Relational or Transactional? The Importance of Distinguishing Two Types of Community-Supported Business Models

Origin and Emergence of CSBs

The idea behind CSBs originates from agriculture. In the 1960s, Japanese farms began cooperating directly with consumers (Medici et al., 2021). Their goal was to provide regional, healthy, uncontaminated food to Japanese consumers concerned about food safety, a result of the Minamata disease (Tang et al., 2019). Later, similar close relationships between producers and consumers spread worldwide, becoming popular under the name of community-supported agriculture (CSA). Since the 1970s, these initiatives have emerged mainly as a response to global societal challenges such as climate change and loss of biodiversity (Elmes, 2018; O’Hara & Stagl, 2001). They thus have typically been politically motivated.

The concept of CSA has been increasingly transferred to other fields of business in the recent years. Entrepreneurs have built CSBs in various business sectors in different countries. For example, in Southeast Asia, community-supported fisheries are an attractive alternative for fishermen to secure their income, have a closer relationship with consumers, and simultaneously pursue sustainable fishing. Also, in the United Kingdom, community-supported stores focus on more regional and direct contact with consumers, as community-supported restaurants in the United States do as well (Zhao & Jia, 2020). And even in the energy sector, community-supported initiatives are becoming increasingly popular (Reis et al., 2021).

Definition of CSBs and Differentiation by Related Concepts

CSBs are characterized by close relationships between the providers of products and services and a community of consumers (Debuquet et al., 2020). The community does not necessarily share a common place but is characterized by a common interest in a provider’s products or services (De Bruin et al., 2023; Rommel & Koch, 2021). The members’ role is to support the entrepreneur, that is, take on responsibility for the endeavor by providing the financial and social resources like “time, effort, [and] money” (Debuquet et al., 2020, p. 444) that the entrepreneur needs to run the business for a particular period of time (usually 1 year; Rommel & Koch, 2021). In turn, the entrepreneur exclusively serves the members of the community with products and services. Here, products and prices are detached from each other: Consumers no longer pay for individual products, but more generally pay a monthly share and, independent of the amount, receive products or services. Rommel and Koch (2021) explain that detaching products and prices “may fully circumvent the market’s price mechanism” (p. 389).

Differentiating between CSBs and community-based businesses (CBBs), it becomes apparent that, in CBBs, a group of people mutually establishes a business, often to revitalize regions (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2013; Sinnicks, 2020). Thus, CBBs are founded by a community of people who usually provide products and/or services to (potentially) everybody on the market (Bacq et al., 2020; Boehm, 2005; Kobeissi & Damanpour, 2009; Valente, 2012). In contrast, CSBs are usually founded by single entrepreneurs or small teams for a community of people (Löbbering, 2018; Rommel, 2017) and exclusively provide the products and/or services to consumers who seek to be part of their community (see Figure 1). Hence, the main differences between CSBs and CBBs lie in who is found and who is served by the business.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Comparison of Community-Supported, Community-Based, and Conventional Business Models.

It is also important to disentangle CSBs from cooperatives. A cooperative is a legal form that may be suitable for CSBs, but neither is every cooperative a CSB nor does every CSB have the legal form of cooperation. Cooperatives are democratically owned by their members (Voorhis, 1962) and are controlled by this community of people (Bacq et al., 2020; Davila & Molina, 2017). This ownership is not a necessary trait of CSBs, but it can provide members a legal framework for participation and is therefore often used as an organizational form of CSBs (Löbbering, 2018). CBB-based cooperatives provide products and/or services to (potentially) everybody on the market, while CSB-based cooperatives solely serve their community of members.

Exploring CSBs Through a Sustainable Business Model Lens

Sustainable business models describe the architecture of businesses (Dentoni et al., 2021). It’s important to notice that there are several approaches regarding how to conceptualize and analyze sustainable business models. For example, Fritz and Lara-Rodríguez (2022) propose a community-business model canvas as a novel framework, while Spieth and colleagues (2019) use an activity system approach to analyze social businesses. We selected the conceptualization of sustainable business models encompassing the triad of sustainable value proposition, sustainable value creation, and sustainable value capture, one of the most established approaches in SBM research (Bocken et al., 2014; Lashitew et al., 2020; Lüdeke-Freund & Dembek, 2017). This value triad originated in business model research (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) and was later adapted and enriched by SBM researchers (Bocken et al., 2013). For example, Bohnsack and colleagues (2014) applied this conceptualization to explore business models for sustainable technologies; Bocken and colleagues (2014) built on this conceptualization in their seminal article on sustainable business model archetypes; Lashitew and colleagues (2020) used it to analyze social value creation; while Schaltegger and colleagues (2016) developed one of the most influential definitions of SBMs based on this triad:

A business model for sustainability helps describing, analyzing, managing, and communicating (i) a company’s sustainable value proposition to its customers, and all other stakeholders, (ii) how it creates and delivers this value, (iii) and how it captures economic value while maintaining or regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organizational boundaries. (p. 6)

Value proposition encompasses the description of products and services, as well as environmental and social benefits offered to the customer (Ordonez-Ponce et al., 2021); it additionally depicts a business’ market segments and customer relationships (Grimm, 2020; Lashitew et al., 2020). Value creation specifies how value is generated (DiVito et al., 2021; Husted et al., 2015) and includes defining key activities to create the value proposed, distribution channels, core competencies, resources and capabilities, and strategic partners (DiVito et al., 2021; Lashitew et al., 2020; Oskam et al., 2021). Value capture describes how the business handles economic value “while maintaining or regenerating natural, social, and economic capital beyond its organisational boundaries” (Schaltegger et al., 2016, p. 6), which encompasses cost and revenue streams (Dembek & York, 2020).

Recapitulating the literature review, it becomes apparent that scholarly interest in CSBs is rising, but CSBs have not yet been explored through the lens of sustainable business models. Doing so can shed light on how CSBs differ in value proposition, creation, and capture, which, in turn, can have important implications on the resources different types of CSBMs need to thrive.

Stage 1: Document Analysis for Exploring a Variety of CSBMs

We applied a purposive sampling technique (Saunders et al., 2009; Saunders & Lewis, 2017) that enabled us to select particularly informative cases to answer our research questions (cf. Illia et al., 2023; Kurki & Lähdesmäki, 2023). Our sampling scheme encompassed three criteria: First, we included initiatives that defined themselves as CSBs by being a member of CSB networks. ¹ To apply this criteria, we scanned the websites of two established CSB networks: ² One is MYZELIUM, an educational institute for community-supported initiatives. The other German network is CSX Network which fosters the dialogue between various actors in the context of CSBs. These networks provided rich lists of CSBs from various fields of business. Second, we included those CSB initiatives in our sample which provided publicly available information on value proposition, value creation, and value capture. Wherever we found publicly available information on the individual CSB, we included the information in our sample; wherever we didn’t, we excluded the initiative. This procedure led to a sample of 23 CSBs in various business fields, including food, health, and energy (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Study Sample Consisting of 23 Cases From a Variety of Business Sectors (According to Statista’s Classification Scheme).

Case	Business sector a	Company	Size	CSBM type	Secondary material
#1	Recreation	Adventure provider	Small	Relational	Blog article 1.1 Blog article 1.2 Newspaper article 1.3 Newspaper article 1.4
#2	Retail	Bakery	Small	Relational	Magazine article 2.1 Magazine article 2.2 Webpage 2.3 Webpage 2.4 Webpage 2.5 Webpage 2.6 Webpage 2.7 Webpage 2.8
#3	Other services	Energy provider	Small	Transactional	Webpage 3.1 Webpage 3.2 Newspaper article 3.3
#4	Recreation	Adventure provider	Small	Relational	Webpage 4.1 Blog article 4.2
#5	Recreation	Coaching	Small	Relational	Webpage 5.1 Webpage 5.2 Podcast record 5.3
#6	Other services	Coworking	Small	Transactional	Webpage 6.1 Newspaper article 6.2
#7	Agriculture	Winery	Solo	Relational	Blog article 7.1 Blog article 7.2 Webpage 7.3 Newspaper article 7.4
#8	Rental	Coworking	Small	Relational	Self-presentation 8.1 Podcast record 8.2 Podcast record 8.3 Newspaper article 8.4
#9	Education	Trainer	Solo	Relational	Webpage 9.1 Podcast 9.2
#10	Recreation	Coach	Solo	Relational	Webpage 10.1 Newspaper article 10.2 Blog article 10.3 Blog article 10.4
#11	Food services	Bakery	Small	Transactional	Webpage 11.1 Webpage 11.2 Blog article 11.3 Newspaper article 11.4
#12	Food services	Restaurant	Small	Transactional	Webpage 12.1 Newspaper article 12.2
#13	Retail	Retail store	Small	Transactional	Newspaper article 13.1 Newspaper article 13.2 Webpage 13.3 Webpage 13.4 Webpage 13.5 Webpage 13.6 Webpage 13.7 Webpage 13.8
#14	Education	Trainer	Small	Relational	Webpage 14.1 Webpage 14.2 Webpage 14.3 Webpage 14.4 Podcast record 14.5
#15	Retail	Retail store	Small	Transactional	Webpage 15.1 Webpage 15.2 Webpage 15.3 Newspaper article 15.4
#16	Other services	Repair service	Small	Relational	Webpage 16.1 Webpage 16.2 Webpage 16.3 Webpage 16.4 Webpage 16.5 Newspaper article 16.6 Blog article 16.7
#17	Other services	Technical service	Solo	Relational	Webpage 17.1 Webpage 17.2 Blog article 17.3 Podcast record 17.4
#18	Arts	Tailoring	Solo	Relational	Magazine article 18.1 Blog article 18.2 Newspaper article 18.3 Newspaper article 18.4
#19	Other services	Energy provider	Small	Relational	Webpage 19.1 Webpage 19.2 Webpage 19.3 Newspaper article 19.4
#20	Business services	Consultancy	Small	Hybrid	Webpage 20.1 Webpage 20.2 Self-presentation 20.3 Podcast record 20.4
#21	Other services	Mobility provider	Small	Relational	Podcast record 21.1 Webpage 21.2 Webpage 21.3 Webpage 21.4 Self-presentation 21.5
#22	Retail	Retail store	Small	Transactional	Webpage 22.1 Webpage 22.2 Webpage 22.3 Newspaper article 22.4
#23	Agriculture	Winery	Small	Transactional	Newsletter article 23.1 Newsletter article 23.2 Magazine article 23.3 Self-presentation 23.4 Self-presentation 23.5

Note. Company size: Solo = Solopreneur; Small = < 50 employees.

a

Following Kelle and Kluge (2010), typologies can have two or more types. Typologies encompassing two types are common in business research, for example Sichel (1993) distinguishes between deepness and steepness as two types of asymmetry in business cycles, Vega and Kidwell (2007) compare two types of entrepreneurs (business and social entrepreneurs), and Schweitzer and Meng (2023) investigate how two types of NGO-business relationships differ in their effect on consumers.

After that, we collected secondary material for each of the 23 CSBs (Glaser & Strauss, 2010; Saunders & Lewis, 2017) which provided a large body of information on the nature of the CSB initiatives. In line with Glaser (2001), we collected document types such as website screenshots, downloaded newspapers, magazines, and blog articles, and transcribed podcasts to enrich the analysis while thoroughly considering the adequacy of the collected material (Saunders & Lewis, 2017). Focusing on our research question, we included only those documents for further analysis that provided information on value proposition, creation, and capture as part of a business model.

We analyzed the material using qualitative content analysis (Kelle, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994), first employing a subsumptive approach to code our material (Kelle, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994), meaning that we built on so-called sensitizing concepts encompassing the three value elements of sustainable value proposition, sustainable value creation, and sustainable value capture to analyze the cases. Building on this pre-existing knowledge, subsumptive coding fostered the constructive handling of a considerable amount of data while at the same time leaving space for developing empirically grounded dimensions and attributes for each of the three value elements (Kelle & Kluge, 2010).

After coding the entire material along the three value elements, we enriched these with empirical dimensions derived from the concrete text passages in the material. We intentionally decided not to build on preexisting dimensions of value elements (e.g., distribution channels, core competencies, or strategic partners as value creation dimensions), as these would have limited our exploration of CSBMs (Kelle, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Instead, we intended to be open to upcoming new dimensions (e.g., the role of the community, participation of members, and financial contribution), as CSBMs are a very recent phenomenon in research. Finally, aiming to derive empirical attributes that lead to a clear differentiation between the cases (e.g., community as a means versus community as an end), we iteratively conducted several rounds of differentiation (i.e., we checked for differences between the cases again and again, back and forth) until we derived our final scheme encompassing the three sensitizing concepts with eight dimensions and 19 attributes (see Online Appendix A).

To make our initial findings more assessable, we applied a typology formation process as proposed by Kelle and Kluge (2010) and Kluge (2000). Following this process, we first aimed to develop and define relevant dimensions that helped us compare and distinguish the individual cases. This step tied into our qualitative content analysis, in which we derived eight differentiating dimensions with 19 attributes. Second, we grouped the individual cases according to the dimensions, analyzing empirical patterns that indicated the presence of an empirical typology encompassing two types ³ (Kelle and Kluge, 2010; see Online Appendix A). We then qualitatively evaluated the internal homogeneity by checking whether one group’s cases were similar and assessed external heterogeneity by investigating cross-group differences.

After this, we analyzed contextual relationships among the empirical groups. Following Glaser’s (1978) concept of theoretical sensitivity, we deliberately integrated our knowledge of existing concepts and theories, using theoretical terms to reflect on the empirically derived types (Glaser, 1978). Recalling literature on SBMs (Aagaard et al., 2021; Dembek & York, 2020; Reed, 2009) and CSBs (Debuquet et al., 2020; Löbbering, 2018; Medici et al., 2021; Rommel, 2017; Tang et al., 2019; Zhao & Jia, 2020) helped direct our awareness to transactional and relational interactions, which in turn shaped the process of finding a suitable designation for the types in our typology. Finally, we characterized the constructed types based on their dimensions and attributes.

Stage 2: Focus Groups for Triangulating, Validating, and Enriching the Findings

In this second stage, we invited a total of 13 community-supported entrepreneurs to two online focus group sessions (Powell & Single, 1996; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2017). Focus groups belong to the most common methods of data collection in qualitative research (Morgan, 1996). We used them as supplementary data sources to validate our findings and explore the implications. Specifically, the focus groups provided valuable insights into the resources each type of CSBM builds on. We preferred conducting focus groups over individual interviews because we were especially interested in bringing together entrepreneurs who have set up different types of community-supported business models. We recruited the participants through MYZELIUM and the CSX network. Four of them brought experience in founding transactional CSBMs, four were experienced in founding relational CSBMs, and five participants have even set up both transactional and relational types of CSBMs. The business models of five out of the thirteen entrepreneurs have also been analyzed as part of the documentary analysis.

The first round took place in December 2021, encompassed eight community-supported entrepreneurs, and took 1 hr and 20 min. In this first focus group, one of the authors first briefly shared the preliminary results of the research conducted so far and then allowed the participants to support or challenge the results. The second round took place in January 2022, again encompassed eight community-supported entrepreneurs (three entrepreneurs took part in both the first and the second round), and took 1 hr and 10 min. In this second round, the focus was on the typology of CSBMs, as well as on the characteristics and resources of each type. One of the authors presented the typology (that has been revised based on the feedback from the first focus group), invited the participants to reflect on their own business models in light of the typology, and asked the participants to discuss the typology’s practical implications.

Again, we analyzed the material using qualitative content analysis, but this time we did not use concepts as a template to analyze the material. We rather suspended prior theory to be open to our participants’ experiences as far as possible (Gehman et al., 2018; Gioia, 2021). Following the ontological perspective of bounded relativism, we are aware that it is impossible for us to make ourselves completely free from prior knowledge. However, we did our best to impartially work through the material and to carve out our participants’ views on the typology, characteristics, and implications of each type.

Dimensions of CSBMs

Definition and Typology of CSBMs

Consolidating the insights gained so far, we define CSBs as businesses that enable a close relationship between producers and consumers. They are founded and run by a single person or team that provides products and services for (and to some extent with) a community of consumers. The community of consumers provides the material and immaterial resources ⁴ required and, in turn, receives the product or service (often regularly; see Online Appendix B). Furthermore, we define CSBMs as business models that describe the architecture of CSBs, i.e., how CSBs propose, create, and capture sustainable value beyond organizational boundaries. The community of members is usually a core element in CSBMs and runs like a common thread through CSBs’ value proposition, creation, and capture. There are two types of CSBMs that considerably differ in their value proposition, creation, and capture: transactional and relational CSBMs. In the following, we portray their characteristics (see Table 2) and suggest definitions for each type:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Typology of CSBMs.

		Transactional CSBMs	Relational CSBMs
Sensitizing concepts	Empirical dimensions	Empirical attributes
Sustainable value proposition	Role of the community	The community is understood as a means to generate value to the entrepreneur; e.g. “the community [. . .] reduces entrepreneurial risks” (doc. 11.4)	The community has a value in itself; e.g. “The community is core and it is of greatest value” (doc. 21.1)
	Result orientation	The CSBM proposes mainly output-oriented values focusing on the product or service, e.g. “six bottles of wine in return for a monthly contribution” (doc. 23.2)	CSBM stresses the need to achieve impact-oriented results beyond the product or service, e.g. “to contribute towards a sustainable economic transformation” (doc. 20.1)
Sustainable value creation	Participation of members	The role of community members in value creation is described as relatively passive and mainly limited to a financial contribution, e.g. case #23 informs its members “via newsletter about changes concerning the products or internal (re)structuring processes” (doc. 23.1)	The role of community members in value creation is described as relatively active, e.g. participating in organizing events (doc. 1.2) or in internal decision making processes (doc. 8.2.)
	Key activities	Focus on creating products or services as key activity; e.g. “repairing and maintaining their members’ bicycles”(doc. 16.5)	Focus on creating spaces,e.g. “creating ‘spaces’ for people’s personal development” (doc. 8.2)or community building as the crucial activity in value creation, e.g. doc. 22.1 (beyond creating products and services)
	Relevance of process transparency	Not emphasizing the need to transparently disclosing their internal processes	Emphasizing the need to transparently disclosing their internal processes to members in order to foster mutual trust between the provider and the members and stabilizing the organization (e.g. doc 14.4, 17.3, 19.1)
Sustainable value capture	Financial contribution	The members contribute a fixed monthly amount of money (e.g. 25 or 50 euros per month) or a staggered contribution; e.g. in case #15, the standard contribution is 19 euros per month whereas low-income members are allowed to pay only 13 euros and high-income members are asked to contribute 25 euros monthly (doc. 15.3)	Bidding rounds are conducted once a year to agree on solidarity-based contributions (e.g. Cases #1, #4, #7); individual contributions usually vary substantially across members, which enables members with highly divergent financial budgets to participate (doc. 1.1, 7.1)
	Relevance of financial transparency	Financial transparency is not mentioned as an essential component of the revenue model (and not necessary because bidding rounds are not conducted)	Financial transparency is regarded as an essential component of the revenue model; e.g. “financial transparency is crucial as it enables their members to trace back all costs, assure themselves of the fair payment of producers, and share costs in solidarity” (doc. 2.2)
	Relevance of needs-orientation	Needs-orientation is not mentioned as a core building block of the revenue model; a profit-maximizing orientation is not categorially excluded	Needs-orientation builds the foundation of the revenue model: Financial needs usually encompass covering the entrepreneurial costs of the venture and ensuring a stable income for the founder for a certain period, most often for one year (e.g. doc. 2.5, 7.3, 17.3); needs orientation is usually understood as an antagonistic attitude toward profit orientation

Transactional CSBMs

We identified eight CSBMs out of the 23 CSBs in our sample as transactional CSBMs (Cases #11, #12, see Vignette 1 ⁵ ). These initiatives followed a relatively mechanical way of using the community-supported approach. In their value proposition, transactional CSBMs understood community as a means to achieve a particular goal (doc. 3.1, 6.1, 11.4). For them, the community did not usually mean an end in itself. Transactional CSBMs created value among low participation of community members (doc. 11.4, 12.1, 15.1). This passivity of community members went along with a comparatively low relevance of transparency regarding the information about their production and service generation (doc. 23.1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Vignette 1.

Transactional CSBM by the Bread Heaven Bakery.

The Bread Heaven bakery offers healthy, organic pastries. The bread and baguettes are baked exclusively with flour, water, and salt. Hence, the pastries have a much shorter shelf life and are more digestible than industrial products baked with yeast, sugar, and other additives. Bread Heaven has convinced 100 citizens to become members, who commit to buying a certain amount of bread each week for 1 year. Members pay 50 euros per month, which makes planning easier for Bread Heaven and minimizes entrepreneurial risk. In return, members receive high-quality baked goods at a preferential price. Many members prefer this bread over the industrial bread available at traditional bakeries. They are furthermore regularly informed about bakery news through the bakery’s newsletter.

Moreover, transactional CSBMs mainly focused on producing and offering products and services in value creation, thereby tending toward output orientation and focused on using the community’s financial contribution to achieve their goal (11.4, 12.1, 22.1). Value capture of transactional CSBMs was characterized by a fixed or staggered contribution, a low relevance of financial transparency, and a low relevance of the providers’ and members’ needs in the process (11.4, 15.3, 22.1, 23.4). Transactional CSBMs focused on the transaction between the respective venture and community members without building personal relationships (Jensen et al., 2010; Rousseau, 1990). Hence, we define it as follows: Transactional CSBMs focus on the economic exchange between the organization and its community of members. They understand community as a means to achieve a particular value. Ventures that operate according to a transactional CSBM create value with low participation of community members and capture value with a fixed or staggered contribution (see Online Appendix B).

Relational CSBMs

Among the CSBs in our sample, we identified 15 CSBMs that we refer to as relational CSBMs (Cases #1, #7, #10, #14; see Vignette 2). These CSBMs were often set up as alternatives to market-based mechanisms, i.e., those that use market forces (e.g., competition) to achieve a sustainability impact (8.2, 16.4, 21.1). Relational CSBMs used community-based mechanisms (e.g., cooperation) to achieve their impact. They understood community as an end in their value proposition, i.e., community is a value in and of itself to them (doc. 1.1, 7.1, 21.1). In addition, relational CSBMs are typically aimed at achieving more than a specific output. They stressed the goal of achieving an outcome in the value proposition, for example, mutual learning (doc. 7.1) a sustainable supply chain (doc. 15.1), or a broader societal impact, for instance, fostering a sustainable economic transformation (doc. 20.1) or furthering mobility transitions toward sustainability (doc. 21.1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Vignette 2.

Relational CSBM by the eCarsharing Provider Drive Together.

The eCarsharing provider Drive Together enables neighborhoods to set up communities that share electric vehicles. Drive Together pursues the vision of a societal mobility turn: It fosters fundamentally novel forms of mobility with far fewer cars and much more diverse and colorful transportation. Personal relationships, transparent communication, and mutual trust are core to this process. The community thus becomes more important than the vehicle itself: The members do not only use the car, but meet regularly and informally, enjoy spending time together, celebrate frequently whenever there is a reason (no matter how small), and make plans for future community projects. Users share the fixed costs of the vehicle in solidarity through bidding rounds, while the variable costs are borne individually. To do so, once a year, Drive Together invites its members to the bidding round and presents its financial needs for the upcoming year. In a secret ballot, each member offers the amount of money she or he can pay on a monthly basis throughout the year. As soon as the provider’s financial needs are met, the bidding round is successfully completed. By doing so, Drive Together can count on secured revenues for the whole upcoming year, as the community meets Drive Together’s demands in a needs-oriented way. As all individuals pay individual contributions in harmony with their own financial budgets, there is a high degree of solidarity between them.

Relational CSBMs’ value creation depended on the active involvement of community members (doc. 7.1). The founders organized vital activities that helped building a community with a high degree of mutual trust among the members (doc. 1.1, 7.1). They created spaces for active participation and stressed the need for high process transparency (doc. 8.2). Relational CSBMs’ value capture was usually characterized by a solidarity-based financial contribution (Cases #1, #4, #7) along with a high relevance of financial transparency within the community and an orientation toward the providers’ and members’ needs (Cases #7, #8, #17). Relational CSBMs positioned meaningful relationships at the center of all three dimensions of their business model (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; Luo & Zhao, 2013). The term “relational” referred to an ongoing process of meaning-making and reflection (Kurucz et al., 2017, p. 189) between entrepreneurs and members as well as among members in this type of CSBM. These relationships provided a stabilizing buffer in the case of sudden emergencies, ensuring that the required resources were available and hence, were crucial for the success of relational business models (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, traveling or getting together with others was sometimes not permitted, which had negative consequences for many travel agencies and hotels. In contrast, community-supported adventure providers were able to find solutions together with their members. In Case #1, the entrepreneurs and members jointly developed the solution that they would all individually experience an outdoor adventure and share their experiences via a digital platform. Hence, the community-supported entrepreneurs were able to continue their business activities while maintaining stable income even during economic crises because of the trust-filled, close relationship with their members, as well as an ongoing process of meaning-making and reflection (Kurucz et al., 2017, p. 189). With these insights in mind, we define relational CSBMs as aiming at building tight relationships between the venture and its community of members. They understand the community as an end in itself, create value among high participation of its community members, and capture value with a solidarity-based proportional pricing model (see Online Appendix B).

