The value of design as a means of innovation has long been recognized. More recently, interest in how design can create value has moved from a functional to a strategic focus whereby the design concept defines the way in which the whole firm competes. This is known as “design orientation,” although research on the nature of this construct remains scarce. In this exploratory study to define and unpack the nature of design orientation we follow the same process as previous research on orientations, through extrapolation from the sustained behaviours at firms that use design to drive their strategy. Empirically, we ground our definition in insights from design experts and senior managers (n = 62) within a diverse sample of “design-oriented” firms (n = 26). We identify that design orientation consists of an overarching ethos defined by four core emphases (connective, empathetic, future, and aesthetic), reflected in and reinforced by eight behaviours (catalysing, integrating, perspective taking, marrying logics, disrupting, future-proofing, design language, and brand reinforcing). In so doing, we define the design orientation construct and identify the strategic investments firms can use to leverage it for competitive advantage. We provide an agenda for future research and explore managerial challenges associated with implementation.@en

Streaming services are replete with stories of the dead coming back to life. They’re also chock-full with dead or almost dead brands. Shows like Stranger Things have not only given new life to 1980s pop classics like Kate Bush’s Running up that Hill, but also former tech icons such as Polaroid. One of Netflix’s latest shows goes beyond product placement by placing a dead brand, Blockbuster, at the centre of the drama. The story is set in the last Blockbuster retail outlet in the USA, and focuses on employees’ attempts to save the store, ironically in the face of the onslaught of Netflix. @en

The sharing economy represents a market-driven response to the perceived inefficient resource use arising from materialism, and as such, offers the possibility of a more environmentally sustainable form of consumption. However, the sustainability benefits attributed to the sharing economy remain contentious and fraught with paradox. Drawing on a critical discourse analysis of three sharing economy brands (Lime, Rent the Runway and BlaBlaCar) we identify that sustainability discourses compete with claims arising from the espoused benefits of immateriality and platform brands’ desire for rapid growth. We identify and explore three platform brand discourses (disrupting unsustainable leaders, guilt-free choice, and non-commercial appeals) and their associated practices. In doing so we identify that tensions between these discourses and practices give rise to three sustainability-related contradictions: displacement of sustainable alternatives, hidden materiality, and creeping usage. Our findings contribute to our understanding of the sharing economy and its role in sustainability.

@en