Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concepts travelling across disciplinary fields: the case of the business model

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 2000s, the concept of Business Model has been explored by scholars from a broad range of business studies and particularly those in the strategic arena. In the last few years, this interest has also been echoed by accounting and management scholars, professionals, standard setters as well as organisations operating more widely in the corporate reporting field worldwide. Despite this extensive attention from academic, professional and institutional fields, it is still not entirely clear what drivers have led to this concept being espoused by such varied fields of research and action, and what implications can be derived from this. Moving from this standpoint, the paper intends to examine the processes and actors that have accompanied the Business Model in its ‘journey’ from the strategy field to the financial and non-financial reporting fields in order to reveal the similarities and differences that characterise the (disciplinary) attitudes towards the adoption of this concept in these three fields. Accordingly, it provides evidence on the extent to which these three disciplines have to be conceived as static or as subject to continuous change. Drawing on the sociological theory of structuration (Giddens in The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984) applied to disciplinary territories conceived of as social systems, we undertake an in-depth analysis of the articles published in strategy on Business Model as well as the documents released by the International Accounting Standards Board when it formulated the International Financial Reporting Standard 9 and by the International Integrated Reporting Council with respect to the preparation of the International <IR> Framework. Our findings support the view that the three arenas have reacted to the adoption of this concept differently, even though some analogies can be observed. Accordingly, the paper intends to contribute to the financial, non-financial reporting and business model literatures and practices, by highlighting the ways in which this concept has entered varied domains of research and action and the extent to which this adoption has affected the foundations and the ‘functioning’ (Bourdieu in Regards Sociol 17(18):5–27, 1999) of these fields.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. The non-financial reporting field is conceived here as the field including those forms of corporate reporting other than the financial one (thus, intangibles, sustainability and integrated). Although the authors are aware that different conceptualisations of what is a ‘non-financial reporting arena' have already been provided (Perrini 2006), its definition is not at stake in this paper, and it will be investigated in future research works.

  2. Similar to the conceptualisation suggested by Bourdieu with reference to what is a ‘field’, disciplines (disciplinary fields, arenas or similar) are here conceived as based on the interplay between agency and structure.

  3. Giddens refers to institutions as the enduring structural properties of a system (1984).

  4. The partial coverage of the concept of the Business Model by the extant frameworks and standards has been acknowledged by the same organisations in developing the Landscape Map (CRD 2016, http://corporatereportingdialogue.com/landscape-map/).

  5. According to the ‘model of translation' advanced by Latour (1984) “each people in the chain is not simply resisting a force or transmitting it […] they are doing something essential for the existence and maintenance of the token […] since the token is in everyone’s hands in turn, everyone shapes it according to their different projects […] there are active members shaping and changing the token as it is moved” (p. 268).

References

  • ACCA. (2017). Insights into integrated reporting. Accessed on 20 Jan 2018. http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ACCAInsights_into_Integrated_Reporting.pdf.

  • Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2002). The structuration of legitimate performance measures and management: Day-to-day contests of accountability in a UK restaurant chain. Management Accounting Research, 13(2), 151–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D., & Nobes, C. (2004). Financial accounting: An international introduction. London: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, S., & Euske, K. J. (1987). Rational, rationalizing, and reifying uses of accounting data in organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(6), 549–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2001). Management control systems. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astley, W. G. (1984). Subjectivity, sophistry and symbolism in management science. Journal of Management Studies, 21(3), 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2013). Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate. The British Accounting Review, 45(4), 243–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J. (1993). Accounting and the interpretive act. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(2), 125–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). Le fonctionnement du champ intellectuel. Regards Sociologiques, 17(18), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N. (2002). A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(1), 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busco, C. (2009). Giddens’ structuration theory and its implications for management accounting research. Journal of Management and Governance, 13(3), 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busco, C., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Trust for accounting and accounting for trust. Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIMA, IFAC, & PwC (2013). Business model: Background paper for IR. Accessed on 14 Jan 2018. http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Business_Model.pdf.

  • Conrad, L. (2005). A structuration analysis of accounting systems and systems of accountability in the privatised gas industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A. (2009). Emission rights: From costless activity to market operations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3), 456–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, C., Irvine, H., & Kaidonis, M. (2007). Standard setting for the extractive industries: A critical examination. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 1(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Covaleski, M. A. (1997). Structure and agency in an institutionalized setting: The application and social transformation of control in the Big Six. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durocher, S., & Gendron, Y. (2011). IFRS: On the docility of sophisticated users in preserving the ideal of comparability. European Accounting Review, 20(2), 233–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dye, R. A., & Sunder, S. (2001). Why not allow FASB and IASB standards to compete in the US? Accounting Horizons, 15(3), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. (2002). Electronic commerce: B2C strategies and models. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2008). Structuration theory and mediating concepts: Pitfalls and implications for management accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), 1122–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, H., Gerdin, J., & Burns, J. (2011). 25 years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(8), 494–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, H., Gerdin, J., & Burns, J. (2017). A structuration theory perspective on the interplay between strategy and accounting: Unpacking social continuity and transformation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauré, B., & Rouleau, L. (2011). The strategic competence of accountants and middle managers in budget making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(3), 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3), 295–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • G20 Declaration on Strengthening the Financial System. (2009). London. Resource document. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7-g20/Documents/London%20April%202009%20Fin_Deps_Fin_Reg_Annex_020409_-_1615_final.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017.

  • Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). 50th anniversay article: The strategy field from the perspective of management science: divergent strands and possible integration. Management Science, 50(10), 1309–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunta, F., Bambagiotti-Alberti, L., & Verrucchi, F. (2014). Business model disclosure: Evidence from annual reports of Italian listed companies. Oxford Journal: An International Journal of Business & Economics, 8(1), 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, G., & Mills, A. J. (2004). Strategy as simulacra? A radical reflexive look at the discipline and practice of strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1153–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granlund, M. (2001). Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems. Management Accounting Research, 12(2), 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2010). A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting: An exploration of an emerging trans-disciplinary field? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, M. K. (2005). Management accounting and organisational change: An institutional perspective. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 1(2), 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, M. K. (2010). Understanding the behavioural aspects of costing systems in public health organisations. International Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, 1(3), 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, R. D. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, R. D. (1989). The sociopolitical paradigm in financial accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(1), 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, R. D. (1991). The FASB’s conceptual framework, financial accounting and the maintenance of the social world. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(4), 313–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. G. (1987). The archaeology of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 207–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological themes: Theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: Limitation or liberation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2008). Discussion paper (DP) reducing complexity in reporting financial instruments. Resource document http://www.ifrs.org/-/media/project/fi-hedge-accounting/discussion-paper/published-documents/dp-reducing-complexity.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2017.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009a). Trustee letter to G20 participants.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009b). Exposure draft. Financial instruments: Classification and measurement. Resource document http://www.efrag.org/Assets/Download?assetUrl=%2Fsites%2Fwebpublishing%2FProject%20Documents%2F162%2FEDFinancialInstrumentsClassificationandMeasurement.pdf&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Accessed 13 May 2017.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009c). Agenda paper 7.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009d). Staff paper 29 September 2009.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009e). IFRS 9. Financial instruments.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009f). IAS 24. Related party disclosures.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2010). IFRS 9. Financial Instruments.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2014). IFRS 9. Financial Instruments.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2015). Exposure draft. Conceptual Framework.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Minutes of the October 22, 2010, Joint Board Meeting: Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity.

  • International Integrated Reporting Committee. (2011). Towards integrated reporting—Communicating value in the 21st Century.

  • International Integrated Reporting Council. (2012). Summary of responses to the September 2011. Discussion paper and next steps.

  • International Integrated Reporting Council. (2013). The international integrated reporting framework.

  • Jack, L. (2005). Stocks of knowledge, simplification and unintended consequences: the persistence of post-war accounting practices in UK agriculture. Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 59–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 621–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayasinghe, K., & Thomas, D. (2009). The preservation of indigenous accounting systems in a subaltern community. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(3), 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, B., & Messner, M. (2010). Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 184–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P., & Qureshi, S. (2006, January). Organizational transformation through business models: A framework for business model design. In System sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (8, 206b-206b), IEEE.

  • Kinney, W. R., Jr. (1989). The relation of accounting research to teaching and practice: A "positive" view. Accounting Horizons, 3(1), 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1990). The concept of strategy in sociology: A note of dissent. Sociology, 24(3), 475–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies 12(2), 251–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Mueller, F. (2004). Strategy as a ‘Project’: Overcoming dualisms in the strategy debate. European Management Review, 1(1), 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Königsgruber, R. (2010). A political economy of accounting standard setting. Journal of Management and Governance, 14(4), 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, H. (1980). The management theory jungle revisited. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 175–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, A., Melloni, G., & Stacchezzini, R. (2013). Disclosing business model in the “Integrated Report”: Evidence from European early adopters. In AIDEA bicentenary conference, Lecce (pp. 19–21).

  • Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and strategy: a critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassini, U., Lionzo, A., & Rossignoli, F. (2016). Does business model affect accounting choices? An empirical analysis of European listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance, 20(2), 229–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 264–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, R. C. (1990). A model of financial accountability and the Church of England. Financial Accountability & Management, 6(2), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S., & Doolin, B. (1997). Introducing system contradiction to effect change in the public sector: A New Zealand case study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(7), 490–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leisenring, J., Linsmeier, T., Schipper, K., & Trott, E. (2012). Business-model (intent)-based accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 42(3), 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, N. B., & Scapens, R. W. (1990). Structuration theory in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(5), 455–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, N. B., & Scapens, R. W. (1991). Management accounting and control systems: A structuration theory analysis. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 3(3), 131–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2009). Mythical representations of trust in auditors and the preservation of social order in the financial community. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(6), 735–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, A. (1996). The production of knowledge in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(7–8), 655–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, G. M., & Fourie, L. C. (2004). Strategy and business models-strange bedfellows? A case for convergence and its evolution into strategic architecture. South African Journal of Business Management, 35(1), 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, J., & Wagenhofer, A. (2010). Comment on the IASB discussion paper ‘preliminary views on revenue recognition in contracts with customers’. Accounting in Europe, 7(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melloni, G., Stacchezzini, R., & Lai, A. (2016). The tone of business model disclosure: An impression management analysis of the integrated reports. Journal of Management and Governance, 20(2), 295–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Memorandum of Understanding (2002). The Norwalk Agreement. Resource document http://www.fasb.org/news/memorandum.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2017.

  • Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Zheng, L. (2003). Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: The case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2), 251–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W. (1983). On the celebration of rationality: Some comments on Boland and Pondy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2–3), 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A., & Sikka, P. (1993). Accounting for change: The institutions of accountancy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 4(1), 29–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C., & Bukh, P. N. (2011). What constitutes a business model: The perception of financial analysts. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 8(3), 256–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C., & Roslender, R. (2015). Enhancing financial reporting: The contribution of business models. The British Accounting Review, 47(3), 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002). An eBusiness model ontology for modelling eBusiness. In BLED 2002 proceedings, Vol. 2.

  • Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouibrahim, N., & Scapens, R. (1989). Accounting and financial control in a socialist enterprise: A case study from Algeria. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(2), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, M. (2014). Business models as a basis for regulation of financial reporting. Journal of Management and Governance, 18(3), 683–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. (2006). The practitioner’s perspective on non-financial reporting. California Management Review, 48(2), 73–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: An integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5–6), 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Scapens, R. (1985). Accounting systems and systems of accountability—Understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(4), 443–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (1991). Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scapens, R. W., & Roberts, J. (1993). Accounting and control: A case study of resistance to accounting change. Management Accounting Research, 4(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M., & DeSanctis, P. G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, W. (2003). Modernity, modernization and the deinstitutionalization of incremental budgeting in local government. Financial Accountability & Management, 19(2), 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, P. B., Lewis, G. P., Freeman, P., & Shanks, G. (2004). The case for viewing business models as abstractions of strategy. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons, 48(3), 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton-Green, B. (2014). Should financial reporting reflect firms’ business models? What accounting can learn from the economic theory of the firm. Journal of Management and Governance, 18(3), 697–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skærbæk, P., & Tryggestad, K. (2010). The role of accounting devices in performing corporate strategy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 108–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (2001). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irvin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (1992). Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 693–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (2001). What is strategy-and does it matter?. Boston: Cengage Learning EMEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (2010). Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 109–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittle, A., & Mueller, F. (2010). Strategy, enrolment and accounting: The politics of strategic ideas. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(5), 626–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge, 3(1), 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications (international Student Edition): Design and methods. Newcastle upon Tyne: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. J. (1996). Institutional thinking: The case of financial instruments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(5), 487–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. J. (2009). The absence of dissent. Accounting and the Public Interest, 9(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zan, L. (1990). Looking for theories in strategy studies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 6(2), 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), The Helicon, 1 South Place, London, EC2M 2RB, UK

    Laura Girella

  2. Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Cinthia – Monte S. Angelo, 80126, Naples, Italy

    Roberto Tizzano

  3. Faculty of Economics and Law, Kore University of Enna, Cittadella Universitaria, 94100, Enna, Italy

    Elisa Rita Ferrari

Authors
  1. Laura Girella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Tizzano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisa Rita Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Girella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Girella, L., Tizzano, R. & Ferrari, E.R. Concepts travelling across disciplinary fields: the case of the business model. J Manag Gov 23, 373–402 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9413-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9413-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation