Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Identity and Value Triangle: Management of Jungian Paradoxes to Enable Sustainable Business Model Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainable Business Models

Abstract

Biloslavo et al. add a much-needed new lens to understanding the nature of sustainable business models. Drawing on an interdisciplinary approach and adopting a Jungian dialectical approach, they explore the connections between organizational identity, paradoxes, and sustainable business model innovation. A sustainable business model framework termed the “Value Triangle” is applied to an illustrative case study of Japanese firm Muji. The result is a new perspective on designing sustainable business models incorporating paradoxical characteristics of organizational identity. This chapter supports the contention that organizational identity and sustainable business models can be mutually constitutive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the notion “unchanged” in a sense of not-transformed but it can be re-interpreted. Re-interpretation as a bridge between the position of the organization in the relevant external environments and the internal meanings formed around cherished organizational values, beliefs, and purpose.

  2. 2.

    Paradox is a “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” (Schad et al. 2016, p. 6).

  3. 3.

    In the literature about organizational identity, we can find discussion about individual identity and the cognitive link that exists between it and organizational identity; however, we will limit our discussion on organizational level only as we are interested on organizational identity as a shared cognitive schema.

  4. 4.

    An ideal type sustainable organization is in our view an organization that persists in time.

  5. 5.

    Johnson and Scholes (2002, p. 239) define a mission statement as “a generalized statement of the overriding purpose of an organization. It can be thought of as an expression of its raison d’être.” Similarly, Leuthesser and Kohli (1997) say that mission is necessary in helping a company form its identity, purpose, and direction.

  6. 6.

    As such, paradoxes cannot be solved but could be only navigated through “both-and” thinking toward “workable actions” that prevent possible paralysis or drift to the one pole of paradoxes. We will use the notion of “solving” for purely practical reasons of transparency and ease of understanding. As Lüscher and Lewis (2008, p. 234) say, a positive outcome of “working through” paradox is achieved not by “eliminating or resolving paradox, but [by] constructing a more workable certainty.”

  7. 7.

    Description of Muji is based on Internet contribution by Peron, A. 2015. Muji, la filosofia del design essenziale e atemporale (http://www.thismarketerslife.it/stories/muji-la-filosofia-del-design-essenziale-e-atemporale/) and information available on company website.

