Bibliometric review identifies key themes in sustainable business model innovation, revealing significant gaps in social sustainability research across developed and developing countries.
Purpose Despite the growing discussion of sustainable business model innovation (SBMI) in theory and practice, the specific sustainability dimensions driving it remain unclear. This study conducts a bibliometric review to map literature on SBMI, identifying thematic trends, key clusters and the field’s evolution while examining what dimensions of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) are prioritized. Design/methodology/approach A bibliometric performance and network analysis was done using articles retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. A total of 3,437 papers were analyzed using SciMAT and Python. Findings Results show a predominance of the environmental over the social and economic dimensions. The study discovered a strategic diagram depicting 24 clusters related to SBMI, such as Circular Economy, Servitization, Health Care Delivery and Artificial Intelligence. It also presents the thematic evolution structure of SBMI literature in four sub-periods: 1999–2010, 2011–2015, 2016–2020 and 2021–2025. Each subperiod has specifics on the subject. Differences in the sustainability dimensions adopted in the SBMI of developed and developing countries were identified. Practical implications A sustainability maturity matrix is proposed as a benchmarking tool. It can assist managers in assessing a company’s SBMI focus on social, environmental and economic dimensions to pinpoint gaps and advance their maturity level to create, deliver and capture sustainable value. Originality/value The article stresses that SBMI research should deeply explore social sustainability, whose potential to alleviate social discrepancies and injustices can significantly contribute to nations’ sustainable development. This gap opens future research and practice opportunities, detailed in a proposed research agenda.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nascimento et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: