I have made an example of how to use the framework when you consider not only Profit making but also People and Planet making/value-adding. Some other examples on this somewhere?



Views: 2105

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In BMG Alexander also points to this approach, but in a very general way (pages 264-265). Including the nature and society-related costs and benefits might be the way to understand truly sustainable business models one day. The point is that methods of sustainability accounting need to be aligned with the BM perspective.

I tried to map out, which approaches might be useful:

Working paper on "Business Models for Sustainability" (especially pages 39 following)

I would really like to conduct a case study that includes concrete figures of environmental and social costs and benefits and in which we can learn what kind of accounting methods (such as balanced scorecards, ecobalances etc.) can be combined with the canvas perspective.

In the end, the questions to be answered are: What is a "societal value proposition" (or "public customer value") and how can a business model create this kind of value?

A similar topic is being discussed here: How are Social Entrepreneurs using the Business Model Canvas ...

thanks so much for sharing .have a nice day
Makes a lot of sense to add the People and the Planet to the model! I wonder what Alex thinks about this?

I remember reading Benefit Realisation Management by Gerald Bradley a few years ago when it came out and there was an approach to quantifying costs and benefits associated with non-financial measures.

I've since seen various "logic models" associate the weighing of benefits and costs to non-financial measure for my gov't clients.  This approach is one that I favor but I've not enough experience yet with Triple Bottom Line to add much other comment, except to say that I recently drew an integrated version of the BMC and the VPC with Planet, People and Profits in mind, as follows:


I'm not sure, however, if integrated the VPC to the BMC adds or detracts from their use.

Dear Kenneth, looks really interesting!

Besides the issue of integrating multiple bottom lines (which in my view only makes sense if the necessary measurement approaches are also delivered/included, otherwise it is just adding more and more complexity without real gain) - how and why did you arrange the elements like you did? I like, for example, that the key partners are now much closer to the customer interface as this allows to make better connections between key partners and the tasks they often fulfill with regard to customers. And why are the value proposition and customer segments on top - I like that, too, but wonder if you could explain a bit if and how this changes the way you use the canvas ...


Thanks.  I wanted to show the relationship between the VP and CS of course (as these are interest-based via. pain/gains). 

I also wanted to show how Key Partners are (to me) valuable precisely because they can be leveraged to help with any of the other components.  So I made the KP consideration central to the model.

If we think of the normal BMC as having OPERATIONAL components on the left side of the VP and SALES/MARKETING components on the right side of the VP, then one might view a Key Partner as any entity that could assist on either side.  That was my rationale.  Is that clear?  I mean, does that make sense?

As for how I use this... I'm still playing but I'd probably populate it in roughly the numerical order listed.  The beauty of a canvas, of course, is that is a visual problem discovery and solution space.  So, I'd like to play with this version for a while and see how well it works for me.  :)

The glaring problem with my integrated version is that the VPC should be thought more as a multi-layered since we can envision more than one Customer Segment, each with its own "jobs" and these, in turn, relate to Products & Services.

So my revised version, less integrated, is probably more helpful.  Imagine the VPC as a separate entity hovering over the BMC like this...



Taking a Customer Development approach to a Lean Start-Up, we could then:

a)  use the VPC for Customer Discovery (Problem-Solution Fit leading to Proposed Minimal Viable Product); and,

(b) use the BMC for Customer Validation. 


In such a scenario, the Customer Channels relate to "Proposed Funnels" and the Product-Market Fit could be assessed based on early metrics.  Our "Sales & Marketing Roadmap" would also incorporate Customer Relationships and potentially Key Partners leverage for "sales" support.


Does this make sense?


There is definitely some logic to putting KP in the middle

This coming Sunday May 5th is International Permaculture Day.  For those who are not familiar with the term permaculture, there's an excellent website that describes it's principles at:


Now, for those already familiar with Triple Bottom Line, I'd like to ask how many of you have considered these 12 principles applied to BUSINESS?  How about to inform the creation or innovation of a BUSINESS MODEL?

Here's another link to get some ideas flowing:



I use a similar Canvas in my work with social enterprises ( and others!) 

It works pretty well..... 



Hi Graham,

what kind of file is your attachment? I tried Acrobat, PowerPoint ... but could not open it.

Could you also add some info in which context you work with social enterprises - are these more like social businesses or more like public organisations, or hybrid forms?



Hi Graham,

I tried opening this as well with limited success.

Could you send the PDF?



© 2018   Created by Alex Osterwalder.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service