exploratory phase: education; product
and process design and life cycle
thinking; and systems thinking.
Through use of the tool in workshops, it
was also found that value mapping
could also be used for business model
evaluation and screening, and
collaboration.
5.2.1 Education – to teach
students about sustainable
business models
The value mapping tool can serve
as a visual aid for experiential learning,
where students apply concepts in real-
life contexts [44]; it may reduce
dependency on the instructor by
facilitating independent ‘problem-
solving’. Three potential ways to
educate students about sustainable
business models include interactive
workshops, a case base method and a
consulting exercise.
First, similar to the normal ideation
sessions discussed, an interactive
workshop could help students to grasp
the concept of sustainable business
models. However, more time would
need to be dedicated to what a
sustainable business model is and why
these are important to make students
more familiar with these concepts,
which have not necessarily introduced
in the classroom before. This is
especially important for students who
do not have a business education
background (e.g. engineers, designers).
Second, a case based teaching method
could be used, where students are first
exposed to the material on what a
(sustainable) business model is, and
then what the concepts of value missed,
destroyed and opportunities are. The
case could be fairly simple:
1. Choose one of the companies
[from a predefined list] as your

case company.
2. Consider the current business
model. In what areas does the
business model fail to capture
environmental and societal
concerns?
3. What could potential
sustainable business models
look like for this company?
Describe how the different
elements of the model would
need to change.
These simple questions can help
students critically evaluate current
business models and think about new
ones. The full teaching note with
questions for students to consider is
available upon request by the authors.
Third, the business case might be turned
into a consulting exercise to help
existing companies, which is
recommended by Erzurumlu and Rollag
[44] as a useful method to improve the
usage of business teaching cases. These
methods may be mixed, so that varied
learning preferences and teaching
objectives are catered for.
5.2.2 Product and process design
and life cycle thinking
The value mapping tool can be
used to encourage the exploration of life
cycle impacts of a product, process or
business model by evaluating value
captured, missed, destroyed and
opportunities for different stakeholders.
For designers, it might generate greater
awareness of the potential impact of
products, services and manufacturing
processes. A key benefit of the tool in
the product/process design and larger
systems thinking context is the potential
to better consider potential unintended
impacts on external stakeholders: it can
help reduce unintended consequences
and rebound effects that can affect
sustainability initiatives (e.g. biofuels
compromising the food supply system).
[45] Secondly, it helps consider
alternative solutions that offer greater
alignment between stakeholder
interests.
Rather than merely focusing on
customer needs or production process
efficiency (e.g. energy use) in isolation,
the tool can give broader qualitative
insights of the value created, destroyed
and missed for a range of stakeholders
without the need for a full LCA. The
tool could encourage life cycle thinking
or be useful in conjunction with LCA to
gain deeper insights into the value
missed, destroyed and opportunities at
each life cycle stage. As such, the value
mapping tool can be particularly useful
for small and medium sized companies
(SMEs) with limited time and budgets
[46]. Compared to a typical LCA
process or using detailed indicators (e.g.
the Global Reporting Initiative) the
value mapping tool might present a
simplified and visually engaging tool.
Potentially, the tool can also precede an
in-depth LCA by exploring the positive
and negative impacts of a company, or
augment an LCA, by gaining insight on
what the impacts of a LCA mean for
different stakeholders at each stage of
the product life cycle.
5.2.3 Systems thinking
The multi-stakeholder perspective
of the tool was found to be useful for
wider systems thinking to consider the
value captured, missed, destroyed and
opportunities through ‘systems’ (e.g.
food provision or mobility) for a range
of stakeholders. This approach could be
used to quickly assess the intended and
unintended consequences of certain
systems. During session 9 in Table 1 a
group of participants of an executive
training course in sustainability used
value mapping for systems thinking.
