Special Issue Editors

Fang Lee Cooke (Monash University, fang.cooke@monash.edu)
Shuang Ren (Queen’s University Belfast, s.ren@qub.ac.uk)
David Ahlstrom (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Metropolitan University, ahlstrom@baf.cuhk.edu.hk)

Supervising Editor

Shipeng Yan (The University of Hong Kong, shpyan@hku.edu.hk)

Deadline for Proposal Submission: May 31, 2025
Deadline for Paper Submission: December 31, 2025

The world is facing numerous challenges, from climate change, environmental pollution, and resource depletion to geopolitical tensions, periodic pandemics and economic upheaval (Ciravegna et al., 2023; UNEP-ISR, 2024). This behooves institutions, businesses and other stakeholders to take action collectively to address the challenges and trends and adopt a sustainable approach to economic growth that also takes into account planet health and human wellbeing, which has come to be known as the Triple Bottom Line (i.e., Profit, People and the Planet, Elkington, 2018). Increasingly, firms are expected to assume a greater level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and imagine their purpose in society for the greater good beyond profit and shareholder interests (e.g., Ahlstrom,  2010; Delbridge et al., 2024; Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017; McPhail et al., 2024; Rehg, 2023). These calls reflect the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) agenda (UN Development Program, 2024). In 2015, the UN launched 17 SDGs to be achieved by 2030. As an aspiration, the UN SDGs project a visionary paradigm of “people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership” (Brown & Rasmussen, 2019). However, we are more than halfway to 2030, and none of the goals is nearly half achieved, according to the UN report (UN, 2023). This suggests further that stakeholders need to act urgently through collective efforts toward the sustainable development agenda. In particular, firms need to consider the environmental, financial and social outcomes in their management decisions and business activities as part of their CSR.

There has been growing research interest in grand challenges, SDGs, and sustainable development more broadly in the business and management field (Aguilera et al., 2021; Arena et al., 2018; Battilana  et al., 2022; Bansal et al., 2021; George et al., 2016; Grewatsch et al., 2023). This body of literature investigates how firms are affected by the sustainability agenda (e.g., the increasing pressure for sustainability reporting) on the one hand, and how they can realign their business strategy, policy and practice to promote sustainable development and maintain their legitimacy on the other (George et al., 2016; Girschik, 2020). While a number of studies have shed light on practices in the Chinese context (e.g., Lu et al., 2023), many studies mainly use China as the site for data collection. There remains limited understanding about what challenges Chinese firms encounter, how they create and seize new opportunities in response to climate challenges and energy transition, for example, and how they reengineer their business model, build strategic alliances, and operate in the global market under the SDG environment.

Yet, management policy and practice need to be situated within the context in which firms operate, as influential scholars have long pointed out (Barkema et al., 2015; Stahl et al., 2023; Whetten, 2009; Wood et al., 2024). This presents an important opportunity for extending the scholarship on the role of management in sustainable development from the Chinese perspective, theoretically, methodologically, and empirically. Engaging in phenomenon-based research to advance theories has been called for by several scholars in the management field to make it relevant to practice again (e.g., Chen et al., 2017; Fisher et al., 2021; Ployhart & Bartunek, 2019; Von Krogh et al., 2021). In the Chinese context, unique SDG issues might include China’s Green Belt and Road Initiative, the development of the electric vehicle and renewable energy sectors, and the “Two-Mountain Theory” (the Government’s emphasis on ecological civilization by suggesting that green mountains are gold mountains). These developments are closely tied to the government’s strategic development plan, which firms are responding to.  In-depth investigations of these China-specific policy initiatives and business strategies, policies and practices related to them could provide fresh insights into SDGs/sustainable development with Chinese characteristics, particularly as they differ from those in other contexts.

Management and Organization Review (MOR) invites submissions that explore and advance our knowledge of the role of Chinese firms in responding and contributing to the sustainable development agenda, the dynamic domestic and international institutional context under which they operate, and implications for theorization. We welcome research investigating institutional environments, business strategies, policies, and processes, as well as leadership, culture and HR practices that facilitate firms to respond to the sustainable development agenda and maintain their competitive advantages.

Aims and Scope of the Special Issue

This call for submissions aims to illuminate several key aspects of businesses and how Chinese firms manage their relationships with key stakeholders in the context of SDGs and the sustainable development agenda in general. We encourage submissions from diverse disciplinary perspectives, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and empirical contexts to shed light on the role of Chinese firms in promoting the sustainable development agenda. Although CSR intersects, or one may argue, is an integral part of sustainable development, the former focuses on addressing the “amorality of business”, whereas the latter adopts “a systems perspective” (Bansal & Song, 2017, p. 105) and emphasizes the role of the business to society. Therefore, we expect papers for the SI to engage with the SDGs and sustainable development literature directly to take the field forward.

Specifically, this special issue aims to provide a platform for research across various levels of management, including macro-level topics such as strategic management, entrepreneurship, and firm innovation, as well as micro-level topics like organizational behavior (OB) and human resources (HR), and welcomes cross-level studies relevant to the special issue theme.

In addition, we invite a wide range of research types, including but not limited to: conceptual and theoretical papers, qualitative research, quantitative studies based on primary or secondary data, and mixed-methods approaches. Our goal is to foster diverse perspectives on how Chinese firms are engaging with the sustainable development agenda.

Given that sustainable development requires collective action across various sectors, we also encourage interdisciplinary contributions that explore how business, society, and public policy can collaborate effectively to drive meaningful change. Research that examines the intersection of these domains and how they can align their efforts to promote sustainable development is especially welcome.

We encourage authors to draw on diverse theories from management, business, and related fields to inform their studies. In particular, we welcome contributions that either enable paradigm shifts (e.g., Gladwin et al., 1995), offer key insights (e.g., Banerjee, 2011; DesJardins, 2016), or generate new theoretical frameworks for understanding how Chinese firms can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.

For example, the SDGs address a broad range of global challenges that impact diverse stakeholders, making stakeholder theory particularly relevant (e.g., Freudenreich et al., 2020). However, we also encourage the exploration of alternative or complementary theories. Systems theory (e.g., Von Bertalanffy, 1972; Williams et al., 2017), for instance, provides a holistic perspective that can enhance and deepen current approaches by considering the interdependencies and complexities inherent in sustainability-driven business practices. Equally, legitimacy theory offers important insights into how some stakeholders’ policies and actions are perceived and accepted or resisted by other stakeholders. What is deemed urgent situations and legitimate interventions in one societal context may be considered a lower priority and not so legitimate. As such, what constitutes “legitimacy” needs to be understood in specific societal contexts (McNulty 1975; Tyler 2006), including their cultural traditions, value systems, and political beliefs. This is a particularly relevant theoretical lens vis-à-vis the current geo-political tension and ideological divide (Witt, 2019).

Typical Research Questions

1. Sustainable development and Chinese firms: theorization and contextualization

Challenges related to sustainable development and solutions are country-specific, informed by their resource endowments, institutional arrangements, economic characteristics and cultural traditions. Existing scholarship examining and theorizing Chinese management practices has accentuated the need for contextualization (Li et al., 2000). However, much business and management research in the last several decades has underplayed the role of context, with the requirement of pursuing universal utility in management research, often at the expense of contextual pluralism and pragmatism (Stahl et al., 2023; Tsui, 2007). Ferraro, Etzion and Gehman’s (2015) study of how grand challenges may be addressed from the American pragmatism perspective and the sociological perspective of robust strategies offers a good example of how climate change and poverty reduction issues may be addressed and mitigated. Ferraro et al. (2015) demonstrated how the strategies operated, were connected, what outcomes may be generated and why these strategies could be suitable for resolving grand challenges. This kind of in-depth investigation sensitive to the philosophy, values and approach to problem-solving found in the research setting is highlighted here as informative, and valuable to generate practical insights and theorize the phenomenon (see also Barkema et al., 2015). We thus encourage researchers to adopt a similar approach to investigating the role of Chinese firms in promoting sustainable development. Examples of research questions may include:

