Factors influencing business model change: a case study for the European crop protection industry

Abstract

Purpose

This paper proposes a theoretical framework for the comprehensive study of business model (BM) change by taking different types of influencing factors and different levels of analysis into account (business, industry and macro-environment).

Design/methodology/approach

Evaluation of the added value of using the combination of three existing frameworks (the business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s five forces framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017)) based on semi-structured interviews with eight companies active in the European crop protection industry. The proposed theoretical framework was used to analyse several BM change situations as presented by the companies.

Findings

Our findings reveal that the study of BM change is improved when a third type of influencing factors is considered besides drivers and facilitating/hindering factors. This third type includes factors that shape cohesion between BM components or between the BM and its environment. Second, the interaction of different types of influencing factors at different levels of analysis should be considered, as this generates a comprehensive view of the BM change situation.

Originality/value

This paper meets the demand for a theoretical handle that results in improved and more comprehensive analysis of BM change. The proposed theoretical framework combines different types of internal (business) and external (industry and macro-environment) factors that shape a BM change and considers their interaction.

Citation

Bourgeois, L., Van Meensel, J., Marchand, F. and Van Passel, S. (2024), "Factors influencing business model change: a case study for the European crop protection industry", British Food Journal, Vol. 126 No. 13, pp. 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2024-0281

1. Introduction

Business models (BM) have two (ideally alternating) purposes: stability and flexibility (Cavalcante et al., 2011). Both purposes, i.e. describing the current situation (stability) and focusing on changes to the BM (flexibility), start from an idea of what a BM is. The latter is moving broadly towards a consensus on the key dimensions of the concept (Cosenz and Bivona, 2021): value creation, delivery and capture, as the definition formulated by Teece (2010). The difference in existing definitions is revealed by the interpretation of the term at business or operational level. The key elements constituting a BM are firm specific (Bohnsack et al., 2014; Cavalcante et al., 2011) and highly dependent on the interpretive perspective (Cosenz and Bivona, 2021) or individual cognition (Cavalcante et al., 2011) because a BM is an abstraction or conceptualisation of reality. Such interpretations therefore also guide the study of BM change: the interpretation/definition of what a BM is determines the impact of a change (by setting the boundaries) (Cavalcante et al., 2011) and identifies aspects of the BM that can be changed (Joyce and Paquin, 2016).

Studies on BM change use different concepts interchangeably to describe the process, e.g. BM evolution, BM innovation or BM adaptation, but these concepts differ in their emphasis. For example, the concepts of BM evolution and BM adaptation both focus on changes to existing BM (Thornton, 2024), but differ in the drivers they take into account. BM evolution takes both internal and external drivers of BM change into account (Fritscher and Pigneur, 2014; Thornton, 2024), but BM adaptation focuses only on external drivers of change, i.e. changing environmental conditions (Thornton, 2024). As a result, BM evolution strives for internal or external consistencies (Fritscher and Pigneur, 2014; Thornton, 2024) whereas BM adaptation aims to tailor the BM to its environment (Saebi et al., 2017). The concept of BM innovation (BMI) emphasises strategy and entrepreneurship, thus approaching BM change as a well-considered management decision aimed at value creation (Bohnsack et al., 2014; Cosenz and Bivona, 2021; Saebi et al., 2017).

The mechanism behind a BM change is complex and is shaped by factors such as “driving forces”, “resistors” and “enablers” (Şimşek et al., 2022). When research that incorporates the various factors of the underlying mechanism, often does so in a partial way as in focusing on drivers, facilitating or hindering factors (e.g. Zhao et al., 2018) or on the BM components being modified (e.g. Marcon et al., 2022). In addition, the different elements constituting a BM change are often considered on different levels. According to Bashir and Verma (2019), for example, many studies overlook internal drivers of BMI, i.e. with business drivers such as organizational structure (Bashir and Verma, 2019) or internal use of technology (in the case of mobility sector start-ups) (Van Den Heuvel et al., 2020). In case of the underlying mechanism, two needs can be derived from literature: (1) more research on the different factors influencing a BM change (Foss and Saebi, 2017; Miranda et al., 2023; Şimşek et al., 2022) and (2) more research that theoretically links the different elements constituting a BM change (Ramdani et al., 2019; Tian et al., 2019).

Finally, the analysis of how the BM actually changes is often approached from a practical perspective, i.e. “How can firms change their BM?”. For example, the 360° framework by Rayna and Striukova (2016), the triple layered business model canvas by (Joyce and Paquin (2016) or the business model innovation framework by Ramdani et al. (2019), all highlight the “value” or “innovation” areas where a BM can be innovated or “where alternative BMs can be explored” (Ramdani et al., 2019, p. 91). In contrast, research articles studying BM change starting from theory are less common. For instance Şimşek et al. (2022) uses a theoretical framework that considers four business model components (value proposition, value creation, value capture and market and customer) and three types of influencing factors (driving forces, resisting forces and enabling factor) to study a seven-year BM transformation process of a global technology company from one prevailing BM to a new BM. PESTLE was used to identify and analyse external driving and resisting forces and to add context to the BM change (Şimşek et al., 2022).

This paper responds to the above-described need for a theoretical handle for the comprehensive study of BM change. Such a theoretical handle would ideally take the influencing factors identified in literature (drivers and facilitating/hindering factors) and the different levels of analysis (internal and external) into account. Our proposed theoretical framework meets that need by combining three existing academic frameworks from BM and strategy literature: the business model canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s Five Forces Framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017). The resulting research question is: “What is the added value of combining the BMC, Porter’s Five Forces Framework and PESTEL to study BM change?”

This research questions is studied by means of a case study of the European crop protection industry. This industry is currently at a major tipping point, as the dominant chemical technology has experienced increasing pressure. Incumbent companies have been anticipating this changing landscape in different ways at different times and over various time spans. The dynamism of this industry, which is characterized by both large, mature companies and small, agile start-ups, is a useful context for a broad study of the evolution of business models as it provides sufficient heterogeneity in data collection.

In the following sections we elaborate on the existing theoretical frameworks to study either BMs or the business environment. We specifically discuss their relevance and shortcomings from the perspective of studying a BM change. Next, we explain the methodology used to study the added value of combining three existing business and strategy frameworks to study a BM change. Followed by the key findings of this study. To conclude we discuss future research possibilities and the limitations of this research.

2. Theoretical background

The proposed theoretical framework combines three existing frameworks that are commonly known (García-Muiña et al., 2020; Isabelle et al., 2020; Kumar and Kumar, 2018), in order to study business model change in a comprehensive way: the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s five forces framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017). Each of the frameworks represents one level of analysis: macro-environment (PESTEL), industry (Porter’s Five Forces framework) and company (BMC). Their complementarity in unit of analysis (business, industry, macro-environment) ensures a holistic analysis of the observed business model change. A brief description of each framework follows, together with a presentation of the pros and cons as relevant to this study. Critiques of the frameworks are included only to the extent that they are relevant to the present study.

2.1 Business model canvas

The business model canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) provides a normative description of nine interrelated components that make up a business model: key partnerships (KP), key activities (KA), key resources (KR), value proposition (VP), customer relationships (CR), channels (C), customer segments (CS), cost structure (CST) and revenue streams (RS) (Ladd, 2018). The framework is easily understandable (García-Muiña et al., 2020) and has previously been applied in literature to thoroughly analyse business models (e.g. Urban et al., 2018) and business model innovation (e.g. Marcon et al., 2022).

The advantage of the BMC (describing the key elements of a BM at a given point in time) is also a drawback, as the BMC is static and thus lacks a time perspective (Toro-Jarrín et al., 2016). As Fritscher and Pigneur (2014) mention in their article on BM evolution, even when a BM change is envisioned with a newly-completed BMC, this framework is limited at specifying specific changes and is not best suited for making links between the new and the old version of the BMC. In the present study we have included time and the environment by combining the BMC with Porter’s Five Forces framework and PESTEL.

2.2 PESTEL

PESTEL “is an acronym for the political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal contexts in which a firm operates.” (Kumar and Kumar, 2018, p. 415). Each letter of PESTEL represents a segment of the macro-environment, thus bundling a group of underlying environmental factors (Castañeda-Ayarza and Godoi, 2021). Macro-environmental factors affect businesses (Pu et al., 2021) and industries (Ulubeyli and Kazanci, 2018) but are often beyond the control of companies (Pu et al., 2021). In the present study PESTEL brings a structured overview of macro-environmental factors (Song et al., 2017; Ulubeyli and Kazanci, 2018) that may affect a company at a given point in time (Ulubeyli and Kazanci, 2018). In other words PESTEL helps to paint a picture of a company’s external environment (Pu et al., 2021; Ulubeyli and Kazanci, 2018).

2.3 Porter’s five forces framework

Porter’s five forces framework can be seen as a distillate of “complex micro-economic literature into five explanatory or causal variables to explain superior and inferior performance” of industries (Grundy, 2006, p. 214). Porter reasoned that an industry structure and its attractiveness or profitability are characterised by five forces: (1) rivalry among existing competitors, (2) threat of new entrants, (3) bargaining power of suppliers, (4) bargaining power of buyers and 5) threat of substitute products or services (Porter, 1980). This framework was initially used to study an entire industry but is now also used to study the competitive environment of individual firms (Schilling, 2017).

This framework has received a fair share of criticism, including accusations that it is outdated and does not sufficiently reflect the current, often complex context of an industry (Grundy, 2006; Isabelle et al., 2020; Johnson, 2014). Some authors therefore suggest adding new forces to the framework such as “Exposure to globalization” (Isabelle et al., 2020), “Threat of digitalisation” (Isabelle et al., 2020) or “Complementors” (Johnson et al., 2017). Porter refutes this by arguing that a distinction must be made between factors that affect the structure of an industry in the short term, such as the maturity or the degree of regulation of an industry, and forces that shape a robust industry structure in the medium and long term (Porter, 2008). He argues that factors such as complementary products or services or technology and innovation per se are not enough to determine whether an industry is attractive or not, but can affect short-term profitability through their influence on the five forces. In our study of the interaction between a BM and its environment, we see value in including both volatile and robust factors. We therefore choose to include it in the present study as one of the three chosen frameworks (BMC, Porter’s five forces and PESTEL).

3. Research methodology

The aim of this research is to gain insight into how changes in specific business model (BM) components arise through the interaction of internal and external influencing factors. A qualitative approach is appropriate here, since this approach allows to study “the way that social phenomena become what they are in particular contexts and sequences of actions” (Silverman, 2006, p. 44). Qualitative research employs methods such as interviews, focus groups and participatory observation to study change processes and experiences over time (Mortelmans, 2013). As our focus is on past changes to a business model, observations of the present are not appropriate to this study. Studying interaction between participants such as in focus groups (Mortelmans, 2013) is also less relevant as the present study requires only one person who can remember changes to the BM, not to mention other practical difficulties in interviewing several members of the same company, such as the interviewees’ limited availability. In addition, this method is also more appropriate give the nature of the topic. BMs are company specific-ways to pursue a competitive advantage. It can be argued that participants will be less inclined to give information when they are in a focus group with representatives from other companies. The most appropriate method is thus the interviewing method with a well-defined group of people, as not everyone in the company will be aware of all the BM changes in the same level of detail.

3.1 Data collection and participants

Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with either managers or founders of companies that were active in the European crop protection industry when the interviews took place (between December 2021 and March 2022). The focus on management-level employees was driven by the assumption that people in this position possess sufficient understanding of past business model change processes. Following the industry analysis conducted during the Viroplant project (Link to the project: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773567), we sought maximum variety in the sample of companies interviewed, i.e. companies of different maturity in terms of the number of years active in the European market as well as companies of different sizes.

Interviewees were asked to identify a number of tipping points in their business operations. No definition of the concept of a tipping point was presented to the interviewee in advance. Instead, the following examples were given to clarify our interpretation of the concept: a new investment round; a new collaboration with another company within or outside of the sector; the recruitment of new team members; or a change in legislation. In addition, it was made clear to the interviewees that the aim of the study was to identify factors that influence business models and how companies deal with them.

The tipping points cited by the interviewee were discussed. The number of tipping points cited varied between companies. To ensure a clear understanding of the discussed tipping points, a topic list was drawn up in advance using three existing frameworks to study the environment and business model, i.e. the business model canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s five forces framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017).

Because changes to the BM occurred prior to the date of the interview, the interviews reflect the representations of past events from the participants’ point of view (Silverman, 2006, p. 117). In addition, the quality of the information also depends on several factors such as participant’s ability to remember changes, generalization (if the question was not well understood or if the participant did not have sufficient knowledge on the topic) and the relationship between the interviewee and the interviewer (e.g. a situation that feels psychologically unsafe can cause the interviewee to withhold information) (Evers, 2007). Based on our research question and theory, we pursued a priori thematic saturation by seeking as much variation in the companies interviewed as possible when sampling (Saunders et al., 2018). In order to ensure quality of information, participants were selected based on their position in the company (i.e. management functions or company founders). During the interviews a topic list was used to ensure that the answers were related to BM changes. Narratives not related to concrete BM changes were excluded from the data analysis.

3.2 Data analysis

The information derived from the interviews was visualised based on the theoretical framework. This visualisation of the tipping points occurred in parallel with the analysis of the text in the coding software NVivo 12Plus. In this coding software, a directional coding scheme was used to guide the content classification of the codes. Specifically, there were three levels of codes. The first-order nodes were the companies themselves, listed from one to eight. For each company interviewed, a second-order node was created for each tipping point discussed. The latter was in turn subdivided into nodes named business (when the piece of text is an illustration of a change to a specific BM component) or situation (when the piece of text has to do with the situation before the BM change). This name was then supplemented by categorising the factor by means of the theoretical framework, for example: “business_value proposition” or “situation_social”.

The next step was to name the text fragments in each third-order node with a name that reflected the text fragment as closely as possible. In an Excel file, each influencing factor was noted in terms of level (business, industry or macro-environment), whether it can be classified according to the theoretical framework, and how it influenced the business model change.

During the data analysis the decision was made to focus on incremental, tangible steps so that (1) specific drivers could be linked to specific changes, (2) factors facilitating or hindering a BM change could be linked to a specific change and (3) the situation prior to a change could be mapped. Vague or overly generic descriptions of tipping points were left out of the analysis.

3.2.1 Example of the data analysis

Figure 1 shows the theoretical framework with an example of a discussed tipping point or BM change situation. First, the actual driver of the BM change situation is assigned a colour. A distinction is made between opportunities and threats by underlining the opportunities. In the top figure (A), the company experienced an opportunity (underlined) within the value proposition (VP) component of its business model. Second, the specific business model components that were altered as a result of this driver are given the same colour as the driver (green in this case). For this example, the company responded to the opportunity by changing specific components of its business model: key partnerships (KP), key activities (KA), value proposition (VP) and channels (C).

Third, influencing factors that either facilitate or hinder the change of a specific BM component are indicated by a line between the influencing factor and the altered BM component. A red minus sign above the line indicates a hindering influence whereas a green plus sign indicates a facilitating influence. For the example discussed, the company’s existing key partnerships (KP) hindered a change in the channels component (C) and the substitutes (SU) facilitated a change in the BM key partnerships (KP) component.

Finally, influencing factors other than drivers or facilitators are visualised by linking the influencing factor with the business or environmental factor they are interacting with. A negative interaction is visualised with a negative minus sign above the dashed line whereas a positive interaction is visualised by a green plus sign above the dashed line. The example in Figure 1a shows how the situation was negatively influenced by the interaction of the company’s customer segment (CS) and substitutes (SU) in the environment. The interaction between those two factors is important to understand the situation, but does not cause a change to the business model, nor does it facilitate or hinder a change in a BM component.

In some cases, the discussed tipping points could be related to each other. A specific BM change then eventually constitutes a new starting point for another BM change situation. For example, the business model change situation visualised in the top figure (A) results in a new starting situation as visualised in the lower figure (B). The components of the BM that were changed in the previous phase are indicated by an asterisk. In this situation, a macro-environmental factor within the legal (L) category threatened the business model to which the company responded by altering its value proposition (VP). The situation was further characterised by the threatening factor simultaneously having a positive interaction with the company’s altered key activities (KA) and a negative interaction between the supplier (S) and the altered value proposition (VP).

4. Results

The analysis of the different BM change events as presented by the interviewees yields two key results. First, the combined use of the theoretical framework supports new insights into the mechanism behind a BM change. By applying the theoretical framework to analyse the BM change narratives, it was possible to identify driving, facilitating or hindering factors. In addition, this analysis revealed the influence of a third type of influencing factor: factors that affect the cohesion between BM components or between BM, industry and macro-environment. A BM change can thus be described by the interaction of three types of influencing factors at three levels (business, industry and macro-environment). The combination of existing business and strategy frameworks expands awareness of those interactions. The second key result is that the combined use of three existing business and strategy frameworks (the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s Five Forces Framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017)) create a theoretical framework for comprehensive and integrated change analysis. In the following section we first elaborate on the difference between the types of influencing factors and then discuss specific factors identified for this case study.

4.1 Three types of factors influencing business model change

The present analysis of BM change situations reveals how these changes result from the interactions between three types of influencing factors (Figure 2). Each type is discussed separately. Both time and type of influence distinguish the types. Influencing factors of type I and II influence the BM change process, i.e. from the driver to the actual BM change, whereas influencing factors of type III influence the situation prior to the BM change. Another difference is that factors can either directly or indirectly influence a BM change. Factors with a direct influence cause a BM change by posing a direct opportunity or threat. A causal relationship exists between this type of influencing factor and the altered BM component(s).

4.2 Factors influencing BM change in the European crop protection industry

To illustrate the difference between the three types of influencing factors, this section elaborates on the factors found within this case study.

4.2.1 Drivers: factors causing a business model change

One example of a factor that causes a BM change is a company’s lack of a distribution network. This led the company to search for appropriate partnerships with other companies. The influencing factor “Whether or not to have a distribution network” caused an internal threat which was solved by the specific BM change of engaging in a new partnership with another company. Here, the factor that caused a BM change originated at the BM level and constituted an internal threat. For the companies studied, factors directly influencing a BM change could have arisen either internally or externally. This case study also reveals that a factor can appear as both an opportunity or a threat to the company, depending the interaction with other influencing factors. For example, one company described a tipping point where the factor “Investors” posed a threat to the company by a negative interaction between shareholder preferences about the focus of investments and the influencing factor “Degree of product diversification”. The company represented the current investors as a threat because the company financing could have been compromised if nothing changed. The company reacted by implementing a change to the key activities (KA) component of their BM.

For another company, the factor “Investors” represented an opportunity: the investors represented an essential source of financing in the start-up phase of the company. The company responded to this opportunity by showing that their business was different and worth investing in, by means of collaborations with universities, other companies, research institutions, but also by developing and maturing a unique technology, by targeting a specific crop, by obtaining the required knowledge and expertise, and by optimizing their operational efficiency).

These examples also reveal that one or more specific BM components were changed as a response to the drivers. In all cases in the present study, a specific trigger leads to a specific change of one or multiple BM components (Table 1, Table 2). The majority of companies interviewed mentioned fewer than three altered BM components for the BM change situations they chose to discuss.

The same driver can cause alterations in different BM components. For example, some companies mentioned regulations on placing plant protection products on the market becoming stricter and more complex. The current procedure for bringing a new plant protection product to market takes several years, resulting in an extended period of costs without revenue from that product. Some companies mentioned the specific case of biopesticides, which are subjected to the same registration process as their chemical counterparts due to the lack of adapted or modified regulations. These difficulties were classified as the influencing factor “Regulation placing on the market”. This factor posed a threat to the business operations and strategy of multiple companies but they showed different responses. For example, one company changed their focus customer segment from large markets to markets that are easier to access within the current regulatory environment. They also changed the recruitment profile of employees, moving from recruitment of sales personnel toward specialists in development and regulation. Another company made modifications to the existing value proposition by complementing the current offer with new technologies, i.e. product diversification.

Finally, for this specific case study, companies mostly implemented changes to the value creation dimension of the business model, i.e. key partnerships (KP), key activities (KA) and key resources (KR).

4.2.2 Factors that facilitate or hinder a business model change

Once a decision has been made to respond to a driver by changing something in the BM, actions to effect that change may be either facilitated or hindered by specific influencing factors. Like factors driving a BM change, factors that facilitate or hinder a BM change can be either internal or external to the company. Table 3 provides an overview of the identified factors for this case study.

For the companies studied, most of the factors that hinder a BM change are external. In addition, factors are mostly hindering a change in the value proposition component while changes to the key partnerships are (KP), key activities (KA) and key resources (KR) components are mainly facilitated. This may be related to the observation that the value creation dimension of the BM (i.e. KP, KA and KR) was most frequently adjusted and the observation that, in comparison to other components, the value proposition component has not been frequently adapted in response to opportunities or threats (Table 1, Table 2).

Finally, regardless of the driver behind the change, the analysis of BM change situations makes it possible to identify the diversity of factors that either facilitate or hinder the adjustment of specific BM components. For example, 9 factors could be identified that could hinder or facilitate a change to the value proposition of the companies, while 11 factors could be identified that hinder or facilitate an adjustment to the existing partnerships (Table 4).

4.2.3 Factors affecting the cohesion between business model components or between business model, industry and environment

As discussed in section 2.2 above, some of the influencing factors resulting from the data analysis do not drive a specific BM change, nor do they facilitate or hinder this change. For instance, the case where the investors being the driver for implementing a change to the key activities (KA) (section 4.2.1 above) shows how the influencing factor “Degree of product diversification” also played a role in the situation before the change, albeit a descriptive one. The multitude of products offered by the company in itself has not triggered a BM change. However, the mismatch between this factor and the preference of the investors (macro-environment) explains why the latter forms a threat that necessitated a response from the company.

These cohesion-type interactions can have both a negative as a positive influence on the situation and can also be internal, i.e. at the BM level, between BM components.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study investigates the added value of combining three existing frameworks in business and strategy literature, i.e. the business model canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Porter’s Five Forces Framework (Porter, 1980) and PESTEL (Johnson et al., 2017) to study BM change from a theoretical perspective. The application of the theoretical framework to the BM change narratives from founders or managers of eight companies active in the European crop protection industry resulted in two key findings.

First, the combined use of frameworks improves insight into the mechanism behind BM change by adding a third type of influencing factor. In addition to drivers and factors that facilitate or hinder a BM change, the third type influences the situation before BM changes actually occur. Second, the combined use of three theoretical frameworks reveals that influencing factors interact to shape a BM change. Understanding of these interactions requires a holistic, systemic analysis of BM changes. Use of a BM-level framework to study BM change such as the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) will therefore result in only a partial view of the change. This finding is in agreement with the integrated literature review of Minatogawa et al. (2018), where they argue that literature is often focused on single influencing factors and they state the need for an integrated view of all factors influencing a BMI process. Their integrated literature review revealed twelve influencing factors divided into four groups: cognitive, relationship, managerial and environmental. The authors note that factors may interact between groups and highlight “the importance for companies to consider the interrelationship between the influence factors to be successful in their BM initiatives” (p. 610). The qualitative research of Van Den Heuvel et al. (2020) on drivers and barriers to BMI in the specific case of start-ups in the mobility sector also touches on the importance of awareness of the interactions between influencing factors: they found that “BMI influencing factors can have different effects depending on how they interact with other influencing factors” (p.8).

This study contributes to the theory of business model change by proposing a theoretical perspective for comprehensive analysis of a BM change. Practitioners may also find added value in this comprehensive view of BM change. Joyce and Paquin (2016) in their study on BMI and sustainability, discuss two common approaches to BMI starting from BM tools: inside-out or outside-in. Inside-out approaches analyse the current BM and then look at possible changes, while outside-in approaches start from idealized BMs or archetypes and aim to modify the current BM towards a specific archetype. Regardless of the choice to work inside-out or outside-in, a comprehensive view of the BM within its specific environment supplies a more accurate view of the starting situation.

6. Limitations and future developments

One result of the application of the theoretical framework, is a better understanding of the mechanism behind a BM change. Our findings reveal that a BM change can be described by the interaction of three types of influencing factors at three levels (business, industry and macro-environment). By combining three existing frameworks, our method makes it possible to identify these influencing factors and can also provide a theoretical basis for studying other BM changes. It was outside the scope of this research to provide a detailed understanding of how certain interactions recur among companies within the sector and/or to what extent the same factors recur. This could be an interesting topic for future research.

One of the limitations of the research is linked to the interview sample and the interview setting. One interviewee was relatively new to the company. This may have affected memory and generalisation, i.e. two factors influencing the quality of information (Evers, 2007). To ensure the quality of the interview, only recent changes were discussed; however, in the future interviewee seniority could be added as a sampling criterion. In a different interview, one interviewee interrupted the process in the middle of the interview to ask about the purpose of the interview. This could be interpreted as a sign that the participant felt less safe. That may have had an impact on the comprehensiveness of the information provided by the participant (Evers, 2007). However, as this research is deductive in nature and studies the added value of combining three existing academical frameworks to study a BM change, it is less important to uncover all of the possible elements of one described tipping point. Future research could, for example, define the concept “tipping point” to remove doubt about the information being sought during the interview. Such clarity would contribute to creating trust.

Finally, application of the theoretical framework based on a combination of three existing frameworks led to comprehensive visualisation of the mechanisms behind BM change. Future research could start from the observation that not all influencing factors could be classified according to the theoretical framework, such as “whether or not having stakeholder channels” [1] or “government relationships” [2]. In addition, some studies emphasise the role of the entrepreneur in BM change processes (e.g. Teece (2018) on dynamic capabilities or “management’s ability to develop and refine business models” (p. 45)). Future research will shed light on whether this theoretical framework and possible approaches also need refinement.

Figures

Figure 1

Example of two consecutive business model change situations

Figure 2

Categorisation of factors influencing a business model (BM) change

Table 1

Factors causing a business model change by representing an opportunity to the company

Factor causing a BM change (opportunity)	BM component changed (identified with the BMC)
	KP	KA	KR	VP	CR	C	CS	CST	RS
Development of data technologies		X
Distributor motivation	X
Effective market growth within a customer segment			X
European environmental regulation							X
Expected market growth within a customer segment						X
Geographic location of market or industry		X	X				X
Investors	X	X	X				X
Market demand for organic products				X			X
Mergers and acquisitions within the industry		X
Possession of intellectual property	X
Product characteristics	X	X		X		X
Society’s position on chemical plant protection		X					X
The issuance of subsidies			X
Total	4	6	4	2	0	2	5	0	0

Note(s): With KP, key partners; KA, key activities; KR, key resources; VP, value proposition; CR, customer relationships; C, channels; CS, customer segments; CST, cost structure; RS, revenue streams; the nine elements of the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Government relationships (GR) could not be identified with the BMC, but was interpreted as an expansion of the CR component