References

  • Alessandri, S.W. 2001. Modeling Corporate Identity: A Concept Explication and Theoretical Explanation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6 (4): 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C. 1998. Mid-course Correction: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model. Atlanta, GA: Peregrinzilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, C., and M. Tripsas. 2016. Organizational Identity and Innovation. In Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, ed. M. Pratt, M. Schultz, and B.E. Ashforth, 417–435. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., and F. Mael. 1996. Organizational Identity and Strategy as a Context for the Individual. Advances in Strategic Management 13: 19–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., and S. Haefliger. 2013. Business Models and Technological Innovation. Long Range Planning 46 (6): 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., and V. Mangematin. 2013. Business Models: A Challenging Agenda. Strategic Organization 11 (4): 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagnoli, C., and G. Biotto. 2014. Il caso Muji, Sincronizzare missione/visione, strategia e modello di business attraverso i significati. Venice, Italy: Ca’ Foscari University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassarre, B., G. Calabretta, N.M.P. Bocken, and T. Jaskiewicz. 2017. Bridging Sustainable Business Model Innovation and User-Driven Innovation: A Process for Sustainable Value Proposition Design. Journal of Cleaner Production 147: 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. 2002. The Corporate Challenges of Sustainable Development. Academy of Management Executive 16 (2): 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., S. Bunderson, P. Foreman, L. Gustafson, A. Huff, L. Martins, R. Reger, Y. Saranson, and L. Stimpert. 1998. A Strategy Conversation on the Topic of Organization Identity. In Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations, ed. D.A. Whetten and P.C. Godfrey, 99–168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, C., G. Biotto, and A.F. De Toni. 2012. From Design Driven Innovation to Meaning Strategy. Management Decision 50 (4): 718–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biloslavo, R., C. Bagnoli, and D. Edgar. 2018. An Eco-critical Perspective on Business Models: The Value Triangle as an Approach to Closing the Sustainability Gap. Journal of Cleaner Production 174: 746–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocken, N., S. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans. 2013. A Value Mapping Tool for Sustainable Business Modelling. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 13 (5): 482–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocken, N.M.P., S.W. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans. 2014. A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production 65 (15): 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F.N., and D.W. Hart. 2006. An Aesthetic Theory of Conflict in Administrative Ethics. Administration & Society 38 (1): 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D.B. 1993. Reputation, Image and Impression Management. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., S.B. Ivory, and S.B. Brooks. 2018. Managing Corporate Sustainability with a Paradoxical Lens: Lessons from Strategic Agility. Journal of Business Ethics 148 (2): 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldera, H.T.S., C. Desha, and L. Dawes. 2017. Exploring the Role of Lean Thinking in Sustainable Business Practice: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 167: 1546–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, W.F. 2006. Decency Means More Than “always low prices”: A Comparison of Costco to Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club. Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (3): 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, B., and R. Meyer. 2005. Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage. 2nd ed. London: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J.E., J.M. Dukerich, and C.V. Harqauil. 1994. Organizational Images and Member Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 39 (2): 239–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M., A.R. Buhovac, and K. Yuthas. 2015. Managing Social, Environmental and Financial Performance Simultaneously. Long Range Planning 48 (1): 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C.M. 2002. Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities. Organization Science 13 (6): 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., and P. Bansal. 2013. Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 112: 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D.A. 1998. From Individual to Organizational Identity. In Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory Through Conversations, ed. D. Whetten and P. Godfrey, 17–31. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D.A., and J.B. Thomas. 1996. Identity, Image and Issue Interpretation: Sensemaking During Strategic Change in Academia. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (3): 370–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J.F., and J.A. Holstein. 2008. Narrative Ethnography. In Handbook of Emergent Methods, ed. S.N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy, 241–264. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggege, M., and L. Collet 2011. Exploring New Business Models with a Narrative Perspective. Paper presented at the 18th International Product Development Management Conference, The Netherlands: Delft, June 5–7, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., F. Figge, J. Pinkse, and L. Preuss. 2010. Trade-offs in Corporate Sustainability: You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It. Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (4): 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects. Journal of Business Ethics 148 (2): 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., J. Pinkse, L. Preuss, and F. Figge. 2016. Ambidexterity for Corporate Social Performance. Organization Studies 37 (2): 213–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., L. Preuss, J. Pinkse, and F. Figge. 2014. Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sensemaking with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames. Academy of Management Review 39 (4): 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, A., and D.A. Gioia. 2009. Fostering Sustainability-Focused Organizational Identities. In Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations, ed. L.M. Roberts and J.E. Dutton, 435–460. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. 1994. The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, K. 2011. The Design Guru of MUJI on His Uniquely Japanese Aesthetic. Accessed November 18, 2017. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661909.shtml.