• How can Chinese firms’ sustainable development practices be explained, and how can dominant theories in the field, such as institutional theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and signaling theory, be extended?
• What is the role of cultural perspective in understanding firm and employee behaviour related to sustainability?
• How do the Chinese moral foundation/values and leadership style influence Chinese firms’ sustainability strategy, policy and practice, including how economic, social and governance (ESG) reporting is conducted?

2. Sustainable development and business innovation

Innovation is the engine for productivity in the economic and social development of nation-states, particularly in Asia (Merhaba et al., 2020; OECD, 2005; Tomizawa et al., 2020). Innovation not only features specifically in SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure—Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation) but is also critical to achieving other SDGs (Cooke, 2025). Responding to SDGs means firms need to engage in business innovation to realign their business activities with their sustainability strategy. Business innovation includes business model innovation, business process innovation, management innovation, R&D innovation, product innovation, production process innovation, service innovation and so on (Satell, 2017). These innovations are resource-intensive and require significant strategic foresight and vision. They may trigger an overhaul of the business ecosystem and new forms of strategic alliances and networks. Challenges may occur at all levels and on multiple fronts. The concept of frugal innovation is also important in understanding Chinese firms and other stakeholders’ innovation activities. According to Weyrauch and Herstatt (2017, p.1), frugal innovation has three defining criteria: “substantial cost reduction, concentration on core functionalities, and optimised performance level.” Frugal innovation helps save energy and other material consumptions associated with the operation of the business. Importantly, it provides simple and affordable solutions to problems confronting the lives of those in poor communities by using limited resources (e.g., Denoncourt, 2020; Jain, 2022; Rosca et al., 2016). Thus, we encourage research to examine:

• What types of innovation do Chinese firms carry out in response to stakeholder pressure to contribute to sustainable development?
• What is the role of frugal innovation?
• How do Chinese firms mobilize data analytics to facilitate business model innovation?
• How are these types of innovation disseminated for the greater good?

3. Sustainable development and human resource management (HRM)

HRM plays a critical role in advancing organizational efforts to the sustainable development agenda. On the one hand, it serves as a “means” by which organizations mobilize human capital via HRM policies, systems and strategies to implement sustainable-development-oriented innovations and drive meaningful changes across operations and processes. For instance, wellbeing-oriented HRM (Cooper et al., 2019) is one such strategic approach where HRM practices are designed to foster employee good health and wellbeing, as called for in SDG3. In addition, HRM initiatives such as work-life balance, flexible working arrangements and career advancement support for underrepresented groups also help to support organizational contribution to individual employee welfare as well as broader societal goals. These HRM initiatives could support organizations’ efforts oriented towards SDG 4 (Quality Education) by promoting continuous learning and development opportunities, as well as SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by ensuring inclusivity and equal opportunities across gender lines. On the other hand, sustainability HRM, especially green HRM, can also serve as an “end” in itself in achieving sustainable development. This emerging field of HRM encompasses a set of practices specifically designed to green the workforce, i.e., not only developing a workforce that is environmentally conscious but also motivated to actively undertake pro-environmental behaviours in their daily tasks, aligning with SDG 13.

• How do HRM systems, strategies and policies in Chinese firms facilitate the integration of sustainable-development-oriented innovations within their operations, and what unique challenges do they face in this process?
• How does green HRM in Chinese firms reflect indigenous cultural, institutional, and socio-economic factors in supporting firms’ sustainability strategies?
• What HRM strategies are being used to promote gender equality and diversity within Chinese organizations?
• How do Chinese firms develop and deploy sustainable HRM to support sustainability-oriented business innovation?

4. Sustainable development and Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs) in the international context

The achievement of sustainable development depends on the collective input of multiple stakeholders. In particular, MNEs are expected to play a significant role, given their international coverage in multiple countries, and their level of resources and influence with host governments. Yet they also face political and institutional pressure from home and host countries alike to act in a responsible manner and are more likely to be held accountable for wrongdoings. At a basic level, MNEs can play an important role in advancing the UN’s SDGs by integrating sustainable practices into their business models, which not only enhances their operational effectiveness but also contributes to broader societal benefits.

Moreover, MNEs can leverage their global positioning and reach to implement innovative technologies that address local and regional challenges, such as providing access to clean water or affordable healthcare in underserved regions, thereby fostering inclusive growth and improving standards of living (Mio et al., 2020). Additionally, through partnerships with governments and NGOs, MNEs can facilitate the transfer of knowledge and routines and capacity building, which are essential for achieving sustainable development, particularly in developing countries where resources and expertise may be limited (Tomizawa et al., 2020). This collaborative approach not only helps MNEs fulfill their corporate social responsibility but also positions them as leaders in sustainable development, ultimately contributing to a more resilient global economy (Kolk et al., 2017).

Examples of research questions include:

• How do Chinese MNEs manage the balance between promoting the sustainable development agenda on the one hand and pressures of rapid innovation to remain competitive on the other, given the diverse institutional environments and competitive pressures manifested at the international, national and industry levels?
• What managerial capabilities are needed for Chinese MNEs to develop their sustainability strategy for their international operations in different parts of the world?
• How do Chinese MNEs develop their international strategy to overcome their negative image through engagement with the SDGs?
• How do Chinese MNEs develop partnerships with various stakeholders to promote the sustainable development agenda through their subsidiaries?
• How are Chinese MNEs improving the sustainability and inclusiveness of their supply chains to address UN SDGs, such as enhancing productivity and reducing poverty?

Schedule and Timeline

• Proposal submission (Deadline: May 31, 2025):

Please submit proposals to Fang Lee Cooke (fang.cooke@monash.edu) under the following subject line: ‘SDGs and Chinese firms’. Please ensure that your proposal includes the following components: motivation, research questions, theoretical foundation, methodology, expected outputs, and implications. The proposal should not exceed five pages when single-spaced (Times New Roman, font size 12). The decision-making process will be ongoing, allowing authors to submit their proposals before the deadline.

• Paper Development Workshop (PDW): Accepted research proposals will be invited to participate in an online PDW to refine the research. Participation in the PDW is not a guarantee of acceptance of the manuscript for the special issue.
• Authors whose proposals were not selected for the workshop or who did not submit a proposal for the workshop can also submit their manuscripts for the special issue.
• Full paper submission (December 31, 2025).
• Publication of the Special Issue (TBD)

Proposed Guest Editors

Fang Lee Cooke 
Fang Lee Cooke is Distinguished Professor at Monash Business School, Monash University, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. She is the author/co-author/editor of eight books, more than 70 book chapters and 160 academic articles in journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Journal of World Business, Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Review, International Business Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Human Resource Management Journal, and Management and Organization Review. She has a long-standing interest in qualitative research in emerging economies and is currently engaging in research related to the role of businesses in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). She has published extensively on strategies and practices of multinational enterprises. She is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Human Resource Management (an FT50 journal) International Business Review (official journal of the European International Business Academy), Consulting Editor at the Journal of World Business, and a Senior Editor of MOR. Fang Lee Cooke is a member of the United Nations Environment Programme-International Sciences Council (UNEP-ISC) Foresight Expert Panel (2023-2024). She is also the Co-editor of the forthcoming volume Companion of Sustainable Development Goals and Human Resource Management (2025, Edward Elgar).

