Kay Raworth's "doughnut model" of economics is briefly described near the end of this article.

As presented here, it seems to make a valid point, but I think the article makes a conceptual error in calling it an "economic model" and presenting it as an alternative to profit-based behavior economics, as if the two were different answers to one question. I think they answer two different questions.

Profit-motivated economics invites people to ask, "How can I get ahead?" Raworth's economics invites people to ask, "What do we all need?"