DB wk 550

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Review

Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research

Amanda Williams a, *, Steve Kennedy a, Felix Philipp b, Gail Whiteman c

a Department of Business-Society Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands b Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, 9 Portswood Rd, V&A Waterfront, Cape Town, 8002, South Africa c The Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 21 October 2016 Received in revised form 27 January 2017 Accepted 1 February 2017 Available online 3 February 2017

Keywords: Systems thinking Sustainability management Literature review Multi-level

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: williams@rsm.nl (A. W

(S. Kennedy), felix.philipp@gsb.uct.ac.za (F. Philipp), (G. Whiteman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.002 0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Scholars from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives have sought to unravel the high complexities of sustainability. A mature understanding of sustainability management requires studies to adopt a multidisciplinary systemic lens capable of appreciating the interconnectivity of economic, political, social and ecological issues across temporal and spatial dimensions. Yet the field of systems thinking in the context of sustainability management research is disparate and can benefit from a comprehensive review in order to assimilate the current fragmented body of research and to identify promising research di- rections. To address this gap, we conducted a review of the systems thinking and sustainability man- agement literature from 1990 up to 2015 including 96 articles. In this review, we first present descriptives that show an emerging body of work rapidly growing since 2011. We found that 54 percent of articles were published in two transdisciplinary journals, demonstrating that a systemic approach is not yet prevalent in mainstream management journals. Second, we identify and describe the core theoretical concepts of systems thinking found in the literature including interconnections, feedbacks, adaptive capacity, emergence and self-organization. Third, findings show a number of research themes, including behavioral change, leadership, innovation, industrial ecology, social-ecological systems, tran- sitions management, paradigm shifts and sustainability education. Finally we offer a cross-scale inte- grated framework of our findings, and conclude by identifying a number of promising research opportunities.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867 2. Research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867

2.1. Search process: steps 1 to 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868 2.2. Descriptive and thematic analysis: steps 7 to 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869

3. Descriptives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869 4. Research results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871

4.1. Core concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 4.1.1. Interconnections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 4.1.2. Feedback loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 4.1.3. Adaptive capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 4.1.4. Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 4.1.5. Self-organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 4.1.6. Summary of core concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873

4.2. Research themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873

illiams), skennedy@rsm.nl g.whiteman@lancaster.ac.uk

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 867

4.2.1. Behavioral change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 4.2.2. Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 4.2.3. Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 4.2.4. Industrial ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 4.2.5. Social-ecological systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 4.2.6. Transitions management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 4.2.7. Paradigm shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 4.2.8. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 4.2.9. Summary of research themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875

5. Integrated framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 5.1. Behavioral change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 5.2. Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 5.3. Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 5.4. Industrial ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 5.5. Social-ecological systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 5.6. Transitions management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 5.7. Paradigm shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 5.8. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877

6. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879

1. Introduction

In order to effectively address pressing societal issues such as climate change, social inequality, unemployment, and ecological degradation, scholars and managers can benefit from an enhanced understanding of the dynamic interactions within and across interconnected systems (Whiteman et al., 2013). Numerous man- agement scholars have long recognized that the complexity of highly interdependent systems necessitates a systems approach, viewing social systems nested within natural systems and recog- nizing the dependency of business on nature (Gladwin et al., 1995; Marcus et al., 2010; Roome, 2011; Starik and Rands, 1995; Whiteman et al., 2004). Gray (2010, p. 48) posits, “sustainability is a systems-based concept and, environmentally at least, only begins to make any sense at the level of ecosystems and is probably difficult to really conceptualize at anything below planetary and species levels.” Despite these early and regular acknowledgments of the systemic character of sustainability, to date, a literature re- view of systems thinking as a theoretical lens to better understand sustainability management has not been conducted.

Reviews on sustainability research, of course, exist. However, these tend to focus on traditional management theories, such as the resource-based view, competitive strategy or institutional theory (Bansal and Gao, 2006; Berchicci and King, 2007; Etzion, 2007; Hoffman and Georg, 2012; Russo and Minto, 2012). While valu- able, the theoretical perspectives covered in these reviews do not explicitly address the interactions of firms with the social- ecological systems in which they are embedded. In contrast to in- sights from other disciplines, the current body of literature on corporate sustainability is “linearly focused on firm and industry effects” (Whiteman et al., 2013, p. 310) and lacks radical new in- sights (Bansal and Gao, 2006). Yet, an understanding of corporate actions in isolation from social-ecological systems is unlikely to address interconnected sustainability challenges (Marcus et al., 2010; Starik and Kanashiro, 2013; Walker et al., 2009; Whiteman et al., 2013). Systems thinking provides an antidote to such silos, as it offers a more holistic lens to examine the role of corporations within social-ecological systems.

Strains of systems thinking prevail in diverse scientific fields.

Our review integrates systems perspectives from organization theory on sustainability with insights from systems thinking within ecology. Systems thinking is a way to understand the complexity of economic, social and ecological systems (Holling, 2001). A complex system is a set of interacting variables that behave according to governing mechanisms or forces (Maguire et al., 2006, 2011; Walker and Salt, 2006). Through the application of systems thinking, sustainability management researchers may be able to “identify the points at which a system is capable of accepting positive change and the points where it is vulnerable” (Holling, 2001, p. 392).

Interdependence between organizations and the natural envi- ronment is central to a systemic sustainability management perspective given that organizations depend on the natural envi- ronment for inputs and organizational actions directly impact the natural environment through feedback loops (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013; Starik and Rands, 1995). This embedded view of organiza- tions recognizes systemic limits to growth within the boundaries of the planet, finite resources and the dependency of organizations on society, economy and nature (Gladwin et al., 1995; Marcus et al., 2010; Meadows et al., 1972; Rockstr€om et al., 2009; Whiteman et al., 2013; Winn and Pogutz, 2013). This leads us to ask the following question, “What do we know about sustainability man- agement research which leverages a systems thinking theoretical lens?”

In this article, we present a systematic literature review addressing sustainability management from a systems thinking perspective to make sense of what is already known and provide directions for future research. First, we present the systematic re- viewmethodology. Second, we provide a descriptive analysis of the articles found in the review. Third, we give an overview of the core concepts and research themes. Fourth, we present an integrated framework of systems thinking and sustainability management. Finally, we discuss the implications for management research and provide directions for future research.

2. Research methods

To ensure the rigor and quality of our review, the synthesis of

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881868

the existing research was conducted in a systematic manner with the aim of reducing bias while allowing for flexibility and creativity (Tranfield et al., 2003). We designed our methodological approach based on insights from the stages of a systematic review suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003) and from literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals (i.e. Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012; Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; Lockett et al., 2006; Morioka and de Carvalho, 2016). This 8-step process (see Table 1) resulted in an initial sample of 1711 papers and a final collection of 96 articles.

2.1. Search process: steps 1 to 6

Step 1: First we determined the need for a review on systems thinking as a multi-disciplinary lens to understand the complex- ities of sustainability management. We conducted an extensive search using Google Scholar and theWeb of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Our search indicated that no previous reviews were published on systems thinking and sustainability management.

Step 2: Next we defined the temporal boundaries for the review. Our search included articles published from 1990 until the start of 2015. As with previous reviews, we selected to start our review in 1990 in accordance with significant events in the field. Etzion (2007) comments that following the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 environmental issues became more salient. Similarly, Hoffman and Georg (2012) traced the history of the field and found that Business and the Natural Environment research emerged around 1990 in parallel with an emerging focus on environmental issues and changing managerial trends aimed at considering the environment as a strategic issue. In 1990, management scholars met to form the Organizations and the Natural Environment divi- sion at the Academy of Management and specialty journals such as Business Strategy and the Environment formed shortly afterwards (Hoffman and Georg, 2012).

Step 3:We further defined the search area by developing a list of top management, specialty and practitioner journals. The list of journals was determined by consulting published literature re- views in the field of management (i.e. Aguinis and Glavas, 2012) and prominent literature reviews on sustainability management (i.e. Bansal and Gao, 2006). We then compared this list with prominent journal rankings including the 4th Association of Busi- ness Schools journal list and Scientific Journal Rankings indicators.

Table 1 Systematic review method.

Step 1 Determine relevance of the review

� Establish need for the systemati � Extensive search using Google S

Step 2 Definition of temporal boundaries

� Include only articles published f � Use boundaries of previous revi

Step 3 Definition of the search area

� Develop list of peer-reviewed to � Identify relevant journals from p

of management and prominent Step 4 Development of search strings

and inclusion/exclusion criteria

� Develop two strings of keyword � Develop inclusion and exclusion

and theoretical contribution to s Step 5 Choice of database and search mode

� Search using the Web of Science � Exclude book reviews, proceedin � Limit search to titles and abstra

Step 6 Develop article database

� First and second authors read th clear sustainability and systems

� Third author reviews the article � Consult academic experts in the

Step 7 Descriptive analysis

� Conduct a descriptive analysis t

Step 8 Thematic analysis

� Abductively code entire article t attributes using computer qualit

� Identify organizational scholar u

This resulted in 24 management journals, 11 specialty journals and 3 practitioner journals, thus constraining our search to manage- ment literature. The final list of journals included in the review can be found in Table 2.

Step 4: We developed two keyword search strings. The first string was developed to capture articles relating to sustainability. We based the first string on a review published by Adams et al. (2015) on the topic of sustainability oriented innovation and incorporated insights from other sustainability reviews that pub- lished their search strings. The following search string was used in the topic field of SSCI: sustainab* OR environmen* OR green OR ecol* OR adapt* OR resilien* OR responsib* OR triple bottom line OR cradle OR soci* OR ethic*.

The second search string was developed to capture articles related to systems thinking. We read published articles relating to sustainability and systems thinking to identify fundamental con- cepts. Then we developed the keywords for this second string in discussions amongst the authors of this paper. This led to the following search string that was used in the topic field of SSCI: system* theory OR system* thinking OR complex* OR holis*.

A first search using the term ‘system*’ returned a cumbersome 5343 articles, largely falling outside the scope of this review. This was refined by adding the terms ‘theory’ and ‘thinking’ to ‘system*’ in order to capture articles making theoretical contributions and keep the boundaries of the review manageable. To be considered for further inclusion in the review, articles needed to contain one term from the first string and one term from the second string in the title or abstract.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria to decide which articles would be accepted in the review were also developed in this step in dis- cussion between the authors of this paper. Articles with a focus on sustainability management and systems thinking were selected for the review. We now give examples of when search terms returned irrelevant articles. An article suggested for inclusion in the review because it contained the term ‘responsible’ in the abstract, referring to the responsibility of work teams would be removed for further consideration because it lacked a sustainability focus. Articles that included the term ‘environment’ in the abstract referring to general business environments (instead of environmental sustainability or the natural environment) were also removed. Considering the focus on systems thinking, articles that contained the term ‘complex’, such as complex problem solving, were removed due to a lack of use of complexity theory.

c review cholar and SSCI for past reviews rom 1990 up to 2015 ews and salient events as a basis p management, specialty and practitioner journals reviously published literature reviews in the field literature reviews published on sustainability management s based on insights from previous systematic reviews on sustainability criteria including relevance to sustainability management ystems thinking ’s Science Citation Index (SSCI) gs, editorial materials and notes

cts of the papers e title and abstract of each paper and remove articles without a thinking focus s the first and second author did not agree on field to identify pertinent articles not captured by the keyword search o identify patterns and trends

exts according to systems thinking concepts and general article ative analysis software Nvivo se of core theoretical concepts of systems thinking and primary research themes

Table 2 Targeted journals.

Category Journals

Management Journals Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Perspectives, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, British Journal of Management, European Management Review, International Organization, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Long Range Planning, Management and Organization Review, Management Science, Organization Science, Organization Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organizational Research Methods, Personnel Psychology, Research Policy, Strategic Management Journal, Strategic Organization

Specialty Journals Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Accounting Organizations and Society, Business & Society, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business Strategy and the Environment, Corporate Governance, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Leadership Quarterly, Organization & Environment

Practitioner Journals California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 869

After removing articles without a clear focus on sustainability management and systems thinking, we noticed many articles that made a methodological contribution as opposed to a theoretical contribution. Given that literature reviews have already been published focusing on methods (i.e. Angelakoglou and Gaidajis, 2015; Chang et al., 2014; Ibanez-Fores et al., 2014) we decided to further refine our inclusion criteria. Articles that made a theoretical contribution to the field were included in the review, while articles that made a practical or methodological contribution were excluded from the review. For example, we removed articles that solely evaluated the environmental impact of a product or con- ducted a life cycle assessment (practical) or aimed to improve agent based modeling methods (methodological).

Step 5: We conducted our search using SSCI. To ensure the quality of the articles in the review and to keep the review manageable, we limited our search to peer-reviewed journal arti- cles and excluded non-peer reviewed options including book re- views, conference proceedings, editorial materials and notes. The keyword search strings we developed in Step 4 were run on titles and abstracts in SSCI. This search identified 1711 potentially rele- vant articles for the review.

Step 6: We began to develop a database of articles by screening titles and abstracts. To ensure reliability of the review, 3 co-authors were involved in the screening of the articles. Two authors reviewed the title and abstract of each article coding either ‘accept’, ‘reject’ or ‘further review’ based on the inclusion criteria. A third author reviewed any articles coded ‘further review’ or in which the coding of the other co-authors did not match e.g. articles that were coded as ‘accept’ by one author and ‘further review’ or ‘reject’ by the second. Articles that were still considered for inclusion un- derwent full text analysis, conducted by two authors, with a third co-author again reviewing any cases of disagreement. This process reduced the number of articles to be included in the review to 80.

Finally in this step, we consulted academics in the field to recommend any articles that had not been identified in the review. These consultations were held during presentations of the review and through the release of early drafts of this article. This procedure was undertaken to ensure that our keywords did not overlook any pertinent articles. This resulted in an additional 16 articles added to the review.

2.2. Descriptive and thematic analysis: steps 7 to 8

Step 7: We then conducted a descriptive analysis of the papers covered in our review. The descriptives are found in Section 3.

Step 8: As a final step we conducted a thematic analysis. We abductively coded all articles, alternating between inductive and deductive coding. The general deductive codes included: level of analysis, contribution to what literature, empirical or conceptual, methods used and sources of data. The theoretical deductive codes

derived from the literature included: conceptualization of business-society interface (Marcus et al., 2010), anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism (Purser et al., 1995) the adaptive cycle, social- ecological systems (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) and systems thinking dimensions such as feedback loops, hierarchical systems, delays, flows, intervention, dynamic equilibrium and self- organization (Meadows, 2009). A list of these codes including definitions was developed by the co-authors andmade available for reference during the coding.

In addition to these predetermined codes other relevant codes emerged such as industrial symbiosis, innovation, paradigm shifts, decision making and tools to enable a systemic understanding of sustainability. The coding of the articles was completed using Nvivo, a computer software for qualitative data analysis. The au- thors discussed different approaches for presenting the results of the review and presented the paper at three international confer- ences to receive feedback. This ultimately resulted in 5 core theo- retical concepts and 8 research themes, which are presented in Section 4.

3. Descriptives

From 1990 until 2000, articles published pertaining to systems thinking and sustainability management were limited, averaging less than 1 article published per year (see Fig. 1). Since 2000, the number of articles published per year has increased exponentially with 67 of our 96 reviewed articles becoming available from 2010.

Using citation statistics from SSCI, we present a list of the top 20 cited articles in the review (see Table 3). The top cited articles come from a variety of sources including Research Policy, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Business Ethics, California Manage- ment Review, Accounting Organizations and Society, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Organization Sci- ence, Journal of Management Studies and Organization & Environ- ment. Journal of Cleaner Production represents 7 of the top 20 cited articles.

The Journal of Cleaner Production is highlighted in our review as the leading publication outlet for sustainability management research from a systems perspective (see Fig. 1). From the Journal of Cleaner Production, 41 articles were identified, and another 11 from a fellow transdisciplinary journal, the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Despite the mainstream publication of early conceptual articles calling for a systemic or ecological paradigm (Gladwin et al., 1995; Starik and Rands, 1995), we found few articles in these types of management journals, such as Journal of Business Ethics (10), Or- ganization & Environment (6), Research Policy (5), Business Strategy and the Environment (4), Academy of Management Review (4), Or- ganization Science (2), Journal of Management Studies (1) and Stra- tegic Management Journal (1). This distribution suggests that while a systems perspective on sustainability management is well

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Year of Publication

Journal of Cleaner Production Other Journals

Fig. 1. Distribution of publications on sustainability management from a systems thinking perspective (per year).

Table 3 Top cited articles.

Authors, Year Journal Total Citationsa Average Citations/Yeara Journal Impact Factor 2015b

Geels, 2002 Research Policy 828 51.75 3.470 Gladwin et al., 1995 Academy of Management Review 442 19.22 7.288 Van Marrewijk, 2003 Journal of Business Ethics 321 21.40 1.837 Starik and Rands, 1995 Academy of Management Review 234 10.17 7.288 Sterman, 2001 California Management Review 162 9.53 1.109 Gray, 2010 Accounting Organizations & Society 150 18.75 2.464 Lozano, 2008 Journal of Cleaner Production 109 10.9 4.959 J€anicke, 2008 Journal of Cleaner Production 107 10.7 4.959 Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009 Research Policy 104 11.56 3.470 Coenen et al., 2012 Research Policy 102 17 3.470 Bocken et al., 2014 Journal of Cleaner Production 100 25 4.959 Lozano, 2012 Journal of Cleaner Production 90 15 4.959 Lozano et al., 2013 Journal of Cleaner Production 89 17.8 4.959 Lozano, 2010 Journal of Cleaner Production 81 10.12 4.959 Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009 Journal of Industrial Ecology 75 8.33 3.265 Boons et al., 2013 Journal of Cleaner Production 69 13.8 4.959 Mahoney et al., 2009 Organization Science 63 7 3.360 Whiteman et al., 2013 Journal of Management Studies 59 11.8 4.131 King, 1995 Academy of Management Review 51 2.22 7.288 Starik and Kanashiro, 2013 Organization & Environment 51 10.20 2.650

a Retrieved from SSCI, January 16, 2017. b Retrieved from Journal Citation Reports, February 2, 2017.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881870

accepted in the transdisciplinary journals, which include disci- plines well versed in systems thinking such as environmental sci- ences and engineering, it is yet to be a regular feature in journals solely focused on mainstream management. In addition, we high- light that mainstream ‘environmental management’ journals such as Organization & Environment and Business Strategy and the Envi- ronment also appear to have few articles published with a systemic lens.

In terms of research themes (see Fig. 2), we found most of the published articles addressed social-ecological systems (22), inno- vation systems (15), industrial ecology (14) and transitions man- agement (12). Research themes with fewer articles include,

paradigm shifts (10), education (10), leadership (8) and behavioral change (5).

We found that the majority of the articles, 53 percent, were conceptual, while 47 percent of the articles were empirical. The empirical articles used a variety of methods. Notably, 47 percent of the empirical articles used case study methodology, and 4 articles combined case study researchwith other approaches such as action research, cross-case comparison, survey research and grounded theory. Other methodologies adopted included statistical analysis, factor analysis, hypothesis testing, backcasting, agent based modeling and material flow analysis.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Research Theme

Research Theme

Tran sit

ion s M

an ag

em en

t

Soc ial

-E co

log ica

l S ys

tem s

Para dig

m S hif

ts

Fig. 2. Distribution of publications per research theme.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 871

4. Research results

We begin by defining sustainability from a systems perspective. Sustainability is a normative concept referring to an ideal state of being in which humans are able to flourish within the ecological thresholds of the planet alongside other living entities for perpe- tuity (Ehrenfeld, 2012). Sustainability is not an end state that can be achieved, but a ‘moving target’ that is continuously changing and improving (Gaziulusoy et al., 2013). This dynamic state exists within thresholds, defined by the planetary boundaries framework, or the safe operating space for humanity (Rockstr€om et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). From a systems perspective, sustainability is the ability of systems to persist, adapt, transform or transition in the face of constantly changing conditions.

Systems thinking is a useful lens to understand change across scales. Scale is “the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure and study any phenomenon,” and levels of analysis are “the units of analysis that are located at different positions on a scale” (Cash et al., 2006, p. 2). A holistic understanding, including spatial and temporal conditions, is critical for advancing towards sustainability and avoiding tradeoffs that result in unintended consequences (Metson et al., 2012).

4.1. Core concepts

In this section we provide an overview of the core theoretical concepts that have been used to understand sustainability from a systems thinking perspective. In Table 4, for each core concept, we have provided a short description from the literature, representa- tive articles and future research questions.

4.1.1. Interconnections Interconnected parts in systems determine the behavior of the

system as a whole (Merali and Allen, 2011). The value of a systems thinking approach to sustainability issues springs from consider- ation of the dynamic interconnections between networks of actors across scales in social, economic and ecological systems (Davis et al., 2009; Freedman, 1992; Gladwin et al., 1995; Hoffman,

2003; Lozano, 2008; Valente, 2012). Sustainability managers are faced with balancing the relative autonomy and self-preserving tendencies of organizations, with recognizing their roles and re- sponsibilities as part of wider systems (Van Marrewijk, 2003). Or- ganizations hold mutual relationships of impact and dependence with larger and smaller systems that offer services critical to their ability to create value, for example, human and material resources or supporting ecological services such as water cycling (Winn and Pogutz, 2013).

Understanding interconnections is important for leaders of or- ganizations and for the management of complex systems in order to achieve sustainability (Metcalf and Benn, 2013). Understanding interconnections within industrial ecosystems can improve in- dustrial symbiosis (Tsvetkova and Gustafsson, 2012) and closed- loop manufacturing processes (Ashton, 2009), while cross-scale impacts and systems transitions can occur when products are innovated with consideration of interconnections between product components and social-technical systems (Boons et al., 2013). However, determining the behavior of a system is complex due to interconnections between systems variables that manifest over time and space leading to difficulty in decision making (Kunz et al., 2013b). For instance, an ecosystem service may generate benefits far away from the source and long after the service is provisioned (Winn and Pogutz, 2013).

4.1.2. Feedback loops Feedback loops are, “The secondary effects of a direct effect of

one variable on another, they cause a change in the magnitude of that effect. A positive feedback enhances the effect; a negative feedback dampens it” (Walker and Salt, 2006, p. 163). Feedback loops cause systems to be interconnected (Kunz et al., 2013b) and when the consequences of feedbacks loops are not fully understood by managers, unpredictable system behavior can emerge (Allenby, 2009). In response to feedback from the external environment, systems adapt or transform (Folke et al., 2002; Holling, 2001) and have direct and indirect impacts on organizations (Winn et al., 2011).

Sterman (2001, p. 12) explains the implications of feedback

Table 4 Core concepts.

Short Description Representative Articles Future Research Questions

Interconnectedness Organizations are agents in interconnected social, economic and

ecological systems. Recognition of the complexity of interconnected social and ecological problems is critical for achieving sustainability.

Davis et al., 2009 Metcalf and Benn, 2013 Sterman, 2001 Valente, 2010, 2012

Develop conceptual models to understand connections What tools can help leaders identify interconnections that close loops in industrial networks?

Feedbacks Interaction with and reaction to feedbacks causes nonlinear dynamics

and the emergence of complex behaviors overtime. Understanding feedbacks as underlying governance mechanisms can inform decision making.

Sterman, 2001 Valente, 2010 Whiteman et al., 2004

Develop methods to understand the impact of long term social-ecological feedbacks Analyze the impacts of indirect social-ecological feedbacks on the resilience of the firm

Adaptive Capacity/Resilience Adaptive capacity ensures the survival of the system when agents learn

from their experience and act accordingly. Organizations must adapt to changing environmental conditions such as climate change.

Ashton, 2009 Beermann, 2011 Valente, 2010 Winn et al., 2011

Determine the thresholds between adaptive capacity and transformation Examine the costs and benefits of building long term resilience

Self- Organization Self-organizing systems develop their own structure and behavior

spontaneously without being guided from the top-down. Self- organization leads to emergence in complex adaptive systems.

Batten, 2009 Sterman, 2001 Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009 Whiteman et al., 2013

Identify what micro-processes underlie self-organization in social systems Determine the cross-scale impacts of self-organization

Emergence Emergence is the result of lower level interactions when the system is

pushed out of equilibrium. Existing structures can hinder future emergence.

Dougherty and Dunne, 2011 Ehrenfeld, 2007 Huo and Chai, 2008 Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009

Understand what conditions lead to an emergence enabling disequilibrium When does self-organization lead to the emergence of sustainable innovations?

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881872

loops for managers: “our decisions alter the state of the world, causing changes in nature and triggering others to act, thus giving rise to a new situation which then influences our next decision.” Managers actively create and then react to feedback loops (Whiteman et al., 2004). As managers respond to improving in- dicators of sustainable progress, positive feedback loops are created, further advancing sustainability (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013). When managers fail to make sense of feedback loops and respond accordingly, the system may become vulnerable jeopard- izing resilience (Whiteman et al., 2013). With an understanding of feedback loops, the consequences of decisions are evident and system behavior can be managed as opposed to reacting passively to system changing events (Sterman, 2001).

4.1.3. Adaptive capacity The ability of actors in a system to maintain basic structure and

manage resilience represents the adaptive capacity of the system (Ehrenfeld, 2007; Holling, 2001; Walker and Salt, 2006; Whiteman et al., 2004). Resilience is, “the amount of change a system can undergo (its capacity to absorb disturbance) and remain within the same regimedessentially retaining the same function, structure, and feedbacks” (Walker and Salt, 2006, p. 163). Adaptive capacity suggests that managers and complex systems continuously learn from their experience (Ferreira et al., 2006; Sterman, 2001; Valente, 2010). When managers adapt to these learnings, competitiveness, resilience and survival are improved (Valente, 2010). If an envi- ronmental crisis strikes, adaptive capacity is enabled to effectively manage the disruption (Beermann, 2011).

To build the adaptive capacity of a firm, managers can innovate new business models or ways of organizing to cope with change in complex systems (Beermann, 2011). Managers may also build adaptive capacity by engaging in transformative learning processes (Folke et al., 2002; Manring, 2014). Transformative learning pro- cesses include learning to deal with change, enhancing diversity, systems level learning and creating conditions for self-organization to emerge. However, firms may need to manage tensions between building adaptive capacity and considerations of efficiency that espouse the conflicting aims of low diversity and standardization (Hahn et al., 2015).

4.1.4. Emergence Emergence occurs in complex systems when novel higher level

structures and patterns arise due to interaction between systems variables (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009). The constant adaption to complex feedback loops and co-evolution of organizations with their environments (Porter, 2006) without a central organizing agent, drives the emergence of systems dynamics, structures and self-organization (Batten, 2009; Dougherty and Dunne, 2011; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009; Sterman, 2001). The emergent pat- terns, whether on a global, regional or local level, arise from interacting subsystems: the actions and decisions of companies and individuals alike (Huo and Chai, 2008; Kunz et al., 2013a).

The emergence of sustainable industrial systems may be facili- tated by systems dynamics modeling and improved decision making (Romero and Carmen Ruiz, 2013). The emergence of sus- tainability oriented innovations can create opportunities for prob- lem solving and information flows (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011). However, rigid organizational structures can also stifle the emer- gence of sustainability oriented innovations (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011) and constrain personal sustainability agendas of employees (Hahn et al., 2015). Considering individuals, the emer- gence of post-conventional consciousness in managers can foster corporate greening but the factors leading to this emergence are unknown (Boiral et al., 2014).

4.1.5. Self-organization Self-organization is, “the ability of a system to structure itself, to

create new structure, to learn, or diversify” (Meadows, 2009, p. 188). Complex adaptive systems are able to self-organize, learn from their experience and adapt to changes in the external envi- ronment (Ashton, 2009; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009). Self- organization arises when dynamics, patterns and structures emerge within the internal structure of a system without outside management or control (Batten, 2009; Freedman, 1992; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009; Sterman, 2001). Patterns in systems at the global level emerge due to self-organizing dynamics of interacting lower level systems (Batten, 2009). Self-organized emergence is enabled when the system is pushed out of equilibrium (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011).

