1: The Relevance of Debunking Sustainable Myths for Theory and Practice

Studies into the relationship between organizational strategies and sustainability have increased substantially in recent years (e.g., Bocken & Geradts, 2020; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Ringvold et al., 2023). To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, organizations are on a challenging road to reevaluating how they create, deliver, capture, and exchange value with their stakeholders. One popular avenue for researchers has been the study of sustainable business models since it has explanatory power about how economic, environmental, and societal value are produced and how negative impact can be reduced (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016). A rich scope of special issues (e.g., Boons et al., 2013; Dentchev et al., 2018; Pinkse et al., 2023; Schaltegger et al., 2016) and literature reviews have emerged in the last decade to provide insights on sustainability progress (Evans et al., 2017), indicating that the area is promising and emerging. Nevertheless, transitioning to these new models presents significant challenges, both for practitioners and researchers.

The presence of at least 14 different notions and frameworks of sustainable business models in the literature reflects a general lack of consensus on what a sustainable business model is or should be and what does not (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). However, this fragmentation appears to be part of the ongoing (mostly theoretical) discussion that has also embodied the concept of sustainability (Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017). Definitional and conceptual issues are, at the same time, a result of the popularity of the field, and in this way, sustainable business models may have become victims of their own success. Yet, sustainability paradigms rely on distinct assumptions, implying that the way they address solutions contains different problems and ways forward. Hence, the relevance of distinguishing sustainable problems (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Sharma et al., 2022).

A different breed of problems is related to assumptions of the underlying literature (Matthews et al., 2016; Reuber, 2016). Problems related to the latter go beyond definitional and conceptual issues (Hasenzagl et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2016; Reuber, 2016). They are, in a sense, taken for granted (Alvesson, 2013) and in the domain of dominant knowledge. Identifying what these underlying assumptions are and how they could be challenged is not a method researchers commonly employ. Instead, most contributions build on existing literature and spot gaps to find an issue (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Pratt, 2009). When assumptions remain largely unchallenged, they tend to be underproblematized and reinforce existing knowledge (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011).

In this way, dominant assumptions of sustainable business models may turn persistent over time and become sustainable myths. These myths arise when the status-quo is maintained (Burmeister & Schade, 2007; Hannan & Freeman, 1984), when assumptions go unchallenged and are reconfirmed (Klayman, 1995), when critical thinking is lacking (Kennedy et al., 2013), and when the wrong type of questions are asked (Foucault, 2013). Understanding what sustainable myths are, where they come from, and how they can be dismantled is relevant to nurturing critical thinking to address the root cause of sustainable problems.

In this chapter, we propose myth-busting as a way forward to question taken-for-granted sustainable assumptions. Myth-busters debunk myths, rather than confirming them, problematize, rather than spotting gaps (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011), and reframe problems between researchers and practitioners jointly (Dimov, 2020; Hyytinen, 2021; Ringvold et al., 2023) with a multidisciplinary lens. This is important as organizations cannot solve complex sustainability issues in isolation (Bastian & Caputo, 2024; Fobbe & Hilletofth, 2021). However, taking on the myth-buster role is challenging. It implies acknowledging and embracing one’s (own) ignorance (Alvesson et al., 2022; Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). The more myths we bust, the more unknowns we reveal, leading to greater nuance, understanding, and new unknowns. Acknowledging one’s ignorance through myth-busting has surprising positive effects for creativity, imagination, and innovation (Firestein, 2012).

Myth-busting, however, is not just a tool for researchers. Practitioners, too, should increasingly become myth-busters. Myth-busting for practitioners implies seeking evidence-based knowledge rather than relying on self-declared experts (Chavda et al., 2022), influencers (Petrocelli et al., 2023), and populist leaders (Bergmann, 2020). By distinguishing facts from misinformation (Vasist & Krishnan, 2023) and informed decisions from conspiracy theories (Douglas et al., 2019; Sunstein, 2014), myth-busting opens space for better thinking, more relevant questions, and smarter decisions, in research, policy, and practice.

The remainder of this chapter is organized in the following way. First, we explain what myth-busting is and exemplify how myth-busting can help to debunk assumptions. Second, we theorize that researchers need to question and reassess their assumptions within sustainable business model practices and that researchers and practitioners need joint alignment to frame sustainable solutions jointly. Third, we argue that both approaches require multidisciplinary approaches to avoid box thinking. In the last section of the chapter, we propose a way forward for theory and practice with concluding thoughts.

Sustainable business models integrate components of both traditional organizational frameworks and corporate sustainability (e.g., Bocken et al., 2014; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Teece, 2010). By addressing social, environmental, and business considerations concurrently, these models require collaboration and coordination with a wide array of stakeholders, including communities, customers, investors, shareholders, employees, suppliers, partners, NGOs, and governments (Antikainen & Valkokari, 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016).

Given their interest in empirical and theoretical research, the sustainable business model field is expected to continue to evolve (Ringvold et al., 2023; Rosato et al., 2021). For example, Geissdoerfer et al. (2018) hypothesize that sustainable business models might substitute “traditional” ones to the same extent as sustainable competitive advantage might replace “simple” competitive advantage. Yet, as business models are concerned with strategy, pricing, market positioning, value chain integration, and value creation, it is more likely that sustainability is becoming a core part of business models, rather than entirely replacing it. A realistic transition toward a sustainable economy requires the reevaluation and redesign of business models, a challenging task that often appears to be taken for granted (Montiel et al., 2020).

Amid the overplus of proposed definitions (Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2016), sustainable business models can be defined as a “simplified representation of the elements, the interrelationship between these elements, and the interactions with its stakeholders that an organizational unit uses to create, deliver, capture, and exchange sustainable value” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016, p. 2). Yet, many other definitions exist (see Geissdoerfer et al., 2018), and sustainable business models have been described as architectural blueprints, as attributes of organizations, as conceptual representations, and as cognitive schemas in which actors make sense of their logics in order to create value (Bastian & Caputo, 2024; Massa et al., 2017).

The peril of the variety of descriptions and conceptualizations is that sustainable business models risk becoming an umbrella term, a concept that encompasses various meanings and ideas under the same label (e.g., Glavič & Lukman, 2007). In addition, sustainable business models have been called out to lack critical reflection on trade-offs (Prescott & Filatotchev, 2021), on problems, construct clarity (Suddaby, 2010), and ambiguity of how sustainable business models are operationalized in practice (Fobbe & Hilletofth, 2021). In the long term, this may lead to the emergence of myths.

When the wrong kind of questions are asked and assumptions are no longer questioned, what sustainable business models imply for theory and practice becomes increasingly problematic (Alvesson, 2013; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). For example, typical sustainable business model myths that are already persistent are that sustainability is good for everyone, that certain types of sustainable interventions are, and will stay, too expensive, that sustainable transitions imply sacrificing comfort and convenience, or that it conflicts with economic growth (Leal Filho, 2000; Mwampamba et al., 2013; Sorman, 2023).

Despite being a promising and rapidly expanding field, research on sustainable business models frequently lacks diverse perspectives to compare and contrast the theory with alternative approaches (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Hardy & Grant, 2012; Laguerre, 2023). This is problematic as it may lead researchers to be over reliant on dominant literature streams while ignoring important consequences and trade-offs of the studied phenomenon (Sabaruddin et al., 2023). For example, there is ongoing confusion about how to operationalize sustainable business models, sustainable business model solutions are framed as effective in any context while ineffective solutions are not considered, and assumptions that sustainable business models always bring benefits indicate that they may be misleading (e.g., Fobbe & Hilletofth, 2021; Susur & Karakaya, 2021). When researchers do not critically examine and expose the underlying assumptions of their theories, widely used and overexploited scientific concepts evolve into dominant, ambiguous concepts and constructs with indistinct boundaries (Alvesson & Blom, 2021), with the sustainable business model field might risk becoming a business buzzword (Dzhengiz et al., 2023).

Consequently, a step beyond moderate critical analysis is necessary that questions how new knowledge, and not only current dominant logic, can be detected and questioned. We propose myth-busting as a way forward to question sustainable beliefs that are persistent and largely taken for granted. Myth-busting is crucial to comprehend the nature of sustainable myths, their origins, and the methods to address them. It implies that (1) researchers need to question and reassess their assumptions in order to create impactful theories on sustainability within sustainable business model practices (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013); (2) researchers and practitioners better align and co-create more concretely how they interpret and refine their knowledge to frame sustainable solutions jointly (Berglund et al., 2018); and (3) a multidisciplinary approach to avoid box thinking (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2014).

Problematization as a methodology (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011) deliberately guides researchers to identify and challenge dominant assumptions that are underlying the sustainable business model literature. Problematizing implies that researchers disconfirm some (but not all) of the assumptions held by their audience (Bartunek et al., 2006) to ask more interesting questions and generate reviews that go beyond systemization. Rather than identifying “gaps” within the literature, problematizing helps researchers to detach from familiar perspectives and critique the assumptions of others for the purpose of challenging underlying assumptions. In this way, problematizing seeks to question prevailing assumptions to broaden perspectives and reconsider our understanding past a descriptive level (Alegre et al., 2023; Breslin et al., 2020) that are often overlooked or accepted as given (Patriotta, 2017).

Sustainable business model researchers that chose to problematize may start with the foundational literature and significant works that constitute the core of the field, identify the major assumptions that underlie the sustainable business model field, and develop alternative assumptions based on more broader readings and a constant process of reflexivity (see Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020). When these alternative assumptions are developed, researchers may ask themselves if these have the potential to produce theories that are compelling. For example, one assumption that may be challenged is the nature of sustainable problems, which may emerge from the sustainable business model literature as often well-structured with a single solution for a clearly framed problem. Problematizing these assumptions may lead researchers in the direction of ill-defined problems and uncertainty (Foss & Saebi, 2017, Ho, 2001) or see sustainable problems as subjective mental models (Björkdahl et al., 2022) that requires a reframing process in which problems and solutions are part of a dynamic, instead of a static, sensemaking process (Bastian & Caputo, 2024).

While most researchers aim to impact their research with practical applications, only a small proportion perceive themselves as successful in doing so (Rynes et al., 2018). This highlights a research-practice gap between researchers who tackle and resolve sustainable issues and those who study these practices as a focus of their research (Sharma & Bansal, 2020). For much published or publishable research, a significant reason why researchers study a phenomenon can be attributed to the need to publish, for example, to secure tenure or achieve promotion (Pfleegor et al., 2019). However, the value of researching impactful problems lies in its potential to influence future studies and other researchers. This apparent gap between research and practice may reduce when researchers and practitioners collaborate more closely in addressing a meaningful problem to develop sustainable solutions collectively (Berglund et al., 2018; Ellis & Levy, 2008; Volkema, 1983).

Recent academic discussions regarding key stakeholders to be included within a broader spectrum of this process emphasize the critical role of researchers and practitioners jointly (e.g., Bastian & Zucchella, 2023; Sharma & Bansal, 2020). Including practitioners in research settings leads to collaborative efforts that can stimulate the co-creation and alignment of propositions and joint knowledge development (Rynes et al., 2001). A co-creation process between practitioners and academics may also uncover epistemic differences as stakeholders contribute varying perspectives on the defined problem (Shams & Kaufman, 2016). This process may encourage the co-creation of research and knowledge or uncover epistemic distinctions as stakeholders contribute varying perspectives on the defined problem.

These collaborative interactions are essential for addressing the research-practice gap. For example, when practitioners and researchers venture together, they may decompose sustainable problems and generate new heuristics about different problem–solution combinations. Identifying and redefining problems may then facilitate the creation of alternative hypothetical “what-if” scenarios (Dorst, 2011). Thus, while practitioners can aid researchers in contextualizing sustainable business model problems, researchers can contribute by leveraging their expertise to deconstruct and reframe these problems (Bastian & Caputo, 2024; Ho, 2001).

Successful myth busting can be achieved through questioning and reassessing assumptions, and through problem-based research in which a careful problem statement is the starting point for academics and practitioners to jointly understand what can be done about it. However, a common denominator between problematization and joint problem-based research is that both approaches require multidisciplinary. Multidisciplinary research involves collaboration among two or more disciplines to undertake a research project, with each discipline preserving its distinct boundaries, epistemologies, methodologies, and core values (Okumus & van Niekerk, 2015).

For problematization, multidisciplinary approaches matter as researchers are stimulated to look beyond meaningless gaps and the usual suspects (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2024). For example, when reviewing sustainable business model literature, problematizing researchers may consider reading and including multidisciplinary sustainability journals (Dzhengiz et al., 2023), as using journal rankings and impact factors can be misleading and lead to excessive emphasis on research of lesser significance simply because it is published in prestigious outlets (Elbanna & Child, 2023).

For problem-based research between academics and practitioners, multi-disciplinarity matters because it is essential to extend perspectives beyond the organization to generate lasting value for all stakeholders. For instance, “researchers and practitioners can investigate complex social problems by collaborating across the basic stages of the research process, including formulating problems, building theory, designing research, and solving problems” (Bansal et al., 2012, p. 74), to decrease the research-practice gap. Thus, acknowledging the importance of the multidisciplinary character of different stakeholders within the business model is important for collective views on the value-creation processes (Alvarez et al., 2020).

Multi-disciplinarity can also help research on sustainable business models to adopt the so-called “outside view” (Kahneman et al., 2011; Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003). The inside view is an approach that typically happens when same-minded researchers work on sustainable problems together. When researchers use their inside view, they concentrate narrowly on the problem at hand which may lead to overoptimistic judgments. The outside view, on the other hand, ignores information at hand and instead examines a broad set of problems outside the narrow scope of what comes to mind first. Multidisciplinary approaches help researchers to obtain an outside view as different fields and expertise bring different perspectives on sustainable problems and solutions for their sustainable business model design (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016).

Understanding these underlying cognitive processes (Bastian et al., 2025) matter as they may positively impact the quality of idea-generation processes (Frederiks et al., 2019). However, including a broader range of stakeholders may simultaneously create novel challenges. When stakeholders have different expectations, developing a common pathway becomes more complicated (Scheyvens et al., 2016). This may happen when stakeholders do not see a clear direction in the future (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994) or question the plausibility that problems are addressed correctly (Suchman, 1995). Thus, it is evident that collaborations should be aligned, with stakeholders committed and motivated to common goals that represent shared values (Bastian & Zucchella, 2023; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). This also involves a mutual understanding of roles and potential perceptual differences between stakeholders and what they know (Huber & Lewis, 2010).

In conclusion, this chapter highlights the significance of myth-busting as a crucial tool for challenging long-standing assumptions in sustainable management. By critically examining prevailing beliefs, both researchers and industry professionals can move beyond conventional approaches to encourage deeper insights and drive meaningful transformation. Debunking myths not only strengthens evidence-based decision-making but also promotes innovation and multidisciplinary collaboration, leading to more sustainable tourism practices. Future myth-busters will enable organizations to ask more relevant questions, make more informed choices, and make smarter decisions across research, policy, and practice.