Our analysis has shed light on eight dimensions and 19 attributes that supported us in understanding, describing, and differentiating CSBMs. These insights have also shown that CSBs do not all apply the same business model, but that there are instead two types of CSBMs in practice that differ in sustainable value proposition, creation, and capture.

How Transactional and Relational CSBMs Differ in the Resources Considered Vital for Success

Organizations usually possess internal and external resources, such as financial, human, or organizational, that contribute to competitiveness and sustainability (Barney, 1991). Those resources cannot generate value themselves, but through a combination of resources and the process of using them (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). Our analysis has shown that transactional and relational CSBMs consider divergent resources as vital for their success. Hence, we discuss how transactional and relational CSBMs differ in the resources they emphasize and how they use these resources in the following. Thereby, we pay more attention to the relational than to the transactional CSBM, as the relational type differs from classical market principles to a higher degree.

Summary and Research Implications

We started this study with the observation that scholars increasingly explore community-supported ventures, but usually focus on the CSB and thereby mix community-supported organizations with divergent underlying business models. Hence, we have explored differences in CSBMs in practice, carved out a typology, characterized each type, and delineated the divergent resources these ventures build on. We have shown that transactional CSBMs are characterized by a rather technical relationship between entrepreneur(s) and the community of members, while relational CSBMs focus on more than just the product or service by emphasizing the community as an end in itself and building on higher levels of trust, transparency, and needs-orientation. We have seen that these differences in transactional and relational CSBMs bear implications for the resources considered critical for running and sustaining the business. For example, the vision of changing the economic system and striving to show that another way of doing business is possible is a vital resource of relational CSBMs, while transactional CSBMs rather act within the classic economic operating mode.

Unconsciously mixing transactional and relational types of CSBMs bears the risk of overseeing important differences and can make the results less valid and generalizable. In this regard, differentiating between transactional and relational CSBMs can be seen as an important variable in quantitative research on CSBMs. A factor that may be beneficial to transactional CSBMs could potentially have a negative effect on relational CSBMs. Researchers who are not aware of the differentiation between transactional and relational types of CSBMs may not be able to explain these divergent effects or, even worse, attribute the effects of the missing variable (type of CSBM) to those that are included in the model. This problem is called omitted variable bias (Wooldridge, 2009). Moreover, unconsciousness about transactional and relational types of CSBMs can negatively affect the generalizability of both quantitative and qualitative research. For example, a researcher might not be aware that her study sample mainly consists of relational CSBMs. She might draw conclusions that are not generalizable to transactional CSBMs. Hence, scholars can build on our typology to clearly analyze and define their research subject and consequently better carve out the boundary conditions of generalizability.

These insights bear important implications for existing research. For example, in their seminal article on CSA as a microeconomic degrowth model, Bloemmen and colleagues (2015) build their argument on the examination of a single case study. They explain that the

members of this CSA cannot be considered Homo economicus as in mainstream neoclassical economics. Their production and consumption behaviours are not based upon interest-seeking, self-centred behaviour. A more holistic understanding of human beings (Bina & Vaz, 2011) is needed in the case of such grassroots initiatives. Our observations of dominant trust, cooperation and self-giving attitudes corroborate many studies in the field of neurosciences and behavioural economics (p. 113).

According to the information given in the study (role of the community as an end in itself due to conviviality, active participation of members, high financial and process transparency), this case seems to constitute a rather relational CSBM, raising the question whether the findings would have been different for transactional CSBMs. Do entrepreneurs and members of transactional CSBMs apply a Homo economicus way of thinking or do they act similarly to relational CSBMs?

Similarly, Medici and colleagues (2021) show in their study on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of CSAs in Italy, that CSAs in their sample

can encounter organisational problems, as some members could not offer volunteer-based work, participate in CSA events, or contribute their time to other CSA activities, preferring to support the community in monetary terms only. In this case, enhancing member motivation was emphasised to let the community breaking through from a hybrid ethical purchasing group to a proper CSA (p. 5).

We question whether founders of both types of CSBMs have the same understanding of a “proper CSA” as mentioned in the text. In transactional CSBMs, entrepreneurs usually do not put that much emphasis on the participation of members, as members have a rather passive role in these ventures. We assume that, implicitly, the authors used the term “proper CSA” to refer to a relational one. Applying our typology of transactional and relational CSBMs can support the authors in making clear what they mean.

Moreover, in their study on community-supported fisheries in the U.S.A., Carlson and colleagues (2021) explore network resilience amid the COVID-19 pandemic. They find that demand-side seafood distribution has become more diversified and dispersed through a novel marketing strategy that increased the number of customers and augmented network redundancy and resilience while minimizing COVID-19 transmission. Applying the differentiation between transactional and relational to the study by Carlson and colleagues (2021) could have provided insights into whether and how the transformation strategies of different types of community-supported fisheries differ from each other. For example, based on our study’s findings, one could assume that in transactional community-supported fisheries, entrepreneurs develop solutions on their own, while in relational ones, entrepreneurs and members develop solutions together. And it could be possible that in relational ventures, a greater number and more creative solutions are developed than in transactional businesses.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

This study has limitations that open avenues for future research: First, although the secondary material analyzed in this study and the primary data collected through the two focus groups offer valuable insights into the functioning of CSBMs, further primary material can refine and strengthen the scholarly understanding of these business models. We are aware that entrepreneurs do not necessarily publicly present all aspects of their business models. For example, in our research, some cases did not mention process or financial transparency in their external communication. Although we do not argue that these CSBs create value in a non-transparent manner, we do in fact see that process or financial transparency is comparably less relevant in their external communication. Moreover, our data only capture what entrepreneurs say or write they do, but not what they actually do. We as a result invite scholars to apply further primary qualitative, quantitative, and ethnographic research methods to dig deeper into CSBMs’ structure and functioning. Moreover, as our cases and focus group participants mainly stem from the German context, future research could include CSBs from a diverse set of countries to expand the sample scope. By doing so, researchers could also analyze whether culture affects the emergence and management of CSBMs.

Second, as previous research has shown that the business environment matters for the success of a business model, it would be very fruitful for scholars to determine which business environments favor transactional and relational CSBMs (Evans et al., 2017; Oskam et al., 2021; Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). A business model that is successful in a particular context might not succeed in another surrounding with different habits or cultural rules. Interestingly, our sample identified both a transactional and a relational winery. We can therefore assume that the choice about whether to choose a transactional or a relational business model is rather a matter of preference than one of the business sector. For example, some entrepreneurs might be less open and willing to put effort into relationship building (Davila & Molina, 2017). Although being able to build up both transactional and relational business models in nearly every business sector probably holds true to some extent, we have already argued that it is a matter of company size and complexity whether it is possible to establish relational CSBMs. Establishing close relationships takes time and effort, and becomes more difficult with increasing business size. The two wineries in our sample support this assumption, as the relational CSBM here was established by a solopreneur, whereas the transactional CSBM was built by an existing winery (a small company). We invite future research to determine which specific contexts enable each of the two types of CSBMs to flourish.

Third, our sample contained one hybrid CSBM that applies transactional and relational attributes in equal parts. We assume that this CSBM is a special case because it operates in the B2B context. It would be very interesting to investigate other CSBMs in the B2B sector to check for a pattern of whether these CSBs mainly apply hybrid CSBMs or not. A larger sample would definitely enrich the empirical evidence.

Based on the discussion of our study’s limitations, we encourage scholars to explore CSBMs in greater detail, identify the individual contexts in which the two types will flourish, and either verify or see our propositions differently regarding the characteristics and resources.