The systems considered were: mobility,
food, housing, clothing, communication
and cleaning. A simplified tool with
three stakeholder segments was used:

participants were asked to consider the
wider impacts of these systems using
the terminology of value destroyed/
missed and new opportunities for
society (the collective societal benefits
of a system), the environment, and the
‘customer’ (i.e. a single beneficiary of
the system), followed by a discussion
on the impacts of this for the individual
manufacturer (e.g. a food or clothing
manufacturer). This exercise helped
participants consider the wider impact
of systems we rely on (e.g. food,
mobility) and what the role of
individual manufacturers would be
within this. Finally, the tool was used
for visioning exercises [47] to help a
company engage with its stakeholders
to create a joint future vision and the
role of the business to contribute to this
desired vision (this was done between
the company in session 3 of Table 1 and
its stakeholders). This enabled the
company to take a systems perspective
in doing business.
5.2.4 Evaluation and screening
The value mapping tool could be
used for evaluation rather than ideation.
The tool can give a general indication of
the range of impacts of different
business model innovation options, and
serve as a first level of screening, before
detailed analysis (e.g. financial,
environmental) takes place. Although
several qualitative and quantitative tools
have been developed for evaluation in
eco-design [5] this tool can be useful for
business model evaluation by allowing
for comparison of different business
model options and their impacts on
stakeholders. It can be a way to
accelerate the decision making process
on which business model innovation
looks most promising.
5.2.5 Collaboration
Practitioners viewed the tool as a
potential mechanism to evaluate the
value derived by different stakeholders
on potential collaboration and even a
merger or acquisition. Collaboration is
regarded as increasingly important
activity for companies to succeed and
tackle sustainability issues [35, 48, 49],
so this could be a promising use. As
issues extend beyond business
boundaries (e.g. climate change,
deforestation), partnerships will need to
be formed to tackle these issues
together. The tool could help potential
collaborators evaluate the value and
opportunity of new partnerships. A
third-party could facilitate such a
workshop, or separate stakeholders can
first individually form their value maps,
before engaging in an open discussion
with partners. The tool might help draw
out the potential value created and
destroyed from collaborations.
Although the tool does not provide a
quantified output and is not likely to be
used for detailed investment decisions
on mergers and acquisitions, it may be
used to balance benefits and impacts
across all stakeholders of informal or
more formal collaborative
arrangements.
5.3 Complementary tools
During some workshops,
complimentary tools were used.
Complementary tools identified include:
roadmapping [50]; the sustainable
business model archetypes; EcoASIT
[51] and the Business-Environment-
Customer (BEC) diagram [52] and the
business model canvas [4].
Roadmapping [50] can assist the
process of planning actions over time,
because such visual aids allow people
from various functional backgrounds to
work together on a shared future vision
and plan next steps. It was the main
complimentary tool used during the
sessions indicated as number 4 in Table

1. Roadmapping has been demonstrated
for product and technology evolution
through to top-level strategic planning
(e.g. Phaal et al [50]) and therefore it is
a potentially useful complementary tool
for all of the identified uses of the value
mapping tool.
Whereas roadmapping was used to
give future direction to start-up teams,
EcoASIT and the BEC Diagram were
used as initial creativity tools for
designers, preceding value mapping,
and so are more relevant to the product
and process design. During the two
sessions indicated as number 9 in Table
1 the following tools were used:
EcoASIT [51], an eco-innovation tool
aimed at stimulating life cycle thinking
by providing system boundaries in the
form of a nine-box matrix (past-present-
future vs. sub-system, system and
super-system), and the BEC diagram
[52], a Venn diagram, which shows
synergistic opportunities at various
intersections of ‘business’,
‘environment’ and ‘customers’.
Exemplars, such as sustainable
business model archetypes [13, 53] can
be used to stimulate idea generation.
During all sessions, at least two
examples of existing sustainable
business models were presented,
building on examples from the
sustainable business model archetypes
framework [13, 53].
Finally, the business model canvas
by Osterwalder and Pigneur [4] and the
business model framework in Figure 3
may be useful to map the business
model elements that need to be changed
(e.g. value proposition, activities,
partnerships) as a result of the new
business model idea.
6. CONCLUSIONS
‘Sustainable business thinking’ is a
holistic approach to thinking about
business that seeks to integrate
consideration of the three dimensions of
sustainability - social, environmental
and economic – in a manner that
balances or aligns value creation for all
stakeholders including the environment
and society at all levels and through all
activities of the business. Figure 2 was
introduced in this paper as a conceptual
framework, which links to concepts of
sustainable business thinking,
sustainable business model innovation
and value mapping. It was included to
support the view that value mapping
might be a useful tool for wider
sustainable business thinking, suitable
for a range of functions across an
organisation.
