Skip to content
Advocating for Nature-Friendly Energy Policies: EuroNatur campaigns for renewable energy solutions that do not harm biodiversity. They oppose the construction of new hydropower plants and the use of forest biomass for energy, advocating instead for solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. citeturn0search1Protecting Natural Forests: The organization emphasizes the strict protection of Europe's remaining old-growth and primary forests, recognizing their critical role in biodiversity conservation and climate resilience. citeturn0search2Influencing EU Nature Conservation Policy: EuroNatur actively engages with European Union policymakers to ensure that environmental considerations are prioritized in legislation and funding. They advocate for increased financial support for biodiversity protection and the proper implementation of environmental directives. citeturn0search5Collaborating with Local Partners: Through a network of reliable and competent partners, EuroNatur works on the ground to implement conservation projects, ensuring that local communities are involved and benefit from sustainable development initiatives. citeturn0search8
Shift from purely advocacy to a multi-stakeholder collaboration model, emphasizing partnerships with businesses and communities.Focus more on education and capacity building for local communities, empowering them to take part in sustainable water management practices.Prioritize innovations like real-time pollution monitoring systems and bio-remediation technologies.
Public advocacy and mobilization, Scientific expertise, lobbying influence, collaboration, access to financial supportLimited budget for immediate action, potential conflict with local industries with agricultural needs, and other needs, Lack of capacity to implement large-scale solutions
Collaborative emergency response, and fundingStrengthening partnerships with local stakeholdersExpanding community engagement and educationPolicy legislative advocacy Integration of Sustainability into Economic and Social StrategiesMission and vision alignmentTroustis? Protect the river?
Increase the cost of current policies. In the example, if the cost of current policies increases, the dominant strategy switches to stringent policies.Increase the benefit of astringent policy. Firms can perhaps get customers to pay for the stringent policies. There is evidence of this with Fairtrade and premium electricity programs based on renewable energy. If the benefit increases by a certain amount, the dominant strategy becomes a stringent policy.Encourage governments and companies to move away from maximizing their own benefit and make them look to the greater good. In the game, this corresponds to playing stringent policies, no matter what.
Financial Sustainability: Greenpeace relies heavily on donations, which are often unpredictable and subject to economic fluctuations. The organization needs to find more sustainable and diversified revenue streams.Changing Landscape: The environmental movement is evolving, with a growing emphasis on collaborative solutions and engagement with corporations. Greenpeace needs to adapt its approach to remain relevant and impactful.Impact Measurement: The organization must develop robust metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of its initiatives and attract investors and partners.
Embrace Social Entrepreneurship: Greenpeace should actively pursue social entrepreneurship initiatives that generate both social and economic value. This could involve:Developing Impact Investing Opportunities: Partner with impact investors to fund renewable energy projects, sustainable agriculture initiatives, and other environmentally focused ventures.Launching B Corporations: Establish B Corporations that operate according to high social and environmental standards, allowing Greenpeace to generate revenue while upholding its values.Creating Hybrid Organizations: Develop hybrid organizations that combine the strengths of both nonprofits and for-profits, leveraging the best of both worlds.Promote Sustainable Business Models: Greenpeace should encourage corporations to adopt sustainable business models that prioritize environmental and social responsibility. This could involve:Developing Ethical Supply Chains: Partner with companies to create ethical and transparent supply chains that minimize environmental impact and promote fair labor practices.Promoting Circular Economy Principles: Advocate for circular economy models that reduce waste and promote resource efficiency.Supporting Inclusive Business Models: Encourage businesses to create inclusive business models that benefit communities and address poverty.Strengthen Impact Measurement: Greenpeace needs to develop robust social impact measurement frameworks to demonstrate the effectiveness of its initiatives. This could involve:Utilizing Social Return on Investment (SROI): Implement SROI analysis to quantify the social and environmental benefits of its projects.Developing Impact Metrics: Create specific metrics to track the impact of its initiatives across various areas, including environmental protection, community development, and poverty reduction.Collaborating with Experts: Partner with social impact measurement experts to ensure the rigor and credibility of its data.
Core Competencies and Consistency with Mission: The recommendations align with Greenpeace's core mission of environmental protection and its expertise in campaigning and advocacy.External Customers and Internal Clients: The recommendations cater to the needs of Greenpeace's stakeholders, including donors, supporters, and potential partners.Competitors: The recommendations position Greenpeace as a leader in the evolving environmental movement, differentiating it from other organizations.Attractiveness: The recommendations offer a path to financial sustainability and increased impact, making Greenpeace more attractive to investors, partners, and supporters.
Focusing solely on traditional fundraising: This approach may be insufficient to meet Greenpeace's growing financial needs and could limit its ability to pursue innovative initiatives.Expanding its direct-action campaigns: While effective in raising awareness, this approach may not be sustainable in the long term and could lead to conflicts with authorities.Market acceptance: There is a risk that the market may not be receptive to Greenpeace's social entrepreneurship initiatives.Competition: The organization may face competition from other organizations operating in the same space.Impact measurement challenges: Accurately measuring social impact can be complex and require significant resources.
Year 1: Develop a detailed strategy for social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models.Year 2: Launch pilot projects for impact investing, B Corporations, and hybrid organizations.Year 3: Evaluate the success of pilot projects and scale up successful initiatives.Year 4: Develop a comprehensive impact measurement framework and begin reporting on social and environmental outcomes.
Carter Roberts, CEO of WWF-US, who is tasked with leading the organization through a period of strategic change.
More
Share
Explore
Business model answers
Business models
A business model is a management hypothesis about what customers want, how they want it and how an enterprise can meet those needs and get paid for doing so.
How do organizations develop business models from strategy?
What are characteristics of a successful business model?
Compatibility with corporate goals
Is the business model aligned with the corporate goals? Decisions made during the development of the business model should create consequences that enable the company to achieve its goals.
Self-reinforcing business model
Decisions made by management during the development of a business model should complement and reinforce each other (internal consistency).
Ryanair's Business model example
The business model generates positive growth cycles Example Ryanair:
Cycle 1: Low price lower fixed costs
Cycle 2: Low price costs per passenger
high volume greater bargaining power with suppliers even lower prices
high volume high capacity utilization lower fixed even lower prices
Cycle 3: Low price
variable costs even lower prices
low service expectations no meal offerings lower
→→→
→
→→→
→→→
→
→
Employees?
Robustness against four risk factors
1. Imitation: Can competitors copy the business model?
2. Holdup: Delays caused by customers, suppliers, or other players in the value chain (bargaining power).
3. Slack: Lack of employee commitment, inefficient use of resources, theft, etc.
4. Substitution: When new products reduce the demand for your own product.
EuroNatur's current strategy focuses on transboundary nature conservation across Europe, aiming to protect wildlife and their habitats while promoting sustainable development in harmony with nature. Key components of their strategy include:
By integrating these approaches, EuroNatur aims to address both the ecological and climate crises, striving for a Europe where nature and people coexist harmoniously.
Do you need to adjust your strategy?
• Business Model - Elmira
− How does your organization’s current business model support or
hinder its ability to respond to the Silberlauf River crisis?
− What changes to your business model could help align your
organization's activities with the sustainability needs of the river
and the surrounding community?
− Present a revised business model that incorporates strategies for
addressing the crisis, ensuring long-term ecological and economic
Viability.
1. How does your organization’s current business model support or hinder its ability to respond to the Silberlauf River crisis?
• Public advocacy and mobilization, Scientific expertise, lobbying influence, collaboration, access to financial support
• Limited budget for immediate action, potential conflict with local industries with agricultural needs, and other needs, Lack of capacity to implement large-scale solutions
Current Business Model Overview (Greenpeace/Environmental NGOs):
• Advocacy and Awareness: NGOs like Greenpeace primarily work by raising awareness about environmental issues through campaigns, public outreach, and collaboration with other stakeholders. They often influence public opinion and policymakers to take action on environmental matters.
• Research and Data Collection: These organizations often conduct scientific research, collaborate with academics, and monitor environmental conditions to provide data that supports their arguments for policy changes and environmental protection.
• Campaigning and Lobbying: Greenpeace focuses on lobbying governments, industries, and local authorities to adopt stronger environmental regulations and practices, using public pressure and media campaigns.
• Partnerships with Local Communities: Environmental NGOs often form alliances with local communities to push for changes in practices related to water use, waste management, and pollution control.
Strengths of the Current Model in Addressing the Crisis:
• Public Advocacy and Mobilization: Greenpeace’s ability to mobilize public opinion and generate widespread attention through media and campaigns can help bring pressure on local authorities and businesses to take immediate action on the Silberlauf crisis.
• Scientific Expertise: NGOs often have access to environmental experts and research, allowing them to understand the specific threats posed to the river and present scientifically backed solutions to stakeholders.
• Lobbying Influence: The ability to work with policymakers, businesses, and local governments positions NGOs like Greenpeace well to push for legislative and regulatory changes to address the root causes of the crisis.
Weaknesses of the Current Model:
• Limited Funding for Immediate Action: While Greenpeace and similar NGOs often raise funds for long-term sustainability projects, their funding may not be sufficient to address immediate disaster response measures (e.g., emergency cleanup, direct intervention to mitigate pollution).
• Potential Conflict with Local Industries: NGOs advocating for strict environmental regulations may face resistance from industries like agriculture, steelworks, and tourism, which are significant stakeholders in the Silberlauf region. This could limit the scope of influence or lead to tensions with key economic sectors.
• Capacity to Implement Large-Scale Solutions: NGOs generally do not have the capacity to implement infrastructure changes (e.g., sewage treatment upgrades, water management systems), which are crucial for resolving the crisis in the long term.
2. What changes to your business model could help align your organization’s activities with the sustainability needs of the river and the surrounding community?
• Collaborative emergency response, and funding
• Strengthening partnerships with local stakeholders
• Expanding community engagement and education
• Policy legislative advocacy
• Integration of Sustainability into Economic and Social Strategies ℰ𝓁𝓂𝒾𝓇𝒶, [Jan 8, 2025 at 22:01]
To better align with the immediate needs of the Silberlauf River crisis, Greenpeace or a similar NGO could make the following adjustments:
1. Collaborative Emergency Response and Funding:
• Emergency Response Fund: Establish a dedicated fund to support immediate crisis response, such as the cleanup of sewage contamination, water testing, and the restoration of aquatic life.
• Rapid Response Teams: Create teams equipped to respond to pollution events swiftly, possibly in collaboration with local authorities and other stakeholders.
2. Strengthening Partnerships with Local Stakeholders:
• Joint Initiatives with Local Authorities: NGOs can work more closely with local governments and businesses (e.g., the steelworks, agricultural enterprises) to jointly develop crisis mitigation strategies and long-term restoration plans.
• Public-Private Collaboration: Work with industries to support investments in cleaner technologies, wastewater treatment, and sustainable agricultural practices that minimize runoff.
3. Expanding Community Engagement and Education:
• Community-Based Pollution Monitoring: Empower local communities to monitor pollution levels in the river, providing real-time data that can be used to press for policy changes.
• Public Education Campaigns: Launch local and regional campaigns to educate residents and industries on sustainable practices, water conservation, and reducing pollution sources.
4. Integration of Sustainability into Economic and Social Strategies:
• Green Economy Transition: Advocate for policies that transition the region toward a green economy, promoting renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green manufacturing practices that do not degrade the river ecosystem.
• Sustainable Tourism: Promote eco-friendly tourism that encourages visitors to enjoy the river while contributing to its preservation through environmental fees or donations.
5. Policy and Legislative Advocacy:
• Tighter Pollution Regulations: Push for more stringent regulations on wastewater management, especially during extreme weather events. This could include increasing the capacity of sewage treatment facilities, requiring industries to adopt zero-waste principles, and enhancing penalties for pollution violations.
• Climate Change Adaptation Policies: Advocate for climate change adaptation strategies that address the risks of extreme weather (e.g., flooding, drought) and their impact on the river system. ℰ𝓁𝓂𝒾𝓇𝒶, [Jan 8, 2025 at 22:01]
3. Presenting a Revised Business Model for Addressing the Crisis
A revised business model would incorporate the following strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Silberlauf River and the surrounding community:
A. Mission and Vision Alignment
• Mission: To restore and protect the Silberlauf River and its surrounding ecosystems, ensuring a balance between ecological health, economic development, and social well-being.
• Vision: A sustainable, resilient river basin where water resources are protected, industries and communities thrive through eco-friendly practices, and biodiversity is preserved for future generations.
B. Key Activities
1. Crisis Response and Management: Immediate actions to contain and mitigate the effects of pollution, restore water quality, and manage the crisis with local authorities and stakeholders.
2. Sustainable River Restoration: Implement long-term ecological restoration projects focusing on water quality improvement, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience.
3. Public Engagement and Advocacy: Increase awareness through media campaigns, public education, and lobbying to influence policy changes.
4. Partnerships for Sustainable Practices: Work closely with businesses, local governments, and communities to ensure sustainable water use and pollution control.
C. Key Partnerships
• Local Government: Collaborate with local municipalities and authorities to manage the river basin sustainably.
• Industry Partners: Work with agricultural enterprises, steelworks, and tourism operators to adopt cleaner practices and improve their impact on the environment.
• Academic and Research Institutions: Partner with universities and research organizations for scientific studies on the river's ecology and pollution control methods.
D. Funding Sources
• Donations and Grants: Mobilize public support and funding through donations, international grants, and environmental funds.
• Corporate Sponsorship: Engage businesses in sustainable practices through corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, including contributions to river restoration.
• Government Funding: Advocate for government funds to support disaster recovery and long-term sustainability efforts.
E. Long-term Sustainability Goals
• Pollution Reduction: Achieve a 50% reduction in river pollution levels within the next 5 years.
• Biodiversity Restoration: Increase fish populations and aquatic life by restoring natural habitats along the riverbanks.
• Climate Adaptation: Strengthen the river’s resilience to climate change through improved water management and sustainable land-use practices.
- How does your organization ensure that employees feel safe to speak up during the crisis?
Our organization fosters an environment of psychological safety by implementing anonymous reporting systems, conducting regular feedback sessions, and creating a culture of open dialogue. We emphasize inclusivity and transparency in all crisis-related communication, ensuring that employees know their input is valued and acted upon. Leaders are trained in active listening and conflict resolution to further support this approach.
- What mechanisms are in place for employees to contribute ideas or concerns?
Mechanisms include suggestion boxes (both physical and digital), dedicated forums for brainstorming, and employee committees that meet regularly to discuss ongoing issues. These structures empower employees at all levels to propose solutions and raise concerns. Digital tools like Trello or Slack enable real-time collaboration and idea-sharing during the crisis.
- Identify any internal barriers that might prevent employees from speaking openly about the crisis.
Potential barriers include fear of retaliation, a hierarchical culture that discourages upward feedback, or a lack of awareness about reporting mechanisms. To address these issues, we conduct awareness campaigns, ensure whistleblower protections, and train managers to actively encourage and reward employee contributions.
2. Structures ℰ𝓁𝓂𝒾𝓇𝒶, [Jan 8, 2025 at 22:01]
- How does your organization’s internal structure support or hinder its ability to make ethical decisions during the crisis?
Answer:
Our decentralized structure enables quick, localized responses to ethical dilemmas. However, inconsistencies can arise across regions, making it essential to implement overarching ethical guidelines and oversight committees to ensure alignment. A clear chain of accountability supports ethical decision-making and minimizes delays during crises.
- What structural changes might be necessary for your organization to effectively collaborate with other stakeholders on the river's recovery?
Answer:
We recommend forming a Crisis Management Taskforce with representatives from key stakeholder groups, such as local governments, industries, and NGOs. Establishing cross-functional teams within our organization can also ensure more integrated decision-making. Digital collaboration tools can further streamline communication and data sharing.
- How can your organization’s structural approach to decision-making be positioned as an advantage during discussions with other stakeholders in the crisis meeting?
Answer:
Our structure’s adaptability and inclusivity can be highlighted as strengths during stakeholder discussions. For instance, emphasizing our decentralized teams’ ability to act quickly in localized areas while maintaining centralized coordination ensures both agility and consistency. Transparency in decision-making processes also builds stakeholder trust.
PRESENTATION
- How do you handle waste and minimize pollution?
We utilize a circular economy approach to waste management, focusing on recycling, reuse, and waste reduction at the source. Partnerships with technology providers enable us to implement innovative waste treatment solutions, such as bio-based remediation for polluted water.
- Do you see that you need to adapt your governance system ?
Yes, Adapting the governance system is crucial for an NGO restoring a river to address dynamic environmental challenges, engage diverse stakeholders, ensure compliance with changing regulations, optimize resources, and integrate monitoring and feedback for continuous improvement.
- Do you see a need to handle your waste differently?
Yes, we plan to adopt more advanced technologies for waste treatment, such as real-time monitoring of waste streams to prevent pollutants from reaching the river. Additionally, collaborating with industries along the Silberlauf to implement stricter waste disposal standards is essential.
- Do you see that you pollute a lot?
As an NGO focused on protecting and restoring a river, we strive to minimize pollution. However, it's essential to assess our activities critically, such as operations, resource use, or logistical processes, to identify any unintended environmental impacts. This includes evaluating practices like transportation, material use, and waste management.
If we identify areas where we are contributing to pollution, we will take steps to address them by implementing eco-friendly practices, reducing waste, and promoting sustainable resource use. Continuous monitoring and feedback will help us ensure that our operations align with our mission to protect and restore the river.
What is a business model?
With which tool can we map business models? What are characteristics of a successful business model?
But what exactly is a business model (BM)?
[1]
David Teece, UC Berkeley
Depicting elements of a business model using the BM canvas
Source: strategyzer.com (2024) 17
Explicating characteristics of a successful business model
Compatibility with corporate goals
Is the business model aligned with the corporate goals? Decisions made during the development of the business model should create consequences that enable the company to achieve its goals.
Self-reinforcing business model
Decisions made by management during the development of a business model should complement and reinforce each other (internal consistency).
Robustness against four risk factors
1. Imitation: Can competitors copy the business model?
2. Holdup: Delays caused by customers, suppliers, or other players in the value chain (bargaining power). 3. Slack: Lack of employee commitment, inefficient use of resources, theft, etc.
4. Substitution: When new products reduce the demand for your own product.
Source: Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart (2011) 18
Depciting an example of a self-reinforcing BM
The business model generates positive growth cycles
Example Ryanair:
Cycle 1: Low price → high volume → greater bargaining power with suppliers → lower fixed costs → even lower prices
Cycle 2: Low price → high volume → high capacity utilization → lower fixed costs per passenger → even lower prices
Cycle 3: Low price → low service expectations → no meal offerings → lower variable costs → even lower prices
Source: Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart (2011) 19
Gather experience in working with the Business Model Canvas...
[3] [4]
[2]
Task: Outline the Nespresso business model! What is the key core element?
Source: strategyzer.com (2024) 22
Applying the tool
https://tinyurl.com/mvc3h48u
Sit together in groups.
Fill in the business model canvas for the Nespresso business model as presented in class.
23
Explaining the business model of Nespresso (1/3)
PARTNER NETWORK
Machine Manufacturer
Coffee farme rs
KEY ACTIVITIES
VALUE PROPOSITION
Nespresso Mach ines
Nesp resso Pads
Convenience, great coffee, large variety
B2C Distribution
Marketing Production
KEY RESOURCES
IP/Patents Brand
Distribution Channels
Production Facilities
Coffee
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
Nespresso Club
DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
CUSTOMER SEGMENTS
Hou seholds
Business
Nespresso .com
Call Center
Mail Orde r
Nespresso Stores
COST STRUCTURE
Production
Marketing
B2C Distribution
REVENUE STREAMS
1 x Machine Repetitive Sales Pad Sales
24
Explaining the business model of Nespresso (2/3)
[5]
25
Explaining the business model of Nespresso (3/3)
PARTNER NETWORK
Machine Manufacturer
Coffee farme rs
KEY ACTIVITIES
VALUE PROPOSITION
Nespresso Mach ines
Nesp resso Pads
Convenience, great coffee, large variety
B2C Distribution
Marketing Production
KEY RESOURCES
IP/Patents
Brand
Coffee
Distribution Channels
Production Facilities
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
Nespresso Club
DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
CUSTOMER SEGMENTS
Hou seholds
Business
Nespresso .com
Call Center
Mail Orde r
Nespresso Stores
COST STRUCTURE
Production
Marketing
B2C Distribution
REVENUE STREAMS
1 x Machine Repetitive Sales Pad Sales
26
Exploring the relaunched business model of Nespresso
PARTNER NETWORK
Machine Manufacturer
Coffee farme rs
KEY ACTIVITIES
VALUE PROPOSITION
Nespresso Mach ines
Nesp resso Pads
Convenience, great coffee, large variety
Sustainability?
B2C Distribution
Marketing Production
IP/Patents
Brand
KEY RESOURCES
Distribution ManCahgainngels
Coffee
a razor-blade BM
Production Facilities
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
Nespresso Club
Nespresso Brand
DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
CUSTOMER SEGMENTS
Hou seholds
Business
Nespresso .com
Mail Orde r
Retail
New Nespresso customer
Stores groups, e.g., vending
Call Center
COST STRUCTURE
Production Marketing
B2C Economies
Distribution
of scale
Licensing
REVENUE STREAMS
revenues1 x Machine Repetitive
machine makers
Sales Pad Sales
27
The story continues ... 2 headlines and their impact on the business model
Source: Kluwer Trademark Blog (2021), Swissinfo (2010) 28
Is the Business Model Canvas holistic enough? Does it account for the triple bottom line? Do we need to add dimensions to it?
Showcasing the sustainable Business Model Canvas
How to Design a Winning Business Model
Summary.
Reprint: R1101G
Most executives believe that competing through business models is critical for success, but few have come to grips with how best to do so. One common mistake, the authors’ studies show, is
...
Artwork: Damián Ortega, Controller of the Universe, 2007, found tools and wire, 285 x 405 x 455 cm
Strategy has been the primary building block of competitiveness over the past three decades, but in the future, the quest for sustainable advantage may well begin with the business model. While the convergence of information and communication technologies in the 1990s resulted in a short-lived fascination with business models, forces such as deregulation, technological change, globalization, and sustainability have rekindled interest in the concept today. Since 2006, the IBM Institute for Business Value’s biannual Global CEO Study has reported that senior executives across industries regard developing innovative business models as a major priority. A 2009 follow-up study reveals that seven out of 10 companies are engaging in business-model innovation, and an incredible 98% are modifying their business models to some extent. Business model innovation is undoubtedly here to stay.
That isn’t surprising. The pressure to crack open markets in developing countries, particularly those at the middle and bottom of the pyramid, is driving a surge in business-model innovation. The economic slowdown in the developed world is forcing companies to modify their business models or create new ones. In addition, the rise of new technology-based and low-cost rivals is threatening incumbents, reshaping industries, and redistributing profits. Indeed, the ways by which companies create and capture value through their business models is undergoing a radical transformation worldwide.
Yet most enterprises haven’t fully come to grips with how to compete through business models. Our studies over the past seven years show that much of the problem lies in companies’ unwavering focus on creating innovative models and evaluating their efficacy in isolation—just as engineers test new technologies or products. However, the success or failure of a company’s business model depends largely on how it interacts with models of other players in the industry. (Almost any business model will perform brilliantly if a company is lucky enough to be the only one in a market.) Because companies build them without thinking about the competition, they routinely deploy doomed business models.
Business Model
A business model comprises choices and
...
Our research also shows that when enterprises compete using business models that differ from one another, the outcomes are difficult to predict. One business model may appear superior to others when analyzed in isolation but create less value than the others when interactions are considered. Or rivals may end up becoming partners in value creation. Appraising models in a stand-alone fashion leads to faulty assessments of their strengths and weaknesses and bad decision making. This is a big reason why so many new business models fail.
Moreover, the propensity to ignore the dynamic elements of business models results in many companies failing to use them to their full potential. Few executives realize that they can design business models to generate winner-take-all effects that resemble the network externalities that high-tech companies such as Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook have created. Whereas network effects are an exogenous feature of technologies, winner-take-all effects can be triggered by companies if they make the right choices in developing their business models. Good business models create virtuous cycles that, over time, result in competitive advantage. Smart companies know how to strengthen their virtuous cycles, weaken those of rivals, and even use their virtuous cycles to turn competitors’ strengths into weaknesses.
“Isn’t that strategy?” we’re often asked. It isn’t—and unless managers learn to understand the distinct realms of business models, strategy, and tactics, while taking into account how they interact, they will never find the most effective ways to compete.
What Is a Business Model, Really?
Everyone agrees that executives must know how business models work if their organizations are to thrive, yet there continues to be little agreement on an operating definition. Management writer Joan Magretta defined a business model as “the story that explains how an enterprise works,” harking back to Peter Drucker, who described it as the answer to the questions: Who is your customer, what does the customer value, and how do you deliver value at an appropriate cost?
Other experts define a business model by specifying the main characteristics of a good one. For example, Harvard Business School’s Clay Christensen suggests that a business model should consist of four elements: a customer value proposition, a profit formula, key resources, and key processes. Such descriptions undoubtedly help executives evaluate business models, but they impose preconceptions about what they should look like and may constrain the development of radically different ones.
Our studies suggest that one component of a business model must be the choices that executives make about how the organization should operate—choices such as compensation practices, procurement contracts, location of facilities, extent of vertical integration, sales and marketing initiatives, and so on. Managerial choices, of course, have consequences. For instance, pricing (a choice) affects sales volume, which, in turn, shapes the company’s scale economies and bargaining power (both consequences). These consequences influence the company’s logic of value creation and value capture, so they too must have a place in the definition. In its simplest conceptualization, therefore, a business model consists of a set of managerial choices and the consequences of those choices.
Companies make three types of choices when creating business models. Policy choices determine the actions an organization takes across all its operations (such as using nonunion workers, locating plants in rural areas, or encouraging employees to fly coach class). Asset choices pertain to the tangible resources a company deploys (manufacturing facilities or satellite communication systems, for instance). And governance choices refer to how a company arranges decision-making rights over the other two (should we own or lease machinery?). Seemingly innocuous differences in the governance of policies and assets influence their effectiveness a great deal.
Consequences can be either flexible or rigid. A flexible consequence is one that responds quickly when the underlying choice changes. For example, choosing to increase prices will immediately result in lower volumes. By contrast, a company’s culture of frugality—built over time through policies that oblige employees to fly economy class, share hotel rooms, and work out of Spartan offices—is unlikely to disappear immediately even when those choices change, making it a rigid consequence. These distinctions are important because they affect competitiveness. Unlike flexible consequences, rigid ones are difficult to imitate because companies need time to build them.
Take, for instance, Ryanair, which switched in the early 1990s from a traditional business model to a low-cost one. The Irish airline eliminated all frills, cut costs, and slashed prices to unheard-of levels. The choices the company made included offering low fares, flying out of only secondary airports, catering to only one class of passenger, charging for all additional services, serving no meals, making only short-haul flights, and utilizing a standardized fleet of Boeing 737s. It also chose to use a nonunionized workforce, offer high-powered incentives to employees, operate out of a lean headquarters, and so on. The consequences of those choices were high volumes, low variable and fixed costs, a reputation for reasonable fares, and an aggressive management team, to name a few. (See “Ryanair’s Business Model Then and Now.”) The result is a business model that enables Ryanair to offer a decent level of service at a low cost without radically lowering customers’ willingness to pay for its tickets.
Ryanair’s Business Model Then and Now
Then This depiction of Ryanair’s business model in the 1980s highlights the airline’s major choices at
...
How Business Models Generate Virtuous Cycles
Not all business models work equally well, of course. Good ones share certain characteristics: They align with the company’s goals, are self-reinforcing, and are robust. (See the sidebar “Three Characteristics of a Good Business Model.”) Above all, successful business models generate virtuous cycles, or feedback loops, that are self-reinforcing. This is the most powerful and neglected aspect of business models.
Three Characteristics of a Good Business Model
How can you tell if a business model will be effective? A good one will meet three criteria. 1. Is it
...
Our studies show that the competitive advantage of high-tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Intel stems largely from their accumulated assets—an installed base of iPods, Xboxes, or PCs, for instance. The leaders gathered those assets not by buying them but by making smart choices about pricing, royalties, product range, and so on. In other words, they’re consequences of business model choices. Any enterprise can make choices that allow it to build assets or resources—be they project management skills, production experience, reputation, asset utilization, trust, or bargaining power—that make a difference in its sector.
The consequences enable further choices, and so on. This process generates virtuous cycles that continuously strengthen the business model, creating a dynamic that’s similar to that of network effects. As the cycles spin, stocks of the company’s key assets (or resources) grow, enhancing the enterprise’s competitive advantage. Smart companies design business models to trigger virtuous cycles that, over time, expand both value creation and capture.
For example, Ryanair’s business model creates several virtuous cycles that maximize its profits through increasingly low costs and prices. (See the exhibit “Ryanair’s Key Virtuous Cycles.”) All of the cycles result in reduced costs, which allow for lower prices that grow sales and ultimately lead to increased profits. Its competitive advantage keeps growing as long as the virtuous cycles generated by its business model spin. Just as a fast-moving body is hard to stop because of kinetic energy, it’s tough to halt well-functioning virtuous cycles.
Ryanair’s Key Virtuous Cycles
Cycle 1: Low fares High volumes Greater bargaining power with suppliers Lower fixed costs Even lower
...
However, they don’t go on forever. They usually reach a limit and trigger counterbalancing cycles, or they slow down because of their interactions with other business models. In fact, when interrupted, the synergies work in the opposite direction and erode competitive advantage. For example, one of Ryanair’s cycles could become vicious if its employees unionized and demanded higher wages, and the airline could no longer offer the lowest fares. It would then lose volume, and aircraft utilization would fall. Since Ryanair’s investment in its fleet assumes a very high rate of utilization, this change would have a magnified effect on profitability.
It’s easy to see that virtuous cycles can be created by a low-cost, no-frills player, but a differentiator may also create virtuous cycles. Take the case of Irizar, a Spanish manufacturer of bodies for luxury motor coaches, which posted large losses after a series of ill-conceived moves in the 1980s. Irizar’s leadership changed twice in 1990 and morale hit an all-time low, prompting the new head of the company’s steering team, Koldo Saratxaga, to make major changes. He transformed the organization’s business model by making choices that yielded three rigid consequences: employees’ tremendous sense of ownership, feelings of accomplishment, and trust. The choices included eliminating hierarchy, decentralizing decision making, focusing on teams to get work done, and having workers own the assets. (See the exhibit “Irizar’s Novel Business Model.”)
Irizar’s Novel Business Model
When Irizar—a Spanish cooperative that manufactures luxury motor coach bodies—created a radically
...
Irizar’s main objective, as a cooperative, is to increase the number of well-paying jobs in the Basque Country, so the company developed a business model that generates a great deal of customer value. Its key virtuous cycle connects customers’ willingness to pay with relatively low cost, generating high profits that feed innovation, service, and high quality. In fact, quality is the cornerstone of Irizar’s culture. Focusing on customer loyalty and an empowered workforce, the company enjoyed a 23.9% compound annual growth rate over the 14 years that Saratxaga was CEO. Producing 4,000 coaches in 2010 and generating revenues of about €400 million, Irizar is an example of a radically different business model that generates virtuous cycles.
Competing with Business Models
It’s easy to infuse virtuousness in cycles when there are no competitors, but few business models operate in vacuums—at least, not for long. To compete with rivals that have similar business models, companies must quickly build rigid consequences so that they can create and capture more value than rivals do. It’s a different story when enterprises compete against dissimilar business models; the results are often unpredictable, and it’s tough to know which business model will perform well.
Take, for instance, the battle between two of Finland’s dominant retailers: S Group, a consumers’ cooperative, and Kesko, which uses entrepreneur-retailers to own and operate its stores. We’ve tracked the firms for over a decade, and Kesko’s business model appears to be superior: The incentives it offers franchisees should result in rapid growth and high profits. However, it turns out that the S Group’s business model hurts Kesko more than Kesko’s affects the S Group. Since customers own the S Group, the retailer often reduces prices and increases customer bonuses, which allows it to gain market share from Kesko. That forces Kesko to lower its prices and its profits fall, demotivating its entrepreneur-retailers. As a result, Kesko underperforms the S Group. Over time, the S Group’s opaque corporate governance system allows slack to creep into the system, and it is forced to hike prices. This allows Kesko to also increase prices and improve profitability, drive its entrepreneur-retailers, and win back more customers through its superior shopping experience. That sparks another cycle of rivalry.
Companies can compete through business models in three ways: They can strengthen their own virtuous cycles, block or destroy the cycles of rivals, or build complementarities with rivals’ cycles, which results in substitutes mutating into complements.
Strengthen your virtuous cycle.
Companies can modify their business models to generate new virtuous cycles that enable them to compete more effectively with rivals. These cycles often have consequences that strengthen cycles elsewhere in the business model. Until recently, Boeing and Airbus competed using essentially the same virtuous cycles. Airbus matched Boeing’s offerings in every segment, the exception being the very large commercial transport segment where Boeing had launched the 747 in 1969. Given the lumpiness of demand for aircraft, their big-ticket nature, and cyclicality, price competition has been intense.
How Airbus Bolstered Its Business Model
Companies can often strengthen their business models to take on competitors more effectively. Airbus’s
...
Historically, Boeing held the upper hand because its 747 enjoyed a monopoly, and it could reinvest those profits to strengthen its position in other segments. Analysts estimate that the 747 contributed 70 cents to every dollar of Boeing’s profits by the early 1990s. Since R&D investment is the most important driver of customers’ willingness to pay, Airbus was at a disadvantage. It stayed afloat by obtaining low-interest loans from European governments. Without the subsidies, Airbus’s cycle would have become vicious.
With the subsidies likely to dry up, Airbus modified its business model by developing a very large commercial transport, the 380. To dissuade Airbus, Boeing announced a stretch version of the 747. However, that aircraft would cut into the 747’s profits, so it seems unlikely that Boeing will ever launch it. Not only does the 380 help maintain the virtuousness of Airbus’s cycle in small and midsize planes, but also it helps decelerate the virtuousness of Boeing’s cycle. The increase in rivalry suggests that the 747 will become less of a money-spinner for Boeing. That’s why it is trying to strengthen its position in midsize aircraft, where competition is likely to become even tougher when sales of the 380 take off, by developing the 787.
Weaken competitors’ cycles.
Some companies get ahead by using the rigid consequences of their choices to weaken new entrants’ virtuous cycles. Whether a new technology disrupts an industry or not depends not only on the intrinsic benefits of that technology but also on interactions with other players. Consider, for instance, the battle between Microsoft and Linux, which feeds its virtuous cycle by being free of charge and allowing users to contribute code improvements. Unlike Airbus, Microsoft has focused on weakening its competitor’s virtuous cycle. It uses its relationship with OEMs to have Windows preinstalled on PCs and laptops so that it can prevent Linux from growing its customer base. It discourages people from taking advantage of Linux’s free operating system and applications by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the products.
In the future, Microsoft could raise Windows’ value by learning more from users and offering special prices to increase sales in the education sector, or decrease Linux’s value by undercutting purchases by strategic buyers and preventing Windows applications from running on Linux. Linux’s value creation potential may theoretically be greater than that of Windows, but its installed base will never eclipse that of Microsoft as long as the software giant succeeds in disrupting its key virtuous cycles.
Turn competitors into complements.
Rivals with different business models can also become partners in value creation. In 1999, Betfair, an online betting exchange, took on British bookmakers such as Ladbrokes and William Hill by enabling people to anonymously place bets against one another. Unlike traditional bookmakers who only offer odds, Betfair is a two-sided internet-based platform that allows customers to both place bets and offer odds to others. One-sided and two-sided businesses have different virtuous cycles: While bookmakers create value by managing risk and capture it through the odds they offer, betting exchanges themselves bear no risk. They create value by matching the two sides of the market and capture it by taking a cut of the net winnings.
Over the past decade, Ladbrokes’ and William Hill’s gross winnings have declined, so Betfair has hurt them, but not as much as expected. Because Betfair has improved odds in general, gamblers lose less money. They then place more wagers, and when bookies pay out, bettors gamble again, feeding a virtuous cycle. This has expanded the British gambling market by a larger proportion than just the improvement of odds might suggest. The better odds Betfair offers also help traditional bookmakers gauge market sentiment more accurately and hedge their exposures at a lower cost. When a new business model creates complementarities between competitors, it is less likely that incumbents will respond aggressively. The initial reaction from bookmakers to Betfair was hostile, but they have become more accommodating of its presence ever since.
Business Models vs. Strategy vs. Tactics
No three concepts are of as much use to managers or as misunderstood as strategy, business models, and tactics. Many use the terms synonymously, which can lead to poor decision making.
To be sure, the three are interrelated. Whereas business models refer to the logic of the company—how it operates and creates and captures value for stakeholders in a competitive marketplace—strategy is the plan to create a unique and valuable position involving a distinctive set of activities. That definition implies that the enterprise has made a choice about how it wishes to compete in the marketplace. The system of choices and consequences is a reflection of the strategy, but it isn’t the strategy; it’s the business model. Strategy refers to the contingent plan about which business model to use. The key word is contingent; strategies contain provisions against a range of contingencies (such as competitors’ moves or environmental shocks), whether or not they take place. While every organization has a business model, not every organization has a strategy—a plan of action for contingencies that may arise.
Consider Ryanair. The airline was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s, and the strategy it chose to reinvent itself was to become the Southwest Airlines of Europe. The new logic of the organization—its way of creating and capturing value for stakeholders—was Ryanair’s new business model.
Changing strategic choices can be expensive, but enterprises still have a range of options to compete that are comparatively easy and inexpensive to deploy. These are tactics—the residual choices open to a company by virtue of the business model that it employs. Business models determine the tactics available to compete in the marketplace. For instance, Metro, the world’s largest newspaper, has created an ad-sponsored business model that dictates that the product must be free. That precludes Metro from using price as a tactic.
Think of a business model as if it were an automobile. Different car designs function differently—conventional engines operate quite differently from hybrids, and standard transmissions from automatics—and create different value for drivers. The way the automobile is built places constraints on what the driver can do; it determines which tactics the driver can use. A low-powered compact would create more value for the driver who wants to maneuver through the narrow streets of Barcelona’s Gothic Quarter than would a large SUV, in which the task would be impossible. Imagine that the driver could modify the features of the car: shape, power, fuel consumption, seats. Such modifications would not be tactical; they would constitute strategies because they would entail changing the machine (the “business model”) itself. In sum, strategy is designing and building the car, the business model is the car, and tactics are how you drive the car.
Strategy focuses on building competitive advantage by defending a unique position or exploiting a valuable and idiosyncratic set of resources. Those positions and resources are created by virtuous cycles, so executives should develop business models that activate those cycles. That’s tough, especially because of their interactions with those of other players such as competitors, complementors, customers, and suppliers that are all fighting to create and capture value too. That’s the essence of competitiveness—and developing strategy, tactics, or innovative business models has never been easy.
RMRamon Casadesus-Masanell is the Herman C. Krannert Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. His research focuses on how businesses can adapt their models to enhance competitiveness and innovation. JRJoan E. Ricart (ricart@iese.edu) is the Carl Schroder Professor of Strategic Management and Economics at IESE Business School in Barcelona.
Value of environmental activists: WWF vs Greenpeace
of HBS findings of his case study on the topic. It is an amazing history of both the organisations and the role they play in our daily lives. As they deliver public goods, it is a struggle for both.
They have an interesting history:
Greenpeace was born in Canada out of an initiative to stop U.S. nuclear testing in Alaska in the early 1970s. The idea was to campaign for peace using an ecological platform; that is, nuclear tests are not only bad for warfare and human death, but testing does irreparable damage to species and landmass. From 1971 to 1974, Greenpeace’s main push was on nuclear disarmament. Many early Greenpeace members were journalists and knew how to get across a compelling story. They used the media as their weapon against powerful governments in an attempt to drive policy changes. The Greenpeace methods of “bearing witness,” “direct action,” and creating a “media mindbomb” became their trademarks as the organization expanded into fights for other environmental causes such as the Save the Whales and the Seal Pup campaigns.
WWF was founded in response to the destruction of Africa’s natural habitat when British biologist Sir Julian Huxley wrote articles in an English newspaper warning that large portions of wildlife would become extinct if no action was taken. The articles attracted attention from scientists, businesspeople, and nongovernmental organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN had been set up in neutral Switzerland in 1948 by 18 governments and 100 NGOs with the objective of coordinating activities to preserve wildlife. As of the early 1960s, however, the IUCN did not have sufficient resources to carry out its projects, which led to the idea to form a new organization focused on fundraising and conservation in coordination with the IUCN. The WWF was constituted in Switzerland in 1961 with the purpose of conserving natural resources by acquiring and managing land while coordinating and communicating the necessity of conservation to a wide number of stakeholders.
So Greenpeace is like a campaigner where as WWF actually works on projects
In the organizations’ histories, some differences are clear: Greenpeace has primarily been a campaigner while WWF presides over conservation projects. In class, we talk about Greenpeace trying to convince others to deliver the public good while WWF works directly on providing the public good.
Other key differences include the composition of the founding members and the methods in which the organizations gained public support. Greenpeace’s early membership was made up of journalists, scientists, and activists, whereas WWF attracted the attention of scientists, businesspeople, and government officials. Greenpeace’s beginnings were loosely knit and highly autonomous, since it started more as a movement than as a charity. It wasn’t until nearly 10 years after the first campaign that consistent rules were developed on the use of the Greenpeace name and the opening of new offices. In contrast, WWF began as a centralized organization and closely controlled the growth of international sites.
Both have looked at using high-profile individuals and used media to highlight their actions. Now both have shifted to broader range of environmental issues.
How does one value their activities? They are in public good delivery and are based on non-profit. Interestingly, even in case of non-profit, the idea is to generate more value than the cost:
However, looking at value from an economic point of view, we need to shift to the idea of comparing willingness-to-pay (WTP) to cost. In class, we work through a hypothetical example by asking students, How much are each one of you willing to contribute each year to protect the earth against degradation? While figures range, students are asked to imagine that every human being puts $1 toward the protection of the earth, which equates to approximately $6 billion per year. On top of that we hypothesize the WTP of major corporations. If we take the top 5,000 global corporations, we could ask how much each would be willing to pay. It would take $200,000 per company to come up with another $1 billion. For the sake of class discussion, we can say that governments will contribute another $1 billion to bring the total up to $8 billion.
Now, we can move to the cost side. If we take the expenses of the campaigns of WWF and Greenpeace in their last fiscal years, the total would come to about $677 million. Therefore, there is a very large hypothetical wedge between WTP and cost of about $7.2 billion. The point is not to argue on an exact figure for WTP, but rather to highlight that even though neither organization has a profit objective, both still strive to drive a wedge between WTP and cost.
The discussion then moves on to how they are acting as both complements (working for a common cause like Save Whales) to substitutes (as donors might select one for funds).
Then there are issues of free riding as governments might just ride on other government’s proposal to improve environment. He explains the issue using game theory:
We can use the prisoner’s dilemma problem to understand the choice that a government must make between lax and stringent environmental policies. By forming a hypothetical 2×2 matrix comparing the benefits and costs of two countries, both countries would be better off by moving to stringent environmental policies. However, if one country moves to stringent policies, the other is better off by staying with lax policies because it will incur less cost and accrue more benefit. There are some generic strategies to change the equilibrium from lax to stringent policies:
The under-provision of public goods is an important problem societies face. Greenpeace and other similar NGOs have been formed to make sure that the public good is supplied by changing the payoffs of those who can supply it. Although it may seem obvious, it is important to point out that no one firm, organization, or government can “produce and distribute” the public good, since the natural environment cannot be owned outright.
He ends the discussion pointing to challenges for both the organisations. Though there is more awareness with respect to environment, both have to keep finding ways to fund themselves. And ensure the governments/organisations deliver on their promises and raise new issues.
Useful insights on the operations of these 2 major activist organisations. Assigning value to activism activities is as crucial. We have many such movements in India. Wondering what their value is?
Free Greenpeace Case Study Solution | Assignment Help
Written by Gary F. Smith
Publish Date: 2025-02-01
Harvard Case - Greenpeace
"Greenpeace" Harvard business case study is written by Ramon Casadesus-Masanell, Jordan Mitchell. It deals with the challenges in the field of Social Enterprise. The case study is 25 page(s) long and it was first published on : Jul 6, 2007
At Fern Fort University, we recommend that Greenpeace adopt a multifaceted strategy focused on social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models to amplify its impact and achieve long-term sustainability. This approach involves leveraging impact investing, B Corporations, and hybrid organizations to create a more robust and resilient organization capable of addressing the complex challenges of environmental sustainability.
2. Background
Greenpeace is a global environmental organization renowned for its direct-action campaigns against environmental destruction. Founded in 1971, it has gained significant international recognition for its activism, particularly in areas like nuclear testing, deforestation, and climate change. However, the organization faces challenges in maintaining its financial independence, attracting new generations of supporters, and effectively engaging with corporations and governments.
The case study focuses on Greenpeace's efforts to develop a new business model, the 'Greenpeace Energy' project, to generate revenue through renewable energy ventures. This initiative aims to address the organization's financial constraints while aligning with its core mission of environmental protection.
3. Analysis of the Case Study
The case study highlights several key issues:
Framework: To analyze Greenpeace's situation, we can utilize the Triple Bottom Line framework, which considers social, environmental, and economic aspects of an organization's performance. This framework allows us to assess Greenpeace's current model and explore potential avenues for improvement.
Social Impact: Greenpeace has a strong track record of positive social impact through its campaigns and advocacy. However, the organization needs to find ways to scale its impact and reach more people.
Environmental Sustainability: Greenpeace's core mission is environmental protection. The 'Greenpeace Energy' project aligns with this mission by promoting renewable energy solutions.
Economic Viability: The organization needs to develop a sustainable economic model to ensure its long-term financial stability and independence.
4. Recommendations
Greenpeace should implement the following recommendations to achieve sustainable growth and maximize its impact:
5. Basis of Recommendations
These recommendations are based on the following considerations:
6. Conclusion
By embracing social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models, Greenpeace can achieve long-term financial stability, amplify its impact, and remain a leading force in the global environmental movement. This approach allows the organization to leverage its strengths, adapt to a changing landscape, and create a more sustainable and resilient future.
7. Discussion
Other alternatives not selected include:
Risks and Key Assumptions:
8. Next Steps
Greenpeace should implement the following timeline to achieve its goals:
By following these steps, Greenpeace can successfully transition to a more sustainable and impactful model, ensuring its continued relevance and success in the fight for environmental protection.
Success Story
Greenpeace Discovers How to Turn Supporters Into Monthly Sustainers
Greenpeace Discovers How to Turn Supporters Into Monthly Sustainers
Mobile subscribers were 60% more likely to become monthly sustainers.
Challenge
How Do You Turn Supporters Into Monthly Sustainers?
Fundraising is a perennial challenge for any nonprofit. With so many great causes and an unstable economy, it can be difficult to raise donations. Even an organization’s most committed donors can forget to make their usual gifts.
That’s why phone bankers called their supporters and asked them to become monthly sustainers. A monthly sustainer gives an automatic donation every month, directly from their credit card. That kind of consistent, reliable income can have a transformative effect on a nonprofit, as they plan their annual work and seek to grow their influence.
Result
Mobile Subscribers Had a 60% Higher Conversion Rate than Non-Mobile Subscribers
Greenpeace called thousands of their supporters. Only 5.6% of the people they called who were not on their mobile list agreed to become monthly sustainers. However, fully 9% of people on their mobile list agreed to the ask. The mobile subscribers were 60% more likely to become sustainers.
“By cultivating [supporters] with weekly, personal communications, we are able to transform these invested supporters into donors.” – Zachary Riddle, Greenpeace
“When a supporter gives you permission to text them, they are saying I am invested in you,” said Zachary Riddle, Senior Monthly Giving Specialist at Greenpeace. “And by cultivating them with weekly, personal communications, we are able to transform these invested supporters into donors.”
Even though the ask itself didn’t happen over SMS, the very fact that Greenpeace was using a mobile campaign increased their donations. Why? Because a mobile messaging campaign fosters an ongoing relationship with your supporters.
Through action alerts, event invites, and SMS advocacy, Greenpeace kept its mobile community engaged with their cause. When the time came to ask people to donate more, they already felt a connection to the issues that Greenpeace is fighting for.
Free World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Case Study Solution | Assignment Help
Written by Gary F. Smith
Publish Date: 2025-02-03
Harvard Case - World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
"World Wildlife Fund (WWF)" Harvard business case study is written by Ramon Casadesus-Masanell, Jordan Mitchell. It deals with the challenges in the field of Strategy. The case study is 29 page(s) long and it was first published on : Jun 30, 2016
At Fern Fort University, we recommend that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) embark on a strategic transformation focused on digital transformation, strategic alliances, and business model innovation to achieve its mission of conserving nature and reducing humanity's footprint on the planet. This transformation will involve leveraging technology and analytics, social media, and AI and machine learning to achieve greater impact, enhance its competitive advantage, and unlock new avenues for growth.
2. Background
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a global conservation organization dedicated to protecting the natural world. Facing increasing environmental challenges and a rapidly changing world, WWF needs to adapt its strategy and operations to remain effective. The case study highlights the organization's struggles with declining membership, funding pressures, and the need to find innovative ways to engage with a new generation of supporters.
The main protagonists of the case study are:
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.