Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 365, 10 September 2022, 132741
Journal of Cleaner Production

Mapping 70 Years of advancements in management research on sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132741Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Sustainability management literature is better positioned to address grand societal challenges.

  • This paper examines how sustainability is discussed across 27 top management journals.

  • Though a small subset, sustainability management literature is increasing and highly impactful.

  • Key linguistic, theoretical, methodological, and ontological differences are discussed.

  • Opportunities for future research on the utility of sustainability management are proposed.

Abstract

Sustainability provides a research paradigm that, when embedded into management language, theory, and method, provides a systems approach to drawing interconnections between business activities and grand societal challenges. With mounting evidence detailing the salience of sustainable business transformations, the gap between conventional management research and practice is stark. With little formal discussion on how this gap can be bridged, this study examines the application of sustainability in top business and management literature and details opportunities for synergizing these research agendas to inform future action-oriented research. Examining 46,856 publications across 27 top management journals, this comparative analysis finds that 800 articles (1.71%) speak specifically to sustainability. Adopting the Poisson burst detection algorithm and interdisciplinary mapping techniques, we trace the evolution and positionality of sustainability discourse in management literature. Though nascent, sustainability management distinguishes itself through a lens of pragmatism versus empirics, as well as through discernible theoretical and methodological approaches. We also find that sustainability discourse is growing at a faster rate, with higher aggregate citation counts and with prominence in select sub-disciplines relative to its conventional counterparts. We conclude with a research agenda - for grand societal challenges to become actionable, a new language is required, engaging a range of disciplines, theories, and methodologies in the form of sustainability management.

Introduction

In the last decade, ‘grand challenges’ (GCs) have become an increasingly attractive entry point for management scholarship to conduct pragmatic and action-oriented research that bridges the business-society-nature interface (Marcus et al., 2010). According to George et al. (2016), GCs are defined as “a specific critical barrier(s) that, if removed, would help solve an important societal problem with a high likelihood of global impact through widespread implementation” (George et al., 2016, p. 1881).

What some scholars refer to as the ‘greatest challenge’ facing management research, the ever-widening research-practice gap becomes notably extended as businesses continue to underestimate the interconnectivity and urgency associated with GCs (Banks et al., 2016; Bansal and Hoffman, 2012). This underscores the lingering need for new ontological framings of GCs that move beyond mechanistic and reductionist research paradigms, to deepen understandings of ‘how’ and ‘why’ proven strategies for addressing GCs can be successfully transferred, scaled, and sustained across dynamic and emerging landscapes (Rynes and Bartunek, 2017). The authors posit that for solutions to become more actionable, a new transdisciplinary research agenda is required.

As an evolving field of research and practice, Sustainability Management (SM) embodies a functional response to the historical limitations of siloed (sustainability; management) sciences and their capacity to help businesses navigate dynamic, uncertain transition processes (Williams et al., 2017). Rather than a GC in-of-itself, the authors hold that ‘sustainability’ provides a research paradigm (by which scholars perceive and act on GCs) that, when embedded into management language, theory, and method, provides a systems approach to drawing interconnections between business activities and GCs, spanning organizational boundaries and traditional stakeholder groups (Dyllick and Muff, 2016; Gladwin et al., 1995).

This study aims to explore how sustainability, as a distinct research paradigm within management research, is reflected in the research discourse of top business and management journals and whether and how this framing more effectively targets the GCs of today. This review is the most extensive study of its kind on SM literature, collectively screening 46,856 publications across 27 top management journals. Using novel computational advancements in text mining, mapping, and visualization, this review outlines past and emerging research foci, key shortcomings and conceptual gaps in SM thinking, highlighting opportunities to integrate and expand on existing discourse. There remains immense potential to synthesize findings of individual studies to advance scholarship on SM as a stand-alone field of study. This review concludes by identifying four avenues for future research to advance the study of SM; under the umbrellas of language, method, theory, and the operationalization of GCs.

Building upon existing strengths and bringing together traditionally separate research agendas, the authors advocate for SM as a transdisciplinary framing capable of supporting future management research in its capacity to inform evidence-based practice as deemed necessary to support organizations in tackling grand societal challenges (Briner et al., 2009; Laasch et al., 2020a, Laasch et al., 2020b; Rousseau, 2012; Rynes and Bartunek, 2017).