Source(s): Authors’ own work

Table 2

Factors causing a business model change by representing a threat to the company

Factor causing a BM change (threat)	BM component changed (identified with the BMC)
	KP	KA	KR	VP	CR	C	CS	CST	RS
Company’s core business	X
Company’s distribution cost	X		X			X
Company’s knowledge and expertise	X	X	X
Company’s production cost	X	X
Company’s research and registration costs							X
Competitive advantage	X			X					X
Degree of product diversification		X
Distributor power				X
Dominant design		X					X
European regulation of new technologies					GR
European regulation placing on the market of PPPs		X	X	X	GR		X
Having sufficient space for the business activities			X
Intended product margins		X				X
Investors		X
Maturity of new technologies				X			X
Size and structure of the company	X						X
Society’s position on chemical plant protection	X	X
Substitutes' product developments	X
The importance of knowledge transfer to farmers	X	X
Whether or not having external production facilities		X
Whether or not having stakeholder channels		X
Whether or not to have a distribution network	X
Total	10	11	4	4	2	2	5	0	1

Note(s): With KP, key partners; KA, key activities; KR, key resources; VP, value proposition; CR, customer relationships; C, channels; CS, customer segments; CST, cost structure; RS, revenue streams; the nine elements of the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Government relationships (GR) could not be identified with the BMC, but was interpreted as an expansion of the CR component

Source(s): Authors’ own work

Table 3

Overview of factors facilitating or hindering a BM change

	BM component changed (identified with the BMC)
	KP	KA	KR	VP	CR	C	CS	CST	RS
Factor facilitating a BM change
Company’s core business	X
Company’s knowledge and expertise	X	X		X
Development of data technologies	X
Existence of companies specialised new technologies		X
Farmers' business model trends				X
Geographic location of market or industry			X
Product characteristics	X						X
Society’s attitude towards green biotech and sustainable agriculture			X
Substitute motivation	X
The type of relationship with the farmer	X			X
Whether or not having a professional network			X
Whether or not having financial resources	X	X	X
Whether or not to have a distribution network	X	X
Whether or not to have sufficient sales personnel						X
Whether or not to sell directly to the farmer	X
Factor hindering a BM change
Distributor motivation						X
Company’s knowledge and expertise				X
Farmer’s attitude towards new technologies				X
Farmer’s financial capacity				X
Farmer’s knowledge of new technologies				X
Whether or not to have sufficient sales personnel						X
Dominant design		X
Attitude of new entrants towards chemicals	X
European regulation of new technologies				X
Political attitude to new technologies				X
Geographic location of market or industry		X
European regulation on property rights data		X
Motivation of contract manufacturers	X

Note(s): The table represents the observed factors that facilitate or hinder a BM change and the related BM component that was changed. With KP, key partners; KA, key activities; KR, key resources; VP, value proposition; CR, customer relationships; C, channels; CS, customer segments; CST, cost structure; RS, revenue streams; the nine elements of the BMC (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010)

Source(s): Authors’ own work

Table 4

Overview of factors facilitating or hindering an adjustment to the value proposition or the key partnerships component of the business model

	Factors facilitating	Factors hindering
Adjustment to the value proposition	Company’s knowledge and expertise	Company’s knowledge and expertise
		Farmer’s attitude to new technologies
	The type of relationship with the farmer	Farmer’s financial capacity
		Farmer’s knowledge of new technologies
	Farmer’s business model trends	European regulation on new technologies
		Political attitude to new technologies
Adjustment to the key partnerships	Product characteristics	Attitude of new entrants towards chemicals
	The type of relationship with the farmer
	Whether or not to have a distribution network
	Whether or not to sell directly to the farmer
	Company’s knowledge and expertise
	Whether or not having sufficient financial resources	Motivation of contract manufacturers
	Company’s core business
	Substitute motivation
	Development of new data technologies

Source(s): Authors’ own work

Notes

1. Stakeholder channels were defined as an extension of the BMC component “customer channels” to define all types of communication with stakeholders other than the customer.

2. Government relationships (GR) could not be identified using the BMC. However, this could be interpreted as an expansion on the component “Customer Relationships” (CR), i.e. one of the nine components of the business model canvas (BMC).