How might value mapping as a
tool and process be used for sustainable
business thinking? This paper has
explored the potential application of the
value mapping tool and process to
encourage sustainable business
thinking. The following potential
applications to stimulate sustainable
business thinking identified by using the
tool include: 1) Ideation for start-ups
and established firms, 2) Education, 3)
Product and process design and life
cycle thinking, 4) Evaluation and
screening, 5) Systems thinking and, 6)
Collaboration.
As demonstrated in this paper, the
value mapping tool and process can be
used in a range of ways for sustainable
business thinking. The tool was found
to be simple and visually engaging. The
inclusion of multi stakeholders and a
systematic consideration of both
positive and negative outcomes of doing
business provided a useful supporting
framework for sustainable business
thinking. A key benefit of the tool in the
product/process design and larger
systems thinking context is the potential
to better consider potential unintended
impacts on external stakeholders and
alternative solutions that offer greater
alignment between stakeholder
interests.
There are some limitations to the

value mapping tool and process. First,
the tool is largely qualitative in nature
and does not allow for detailed
quantitative analysis. However, as
argued by the IPCC [2], decision-
making on climate change and
sustainability involves value judgments
and ethical considerations. This type of
decision-making is evidently hard to
approach with quantitative
measurement. Second, the tool might be
useful in conjunction with certain
strategy and business modeling tools
e.g. technology roadmapping [50],
sustainable business model exemplars,
such as business model archetypes [13,
53] or perhaps in conjunction with
LCA. Third, the effectiveness of the
value mapping tool and process is
dependent on the facilitators and users.
Appendix 1 provides some indication of
examples of value captured, value
missed, destroyed and new
opportunities to ‘de-risk’ the facilitation
process. However, industry-specific
knowledge and facilitation (e.g. through
LCA, market analysis and expert
knowledge) might be necessary to
improve the quality of the value
mapping tool and process. It is argued
that similar to other conceptual tools
such as PEST and SWOT, the
application by the users and facilitators
to a specific context is crucial.
Frameworks such as the one presented
in Appendix 1 of this paper and the
facilitation guidelines referred to in
Bocken et al. [7] might assist in
educating users. Finally, the value
mapping tool might be flexible and
serve multiple purposes, but may not
always be the best approach for each of
these purposes, because specific
specialized tools might be more
suitable. For example, when detailed
quantitative data are required on
environmental impact of a product or
service, an LCA will be more suitable
than qualitative value mapping. Tool
users are encouraged to take note of
this, rather than regarding the tool as a
‘one size fits all’ approach.
Future research might look into
exploring the potential of using value
mapping in broader contexts of
decision-making involving multiple
stakeholders, such as policy-making and
investigating ‘wicked challenges’ -
those challenges which involve multiple
stakeholders and do not have
straightforward answers (e.g.
sustainable sourcing of raw materials
and land use changes). In addition,
future research may attempt to approach
value mapping in a (semi-) quantitative
way to better support sustainable
business decision-making. Finally,
future work may include further testing
of the tool in a range of settings with
different complimentary tools. This will
help clarify what the best ways are to
stimulate sustainable business model
thinking through education, ideation,
life cycle thinking, screening and
strategy development. Future
researchers are encouraged to develop
further tools and frameworks, which
facilitate “sustainable business
thinking” within and across company
boundaries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by SustainValue,
a European Commission’s 7th Framework
Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and the
EPSRC Centre for Innovative
Manufacturing in Industrial Sustainability
(RG64858). We would like to thank Dr
Benjamin Tyl for providing insights on the
value mapping sessions in France and Dr.
Nicky Athanassopoulou for insights of the
use of the tool in Cambridge.

REFERENCES
[1] World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). Vision 2050: The new
agenda for business. Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD;
2010.
[2] IPCC, 2014. Summary for Policymakers, In:
Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-
Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K.
Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P.
Eickemeier, B.], Geneva, Switzerland.
[3] Krantz, R. 2010. A New Vision of Sustainable
Consumption: The Business Challenge, J. Ind. Ecol.,
14 (1): 7-9.
[4] Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. Business Model
Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley;
2010.
[5] Baumann, H., Boons, F., Bragd, A. 2002.
Mapping the green product development field:
engineering, policy and business perspectives. J.
Clean. Prod.: 10, 409-425.
[6] Bocken, N., Allwood, J., Willey, A., King, J.
2011. Development of an eco-ideation tool to identify
stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options
for consumer goods. J. Clean. Prod., 19 (12): 1279-
1287.
[7] Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S. 2013. A
value mapping tool for sustainable business
modelling, Corp. Gov., 13 (5): 482 – 497.
[8] Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic management: A
stakeholder approach, London: Pitman.
[9] Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business
models for sustainable innovation: state-of- the-art
and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod.
45: 9-19.
[10] Elkington, J. B. 1997. Cannibals With Forks:
The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
[11] Ehrenfeld, J.R., Hoffman, A.J. 2013.
Flourishing. A Frank Conversation About
Sustainability. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
USA.
[12] Porter, M. Kramer, M. 2011. Creating shared
value, Harvard Business Review, (February).
[13] Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S. 2014.
A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean.
Prod., 65 (15): 42–56.
[14] ISO 14044. Environmental management — Life
cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines,
Geneva, Switzerland; International Organisation for
Standardization; 2006.
[15] Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus,
H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.,
Stringer, L., 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of
stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. J. Environ. Manage., 90: 1933-1949.
[16] Robèrt, K. -H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi De
Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J. Kuehr, R., Price
Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., Wackernagel,
M. 2002. Strategic sustainable development -
Selection, design and synergies of applied tools, J.
Clean. Prod., 10 (3): 197-214.
[17] Waage, S. 2007. Re-considering product design:
a practical ‘‘road-map’’ for integration of
sustainability issues, J. Clean. Prod., 15 (7): 638-649.
[18] Allee, V. Value Networks and the true nature of
collaboration. Online Edi., ValueNet Works and
Verna Allee Associates, 2011 [cited 2014 10
August]. Available from:
http://www.valuenetworksandcollaboration.com/
[19] Teece, D., 2010. Business Models, Business
Strategy and Innovation. Long Range
Planning 43 (2-3), 172-194.
[20] Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model
innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Plann. 43 (2-3), 354-363.
[21] Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L.,
2010. Building social business models: lessons from
the Grameen experience. Long Range Plan. 43 (2-3),
308-325.
[22] Johnson, M. W., & Suskewicz, J. (2009). How
to Jump-start the Clean Tech Economy. Harvard
Business Review, 87(11), 52–60.
[23] Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010).
Business Models: Creating New Markets and
Societal Wealth. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 291–
307. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.002
[24] Magretta, J., 2002, Why business models matter,
Harvard Bus. Rev., 80 (5): 86–92.
[25] Zott, C., Amit, R. 2013. The business model: A
theoretically anchored robust construct for strategic,
Strateg. Organ., 11, 403 – 411.
[26] Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C. 2008, Conceptualizing a
‘sustainability business model’, Org. Envir., 21 (2):
103-127.
[27] Lüdeke-Freund, F. 2010, ‘‘Towards a conceptual
framework of business models for sustainability’’. In
Wever, R., Quist, J., Tukker, A., Woudstra, J., Boons,
F. and Beute, N. (Eds), Proceedings of the
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable

Innovation Conference; 2010 October 25-29, Delft,
Netherlands, 2010.
[28] greenbiz.com [Internet] Chase, R. 2012. How
technology enables the shared economy, Greenbiz
Group 2014 [published 2012, May 3; cited, 2014 July
31]. Available from:
http://www.greenbiz.com/video/2012/05/02/how-
technology-enables-shared-economy
[29] Zott, C., Amit, R. 2010. Business Model Design:
An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Plann.,
43 (2-3): 216-226.
[30] Richardson, J., 2008. The business model: an
integrative framework for strategy execution. Strateg.
Change, 17(5-6): 133–144.
[31] Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2005. Clarifying
business models: Origins, Present, and future of the
concept, Communications of AIS, 16 (1), 15 (May)
2005.
