The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Business Model Paradox: A Systematic Review and Exploration of Antecedents
Abstract
The business model has become a popular concept in business and management fields. Yet, it is suffering from a paradox between outstanding popularity and severe criticism, which appears to impede the positive development of the scholarly discourse on the business model concept. Against this background, the purpose of this study is to provide insight into the antecedents of this paradox and to understand their implications for the future development of the concept. The following contributions are made. First, the authors apply a narrative approach to recognizing and interpreting the paradox, and introduce the analysis of syntactics of scholarly discourse as a novel method of investigating management concepts. Second, as a result of elaborating on recurrent themes and tensions in scholarly discourse, the authors extend the literature on business models through theorizing on the core of the concept along the dimensions of classification, constitution and configuration. In particular, they identify the simultaneity of separation and attachment as the main antecedent of the business model paradox. Third, the authors offer implications for further advancing the development of this management concept, and highlight the need for spurring integrative research while at the same time maintaining a plurality of perspectives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The business model: Recent developments and future research
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311406265 · Cited by 4,790
The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.642 · Cited by 1,731
The business model concept: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations
Hedman, J., & Kalling, T. (2003) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000446 · Cited by 919
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912
Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model
Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.2.199 · Cited by 609
A new business model? The capital market and the new economy
Feng, H., Froud, J., Johal, S., Haslam, C., & Williams, K. (2001) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085140120089063 · Cited by 117
Cited by
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Learning while (re)configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms
Berends, H., Smits, A., Reymen, I., & Podoynitsyna, K. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016632758 · Cited by 274
Artificial intelligence in the legal sector: pressures and challenges of transformation
Brooks, C., Gherhes, C., & Vorley, T. (2020) · Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society · doi:10.1093/cjres/rsz026 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F.
- Venue
- International Journal of Management Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01-13
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 454-478
- ISSN
- 1460-8545 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2370
- OpenAlex
- W1656804086
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 15.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Business Model Paradox: A Systematic Review and Exploration of Antecedents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ijmr.12030
- The paper
- Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The Business Model Paradox: A Systematic Review and Exploration of Antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.