Issues of sustainability have become increasingly salient across management literature. The topic has been approached through various foci, including climate change (Chandy et al., 2019; Wright and Nyberg, 2017); education (Muff et al., 2017; Waddock, 2020); resilience (DesJardine et al., 2019; Hamann et al., 2020); responsibility (Laasch et al., 2020; Voegtlin et al., 2019); ethics (Martí, 2018); paradox (Schad and Smith, 2018); systems thinking (Bansal et al., 2020); and sustainable development (Howard-Grenville et al., 2019). Admittedly still a nascent and emerging body of knowledge, management research on GCs are inherently confined to specific areas of study, with sustainability framings constituting but a minor proportion of total research outputs (Aguinis et al., 2020; Hamann et al., 2020). For solutions to become more actionable, a new language and broadened participation is required, engaging a range of disciplines, theoretical, and methodological approaches across multiple levels of organization and society in the form of SM (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013).

Grand challenges have been adopted as a moniker by management researchers when examining the role of political, institutional, and social structures and their relative contributions to the persistence and attenuation of deleterious effects on socio-ecological functioning (George et al., 2016; Howard-Grenville et al., 2019; Wright and Nyberg, 2017). While constituting systemic global problems, requiring collective action to sustain widespread implementation, these challenges are experienced locally and contextually nuanced (Berrone et al., 2016). Characterized by their complexity, uncertainty, and normativity (Ferraro et al., 2015), the capacity for research to devise meaningful solutions lie in its ability to drive behavioural change and socio-technical transitions. While theoretically robust and responsible for providing important scientific insights and helpful recommendations for practice, the current state of affairs constitutes a dangerous trap of incrementalism and impedes timely progress towards fulfilling societal needs.

Grounded in normative principles of human behaviour, organizing, and managing, the goal of SM is to continuously enhance the ability of individuals, organizations, and societies to experience benefits from natural and socioeconomic systems (Williams et al., 2017). Compared to previous iterations of managerial sciences, the field of SM research represents a key departure in theoretical logic, moving past historical patterns that are narrowly human elite-dominated, bound by siloed thinking (Gladwin et al., 1995). If viewed as a compilation (that being one where SM is a complex combination of the contributions of lower-level management and sustainability research field), then SM provides the applied lens necessary for progressing management discourse through the translation of sustainability criteria into political, institutional, and behavioural reform (Molina-Azorín et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2017).

Linnenluecke and Griffiths' (2013) study on the origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field is among the few cross-cutting bodies of research to date, providing analysis on sustainability-related trends and themes. Taking a broader definition of sustainability (to include topics related to responsibility, responsiveness, and greening, among others), they clustered the field into four distinct conceptual genealogies: corporate social performance theory, stakeholder theory, a corporate social performance versus economic performance debate, and a greening of management debate. Williams et al.’s (2017) study on systems thinking and SM similarly adopts a cross-cutting approach to SM research, using a ‘systems’ lens, the authors delineate core fields for future research, including behavioural change; leadership; industrial ecology; socio-ecological systems; transitions management; paradigm shifts; and education. The authors go one step further to suggest that these areas of research hold shared principles of interconnectivity, feedback loops, emergence, and self-organization (Williams et al., 2017). While previous iterations of management theory do not focus on sustainability, and in doing so, fail to address GCs (i.e. Sustainable Development Goals), management theories do hold an advantage over organizational theories in that management can be performed at multiple levels, from individual through organizational to societal levels. Thus, as noted by Starik and Kanashiro (2013), it may be a worthy endeavour to explore which management theories can be used to advance evidence-based practice(s) as part of this field.

The objective of this paper is thus to present the current state of academic discourse on SM to provide insights into current focal areas of research discourse, how it differentiates itself from ‘conventional’ management (CM) literature, and where it should go over the next crucial decade of action on GCs. This objective is achieved over three steps. First, this paper examines each subfield of SM and CM independently and over time to present historical research agendas and future avenues for research. Second, this paper compares SM and CM literature to identify how the two subfields differ. Finally, a deductive analysis of grand challenges and theories helps highlight research agendas where each field can develop over the next decade.