[32] Short, S.W., Bocken, N.M.P., Barlow, C.,
Chertow, M. 2014. From Refining Sugar to Growing
Tomatoes: Industrial Ecology and Business Model
Evolution. J. Ind. Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12171
[33] Szekely, F., Strebel, H., 2013. Incremental,
radical and game-changing: strategic innovation for
sustainability. Corp. Gov., 13(5): 467–481.
[34] Beattie, V., Smith, S. 2013. Value creation and
business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital
debate, Brit. Account. Rev., 45 (4): 243–254.
[35] Gould, E. 2011. Start Me Up. Tech. Rev., 114
(1): 76-78.
[36] greenbiz.com [Internet] Wong, K. 2013. Lessons
from Airbnb about business in the sharing economy,
Greenbiz Group 2014 [published 2012 February 15;
cited, 2014 August 2] Available from:
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2013/02/15/lessons-
airbnb-about-business-sharing-economy
[37] Rashid, S., Evans, S., Longhurst, P. 2008. A
comparison of four sustainable manufacturing
strategies, Int. J. Sust. Eng., 1 (3), 214–229.
[38] Shamiyeh, M. (Ed.), 2010. Creating Desired
Futures: How Design Thinking Innovates Business.
Basel: Birkhäuser GmbH. (p. 253).
[39] Dewberry, E., Goggin, P., 1996. Spaceship
Ecodesign. Co-Design: The Interdiscpl. J. Design
Context. St., (5/6): 12–17.
[40] Chertow, M., Ehrenfeld, J., 2012. Organizing
Self-Organizing Systems. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 16(1), pp.13–27.
[41] Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B., 2003. Creating
sustainable value. Acad. Manage. Exec., 17(2): 56–
67.
[42] Christensen, C. The innovator's dilemma: when
new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston,
Mass., USA, Harvard Business School Press; 1997.
[43] Massa, L., Tucci, C. Business model
Innovation. in: Gann, M., Phillips. N. (Eds.). The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management,
Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford University Press;
2014.
[44] Erzurumlu, S., Rollag, K. 2013. Increasing
student interest and engagement with business cases
by turning them into consulting exercises. Decision
Sci. J. Innovat. Educ., 11 (4): 359-381.
[45] Sorrell, S., 2009. Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The
evidence for backfire from improved energy
efficiency. Energy Policy, 37(4): 1456–1469
[46] Bos-Brouwers, H. 2010. Corporate
Sustainability and Innovation in SMEs: Evidence of
Themes and Activities in Practice. Bus. Strat.
Environ., 19 (7): 417–435.
[47] Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2013). Eco-
Business: A Big-Brand Takeover of Sustainability (p.
208). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[48] Lowitt, E. The collaboration economy. San
Francisco, USA; Jossey-Bass (Wiley); 2013.
[49] Bocken, N., Allwood, J. 2012. Strategies to
reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by
influencing stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod., 35: 118-
129.
[50] Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D. 2004.
Technology roadmapping – a planning framework for
evolution and revolution’’, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
71 (1/2), 5-26.
[51] Tyl, B., Legardeur, J., Baldacchino, C.
Development of a creativity tool to generate eco-
innovations. Congrès International sur l’Analyse du
Cycle de Vie, Lille, France, Nov. 2011
[52] O’Hare, J., DeKoninck, E., Llang, H., Turnbull,
A. An Empirical Study of how Innovation and the
Environment are Considered in Current Engineering
Design. In: Takata, S., Umeda, Y., eds. 14th CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering,
2007, 11-13 June, Tokyo, Japan. Waseda University,
213-218; 2007.
[53] Short, S.W., Rana, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Evans,
S., 2012, Embedding Sustainability in Business
Modelling Through Multi-stakeholder Value
Innovation. In: Editors: Emmanouilidis, C., Taisch,
M., and Kiritsis, D. “Competitive Manufacturing for
Innovative Products and Services: Proceedings of the
APMS 2012 Conference, Advances in Production
Management Systems”, 2012 September 24-26,
Rhodes, Greece; 2012.

APPENDIX 1 VALUE MAPPING – ILLUSTRATIVE
EXAMPLES OF VALUE CREATED, MISSED, DESTROYED
AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES.