  • Hatch, M.J., and M. Schultz. 2002. The Dynamics of Organizational Identity. Human Relations 55 (8): 989–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M.J., and D. Yanow. 2008. Methodology by Metaphor: Painting and the Study of Organizational Identity. Organization Studies 29 (1): 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivonen, K. 2018. Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes—Have Your Coke and Drink It Too! Journal of Business Ethics 148 (2): 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ind, N. 1990. The Corporate Image. Strategies for Effective Identity Programmes. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Issa, T., and D. Pick. 2010. Ethical Mindsets: An Australian Study. Journal of Business Ethics 96 (4): 613–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M.W. 2010. Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M.W., C.M. Christensen, and H. Kagermann. 2008. Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review 86: 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G., and K. Scholes. 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy. 6th ed. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, A., and R.L. Paquin. 2016. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas—A Tool to Design More Sustainable Business Models. Journal of Cleaner Production 135 (1): 1474–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C.G. 1991. L’uomo e i suoi simboli. Milano: Tascabili Editori Associati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C.W., and R. Mauborgne. 1998. Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth. Harvard Business Review 75 (1): 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1996. What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning. Organization Science 7 (5): 502–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovoor-Misra, S. 2009. Understanding Perceived Organizational Identity During Crisis And Change: A Threat/Opportunity Framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management 22 (5): 494–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuthesser, L., and C. Kohli. 1997. Corporate Identity: The Role of Mission Statements. Business Horizons 40 (3): 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M.W. 2000. Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review 25 (4): 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, L.S., and M.W. Lewis. 2008. Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51: 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L.L., V.P. Rindova, and B.E. Greenbaum. 2015. Unlocking the Hidden Value of Concepts: A Cognitive Approach to Business Model Innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 9 (1): 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D., and C. Coles. 2003. The Ultimate Competitive Advantage of Continuing Business Model Innovation. Journal of Business Strategy 24 (5): 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J., N. Fukasawa, and K. Hara. 2010. Muji. New York: Rizzoli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., and A. Roepstorff. 2015. CSR as Corporate Political Activity: Observations on IKEA’s CSR Identity–Image Dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics 128 (2): 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nag, R., K.G. Corley, and D.A. Gioia. 2007. The Intersection of Organizational Identity, Knowledge and Practice: Attempting Strategic Change Via Knowledge Grafting. Academy of Management Journal 50 (4): 821–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navis, C. and Glynn, M. A. 2010. How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (3): 439–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohle, G., and M. Chapman. 2006. IBM’s Global CEO Report 2006: Business Model Innovation Matters. Strategy & Leadership 34 (5): 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and Van De Ven, A. H. 1989. Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 562–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R.E., and K.S. Cameron. 1988. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Framework of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., Lewis, M W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10. No. 1, pp. 5–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., F. Lüdeke-Freund, and E.G. Hansen. 2012. Business Cases for Sustainability: The Role of Business Model Innovation for Corporate Sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 6 (2): 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Business Models for Sustainability: A Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation. Organization & Environment 29 (3): 264–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G. and Lane, V. R. 2000. A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational Identity. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K. 2014. Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57 (6): 1592–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K., and M.W. Lewis. 2011. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieth, P., D. Schneckenberg, and J.E. Ricart. 2014. Business Model Innovation—State of the Art and Future Challenges for the Field. R&D Management 44 (3): 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W., and C. Cocklin. 2008. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organization & Environment 21 (2): 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Byl, C.A., and N. Slawinski. 2015. Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: A Review of Research From Win-Wins and Trade-Offs to Paradoxes and Beyond. Organization & Environment 28 (1): 54–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Have, R. P. and Rubalcaba, L. 2016. Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies?. Research Policy, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1923–1935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. 2009. Design-Driven innovation. Cambiare le regole della competizione innovando radicalmente il significato dei prodotti e dei servizi. Rizzoli Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. and Browning, L. D. 1986. Argument and Narration in Organizational Communication. Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 243–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B.W., O. Schilke, and S. Ullrich. 2010. Strategic Development of Business Models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range Planning 43 (2–3): 272–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. 2011. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1019–1042.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia

    Roberto Biloslavo

  2. Department of Business Management, Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow, UK

    David Edgar

  3. Department of Management, Ca’Foscari University, Venezia, Italy

    Carlo Bagnoli

Authors
  1. Roberto Biloslavo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Edgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlo Bagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Biloslavo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus University, Herning, Denmark

    Annabeth Aagaard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biloslavo, R., Edgar, D., Bagnoli, C. (2019). Organizational Identity and Value Triangle: Management of Jungian Paradoxes to Enable Sustainable Business Model Innovation. In: Aagaard, A. (eds) Sustainable Business Models. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93275-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation