First, what works as a "business" changes drastically if associations are voluntary.
I can't think of any pure examples of a pure voluntary association "business" but there was something close from the 1990s through early 2000s in the combination of the European dole system (along with college students, enthusiasts working on their own time, and others) and the Open Source Software development model. The dole allowed some people to survive without working, and OSS model allowed some of those people to cooperatively assist in the development of a "product" in a sense that was analogous to the products of commercial enterprise, in a voluntary association way, where they would otherwise have been forced to concentrate on survival. Once it was apparent that the "product" had monetary value to the rest of the world, the dole participant's contribution as a percentage of the whole diminished (though their absolute contribution has likely continued to grow) but for a brief period they defined the model.
What is interesting about that situation is that, in order to hold their purely voluntary (and not face to face) organizations together, they wound up following the same paths we see in representative and democratic government. Voting, dialectic, parties, schisms, et cetera. To me that indicates that something like a government model (vs. the for-pay business model where you follow the money) is more appropriate in a post-automation scenario. The motivators that drive today's businesses aren't as strong in the post-automation scenario, so the current model of what a "business" is doesn't seem likely to survive.
Which gets us to the second point: I see it as a transitional path. Rather than ripping up these systems with all their history, systems that many people honestly love, it makes sense to allow them to adapt to the new realities they face.