Stakeholder
Value Created
Value Destroyed
Value Missed
New Value Opportunities
Customers
Use utility,
functionality, health
benefit, well-being,
prestige, feel-good
Detrimental health/ safety
impacts, over-priced
products/services,
compromised use (poor
functionality, quality),
premature replacement
requirement (over-selling,
short fashion cycles), unfair
exclusion from benefits
Poorly served markets /
customer segments, failure to
provide full range of desired
functionality/ utility/
performance, failure to
understand full benefits of
product/service, failure to
make full use of product/
service (idle assets)
New markets, segments, new
product/service
features/offerings/functionality
(building on existing assets, or
new diversification), greater
product longevity and
durability, lower cost
Employees
Employment, wealth
distribution,
livelihood security,
meaning and purpose,
learning and
development
Under paid, job stagnation
and diminution of skills,
stress and mental health
disorder through overwork
and mistreatment, accidents
and dangerous working
conditions, lay offs
Under–utilised/ unused skills
or working time, lack of
development opportunities,
poor incentives, poor
management guidance,
inadequate tools (e.g. IT), few
internship opportunities
New job creation, training and
development, promotion/ pay
increase, new opportunities to
apply skills/creativity,
meaningful work, job rotation,
enhanced health/ safety,
incentive scheme, employee
ownership.
Society
Poverty alleviation,
community
development, social
justice, health and
well-being, secure and
meaningful
employment for all
Job lay-offs, failure to
contribute to taxation, breach
of ethics, detrimental impact
on health/ wellbeing and debt,
distortion of democratic
political system through
lobbying, exclusion of
societal segments from access
to products/services, abuse of
monopoly position
Under-developed stagnating
communities, high youth
unemployment, mass
migration, decaying
infrastructure and urban
centres, forced early
retirement, failure to
adequately cater to all groups
in society (aging population,
ethnic minorities, disabled
etc.)
Extend product/service to
broader segments of society,
community investment and
development initiatives,
apprenticeship and investment
in education, research, and
training programmes, support to
give people work experience.
Lobbying for legislation to
support introduction of
societally beneficial
products/services.
Environment
Resource use within
regeneration rates;
emissions and waste
levels within
metabolism limits;
bio-diversity
protection
Toxic emissions and waste to
land-fill, consumption of non-
renewable resources,
depletion of bio-diversity,
depletion of resource bases
Waste to land-fill that could
be reused/recycled, premature
end-of-life of product, losses
in value chain (e.g. food
losses)
Switch to renewable materials
and processes, reduce waste,
improve efficiency and
productivity, end of pipe
capture, green chemistry, closed
loop reuse of waste (industrial
symbiosis, remanufacture,
reuse, recycle), net positive
contributions to biodiversity,
etc.
Shareholders/
investors
Profit, ROI, growth,
financial resilience,
long-term viability
Economic loss, premature
right off or degradation of
assets, stranded assets,
penalties and fines
Failing to capture value from
delivering customer or public
value, under-investment in
growth/development
opportunities
Seek new revenue generation
mechanisms, reduce costs, seek
higher value added
opportunities (higher
profitability), diversification,
reduce exposure to potential
penalties, reduce waste to land-
fill taxes, strategic investment
in technology, R&D, resources
and assets
Suppliers/
Profit, ROI, growth,
Economic loss, under-paid,
Failing to utilise full assets
Extend relationships, seek

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr Nancy Bocken is a Lead Researcher at the University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing,
Senior Researcher at TU Delft and Fellow at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.
Dr Padmakshi Rana is a Lead Researcher at the University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing.
Dr Samuel Short completed his PhD in the area of sustainable value creation through business model
innovation at the University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing.
partners
market access,
development, long-
term beneficial
relationships,
relationship stability
and predictability, and
long-term viability
late payment, loss of contract
or reneged supply
agreements, overly
oppressive contractual
arrangements or management
practices that compromise
relationships and constrict
business performance.
and capabilities,
unpredictable demands for
goods/services provision,
under-payment for
services/goods provided,
failing to engage with new
technologies and capabilities
in the industry/other
industries
further opportunities to create
shared value, forge new
relationships to access new
capabilities, technologies,
markets, etc. Open innovation
approaches to encourage
broader collaborative networks
outside traditional industry
boundaries (e.g. NGOs)