Section snippets

Data and method

This research adopts a mixed approach to the content analysis methodology combining inductive, deductive, and comparative elements to garner insights into how sustainability literature has evolved over time and in relation to management literature (Creswell, 2014; Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Hseigh and Shannon, 2005). By identifying nascent and latent trends in sustainability discourse within management literature, this research contributes to existing literature reviews in this space. Unique to this

Results and discussion

This study identified the features and criteria differentiating SM from CM and employed these framings in combination with existing literature to inform how SM is effective in addressing grand challenges and where the subfield lags. The results help to further corroborate positions forwarded by previous research (Hörisch et al., 2015; Kiesnere and Baumgartner, 2019; Williams et al., 2017) - that SM is a nascent, emerging, and impactful framing by which management scholars can address GCs. Where

Conclusion

This study presents an overview of the last 70 years of management scholarship to identify how sustainability, as a research paradigm within management research, is reflected through discourse in top business and management journals. The results first attest that SM is a nascent, emerging, and impactful framing by which management scholars can address GCs. Novel methodological approaches within management literature, such as the proliferation of bibliometrics, natural language processing, topic

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Truzaar Dordi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Nicholas Palaschuk: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (72)

  • P. Berrone et al.

    Understanding community dynamics in the study of grand challenges: how nonprofits, institutional actors, and the community fabric interact to influence income inequality

    Acad. Manag. J.

    (2016)
  • N.M.P. Bocken et al.

    A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • R.B. Briner et al.

    Evidence-based management: concept cleanup time?

    Acad. Manag. Perspect.

    (2009)
  • G.I. Broman et al.

    A framework for strategic sustainable development

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • Buscaldi, D., & Hernández-Farias, I. (2015). Sentiment analysis on microblogs for natural disasters management: A study...
  • R. Chandy et al.

    Management science —Special issue on business and climate change

    Manag. Sci.

    (2019)
  • J.W. Creswell

    Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches

    (2014)
  • M. DesJardine et al.

    Bouncing back: building resilience through social and environmental practices in the context of the 2008 global financial crisis

    J. Manag.

    (2019)
  • T. Dyllick et al.

    Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability

    Organ. Environ.

    (2016)
  • Georg M. Eichler et al.

    What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature

    Sustainability

    (2019)
  • Satu Elo et al.

    The qualitative content analysis process

    J. Adv. Nurs.

    (2008)
  • S. Evans et al.

    Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models

    Bus. Strat. Environ.

    (2017)
  • F. Ferraro et al.

    Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited

    Organ. Stud.

    (2015)
  • M. Geissdoerfer et al.

    Sustainable business model innovation: a review

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • G. George et al.

    Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research

    Acad. Manag. J.

    (2016)
  • T.N. Gladwin et al.

    Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research

    Acad. Manag. Rev.

    (1995)
  • Ranjay Gulati

    Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research

    Acad. Manag. J.

    (2007)
  • R. Hamann et al.

    Strategic responses to grand challenges: why and how corporations build community resilience

    J. Bus. Ethics

    (2020)
  • Janet Hammer et al.

    The triple bottom line and sustainable economic development theory and practice

    Econ. Develop. Q.

    (2017)
  • J. Hörisch et al.

    Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework

    Organ. Environ.

    (2014)
  • J. Hörisch et al.

    Implementation of sustainability management and company size: a knowledge-based view

    Bus. Strat. Environ.

    (2015)
  • J. Howard-Grenville et al.

    Sustainable development for a better world: contributions of leadership, management, and organizations

    Acad. Manag. Discov.

    (2019)
  • H.F. Hsieh et al.

    Three approaches to qualitative content analysis

    Qual. Health Res.

    (2005)
  • M.P. Johnson et al.

    Two decades of sustainability management tools for SMEs: how far have we come?

    J. Small Bus. Manag.

    (2016)
  • P.P. Khaing et al.

    Adaptive methods for efficient burst and correlative burst detection

  • A.L. Kiesnere et al.

    Sustainability management in practice: organizational change for sustainability in smaller large-sized companies in Austria

    Sustainability

    (2019)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text