Shuang Ren
Shuang Ren is Professor of Organisation, Work, and Leadership, Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging at Queen’s Business School, Queen’s University Belfast, UK. She is also Co-Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Management (official journal of the British Academy of Management). Her research areas focus on the intersection of sustainability, human resource management and digitalization. She has published on topics related to green human resource management, leadership and leader development, and emerging technologies in journals such as Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business Research, and Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

David Ahlstrom
David Ahlstrom is Associate Dean (Research) at Hong Kong Metropolitan University, and  Emeritus Professor and Lecturer in the Department of Management at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Professor Ahlstrom’s research includes managing in Asia, innovation and entrepreneurship, and economic history. He has published over 180 peer-reviewed articles in journals such as the Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Organization Science, Journal of Management Studies, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, International Business Review, and International Journal of Research in Marketing. He has served as Editor-in-Chief or Senior Editor for several journals such as Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Asia Management (official journals of the Asia Academy of Management), and the Journal of World Business. He has guest edited several Special Issues for top journals, including Journal of Management Studies, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, the Journal of World Business, and Technovation.

Supervising Editor

Shipeng Yan
Shipeng YAN is a management scholar with a sociological orientation and a scholarly interest in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) issues as well as the broader political economy from an organization theory perspective. His studies have been published in prestigious management journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, and Journal of International Business Studies. He also serves as a deputy editor for the journal Organization & Environment and as a senior editor of Management and Organization Review.

References

Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1468-1497.

Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 11-24.

Arena, C., Michelon, G., & Trojanowski, G. (2018). Big egos can be green: A study of CEO hubris and environmental innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(2), 316-336.

Aust, I., Cooke, F. L., Muller-Camen, M., & Wood, G. (2024). Achieving sustainable development goals through common-good HRM: context, approach and practice. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 38(2), 93-110.

Banerjee, S. B. (2011). Embedding Sustainability Across the Organization: A Critical Perspective. Organization Studies, 29(12), 1541-1563.

Bansal, P., & Song, H.-C. (2017). Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate Responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105-149.

Bansal, P., Grewatsch, S., & Sharma, G. (2021). How COVID‐19 informs business sustainability research: It’s time for a systems perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 602-606.

Barkema, H. G., Chen, X. P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460-479.

Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A. C., & Sengul, M. (2022). Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social trade-offs in dual-purpose companies. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 237-258.

Brown, K., & Rasmusen, K. (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals in 2019: People, planet, prosperity in focus. United Nations Foundation. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/the-sustainable-development-goals-in-2019-people-planet-prosperity-in-focus/. Accessed on 18 Sept 2021.

Chen, C. C., Friedman, R., & McAllister, D. J. (2017). Seeing and studying China: Leveraging phenomenon-based research in China for theory advancement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 1-7.

Ciravegna, L., Ahlstrom, D., Michailova, S., Oh, C. H., & Gaur, A. (2023). Exogenous shocks and MNEs: Learning from pandemics, conflicts, and other major disruptions. Journal of World Business, 58(6), 101487.

Cooke, F. L. (2025). Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals: Implications for and human resource management.In Aust, I., Cooke, F. L. and Semeijn, J. (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Human Resource Management and the Sustainable Development Goals, Edward Elgar.

Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well‐being‐oriented human resource management practices and employee performance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and resilience. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 85-97.

Delbridge, R., Helfen, M., Pekarek, A., Schuessler, E., & Zietsma, C. (2024). Organizing sustainably: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 45(1), 7-29.

Denoncourt, J. 2020. Companies and UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 20(1), 199-235.

DesJardins, J. (2016). Is it time to jump off the sustainability bandwagon? Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 117–135.

Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156-174.

Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review, 25, 2-5.

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.

Fisher, G., Mayer, K., & Morris, S. (2021). From the editors—Phenomenon-based theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639.

Frémeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2017). The common good of the firm and humanistic management: Conscious capitalism and economy of communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 701-709.

Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(1), 3-18.

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling grand societal challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895.

Girschik, V. (2020). Managing legitimacy in business‐driven social change: The role of relational work. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4), 775-804.

Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874-907

Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., & Bansal, P. (2023). Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 721-732.

Jain, S. (2022). From jugaad to jugalbandi: Understanding the changing nature of Indian innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(1), 1-26.

Kolk, A., Kourula, A., & Pisani, N. (2017). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: what do we know and how to proceed?. Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 9-32.

Li, J., Tsui, A. S. & Weldon, E. (eds., 2000) Management and organizations in the Chinese context, 84–127. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lu, Y., Zhang, M. M., Yang, M. M., & Wang, Y. (2023). Sustainable human resource management practices, employee resilience, and employee outcomes: Toward common good values. Human Resource Management, 62(3), 331-353.

McNulty, M. S. (1975). A question of managerial legitimacy. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 579-588.

McPhail, K., Kafouros, M., McKiernan, P., & Cornelius, N. (2024). Reimagining business and management as a force for good. British Journal of Management, 35(3), 1099-1112.

Merhaba, A., thuriaux-Aleman, B., Ghanem, E. and Aebi, T. (2020). The National Innovation Ecosystem: A holistic approach to designing an effective National Innovation Ecosystem. Arthur Little, https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/national-innovation-ecosystem.

Mio, C., Panfilo, S., & Blundo, B. (2020). Sustainable development goals and the strategic role of business: A systematic literature review. Business strategy and the environment, 29(8), 3220-3245.

OECD, (2005). Oslo Manual—Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation
Data, 3rd edition. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264013100-en.pdf?expires=1693102753&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=12A00FE291CD230FA565808C7B9588EF.

Ployhart, R. E., & Bartunek, J. M. 2019. Editors’ comments: There is nothing so theoretical as good practice—A call for phenomenal theory. Academy of Management Review, 44, 493–497.

Rehg, W. (2023). Business firms as moral agents: A Kantian response to the corporate autonomy problem. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(4), 999-1009.

Rosca, E., Arnold, M., & Bendul, J. 2016. Business models for sustainable innovation—An empirical analysis of frugal products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 133–145.

Satell, G. (201). Mapping innovation: A playbook for navigating a disruptive age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stahl, G. K., Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R. D., & Miska, C. (2023). Five decades of research on the role of context in management: From universalism toward contingent, multilevel and polycontextual perspectives. Academy of Management Collections, 2(1), 1-18.

Tomizawa, A., Zhao, L., Bassellier, G., & Ahlstrom, D. (2020). Economic growth, innovation, institutions, and the Great Enrichment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(1), 7-31.

Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353-1364.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

United Nations (2023). Halfway to 2030, world ‘nowhere near’ reaching Global Goals, UN warns. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138777.

United Nations Development Program (2024). The SDGs in Action. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals.

United Nations Environment Programme-International Sciences Council (2024). Navigating New Horizons – A Global Foresight Report on Planetary Health and Human Wellbeing. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-foresight-report.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426.

Von Krogh, G., Rossi-Lamastra, C., & Haefliger, S. (2012). Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: When is it rigorous and does it matter?. Long Range Planning, 45(4), 277-298.

Weyrauch, T., & Herstatt, C. (2017). What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. Journal of frugal innovation, 2, 1-17.

Whetten, D. (2009). An examination between context and theory applied to the study of organizations in China. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29–55.

Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866-881.

Witt, M. (2019). China’s challenge: Geopolitics, de-globalization, and the future of Chinese business. Management and Organization Review, 15(4), 687-704.

Wood, G., Cooke, F. L., Brou, D., Wang, J., & Ghauri, P. (2024). Rethinking contexts and institutions for research on human resource management in multinational enterprises in an age of polycrisis: reflections and suggestions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(19), 3173–3206.