Chapter 6. Recommendations and Conclusion
6.2. Implications for Theory and Research
This section presents the conclusions of this study’s implications for DCT and SBMI.
6.2.1. Dynamic Capabilities Theory
The conclusion of this study identified similarities and differences with DCT. This study concludes that several considerations, conditions, and factors influence the development and strength of organisational and managerial capabilities, and the processes involved in
Anne Marie Kininmonth creating, refining, implementing, and transforming BMs. This study also concludes that broadening, diverse and divergent sustainability understanding and interests are contributing factors that can influence senior management strategic orientation and managerial focus.
Consequently, this conclusion impacts the organisation’s DC of sensing capability.
Furthermore, this study concludes that the progression of sustainability innovation relies heavily on two specific resources: financial and staff resources. Therefore, this has an impact on the DC of seizing that requires sufficient quality resources and influences the DC of transforming of leveraging the resources needed to design and implement SBMs (Batocchio et al., 2021; Franco et al., 2022; Hart & Dowell, 2011; Teece, 2018). Based on the findings in relation to resourcing, it is concluded that interdependencies between the DCs are underpinned by resourcing. For example, Covid-19 created resourcing constraints, and although financial resources might be available, progress can depend on staff capacity and capabilities.
The importance of strategic human resources management was evident in this study therefore hiring and assigning appropriately skilled individuals is essential, and capability building, and training are key to the DC of transforming (Batocchio et al., 2021). Moreover, in relation to culture, the results conclude that organisational culture can drive and hinder an organisation’s DCs. Similarly, based on the importance of organisational structure and the impact of complex structures this study concluded that there is a complexity of layers of management involved in decision-making and that the influence of bureaucracy and ambiguity impact the development of DCs, and that diversity at top-level management can potentially enhance DCs. Therefore, the results of this study conclude that more complex structures hinder these capabilities, that all structures must be conducive to supporting DCs and that having effective processes in place is needed to drive innovation (Batocchio et al., 2021, Teece, 2007).
This study concludes that flexibility is important as is incorporating regional needs with locally driven implementation. Micro-foundation DCs support effective managerial decision- making under uncertainty and includes expansion into new regions (Teece, 2007, 2017).
Furthermore, with reference to the work of Teece (2007) that the three DC components are unlikely to be found in individual managers, this study concludes that these three skills have been fostered through distributed leadership and are found in sustainability-oriented individuals who have innovated for sustainability of their own volition but who are not always in managerial positions.
Anne Marie Kininmonth The results of this study conclude that legislation and government significantly impact the DCs to sense, seize and transform. Similarly, this study agreed with the current literature understanding that sensing can be improved by the value of network relationships which improves knowledge configuration and increases opportunities (Batocchio et al., 2021; Fobbe
& Hilletofth, 2021). Additionally, this study concludes that cross-sectoral collaboration with government organisations can improve the mitigation of threats, identify opportunities, and enable innovation for sustainability (Baldassare et al., 2019, Bengtsson et al., 2021, Henriques et al., 2020; Lozano, 2018). Moreover, based on the findings in relation to market conditions that can incentivise organisations to invest in, and encourage the development of, DCs, this study concludes that these conditions disrupt and drive sustainability change.
6.2.2. Sustainable Business Model Innovation
With reference to Bocken et al. (2020) and Bitzer et al. (2020) research on the complexities of managing multiple stakeholders and the diverging interests and differing values that affect stakeholder willingness to cooperate, the study concludes that a broadening and diverse understanding of sustainability emphasises a high degree of subjectivity and potential for innovation inertia. Therefore, this provides an additional layer of complexity in managing multiple stakeholders. Similarly, this study concludes that external influences, including legislation and government policy, can significantly affect sustainability priorities, practices, and the direction of sustainability innovation. Moreover, market conditions can force TEOs to build resilience into their Business Models (BMs) and drive innovation but can disrupt organisations’ capability to innovate the BM for sustainability.
Pertaining to Bocken et al. (2014) eight archetypes and Aldowaish et al. (2022) identified need for more archetypes, this study concludes that more archetypes are needed, specifically archetypes based on the SDGs, as this study found that frameworks, measurement, and reporting across the TES have been aligned to the SDGs to varying degrees. This study concludes that the SDGs are drivers toward (a) increasing sustainability discourse, (b) innovating existing services and products, and (c) measuring and communicating sustainability progress.
With regard to the findings on resourcing, the conclusions are that sustainability innovation relies on sufficient financial and staffing resources that are interdependent, and both need to be available in sufficient quantities to progress SBMI. According to several
Anne Marie Kininmonth participants, potential opportunities and ideas are not addressed or followed up, and initiatives are stopped or implemented due to a lack of staff capacity, capability, or availability. This study concludes that having simple processes to obtain these resources is important as obtaining the resources required often takes substantial time and delays the progression of innovations. The study found that bureaucracy made processes longer and gave rise to ambiguity issues.
Furthermore, this study concluded that a competitive environment for resourcing, varying staff and financial constraints across the TES, and rapidly developing market conditions result in trade-offs in the decision-making process involved in resourcing allocation for SBMI.
The results of this study agree with the notion expressed in the literature that inadequate capabilities exist in organisations to assimilate technology into their BMs (Palmie et al., 2021), which impacts the implementation of these solutions (Batocchio et al., 2021; Teece, 2007).
This was supported by several participants who described varying levels of capabilities and confidence in using technological solutions. The conclusions of this study are that more resourcing is required to leverage technology solutions to support sustainability progress and that investment in sustainability training will support individuals to draw sustainability meaning and relevance to their work, improve commitment to, and encourage more, sustainability-driven innovations.
Research suggests that Multinational Enterprises are likely to have stronger partnerships with their suppliers due to better alignment with their subsidiaries which reduces objections to headquarters decision-making (Bajo & Duran, 2014; George & Schillebeeckx, 2022). This study concludes that a centralised system has the potential to reduce meaning and relevance for staff, leading to innovating for sustainability becoming mere compliance work and can act as a de-motivator. Similarly, based on the work of Barth et al. (2021) regarding complementary value aspects of SBMI, this study concludes that more diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity in top-level management could improve sustainability innovation decision-making and processes. Based on the findings in relation to organisational structure, the conclusions are that the formalisation of sustainability roles at top-level management acknowledges the importance of sustainability, increases the prioritisation of sustainability innovation, and breaks down barriers, consequently, expediing the processes involved in implementing sustainability innovations.
Based on the findings in relation to cultural dimensions as drivers for sustainability innovation progress, this study concludes that a sustainability-oriented organisational culture can foster more sustainability-oriented individual value sets which facilitates more
Anne Marie Kininmonth sustainability innovation. Moreover, the conclusions of this study are that certain factors support the success of implementing sustainability innovations: (a) embedding sustainability into the culture results in fewer barriers to innovation, (b) individuals’ value-sets act as motivators and are fundamental for long-term success, and (c) organisational culture and individual value-sets are interdependent.
Based on the work of Barth et al. (2021) regarding regional differences and Gao and Li (2020) regarding the adaptation of innovation to the local environment, this study concludes that flexible frameworks are important and that they need to be developed for regional needs and be locally driven. Moreover, based on the findings concerning the difficulty in measuring the economic gain and tangible and intangible benefits from implementing sustainability (Barth et al., 2021; Chofreh et al., 2020; Geissdoerfer, 2019; Gregori & Holzman, 2020), the conclusions are that not all sustainability progress can be quantified and that the influence of stakeholders, like top-level management and their preferences, likely result in skewed measurements and reporting and therefore impact the direction of sustainability innovations.
Consequently, these conditions increase the likelihood of sustainability washing.