Self-organization occurs internally in a system and is driven by external energy (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009). Self-organizing processes requires patience and trust (Nevens et al., 2013). Trans- formative learning can create opportunities for self-organizing processes towards sustainability (Manring, 2014).

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 873

4.1.6. Summary of core concepts We have presented the core concepts independently, however

they are interrelated. System components are interconnected due to feedback loops (Kunz et al., 2013b). Understanding interconnected components of a systems allows the dynamics of the system as a whole to be understood (Merali and Allen, 2011). Self-organization drives higher level emergent structures and processes (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009). At the macro- level, adaptation of the whole system is determined by local-level processes of self-organization and emergence (Merali and Allen, 2011).

4.2. Research themes

We found 8 different research themes that apply a systems thinking lens to understand sustainability management (see Table 5). They are presented here in order of scale starting with the individual level.

4.2.1. Behavioral change Scholars argue behavioral change and a revolution of mindsets

is crucial to transforming business and society, taking concrete action (Marcus et al., 2010) and driving systemic change (Raivio, 2011). Behavioral change may be necessary because individual behavior aggregates to drive systems dynamics in business and society (Marcus et al., 2010). Studies at the local community level give insight into how individuals can be collectively engaged and how their behavior can be influenced based on their personal connection to local conditions (Nevens et al., 2013).

Scholars have used a cognitive framing lens to explore an inte- grative perspective of managerial processes that accounts for temporal and spatial dimensions of sustainability across multiple scales (Bansal and DesJardine, 2014; Hahn et al., 2015). From this logic of focusing on paradoxes and tensions in sustainability, managers are stimulated to understand interconnections between system elements and their decisions over time (Gao and Bansal, 2013). Furthermore, scholars posit that cognitive diversity may play a role in large scale systemic change (Hahn et al., 2014).

Sustainable consumption patterns are dependent on the values and decisions of individual citizens (Raivio, 2011). Transformation of consumptions patterns is crucial given planetary limits (Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2014) but current attempts are failing (Doyle and Davies, 2013). Behavioral incentives that may drive sustainable consumption remain fuzzy (Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2014) and extant research has yet to give due consideration to how consumption patterns are embedded in social-cultural and technological systems (Doyle and Davies, 2013).

4.2.2. Leadership Research suggests sustainability leadership presupposes

extraordinary capabilities and a holistic perspective on the com- plexities of embedded organizations (Lozano, 2012; Metcalf and Benn, 2012, 2013; Painter-Morland, 2008). Taking a holistic perspective may require managing large amounts of complex in- formation while avoiding the tendency to reduce and narrow data for decision-making (Metcalf and Benn, 2012). The ability of a leader to maintain a long-term focus (Boiral et al., 2014), incorpo- rate different viewpoints and allow for decentralized decision making were also found to be important (Wong et al., 2011).

While traditional leadership theories rest on concepts of intentional influence, control and direction by a leader towards a predefined organizational goal (Yukl, 2008), research on complex systems and leadership stresses unpredictability, emergence and resilience, and the need to integrate and reconcile multiple con- flicting goals (Boiral et al., 2014). A systems approach suggests that

responsibility is shared among all members and the aim of leaders is to build value-driven organizations (Painter-Morland, 2008).

4.2.3. Innovation To address systemic challenges and enable transformative

change, scholars of this research theme posit that radical innova- tion in education, products, services, production systems, logistic systems and business models is needed (Boons et al., 2013; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; J€anicke, 2008; Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013; Winn et al., 2011). Innovating for sustainability is a sys- temic, dynamic and nonlinear process that faces many un- certainties (Foxon and Pearson, 2008).

Considering the implications of sustainability oriented in- novations for the firm, extant literature shows managers must understand the relationship between sustainable process, product and organizational innovation to manage business performance (Cheng et al., 2014). For example, interactions between production innovation and process innovation in energy efficiency must be understood to improve the sustainability practices of a firm (Gerstlberger et al., 2014).

Innovations of new sustainability oriented products and ser- vices are viewed as the result of complex interactions between many firms (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011). Knowledge and re- sources for innovation can be dispersed among industry actors (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011), and their success depends on prior efforts of technical advancement and unlocking changes in the marketplace. Organizational networks should be formed to encourage interactions between firms and connect disparate ideas (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011). J€anicke (2008) explains how a complex networks of firms can also serve to increase pressure on firms with poor sustainability performance to innovate as they face growing insecurity over societal and governmental governance risks. Developing a systems understanding of supply chains can also provide great opportunity for sustainability oriented in- novations and enhance business performance (Isaksson et al., 2010). Tools such as life cycle analysis may improve sustainable product development between firms (Gmelin and Seuring, 2014; Luthe et al., 2013).

Firm innovations, such as innovative business models, seek to go beyond the techno-fix approaches to sustainability and offer op- portunities to significantly change the way a business creates, de- livers and captures value (Bocken et al., 2014). An emerging literature stream is considering how changes in business models may lead to changes in the interconnected larger production and consumption systems (Boons et al., 2013). Such interconnections between micro-level product innovation and macro-level societal transformation can be understood using double-flow scenario methods or explorative backcasting scenarios (Gaziulusoy et al., 2013).

4.2.4. Industrial ecology Industrial Ecology research examines the flows of energy and

materials within industrial systems with the aim of understanding systemic emergent behavior of integrated human-natural systems such as eco-industrial parks. Eco-industrial parks aim to increase productivity while simultaneously providing collective solutions to environmental problems through geographical clustering of orga- nizations and coordination of material, energy and information flows (Allenby, 2009; Behera et al., 2012; Huo and Chai, 2008). Eco- industrial parks may also have wider impact to promote and be used as levers for implementing sustainable policies at the regional level (Cerceau et al., 2014).

Scholars view modeling of eco-industrial parks as critical to improving decision making and fostering industrial symbiosis (Despeisse et al., 2012; Huo and Chai, 2008; Romero and Carmen

Table 5 Research themes.

Research Themes Subthemes Representative Article(s) Future Research Questions

Behavioral Change Decision Making Raivio, 2011 What variables moderate sustainability decision making?

Discourse Paschen and Ison, 2014 How can discourse analysis inform policy? Social Norms & Values Ramaswami et al., 2012; Marcus et al., 2010;

Shrivastava et al., 2013 What is the process by which individuals learn new values?

Cognitive Frames Hahn et al., 2014 How do cognitive frames vary over time? Leadership Complex Systems

Leadership Metcalf and Benn, 2012; Harley et al., 2014; Painter- Morland, 2008

Does complexity leadership improve adaptability?

Decentralized Decision Making

Wong et al., 2011 How does sustainability performance influence top management teams?

Moral Leadership Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2014 What are the impacts of leadership training on society?

Consciousness Development Leadership Emergence

Boiral et al., 2014 Harley et al., 2014

What conditions foster consciousness development? Use of quantitative methods to validate success in terms of sustainability

Innovation Product & Process Innovation

Gaziulusoy et al., 2013; J€anicke, 2008; Vries and Riele, 2006

How can undesirable effects of product innovation be anticipated and avoided?

Supply Chain Isaksson et al., 2010 How can systems thinking unlock new opportunities for supply chain innovation?

Sustainable Business Models

Boons et al., 2013 What is the role of social-ecological materiality in business model innovation?

Industrial Ecology Complexity Theory Ashton, 2009; Ehrenfeld, 2007 What tools can help managers improve both organizational and industrial system sustainability performance?

Eco-Industrial Parks Behera et al., 2012; Huo and Chai, 2008 How can theories of eco-industrial parks account for their dynamic nature to predict and support their growth evolution?

Modular Business Models

Tsvetkova and Gustafsson, 2012 How can modularity be applied to reduce system complexity and solve coordination problems within industrial ecosystems?

Sociotechnical Landscapes

Allenby, 2009; Ashton, 2009 How can structures of industrial ecologies maintain flexibility to adapt in a world of rapid technological change?

Social-Ecological Systems

Collaboration Mahoney et al., 2009; Nidumolu et al., 2014 Identify antecedents of org. resilience that enhance social-ecological resilience

Organizational Climate Adaptation

Beermann, 2011; Paschen and Ison, 2014 Winn et al., 2011

What solutions can build short term and long term resilience? What tools can researchers providemanagers to build adaptive capacity?

Planetary Boundaries Whiteman et al., 2013 How can understanding of socio-ecological materiality be used for organizational sustainability strategy setting purposes?

Transitions Management Co-evolution Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013 What is the role of business in transitions? Complex Systems Theory

Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009 Provide empirical verification of transitions management frameworks

Policy Foxon and Pearson, 2008 Develop analytical models for policy makers Spatial Perspectives Coenen et al., 2012 Empirical investigation of spatial scales Sustainable Consumption and Production

Mickwitz et al., 2011 Identify solutions for reduction of resources for consumption and production

Urban Transformations Nevens et al., 2013 Gain understanding of complex city dynamics Paradigm Shifts Educational Shifts Ferreira et al., 2006; Manring, 2014 Determine best of practice methods for

teaching students systems thinking Management as a Profession & Science

Valente, 2010; Freedman, 1992 What drives the paradigm shift in the management profession?

Societal Shifts Seiffert and Loch, 2005; Shin et al., 2008 Develop integrated knowledge approach to build sustainable societies

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881874

Ruiz, 2013). Yet, a more holistic approach to industrial ecology could benefit the field (Ashton, 2009; Hoffman, 2003; Metson et al., 2012). Ashton (2009) found that the recognition of in- terconnections between human and natural systems introduces new institutional variables to the analysis of industrial ecosystems. A more holistic approach to industrial ecology can expand the field from a set of tools to understand material and energy flows to address more profound challenges in social-technical landscapes (Allenby, 2009).

To better understand the social-technical landscape, a combi- nation of insights from industrial ecology and complexity science can help managers make decisions and address complex

sustainability problems (DeLaurentis and Ayyalasomayajula, 2009; Ehrenfeld, 2007). Integrative research and interdisciplinary learning is also needed to develop frameworks of interconnected industrial-social-ecological systems (Ramaswami et al., 2012).

4.2.5. Social-ecological systems The social-ecological systems perspective recognizes the in-

terconnections between business and society, which are both nested in natural systems defined by biospheric limits (Marcus et al., 2010; Whiteman et al., 2013). A social-ecological system is an, “integrated system of ecosystems and human society with reciprocal feedbacks and interdependence” (Folke et al., 2010, p. 3).

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 875

Studies within this research theme seek to deepen understanding of organizational dependency on social-ecological foundations (Winn and Pogutz, 2013) and posit that when managers under- stand the complex dynamics of social-ecological systems, its management may be improved (Kunz et al., 2013a). New partner- ship models and collaborative solutions are seen to drive systemic solutions for complex sustainability problems (Hodge, 2014; Mahoney et al., 2009; Nidumolu et al., 2014).

Organizations adapt to changes in social-ecological systems, such as environmental crises driven by climate change which has been given special attention by scholars (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010; Paschen and Ison, 2014; Winn et al., 2011). Direct and indirect impacts of climate change create an uncertain envi- ronment for managers (Beermann, 2011). Organizations may apply resilience thinking to help manage the impacts of climate change by identifying climate risks and opportunities (Beermann, 2011; Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2015; Winn et al., 2011). While research has focused on considering the impact of social-ecological system changes on organizational resilience, few studies explore the impact of firms on ecological systems and the services they provide organizations (Whiteman et al., 2013; Winn and Pogutz, 2013).

4.2.6. Transitions management When systems fail or become path dependent different actors

may choose to intervene (Foxon and Pearson, 2008; Mahoney et al., 2009; Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009) to initiate systems change towards sustainability (Doyle and Davies, 2013). Research on transitions management (Vries and Riele, 2006), seeks to under- stand long-term systems change processes of niche sub-systems (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009) and societal systems (Loorbach et al., 2009). Policy interventions are shaped by the dynamics of social-technical systems (Hoppmann et al., 2014) and policy tools can help facilitate transitions to low-carbon energy economics (Konnola et al., 2007).

Cities, when viewed as complex adaptive systems can undergo urban transitions towards sustainability stimulated by entrepre- neurial change agents (Block and Paredis, 2013; Uyarra and Gee, 2013). Network governance may help improve decision making in city level transitions (Khan, 2013). Creating public urban spaces for entrepreneurial activity provides a low-risk common space for social and environmental innovations to develop (Radywyl and Biggs, 2013). During the collaborative innovation process, learning processes occur to support the firms in effective action (Nevens et al., 2013). The alignment of principles across scales can lead to higher-order systemic change (Perey, 2014).

4.2.7. Paradigm shifts Scholars posit that a change in worldview is essential to sus-

tainable development progress (Seiffert and Loch, 2005; Shin et al., 2008). Paradigm shifts in the field of management can be seen as the result of larger shifts at the societal level (Valente, 2010). Crit- icism from society about the role of business in society has also driven paradigm changes towards sustainability (Valente, 2012). Management scholars demonstrate a change in worldviews, values and paradigms from a reductionist to an integrative perspective (Gladwin et al., 1995; Shrivastava et al., 2013) or from a neoclassical mechanistic to a systemic perspective (Seiffert and Loch, 2005; Stormer, 2003).

4.2.8. Education Research found in the education theme suggests that scientific

paradigm shifts challenge the conceptual foundations of educa- tional systems and call for the integration of sustainability into curricula for all ages (Raivio, 2011). Lozano (2010) found that

university leaders in sustainability education lack a holistic trans- disciplinary approach. Adoption rates of sustainability curricula may be increased if the contribution to sustainable progress is demonstrated (Watson et al., 2013). Yet, Dlouha et al. (2013) sug- gest it is difficult to demonstrate success because the social and political impacts of educational transformations are difficult to measure due to the fluid nature of transformation processes.

Research could consider pedagogical approaches for driving changes towards sustainability in organizations or society. Devel- oping skills for holistic thinking was found to be important in most research (Ferreira et al., 2006; Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014; Lozano, 2010). Other pedagogical approaches include ‘hands-on’, ‘on-the-job’ training (Ferreira et al., 2006), providing decision making tools (Lozano and Lozano, 2014), interdisciplinary ap- proaches (Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014; Shrivastava et al., 2013), skills for managing uncertainty, encouraging collaboration (Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014) and developmental approaches (Pappas et al., 2013).

4.2.9. Summary of research themes We have presented the research themes separately, however

overlaps in the research themes do exist and two or more research themes can be found in the same article. For instance, the role of innovation in social-technical transitions is highlighted in the liter- ature (Foxon and Pearson, 2008; Gaziulusoy et al., 2013). Unpre- dicted technological innovations may lead to changes in policy and shape social-technical systems (Hoppmann et al., 2014). Product innovations can have drastic impacts on macro-level consumptions trends in social-ecological systems (Vries and Riele, 2006).

Research suggests that paradigm shifts are dependent on suc- cessful shifts in social systems, in turn creating new opportunities to sustain social-ecological systems long-term (Valente, 2010). Paradigm shifts are also dependent on changes in individual behavior (Stormer, 2003) and call for changes towards sustain- ability education (Raivio, 2011). The work on education highlights the role of sustainability education in preparing future leaders in sustainability (Lozano and Lozano, 2014; Lozano et al., 2013). A challenge facing sustainability education is preparing leaders that can understand the complexities of social-ecological systems and the impact of their work (Raivio, 2011; Watson et al., 2013). Leaders can take a holistic approach to adapt to social-ecological systems and recognize their role as change agents (Metcalf and Benn, 2012; 2013).

5. Integrated framework

We developed an integrated framework to give an overview of the research themes presented in the previous section. The contribution of the framework is to demonstrate to what extent each research theme has addressed cross-scale interactions and where gaps still exist. The bidirectional arrows represents con- ceptual interdependence between the two levels, or that the higher level system influences the lower level system and vice versa. The article per theme that discusses the broadest bidirectional impacts is depicted in Fig. 3. In this section, we examine the cross-scale interactions found in the literature by each research theme.

5.1. Behavioral change

We found five articles dedicated to understanding behavioral change. Zhang et al. (2013) test the impact of decision making tools on the strategy of firms in the textile industry, or the impact of individual behavior change on organizational level concepts. Zollo et al. (2013) propose a conceptual framework for understanding change initiatives starting from the individual to organizational

Research Theme Individual Organizational Inter-organizational Social- ecological

Behavioral Change

Leadership

Innovation

Industrial Ecology Social-

ecological systems

Transitions Management

Paradigm Shifts

No bi-directional dynamics considered

Education No bi-directional dynamics considered

Fig. 3. Integrated framework.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881876

level. Their model points to the inter-connections between cross- scale change initiatives and organizational adaptive capacity.

Expanding beyond organizational boundaries, our review also identifies an emerging group of articles using a cognitive framing perspective, that are aimed at understanding how an integrative or paradoxical logic may affect managerial decision making (Gao and Bansal, 2013; Hahn et al., 2015). Hahn et al. (2014) consider the implications of cognitive managerial frames offering that a prag- matic framemay lead to workable solutions and large scale change. Represented in the integrated framework (Fig. 3), the work on managing tensions in corporate sustainability demonstrates that firms affect and are affected by social-ecological systems and also considers the tensions between individual and firm level sustain- ability (Hahn et al., 2015). The systematic framework for managing tensions in corporate sustainability paves the way for future empirical research to consider cross-scale interactions (Hahn et al., 2015, p. 301).

5.2. Leadership

Studies on leadership seek to understand how leaders transform organizations and society. The integrative complexity and decen- tralization of decision making in top management teams influences corporate social performance (Wong et al., 2011).When understood holistically, leadership initiatives influence company systems such as operations, strategy and communication and therefore the sus- tainability dimensions of the firm (Boiral et al., 2014; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011). Leadership that promotes ethical behavior may drive transformational change of sustainable production and con- sumption systems (Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2014) and consciousness development may resolve the global economic crisis (Boiral et al., 2014).

As depicted in the integrated framework (Fig. 3), Painter- Morland (2008) suggests that complex interactions between in- dividuals and groups shapes shared organizational institutions. Sustainability requires leaders to predict complex systems dy- namics, quickly adapt and implement organizational change (Metcalf and Benn, 2012, 2013). Factors of community systems may influence which type of leadership emerges and the leader’s ability to facilitate sustainable community development (Harley et al., 2014). While this research examines the interdependence be- tween leaders and their organizational environments, research

could examine feedback loops with higher level social-ecological systems.

5.3. Innovation

Sustainability oriented innovation articles in the review cover all levels of analysis from individual to social-ecological systems. Yet, we did not find a study that explores innovation for adaptive ca- pacity nor research that holistically examines feedback loops at all levels. Most articles identified sought to understand the implica- tions of firm level innovations (technological, social and organiza- tional) to value chains (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013) and social- ecological systems (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons et al., 2013; Gaziulusoy et al., 2013), or examined the influence of social- ecological systems on innovations (Luthe et al., 2013; Vries and Riele, 2006). Hoppmann et al. (2014) draw attention to the ongoing dynamics between technological change, social-technical systems and policy, which is represented in the integrated frame- work (Fig. 3).

Foxon and Pearson (2008) focus on the social-ecological system level by giving an understanding of the co-evolution of innovation systems of new technology and public sustainability policy sys- tems. We identified two articles that focused on organizational level innovation and implications for the firm (Chang et al., 2014; Gerstlberger et al., 2014). Another two articles examined the connection between inter-organizational networks and organiza- tional innovation (Dougherty and Dunne, 2011; Isaksson et al., 2010). We identified one article that considered individual behavior change. In their study of Irish households, Doyle and Davies (2013) use backcasting of social-technical innovation sce- narios including aspects such as regulations, user practices and cultural meanings to stimulate individual self-reflection.

5.4. Industrial ecology

Most articles in the review focusing on industrial ecology con- nect the organizational level or inter-organizational level to in- dustrial and social-ecological systems (i.e. Batten, 2009; Behera et al., 2012; Cerceau et al., 2014; Romero and Carmen Ruiz, 2013; Tsvetkova and Gustafsson, 2012). For example, Despeisse et al. (2012) develop a model for improved environmental performance taking the factory as the unit of analysis and linking manufacturing

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 877

processes to technical and ecological systems. We identified one paper that is represented in Fig. 3 (Ramaswami et al., 2012) which conceptually embeds industrial systems in social-ecological sys- tems and considers the role of individual actors. In this study Ramaswami et al. (2012) consider the sustainability of cities in an integrated manner by considering the role of individual actors in social-ecological infrastructural systems. Industrial ecology scholars have called for research to continue in this integrated di- rection (Ashton, 2009; Hoffman, 2003; Metson et al., 2012).

5.5. Social-ecological systems

As shown in Fig. 3, Starik and Rands (1995) and Starik and Kanashiro (2013) provide conceptual foundations for considering dynamic interactions across-all scales. We suggest that there is an opportunity to advance this research empirically. Other research explores the role of bottom-up action on systemic change (Gray, 2010; Perey, 2014). Gray (2010) suggests that sustainability of social-ecological systems will be the result of individual, organi- zational, political, and collective outcomes, but does not explicitly consider the role of feedback loops across scales.

A group of articles considers the adaptation of organizations or individuals to social-ecological systems such as disasters related to climate change (Beermann, 2011; King, 1995; Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010; Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal, 2015; Paschen and Ison, 2014; Sterman, 2001; Winn et al., 2011). A second set has considered the feedback relationships, the transformation of social- ecological systems or the role of business in society without attention to the role of individual agency or firm level effects (Kunz et al., 2013a, 2013b; Manring, 2014; Marcus et al., 2010). A third set considers the role of firms in social-ecological systems or as co- evolving with their environment (Hodge, 2014; Porter, 2006; Whiteman et al., 2004, 2013; Winn and Pogutz, 2013). For instance, Winn and Pogutz (2013) offer a theoretical model of organizational ecosystem embeddedness, representing the mutual relationship of impact and dependence between organizations and ecosystems.

5.6. Transitions management

Articles in the transitions management theme have addressed directional change at all scales. However we found just one model in the review that considers interconnections across all levels. Rotmans and Loorbach (2009) present a holistic transitions man- agement framework for addressing complex social problems (see Fig. 3). The framework considers individual learning experiences, mobilization of actors and selection of experiments that can be scaled to drive change.

Other articles have focused on the macro-level. For example, the role of geography in sustainability transitions (Coenen et al., 2012) or the role of business in proactively driving sustainability and public space creation to leverage disruptive change (Radywyl and Biggs, 2013). Another group of articles consider unidirectional change such as the role of political entrepreneurship in driving sustainability transitions (Block and Paredis, 2013). Transitions frameworks are based on multi-level, multi-phase dynamics of change (Geels, 2002). Our review highlights that research does not consistently leverage all levels over time.

5.7. Paradigm shifts

In the paradigm shifts research theme, we find the articles focus on a maximum of two levels of analysis and as represented in the integrated framework, we did not find any cross-scale interactions (Fig. 3). Most articles focus on how pressures from social-ecological

systems can create field level paradigm shifts but the management paradigm has yet to shift from neoclassical and technocentric roots (Seiffert and Loch, 2005; Shin et al., 2008; Stormer, 2003; Valente, 2010). Other articles focus on how individual level management practices are changing as a result of growing complexity in external environments (Freedman, 1992; Lozano, 2008), and how organi- zations may respond to a sustain-centric paradigm (Gladwin et al., 1995). While Gladwin et al. (1995) suggests that management theory may have encouraged a techno-centric paradigm, our framework highlights that research has ignored the role of change agents in creating cross-scale impacts.

5.8. Education

A sustainability oriented transformation of higher education considers different viewpoints from ethical decision making to policy issues (Dlouha et al., 2013). Three articles consider the uni- directional downward adoption trends of sustainability education (Lozano, 2010; Raivio, 2011; Watson et al., 2013). Most articles consider the upward unidirectional effectiveness of pedagogical approaches in driving changes towards sustainability in organiza- tions or society (Ferreira et al., 2006; Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014; Lozano, 2010; Lozano and Lozano, 2014; Pappas et al., 2013; Shrivastava et al., 2013). In this review, as shown in the integrated framework (Fig. 3), we did not find any empirical evidence of cross- scale interconnections in the researchwith regards to sustainability education.

6. Future research

Systems thinking is increasingly being used to understand sustainability issues in management but remains peripheral to mainstream organizational journals. We hope that the conceptual foundations identified in this review, such as the emerging field using a paradox lens (Hahn et al., 2015; Ven der Byl and Slawinski, 2015) among others, will encourage more scholars in the field of management to understand the complexities of sustainability with systems thinking. Overall, a key implication of our review of sys- tems thinking is for future studies to explicitly recognize social- ecological embeddedness beyond the boundaries of the firm, in- dustry, and product/process level, as well as the interconnections across multi-level, nested social-ecological systems. We concep- tualize this in Fig. 4. In Tables 4 and 5 we offer specific research questions derived from the representative articles to help guide management scholars and stimulate future research.

For example, the organizational adaptation literature hasmainly focused on building organizational resilience in the face of chang- ing climate conditions (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). This work has already provided new insights into risk management and we encourage future research to consider the impact of other social- ecological systems, such as biodiversity, nitrogen/phosphorus use, and ozone depletion on organizational adaptation strategies (Whiteman et al., 2013). We also invite organizational scholars to move beyond the notion of building organizational resilience, and to consider the implications of building social-ecological resilience (Whiteman et al., 2004; Winn and Pogutz, 2013).

Similarly, findings from the innovation research theme show that studies remain focused at the organizational level and on the development of new sustainable processes and products. However, these studies tend to ignore broader systemic feedback loops, and to address specific processes or products in isolation of other de- velopments, both in the technological and ecological spheres. Therefore, future research on sustainability oriented innovation should take a broader scope and examine the implications of developing innovations, including new business models, intended

Fig. 4. Future research agenda.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881878

to transform entire systems (Adams et al., 2015). Another research theme that has been given limited attention

by systems thinkers is organizational sustainability reporting. Studies are needed to provide insight into how temporal and spatial interlinkages can be taken into account within organizational sustainability reporting to give a holistic perspective (Lozano, 2013). Integrated reporting has emerged as an innovative topic within sustainability reporting that offers organizations the op- portunity to better understand and manage how its business ac- tivities affect social-ecological systems. Integrated reporting stimulates ‘integrated thinking’ within companies - understanding the relationship between the business model and the capitals it depends on (social, ecological and financial) - in order to identify risks and opportunities in the short, medium and long term. Yet the field of integrated reporting remains nascent and little is known about how it can effectively act as a mechanism for internal orga- nizational change (Perego et al., 2016), or how it may effectively improve the resilience of social-ecological systems. We invite scholars to investigate questions such as ‘what is driving and inhibiting the diffusion of integrated reporting as a field of manage- ment practice?’ and, ‘how is integrated reporting reconstructing the ways in which companies, industries and value chains operate in order to effectively enhance the resilience of social-ecological systems?’

We were surprised to find that systems thinking has yet to be fully leveraged as a frame for understanding collaboration for sustainability, although collaboration is acknowledged to be important for achieving sustainability goals (Lozano, 2008). Clarke and Fuller (2010) found that stages of collaborative strategic man- agement are driven by feedback loops and adaptation to feedback loops drives emergent strategies. Future research questions could address, ‘does collaborative action help to understand complex in- teractions between social-ecological systems?’ and ‘how can systems thinking be used to understand multi-stakeholder platforms driving action across scales?”

Finally, we suggest that a further integration between research themes is needed to advance the field of sustainability manage- ment. For instance, our review highlights that industrial ecology gives much insight on how to build production systems while minimizing environmental impact. If connected with the work on social-ecological systems (Whiteman et al., 2013), we would have a better understanding of what is needed to achieve global sustain- ability within the limits of the planet (Rockstr€om et al., 2009).

7. Conclusion

In 1995, Gladwin et al. called on management scholars to develop theories that reintegrate organizations with the social and ecological systems in which they are embedded. In the same early special issue on sustainability management, Starik and Rands

(1995) invited studies that explore the linkages between organi- zations and all system levels and give insight into the strategies that may lead to overall systemic sustainability.

Our review indicates that many organizational scholars have endeavored to take up this challenge, applying core concepts of systems thinking in sustainability management research and advancing understanding through a number of research themes. Our results illustrate the exponential increase in publications on systemic dimensions to sustainability management, with the Journal of Cleaner Production clearly in a leadership position as the primary publication outlet for systems thinkers. We also observe that extant research is largely fragmented and marginal to the mainstream management journals.

Furthermore, the results of our review illustrate the field could benefit from more transdisciplinary research in order to better understand sustainability from a holistic systems perspective. Considering the interconnectedness of social-ecological systems and determining meaningful transition pathways requires multi- disciplinary work based on systems thinking originating in both management studies and ecology (Starik and Rands, 1995; Whiteman et al., 2013).

Our study has the following main limitations. First, the review is constrained by its selected time period excluding any early contributions to the field (pre-1990) and through its selection of academic journals. Future reviews may find manageable ways to broaden their searches to capture contributions from books, con- ference papers, articles written in languages other than English and literature from sources other than journals should be given consideration. Second, our process of article identification through a keyword-based search and academic expert review may not have captured all relevant contributions to the field. Third, only the database SSCI was used for the review. Future reviews may consider the dual use of databases to give greater reliability to the results.

Despite these limitations, we believe that this review draws greater attention to the potential of systems thinking and encour- ages other management journals to expand their integration of such ideas. In order to facilitate the uptake of systems thinking, we also provide guidance on future research questions. In the words of recognized systems thinker and leader of corporate sustainability, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, “I truly believe that future leaders will be systems thinkers. It is inconceivable that anyone will suc- cessfully steer companies, or countries, through our volatile world without understanding the interdependencies between the sys- tems on which we depend” (Polman, 2014).

Funding

This work was supported by the EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 879

Training Network funding scheme: Innovation for Sustainability (I4S) Grant Agreement n� 316604.

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this article in memory of Nigel Roome. Thank you to Nigel for his support over the years, guidance in this field, compassion and humor. We would also like to thank the reviewers that provided thoughtful feedback and Kate Horton for her time and feedback.

References

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P., 2015. Sustainability- oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 1e26.

Aguinis, H., Glavas, A., 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda. J. Manage 38 (4), 932e968.

Allenby, B., 2009. The Industrial Ecology of emerging technologies. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 168e183.

Angelakoglou, K., Gaidajis, G., 2015. A review of methods contributing to the assessment of the environmental sustainability of industrial systems. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 725e747.

Ashton, W.S., 2009. The Structure, function, and evolution of a regional industrial ecosystem. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 228e246.

Bansal, P., DesJardine, M., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strateg. Organ 12 (70), 70e78.

Bansal, P., Gao, J., 2006. Building the future by looking to the past: examining research published on organizations and environment. Org. Environ. 19 (4), 458e478.

Batten, D.F., 2009. Fostering industrial symbiosis with agent-based simulation and participatory modeling. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 197e213.

Beermann, M., 2011. Linking corporate climate adaptation strategies with resilience thinking. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (8), 836e842.

Behera, S.K., Kim, J.H., Lee, S.Y., Suh, S., Park, H.S., 2012. Evolution of ‘designed’ industrial symbiosis networks in the Ulsan Eco-industrial Park: ‘research and development into business’ as the enabling framework. J. Clean. Prod. 29, 103e112.

Berchicci, L., King, A., 2007. Postcards from the edge. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1 (1), 513e547.

Block, T., Paredis, E., 2013. Urban development projects catalyst for sustainable transformations: the need for entrepreneurial political leadership. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 181e188.

Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.

Boiral, O., Baron, C., Gunnlaugson, O., 2014. Environmental leadership and con- sciousness development: a case study among canadian SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 123, 363e383.

Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: an overview. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 1e8.

Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), 8.

Cerceau, J., Mat, N., Junqua, G., Lin, L., Laforest, V., Gonzalez, C., 2014. Implementing industrial ecology in port cities: international overview of case studies and cross-case analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 1e16.

Chang, D., Lee, C., Chen, C., 2014. Review of life cycle assessment towards sustain- able product development. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 48e60.

Cheng, C.C.J., Lung, Y.C., Sheu, C.H., 2014. The link between eco-innovation and business performance: a Taiwanese industry context. J. Clean. Prod 64, 81e90.

Clarke, A., Fuller, M., 2010. Collaborative strategic management: strategy formula- tion and implementation by mutli-organizational cross-sector social partner- ships. J. Bus. Ethics 94, 85e101.

Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., 2012. Toward a spatial perspective on sus- tainability transitions. Res. Policy 41 (6), 968e979.

Crossan, M.M., Apaydin, M., 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (6), 1154e1191.

Davis, C., Nikoli�c, I., Dijkema, G.P.J., 2009. Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 306e325.

DeLaurentis, D.A., Ayyalasomayajula, S., 2009. Exploring the synergy between in- dustrial ecology and system of systems to understand complexity. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 247e263.

Despeisse, M., Ball, P.D., Levers, E.A., 2012. Industrial Ecology at factors level d a conceptual model. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 30e39.

Dlouha, J., Huisingh, D., Barton, A., 2013. Learning networks in higher education: universities in search of making effective regional impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 49, 5e10.

Dougherty, D., Dunne, D.D., 2011. Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Or- gan. Sci. 22 (5), 1214e1223.

Doyle, R., Davies, A.R., 2013. Towards sustainable household consumption: exploring a practice oriented, participatory backcasting approach for sustain- able home heating practices in Ireland. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 260e271.

Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2007. Would Industrial Ecology exist without sustainability in the background? J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 73e84.

Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2012. Beyond the brave new world: business for sustainability. In: Bansal, P., Hoffman, A.J. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 611e619.

Etzion, D., 2007. Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992- present: a review. J. Manag. 33 (4), 637e664.

Ferreira, A.J.D., Lopes, M.A.R., Morais, J.P.F., 2006. Environmental management and audit schemes implementation as an educational tool for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 973e982.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO 31 (5), 437e440.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockstr€om, R., 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4), 1e20.

Foxon, T., Pearson, P., 2008. Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), 148e161.

Freedman, D.H., 1992. Is management still a science? Harv. Bus. Rev. 70 (6), 26. Fulmer, C.A., Gelfand, M.J., 2012. At what level (and in whom) we trust trust across

multiple organizational levels. J. Manag. 38 (4), 1167e1230. Gao, J., Bansal, P., 2013. Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustain-

ability. J. Bus. Ethics 112, 241e255. Gaziulusoy, A._I., Boyle, C., McDowall, R., 2013. System innovation for sustainability:

a systemic double-flow scenario method for companies. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 104e116.

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro- cesses: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31 (8e9), 1257e1274.

Gerstlberger, W., Knudsen, M.P., Stampe, I., 2014. Sustainable development strate- gies for production innovation and energy efficiency. Bus. Strat. Env. 23, 131e144.

Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T.S., 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 874e907.

Gmelin, H., Seuring, S., 2014. Determinants of a sustainable new product develop- ment. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 1e9.

Gombert-Courvoisier, S., Sennes, V., Ricard, M., Ribeyre, F., 2014. Higher education for sustainable consumption: case report on the human ecology Master’s course (university of Bordeaux, France). J. Clean. Prod. 62, 82e88.

Gray, R., 2010. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainabil- ity… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Acc. Organ. Soc. 35 (1), 47e62.

Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, first ed. Island Press, Washington.

Hahn, T., Pinske, J., Preuss, L., Figge, F., 2015. Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 127 (2), 297e316.

Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Figge, F., 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sus- tainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad. Manag. Rev. 39 (4), 463e487.

Harley, C., Metcalf, L., Irwin, J., 2014. An exploratory study in community perspec- tives of sustainability leadership in the Murray Darling Basin. J. Bus. Ethics 124, 413e433.

Hodge, A., 2014. Mining company performance and community conflict: moving beyond a seeming paradox. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 27e33.

Hoffman, A.J., 2003. Linking social systems analysis to the industrial ecology framework. Org. Environ. 16 (1), 66e86.

Hoffman, A., Georg, S., 2012. A history of research on business and the natural environment: conversations from the field. In: Georg, S., Hoffman, A.J. (Eds.), Critical Perspectives in Business and Management: Business and the Natural Environment, first ed. Routledge, pp. 1e58.

Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and so- cial systems. Ecosystems 4 (5), 390e405.

Hoppmann, J., Huenteler, J., Girod, B., 2014. Compulsive policy-makinge the evo- lution of the German feed-in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power. Res. Policy 43, 1422e1441.

Huo, C.H., Chai, L.H., 2008. Physical principles and simulations on the structural evolution of eco-industrial systems. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1995e2005.

Ibanez-Fores, V., Bovea, M.D., Perez-Belis, V., 2014. A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 70 (1), 259e281.

Isaksson, R., Johansson, P., Fischer, K., 2010. Detecting supply chain innovation po- tential for sustainable development. J. Bus. Ethics 97, 425e442.

J€anicke, M., 2008. Ecological modernisation: new perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (5), 557e565.

Khan, J., 2013. What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? J. Clean. Prod. 50, 133e139.

King, A., 1995. Avoiding ecological surprise: lessons from long-standing commu- nities. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 961e985.

Klewitz, J., Hansen, E., 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a sys- tematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 57e75.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881880

Konnola, T., Unruh, G.C., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., 2007. Toward prospective voluntary agreements: reflections from a hydrogen foresight project. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (3), 259e265.

Kunz, N.C., Moran, C.J.J., Kastelle, T., 2013a. Implementing an integrated approach to water management by matching problem complexity with management re- sponses: a case study of a mine site water committee. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 362e373.

Kunz, N.C., Moran, C.J., Kastelle, T., 2013b. Conceptualising “coupling” for sustain- ability implementation in the industrial sector: a review of the field and pro- jection of future research opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 69e80.

Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A., 2010. Beyond adaptation: resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Bus. Soc. 49 (3), 477e511.

Lockett, A., Moon, J., Visser, W., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in manage- ment research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (1), 115e136.

Loorbach, D., Bakel, J.C., Van, Whiteman, G., Rotmans, J., 2009. Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (2), 133e146.

Loorbach, D., Wijsman, K., 2013. Business transition management: exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 20e28.

Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1838e1846.

Lozano, R., 2010. Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 637e644.

Lozano, R., 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 14e26.

Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European companies. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 57e65.

Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 99e107.

Lozano, F., Lozano, R., 2014. Developing the curriculum for a new Bachelor’s degree in Engineering for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 4, 136e146.

Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod 48, 10e19.

Luthe, T., Kaegi, T., Reger, J., 2013. A systems approach to sustainable technical product design: combining life cycle assessment and virtual development in the case of skis. J. Ind. Ecol. 17 (4), 605e617.

Maguire, S., McKelvey, B., Mirabeau, L., Oztas, N., 2006. Complexity science and organization studies. In: Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., Nord, W. (Eds.), ,The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 165e214.

Maguire, S., Allen, P., McKelvey, B., 2011. Complexity and management: introducing the SAGE handbook. In: Allen, P., Maguire, S., McKelvey, B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 1e26.

Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, A.M., Pitelis, C.N., 2009. Perspectivedthe Interdependence of private and public interests. Organ. Sci. 20 (6), 1034e1052.

Manring, S.L., 2014. The role of universities in developing interdisciplinary action research collaborations to understand and manage resilient social-ecological system. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 125e135.

Marcus, J., Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B.A., 2010. Conceptions of the busi- nessesocietyenature interface: implications for management scholarship. Bus. Soc. 49 (3), 402e438.

Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., Behrens, W., 1972. The Limits to Growth, first ed. Universe Books.

Meadows, D., 2009. Thinking in Systems: a Primer, first ed. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Merali, Y., Allen, P., 2011. Complexity and systems thinking. In: Allen, P., Maguire, S., McKelvey, B. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 31e52.

Metcalf, L., Benn, S., 2012. The corporation is ailing social technology: creating a “fit for purpose” design for sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 111 (2), 195e210.

Metcalf, L., Benn, S., 2013. Leadership for sustainability: an evolution of leadership ability. J. Bus. Ethics 112 (3), 369e384.

Metson, G., Aggarwal, R., Childers, D.L., 2012. Efficiency through proximity. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (6), 914e927.

Mickwitz, P., Hild�en, M., Sepp€al€a, J., Melanen, M., 2011. Sustainability through sys- tem transformation: lessons from Finnish efforts. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (16), 1779e1787.

Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M., 2016. A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 134e146.

Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D., 2013. Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 111e122.

Nidumolu, R., Ellison, J., Whalen, J., Billman, E., 2014. The collaboration imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 92 (4), 76e84, 132.

Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Bansal, P., 2015. The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 1615e1631.

Painter-Morland, M., 2008. Systemic leadership and the emergence of ethical responsiveness. J. Bus. Ethics 82 (2), 509e524.

Pappas, E., Pierrakos, O., Nagel, R., 2013. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach sus- tainability in multiple contexts. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 54e56.

Paschen, J.-A., Ison, R., 2014. Narrative research in climate change adapta- tiondexploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance. Res. Policy 43 (6), 1083e1092.

Perego, P., Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., 2016. A lot of icing but little cake? Taking integrated reporting forward. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 53e64.

Perey, R., 2014. Organizing sustainability and the problem of scale: local, global, or fractal? Org. Environ. 27 (3), 215e222.

Polman, P., 2014. January 20. Unilever CEO Paul Polman: Tackle Sustainability Challenges with a Systems-based Approach. International Business Times. Retrived from: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/unilever-ceo-paul-polman-tackle- sustainability-challenges-systems-based-approach-1433024.

Porter, T.B., 2006. Coevolution as a research framework for organizations and the natural environment. Org. Environ. 19 (4), 479e504.

Purser, R.E., Park, C., Montuori, A., 1995. Limits to anthropocentrism: toward an ecocentric organization paradigm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 1053e1089.

Radywyl, N., Biggs, C., 2013. Reclaiming the commons for urban transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 159e170.

Raivio, K., 2011. Sustainability as an educational agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (16), 1906e1907.

Ramaswami, A., Weible, C., Main, D., Heikkila, T., Siddiki, S., Duvall, A., Pattison, A., Bernard, M., 2012. A social-ecological-infrastructural systems framework for interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (6), 801e813.

Rockstr€om, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472e475.

Romero, E., Carmen Ruiz, M., 2013. Framework for applying a complex systems approach to model the operation of eco-industrial parks. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (5), 731e741.

Roome, N., 2011. Looking back, thinking forward: distinguishing between weak and strong sustainability. In: Bansal, P., Hoffman, A.J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 620e629.

Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., 2009. Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2), 184e196.

Russo, M.V., Minto, A., 2012. Competitive strategy and the environment: a field of inquiry emerges. In: Bansal, P., Hoffman, A.J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 29e49.

Seiffert, M., Loch, C., 2005. Systemic thinking in environmental management: support for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (12), 1197e1202.

Shin, D., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D., Zwetsloot, G.I., 2008. Development of a sustain- ability policy model for promoting cleaner production: a knowledge integration approach. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (17), 1823e1837.

Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., Persson, S., 2013. Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22 (4), 230e244.

Starik, M., Kanashiro, P., 2013. Toward a theory of sustainability management: uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Org. Environ. 26 (1), 7e30.

Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multi- system perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 908e935.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstr€om, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Sorlin, S., 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 6223.

Sterman, J.D., 2001. System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. Cal. Manag. Rev. 43 (4), 8e25.

Stormer, F., 2003. Making the shift: moving from “Ethics Pays’ to an inter-systems model of business. J. Bus. Ethics 44, 279e289.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14, 207e222.

Tsvetkova, A., Gustafsson, M., 2012. Business models for industrial ecosystems: a modular approach. J. Clean. Prod. 29e30, 246e254.

Uyarra, E., Gee, S., 2013. Transforming urban waste into sustainable material and energy usage: the case of Greater Manchester (UK). J. Clean. Prod. 50, 101e110.

Valente, M., 2010. Demystifying the struggles of private sector paradigmatic change: business as an agent in a complex adaptive system. Bus. Soc. 49 (3), 439e476.

Valente, M., 2012. Theorizing firm adoption of sustaincentrism. Organ. Stud. 33 (4), 563e591.

Ven der Byl, C.A., Slawinski, N., 2015. Embracing tensions in corporate sustain- ability: a review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Org. Environ 28 (1), 54e79.

Van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustain- ability: between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2/3), 95e105.

Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P.V., 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agro- ecological innovations. Res. Policy 38 (6), 971e983.

Vinkhuyzen, O.M., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I., 2014. The role of moral leadership for sustainable production and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 102e113.

Vries, J., Riele, H., 2006. Playing with hyenas: renovating environmental product policy strategy. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (3), 111.

Walker, B., Barrett, S., Polasky, S., Galaz, V., Folke, C., Engstrom, G., de Zeeuw, A., 2009. Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325 (5946), 1345e1346.

Walker, B., Salt, 2006. Resilience Thinking, first ed. Island Press, Washington. Watson, M.K., Lozano, R., Noyes, C., Rodgers, M., 2013. Assessing curricula contri-

bution to sustainability more holistically: experiences from the integration of curricula assessment and students’ perceptions at the Georgia Institute of Technology. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 106e116.

A. Williams et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 866e881 881

Whiteman, G., Forbes, B.C., Niemel€a, J., Chapin III, F.S., 2004. Bringing feedback and resilience of high-latitude ecosystems into the corporate boardroom. AMBIO 33 (6), 371e376.

Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries: ecological foun- dations for corporate sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 50 (2), 307e336.

Winn, M., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M.K., Günther, E., 2011. Impacts from climate change on organizations: a conceptual foundation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20 (3), 157e173.

Winn, M.I., Pogutz, S., 2013. Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: new horizons for management research. Org. Environ. 26 (2), 203e229.

Wong, E.M., Ormiston, M.E., Tetlock, P.E., 2011. The effects of top management team

integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. J. 54 (6), 1207e1228.

Yukl, G., 2008. How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadersh. Q. 19 (6), 708e722.

Zhang, F., Rio, M., Allais, R., Zwolinski, P., Carrillo, T.R., Roucoules, L., Mercier- Laurent, E., Buclet, N., 2013. Toward a systemic navigation framework to inte- grate sustainable development into the company. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 199e214.

Zollo, M., Cennamo, C., Neumann, K., 2013. Beyond what and why: understanding organizational evolution towards sustainable enterprise models. Org. Environ. 26 (3), 241e259.