Sustainable Leadership - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors:
Edited by: –
Last updated: October 09, 2025

Executive summary

Sustainable leadership integrates economic, environmental, and social priorities to steer organizations toward long-term success. It builds on the evolution of leadership research-from trait and behavior perspectives to systems thinking-and emphasizes values such as integrity, fairness, and transparency. Sustainable leaders develop a clear vision, cultivate resilient cultures, and align incentives and structures to embed sustainability across functions. They balance agility with foresight, empower teams, decentralize decision-making, and engage diverse stakeholders as strategic partners rather than as audiences.

Core characteristics include systems thinking that situates the firm within broader ecological and social contexts; an explicit ethical commitment; collaboration and knowledge sharing; self-reflection and awareness of impacts; a strong long-term orientation; and disciplined innovation. Leaders translate these attributes into practice through people development, constructive labor relations, succession planning, team-based governance, and stakeholder-centric strategies. These practices reduce short-termism, stabilize performance, and advance environmental and social responsibility.

Sustainable leadership connects with-but is distinct from-ethical, servant, transformational, and charismatic leadership. It shares ethical grounding and empowerment of followers, the vision and change emphasis of transformational leadership, and the community focus of servant leadership, while remaining uniquely oriented toward sustainability outcomes for all stakeholders. When implemented, sustainable leadership can enable organizational resilience, drive green innovation, strengthen trust, and support capabilities such as green supply chain management and green human resource management.

Organizations face barriers including short-term investor pressure, uncertainty, misaligned stakeholder expectations, and unethical conduct. Drivers include supportive regulation, stakeholder activism, embedded ethical values, and institutional networks that accelerate adoption. Practical tools-visioning and measurable targets, responsible innovation, leadership development, multi-stakeholder engagement frameworks, workshops, and ESG governance-translate principles into execution. Case illustrations (e.g., BMW, IKEA, Patagonia) show that sustained commitment, stakeholder integration, and continuous improvement can embed sustainability into strategy and operations.

1 Introduction

1.1 Leadership approaches

Eminently the definition of Stogdill¹ “Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement” (p. 4) shifted the perspective of Leadership initially from one person as a nature gifted Leader, forward to behavioral and process-oriented perspectives of leadership and a group oriented approach¹. Besides, more scholars and researchers refined the leadership approach over the following decades with a detailed focus on social aspects, as for example Prentice defined a successful leader as a Leader, who successfully balances the individual needs of subordinates as well as group interest through participation and motivation of his employees².

Over the years, the academic literature on leadership has developed significantly, and scholars have produced a wide range of practical insights. However, in recent decades, a new challenge has emerged: the growing need to move beyond purely economic and social dimensions toward incorporating environmental concerns. Scientific consensus confirms that climate change is significantly driven by human activity³. Nevertheless, as the majority of organizations remain passive in their responses⁴, external pressure on the business sector act sustainably has continued to rise.

In response to this emerging need, the leadership style of Sustainable Leadership has evolved.

Sustainable Leadership is a leadership style in which long-term orientation play a central role⁵, ethical values are strongly emphasized⁶, and close engagement with stakeholders represents one of its core characteristics⁷. Researches and Scholars from various fields such as psychology and management have contributed to the concept of sustainable leadership by implementing assumptions, studies and progressive and helpful frameworks. However, sometimes the literature dedicated to sustainable leadership approaches is extensive and occasionally discussed or explored under different concepts or designations. Although stakeholder-related aspects are highly relevant to Sustainable Leadership and help shape the overall concept, existing literature often does not explicitly link these factors to Sustainable Leadership frameworks. This may be due to the fact that these existing approaches-for example the stakeholder approaches-have been established significantly earlier than the concept of Sustainable Leadership.

1.2 Structure of the bachelor thesis

The resulting question of what precisely constitutes the Sustainable Leadership approach- how it is structured, what its core elements are, and which academic literature is substantively related to it-forms the basis for the research question of this bachelor thesis: How is the Sustainable Leadership approach represented in academic literature, what re the most recent findings, and which related bodies of literature should be considered as part of the concept.

On this occasion I synthesized and integrated existing literature concerning Leadership approaches to create a foundation for leadership research and articles for the wiki and also for this bachelor thesis. Furthermore, definitions and attributes of sustainable leadership will be provided. The following section presents relevant models related to Sustainable Leadership and summarizes them in a concise, self-development framework, for the purpose of visual clarity. An elaboration will be provided on the differences and similarities of best-known leadership styles compared to the sustainable leadership approach to generate a clear distinction to other leadership styles. Subsequently, a chapter will address the outcomes of Sustainable Leadership, followed by a discussion of the limitations of this bachelor thesis and potential avenues for future research.

Finally, I present sustainability tools for boosting the sustainable performance of organizations as a possibility for practical implementation. Also, I will introduce further practical tools for integrating sustainable leadership practices into organizations. Finally, the thesis will examine best practice examples and identify key drivers and barriers to the implementation of Sustainable Leadership.

2 Theoretical overview

2.1 Leadership approach

As the concept of sustainable Leadership has his origin in Leadership approaches, following chapter will clarify the historical development of leadership and the turn in theoretical views and studies by researchers and scholars.

2.1.1 Historical development of research in leadership

One of the first written views on leadership are documented by Thomas Carlyle in his Great Man Theory. In the early 20thÂ century, the theory leaders are born and made by God instead of being made was the essential element of Carlyle’s Theory⁸. Moreover, Carlyle added views to fully support these heroic leaders born with typical characteristics of leaders in every environment⁸. These Theorists didn’t take a differentiation into consideration when observing leadership traits as genetic even though these traits could also be acquired⁹. Even today there still might be an influence of Great Man Theory on leadership scholars and also people seem to portray leaders in political and organizational terms as geniuses as described in the Great Man Theory⁸.

This Theory is an even better starting point for a summary of historical leadership approaches due to the contextualization of Spector of the Great Man Theory within the Approach of Freud. Freud described psychological impulses which lead people to esteem authority figures⁸, which shows a different view on leadership, more like a social relationship rather than a static concept of single active Leaders and passive Followers. This shift of perspective continued and researches like Frank Wright stated leaders will not be lasting over a long time without recognition of followers and justified credit¹⁰.

In addition, a significant impact on the debate of leadership came by the definition of¹” Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organizational group in its efforts towards goal setting and goal achievement” (p.4). Stogdill focused primarily within his leadership approach on behavioral and process-oriented perspectives and also a group-oriented aspect in leadership¹.

In the end more scholars and researchers followed this direction and studied more on social aspects of the concept of leadership, as one of them Prentice defined Leaders as persons whoÂ Â motivates his followers to reach predetermined goals as well as leadership as a form of accomplishing goals with assistance of followers². Not merely Prentice devoted more attention to the followers but Tannenbaum et al., also described a shift that positioned followers at the center of attention when described leadership as an attempt to influence followers in situations or the behavior of followers themselves¹.

2.1.2 Empirical and theoretical perspectives on contemporary leadership

In recent literature, for example when discussing the hiring process ofÂ CEOs, where leadership was outlined as a combination of personal behaviors that allows an individual to influence followers¹¹, elements of these above-mentioned approaches can still be found. The notion of an individual exerting influence over followers is also evident work of Northouse where he defined Leadership as: “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”¹². Also, Yukl defined Leadership: “Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives”¹³, which shows that scholars are in consensus about an influence of leaders and an ongoing process.

Importantly the discourse of leadership is still moving as it is still elusive and enigmatic¹⁴ but repeatedly achieves progress due to scholars which studies in much different directions. Outcomes of leadership are an illustrative example of ongoing research progress. DeChurch et at., stated that most research of scholars is done at the top and bottom of organizations but not at mid-levels and also that the main focus of scholars lays on the influence of leadership on individuals and organizations¹⁵. In a recent study, Englmair et al. found Leadership encouragement improved team performance and especially problem-solving, team organization and decentralized information acquisition¹⁶. Also, Wofford found that leader action may improve follower performance effectiveness by setting different goals, increasing follower abilities or increasing social support¹⁷. In the article of Hiller et al., the authors criticized the outcomes of leadership are mostly related to the effectiveness criteria only and that the perspective of subordinates is clearly overrepresented¹⁸ which could result in different perceptions of leadership, depending on whether it is viewed by subordinates or trained observers¹⁹. The authors further determined a limited number of longitudinal studies available¹⁸.

Besides, scholars found various aspects in studying the relationship between leaders and followers in many different directions as for example leaders influence with their honest or dishonest behavior group performance, individual performance, cooperation and the leadership effectiveness on their own²⁰.

Also, there are different movements such as for developing leaders to be moral, responsible and virtuous to avoid bad leader behavior²¹ or more inclusion of employees by leadership behaviors. For example individuals may fail to contribute to their full potential due to insecurity and a lack of self-confidence²². But employees have higher work satisfaction and engagement by supportive leadership behaviors¹⁶ and related to that Lu et al., indicates a positive correlation between employees’ innovative behavior and inclusive leadership²³. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, appointing a less capable leader may prove more beneficial to the organization, given that the loss of a highly productive follower might outweigh the drawbacks of suboptimal leadership¹⁶.

What is more that scholars and researches conceptualized nine cultural dimensions as: performance orientation, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Humane Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Power Distance and Uncertainty

Avoidance in theÂ GLOBEÂ Project²⁴. This article’s main argument in relation to the GLOBE Project is that cultural differences lead individuals in different countries to assess leadership according to varying criteria²⁴. This paradigm encompasses a conception of global leadership in which leaders must successfully exert their influence despite cultural differences between themselves and their followers²⁴.

Concluding, there is a major trend in leadership approaches that can be identified as many scholars and researchers have decided to investigate ethical aspects of leadership. According to some perspectives, Leadership inherently involves ethical considerations, and good leadership is meant to be morally good and effective²⁵. Some argue that ethical considerations transcend the scope of leadership, advocating for a broader conceptualization of ethics that goes beyond the traditional notion of ethical leadership²⁶. Ultimately, leadership has independently evolved toward sustainability, no longer focusing solely on stability, hierarchy and efficiency, but rather emphasizing stewardship, systems thinking, and intergen erational responsibility⁶. It is possible for this reason that various leadership styles have developed as Sustainable Leadership is one of them, synthesized later in this bachelor thesis.

2.2 Foundations of sustainability

As climate change advances and the demand for sustainability continues to grow-particularly in politics and the economy-this chapter will give a short overview of sustainability issues as well as outline challenges for organizations.

2.2.1 Sustainability between normative ideal and strategic pragmatism

The perception of sustainability varies in theoretical and practical grounds whereas scholars mostly define sustainability as long-term oriented implementation of economic, social and environmental goals¹⁶. In Contrast managers tend to approach sustainability from a more pragmatic and strategic perspective, often framing sustainability as a moral obligation or an enhancement of organizational reputation rather than a professional responsibility¹⁶. Finally, sustainability is seen by most managers as dispensable when not having a positive correlation to financial outcomes¹⁶.

Although there is broad scientific consensus on climate change and strong support for the view that climate change is amplified by human activities, significant skepticism still persists among the general public³. Meanwhile, the majority of organizations remain passive and reactive, while rising global temperature and increased frequency of extreme weather events are intensifying pressure on both organizations and society⁴. Moreover, the coexistence of multiple and layered temporalities within organizations can pose significant challenges, particularly as short-term goals tend to dominate over long-term strategic considerations²⁷

2.2.2 Toward a sustainable future: Leadership implications and strategic reorientation

Incremental measures that may pave the way for long-term transformation might include the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which comprising 17 overarching goals, 169 targets and 244 indicators, and serve as a mechanism of a soft global governance for organizations²⁸. The implementation of theÂ SDGÂ could lead to an enhanced organizational reputation, increased consumer trust and consequently, greater consumer loyalty²⁹ nevertheless, their impact on capital markets remains unexplored insufficiently examined¹⁶.

Organizations today must cope with a wide range of challenges. One of these challenges is pervasive short-termism, evident not only in strategic decisions-making but also in general business practices⁴. Furthermore, environmental violations may result in investor withdrawal, anticipated regulatory restrictions, and enduring long-term reputational harm³⁰. Besides, organizations today face additional challenges such as global competition, rapid technological innovation, increasing workforce diversity, as well as growing complexity and decentralization³¹. Therefore, sustainability should not be regarded merely as a moral obligation, but rather as a strategic foundation for managing challenges such as resource constraints, stakeholder activism and regulatory change³². Addressing these challenges necessitates a fundamental reorientation of business leadership and strategic thinking³². These considerations culminate in a leadership paradigm explicitly developed to confront such issues-namely, Sustainable Leadership.

2.3 Sustainable leadership

This chapter elaborates on the Sustainable Leadership approach by providing definitions, highlighting core dimensions, and outlining key characteristics as discussed in recent scholarly literature. Furthermore, this chapter provides a more detailed examination of specific subdomains of sustainable Leadership, followed by an analysis of existing Sustainable Leadership models and the presentation of a conceptual model developed by the author. Ultimately, this chapter explores the potential outcomes of Sustainable Leadership, including both general performance effects and sustainability-related performance indicators. Concluding the chapter will lead to a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research.

2.3.1 Defining sustainable leadership

The authors Avery and Bergsteiner are defining Sustainable Leadership as: “Sustainable Leadership refers to achieving futures in which humans live within their ecological and social means, without exploiting other parties”¹⁸ and “Sustainable Leadership has to do with generating (common) wealth over the long term”¹⁸.

Another widely used definition is: “Sustainable leadership matters, spreads and lasts. It is shared responsibility, that does not unduly deplete human or financial resources, and that cares for and avoids exerting negative damage on the surrounding educational and community environment. Sustainable Leadership has an activist engagement with the forces that affect it, and builds an educational environment of organizational diversity that promotes cross-fertilization of good ideas and successful practices in communities of shared learning and development”³³.

In numerous recent scholarly publications, a long-term perspective is likewise frequently emphasized in Avery and Bergsteiner’s book as a core component in conceptualizing Sustainable Leadership. Sustainable Leadership has a long-term orientation⁵, fosters the conditions for long-term orientations³⁴, ensures long-term organizational success³⁵^,³⁶^,³⁷, guarantees the long-term survival of the organization³⁸, considers the long-term impact on people, the planet, and profits⁷, leads with long-term vision³⁹ and emphasizes long-term environmental goals⁴⁰.

Also, Sustainable Leadership balances economic, social, and environmental responsibilities or dimensions⁵^,³⁴^,³⁷, respects ecological limits, and promotes human well-being³⁵, balances environmental stewardship, societal impact, social equity and economic performance⁴¹^,³⁶^,³⁹. Sustainable Leaders integrate economic, environmental and social objectives into the leadership process³⁸, and they preserve the environment and human resources⁴². Moreover, Sustainable Leadership is future-oriented³⁴ and serves both present and future generations³⁶,

In addition, Sustainable Leadership demonstrates an ethical commitment⁵, is ethically grounded³⁴^,⁶, cultivates a culture of systematic awareness and ethical practice³⁶, promotes ethically responsible decision-making⁴³ and fosters enduring and adaptive learning³⁶^,⁶

Sustainable Leaders cultivate a resilient organizational culture³⁴, take responsibility for understanding and acting on sustainability challenges rather than merely holding a leadership position⁴⁴, and foster a culture of sustainability⁴¹. Sustainable Leadership guides firms towards sustainability goals²³, focuses on sustainability of an organization⁴², prioritizes sustainability³⁸,

Sustainable Leadership is a concept in which the enduring well-being of stakeholders over time constitutes a critical element⁴⁵. It also involves mobilizing individuals³⁵ and transforming unsustainable systems and practices to promote ecological integrity, social justice and intergenerational responsibility⁴⁶.

2.3.2 Author’s definition

To synthesize the summed-up perspectives, the chapter will close with the author’s own integrative definition of Sustainable Leadership.Â Sustainable Leadership steers organizations toward sustainability by integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions, while simultaneously promoting long-term perspectives and visions that ensure the organizational resilience and sustained success.

2.3.3 Characteristics of sustainable leadership

To ensure conceptual clarity, the following section summarizes the most important and central characteristics of Sustainable Leadership as identified in recent literature and this chapter will contribute a structured framework.

2.3.4 Core Characteristics of sustainable leadership

One frequently cited characteristic is system thinking. System thinking enables leaders to understand interdependence of societal challenges and business actions¹⁸^,³² and interconnectedness of systems³⁷. Sustainable Leaders need to see the organization in broader ecological and social systems⁶ and recognize interconnections between environmental, economic, and social domains⁴⁵. He needs to lead inside of holistic interconnections among people and nature systems⁴⁴

Another characteristic of Sustainable Leadership is an ethical component. Sustainable Leadership should integrate moral values like justice, fairness, accountability, transparency and integrity⁶^,³⁴^,³⁶^,⁴⁷^,⁴²^,³⁹ and furthermore engage others by empathy and humility following interpersonal sensitivity³⁹. Also, they can make unpopular or difficult decisions based on ethics⁷. Ultimately sustainable leaders are not only following financial goals but also ethic goals³⁸.

Furthermore, a typical characteristic of a sustainable leadership is collaboration. Sustainable Leaders integrate collaboration in their network⁶, also leading with others instead of over others⁴⁸, and fosters empowerment and development of employees³⁸^,⁴¹ as well as trust building³⁸ and an open culture of knowledge sharing⁴⁰.

A key characteristic is the long-term orientation inherently embedded in the Sustainable Leadership approach. Scholars state that Sustainable Leaders strategically integrate long-term planning for next generations¹⁸^,⁶, support intergenerational fairness and equity, and organizational longevity³⁷^,³⁶. These Sustainable Leaders are planning beyond short-term goals and profitability⁷^,³⁴^,³⁶ and act anticipatory regarding future societal, environmental and technological trends³².

Moreover, a particularly important characteristic is a close alignment with stakeholders and the integration of their interest into the planning process. Sustainable leaders consider multiple stakeholders needs and interests in decision-making and strategy⁴⁵^,⁴⁹^,⁴¹ and they are fostering value creation for diverse stakeholder groups not merely shareholders³⁷^,³⁶. Also, Sustainable Leaders actively involve stakeholders like for example employees and communities in processes of creating sustainable solutions⁷.

These stakeholders should primarily be regarded as strategic partners⁵⁰. In this context, it is essential to clarify who qualifies as a stakeholder. Freeman defined Stakeholder: “A stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives⁵¹. Haigh et al. argue that this definition must be extended to include the natural environment as a stakeholder, given its impact on organization’s suppliers and customers, the organization itself, as well as its susceptibility to the consequences of organizational activities⁵². One could argue that this is one of the reasons why sustainability dimension holds such a central role within the concept of Sustainable Leadership.

Maintaining a certain balance among stakeholders is crucial in order to avoid privileging one over others⁵³. In particular, secondary stakeholders such as universities, NGOs and governments should not be neglected, as they can play a vital role supporting innovation and transformation processes²³. It is therefore to treat stakeholders at least in accordance with the extent of their contribution to the organization, ensuring a fair an appropriate approach⁵⁴.

Another notable characteristic of sustainable leaders is their capacity for self-reflection and awareness of the consequences of their actions. A sustainable Leader reflects their own leadership practices and examines how their actions affect both direct stakeholders and interconnected organizational or social systems¹⁹. Furthermore, they have an awareness of planetary and environmental boundaries⁴⁹.

Additionally, fostering innovation constitutes yet another characteristic of Sustainable Leadership. Sustainable Leaders encourage innovation and learning cultures¹⁸^,³⁷ as well as continuous improvement through learning and giving feedback³⁴. In addition, Sustainable Leaders promote a culture characterized by continuous learning and environmentally oriented innovation⁴¹.

In the end the final characteristic emphasized in recent sustainable Leadership approaches is the cultivation of organizational resilience through integration of sustainable and green strategies. Sustainable Leaders balance agility with long-term foresight to achieve organizational resilience⁴⁹. They can lead through uncertainty and complexity³⁶ and promote and communicate green values as well as the importance of sustainability⁴⁰.

2.3.5 Synthesis of core characteristics of sustainable leadership

The following table presents a short overview of the sustainable Leadership characteristics of recent literature based on the previous findings.

Characteristic

Concise overview

System thinking

Sustainable Leaders need to see the organization in broader ecological and societal systems⁶

Representing Ethical values

Sustainable Leaders should integrate values like justice, fairness and transparency⁶^,³⁶ and engage others by empathy and humilityÂ ³⁹

Using collaboration

Sustainable Leaders are building their network with collaboration⁶.

Orienting long-term

Sustainable Leaders integrate long-term perspective into planing¹⁸

Doing self-reflection and self-awareness

Sustainable Leaders are aware of their actions and practicing self-reflection of those³⁹.

Pushing Innovation

Sustainable Leadership is based on continuous learning and environmentally oriented innovation⁴¹

Preparing stakeholder inclusion

Sustainable Leaders are actively involving stakeholders in processes of creating sustainable solutions⁷ and into decision-making⁴⁵.

Fostering organizational resilience

Sustainable Leaders balance agility with long-term foresight to achieve organizational resilience⁴⁹

2.3.6 Key sustainable leadership models

Beyond this, there are academic scholars that seek to explain Sustainable Leadership through conceptual models which will be outlined in the following section of this chapter.

7 principles principles of sustainable leadership

Hargraves and Fink³³ propose a comprehensive framework to conceptualize Sustainable Leadership through seven interrelated principles. These principles aim to ensure long-term effectiveness, equity and resilience majoritarian in educational and but also organizational context.

Sustainable leadership builds learning and environments that are enduring and self-sustaining over time.
It ensures continuity by spreading leadership across individuals and planning for succession from the outset.
Leadership is shared and cultivated collectively to build organizational capacity.
It serves the broader community by fostering equity and inclusivity beyond privileged groups.
It avoids burnout by distributing responsibilities and creating space for reflection, learning and transition.
It encourages diversity of thought and supports continuous organizational development.
Sustainable Leaders actively interact with their external environment to co-shape change.

Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model

The Cambridge Sustainability Model, developed by Visser and Courtice⁵⁵^,¹⁸, conceptualizes sustainability leadership as a distinct but integrative approach to driving transformational change. Rather than forming an independent school of leadership theory, it blends existing approaches-especially the contingency and interactionist perspectives-with a specific contextual orientation toward sustainability challenges. For copyright reasons, the Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model is not reproduced here in visual form, but presented in a written form, interested readers may access the original version via ResearchGate or others. The model is built around three core components:

Contextual awareness: Sustainability leadership is shaped by both external (e.g., ecological, economic and societal) and internal (e.g. organizational culture, governance, and role clarity)
Individual characteristics: Effective sustainability leaders exhibit a unique combination of traits, styles, skills and knowledge. Traits include moral commitment, systematic thinking, open-mindedness, empathy, vision, and courage. Styles rage from inclusive and visionary to creative, altruistic, and even radical, depending on situational demands. Skills include managing complexity, communicating vision, exercising judgement, innovating, and long-term strategic thinking. Knowledge domains span global challenges, interdisciplinary thinking, organizational impacts, change dynamics, and stakeholder diversity.
Leadership actions: Sustainability leaders translate intention into action. Internally, they set strategic direction, align incentives, empower teams, and institutionalize learning. Externally, they foster partnerships, develop sustainable products, promote transparency, and engage stakeholders to reshape the operating context.

The arrows in the Cambridge Sustainability Leadership model illustrate the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the three core components. Rather than presenting a linear strategic framework, the model emphasizes that each element both influences and is influenced by the others.

The external and internal leadership context shapes how leaders think and act; individual traits and capabilities determine how this context is interpreted and responded to; and leadership actions, in turn, actively reshape the organizational and systematic context. This reflects a systems-based, adaptive understanding of sustainability leadership, highlighting its emergent and interdependent nature.

Elements of sustainable leadership

Tideman, Arts, and Zandee⁶ present a model of Sustainable Leadership compromising six interconnected key elements, each beginning with the letter C. These elements reflect the internal and external dimensions leaders must engage with to navigate complexity and foster sustainability-oriented transformation.

The model begins with Consciousness, which refers to self-awareness, inner clarity and the capacity to lead with mindfulness and integrity. Context emphasizes the importance of understanding the broader systematic environment-ecological, economic, and social-that shapes the challenges and possibilities of leadership. The element of Connectedness highlights the relational nature of leadership, stressing the need for emotional intelligence, trust, fairness, and the ability to foster collaborative relationships to all stakeholders over the long-term.

Collectiveness stresses the shared and participatory nature of sustainable leadership, calling for inclusive decision-making, collaboration, and the pursuit of sustainable goals beyond individual interest. Continuity reflects the long-term orientation of Sustainable Leadership, which involves change processes, a long-term horizon and going forward with courage. Lastly, creativity is the capacity to rethink models, practices, measurement models, and business models within the context of sustainability. Also creativity should be utilized to generate sustainable forms of shared value.

While all three frameworks-the Seven Principles of Sustainable Leadership⁵⁶, the Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model¹⁸, and the Six Elements Model by Tideman, Arts, Zandee⁶ -aim to conzeptualize sustainabilityoriented leadership, they differ in scope, emphasis, and theoretical orientation.

The Seven Principles focus primarily on sustainable leadership within educational and institutional settings, highlighting long-term thinking, distributed leadership, social justice, and the preservation of human and material resources⁵⁶. Their strength lies in operationalizing sustainability through values and practices aimed at continuity and equity.⁵⁶.

The Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model adopts a systemic perspective, emphasizing the interplay between context, individual characteristics and leadership actions¹⁸. It integrates insights from leadership theory, systems thinking, and organizational change, offering a dynamic framework for enabling transformational sustainability transitions in business and beyond³³.

In contrast, the Six Elements Model centers on the internal development of leaders, outlining six “C-based dimensions”-Consciousness, Context, Continuity, Connectedness, Creativity, and Collectiveness⁶. This model stresses the importance of self-awareness, relational ethics, and collaborative meaning-making, positioning leadership as deeply personal and co-creative act in service of sustainable futures.

2.3.7 Sustainable leadership practices

The Sustainable Leadership Model developed by Avery und Bergsteiner¹⁸ presents a practice-based framework for long-term organizational success rooted in sustainability principles. Structured as a pyramid, the model distinguishes between foundational, higher-level, and key performance drivers, emphasizing the interdependence of values, behaviors, and outcomes. It is important to note that the authors refer to sustainable leadership organizations as

“Honeybee organizations”-a reference to honeybees, which are considered highly sustainable¹⁸. In the following, I will present the foundational and higher-level practices of their book to provide a general understanding of the Honeybee approach.

Among these foundation practices is a strong emphasis onÂ developing people, whereby Honeybee organizations invest broadly in both technical and personal skill development across the entire workforce. This inclusive approach contrasts with short-termism firms that focus only on selected individuals, viewing broad development as uneconomic¹⁸.

Labor relationsÂ are shaped by constructive cooperation with unions and employee representation bodies. Honeybee forms treat unions as strategic partners, recognizing that the quality of this relationship can positively influence organizational performance¹⁸.

In contrast to “hire-and-fire” cultures,Â staff retentionÂ is seen as essential for preserving institutional knowledge and fostering innovation. Employees are considered the heart of the company and are retained even in times of economic hardship, supported by diverse career pathways¹⁸.

Succession planningÂ is another key element, where internal candidates are preferred for leadership roles to ensure continuity, cultural consistency, and strategic alignment. Hiring external executives is seen as a risk to firm’s values and identity¹⁸.

Valuing employeesÂ goes beyond compensation by promoting empowerment, participation, and information sharing. This is underpinned by the belief that a satisfied and engaged workforce enhances customer satisfaction and thus financial performance¹⁸.

AÂ team-based leadershipÂ structure characterizes Honeybee firms. Strategic decisions are taken collectively, reducing the risk of failure through shared responsibility and diverse perspectives within the top management team¹⁸.

EthicsÂ are deeply embedded in organizational culture, supported by clear principles, codes of conduct, and a focus on doing what is right-not just avoiding wrongdoing, but actively fostering positive behavior¹⁸.

Honeybee organizations consistently pursue aÂ long-term orientation, warning against shortterm pressure that can jeopardize sustainable performance and stakeholder relationships. Longterm thinking includes building trust-based alliances and retaining strategic coherence over time¹⁸.

Organizational changeÂ is approached incrementally and systematically. Major changes are implemented thoughtfully and selectively, ensuring alignment with strategic coherence over time¹⁸.

In terms ofÂ financial market independence, sustainable firms seek to reduce reliance on volatile markets by securing through internal means and long-term banking relationships, protecting values from short-term investor logic¹⁸.

Environmental responsibilityÂ is both an ethical and pragmatic concern. Honeybee firms acknowledge the obligation to protect the planet for future generations and reject unsustainable practices incompatible with long-term success¹⁸.

RegardingÂ social responsibility, these organizations are contributing meaningfully to society, especially through local community engagement in the case of SMEs¹⁸.

A stakeholder-centric approach underpins Honeybee logic.Â Stakeholder considerationÂ includes a wide array of actors whose interests are viewed as complementary, not competing- ranging from employees and suppliers to regulators and future generations¹⁸.

Finally, a compelling and sharedÂ visionÂ is seen as essential to alingning the organization. If offers long-term direction, motivates employees, and anchors strategic transformation in a meaningful, future-oriented purpose¹⁸.

It is also worth noticing that the literature identifies additional Sustainable Leadership practices not included in Avery Bergsteiner’s pyramid model. One such practices isÂ compassion, which can be understood as a strategic leadership capability involving the alleviation of others’ suffering and empathetic engagement with those ones³⁹. Another relevant practice is providingÂ social support, through which sustainable leaders foster employee motivation and facilitate long-term prosocial behavior in organizations⁵⁷.

Building upon the foundational practices, the higher-level performance practices in Avery and Bergsteiner’s model represent more advanced organizational capabilities that emerge through the consistent application of core principles. These practices are interdependent and reinforce one another in shaping s sustainable, empowered and trust-based organizational structure.

Decision-makingÂ in Honeybee organizations is characterized by decentralization and participation. Authority is devolved to the lowest operational levels, empowering employees and ensuring that decisions are of higher quality and more broadly accepted, even if not always reached more quickly¹⁸.

Closely connected is the practice of fosteringÂ self-managing employees, who operate autonomously under the guidance of a shared vision or organizational culture. These individuals set their own goals, monitor performance, and resolve problems without the need for direct managerial oversight-especially when they are well-educated and intrinsically motivated¹⁸.

AÂ strong team orientationÂ further supports these structures. Teams in Honeybee firms enhance flexibility and responsiveness, promote innovation, and foster trust through collaborative engagement. Rather than competing against each other, employees are encouraged to bond through sustainable goals and mutual support¹⁸.

Organizational cultureÂ plays a central role as the shared foundation of beliefs, values, and behaviors. Culture is cultivated over time, requiring long-term commitment and alignment between individual values and organizational expectations. Employees who embody the culture become its strongest ambassadors, while recruitment and socialization ensure continued cultural coherence¹⁸.

Knowledge-sharingÂ and retention are actively supported through open communication environments and quality workplace relationships. These practices promote continuous learning, protect organizational know-how from external leakage, and strengthen collaborative capabilities across the firm¹⁸.

Finally,Â trustÂ is treated not as a control mechanism, but as a relational asset based on goodwill and mutual respect. This type of trust reduces the need for excessive formal rules, enables flexibility, and reinforces long-term loyalty and commitment-both of which are vital for sustainable organizational performance

As demonstrated above, the Sustainable Leadership practices outlined by Avery und Bergsteiner closely align with the previously discussed key characteristics as sustainable leadership. These practices can be seen as initial steps or a concrete guide for how the core traits of sustainable leadership may be pursued and implemented within organizations.

For readers, these practices provide actionable insights into how sustainability-oriented leadership can be translated into day-to-day operations. They bridge the gap between abstract values and applied management, making the concept of Sustainable Leadership more tangible and transferable to real-world business contexts.

2.3.8 Consolidated framework of sustainable leadership concepts:

This model builds upon the preceding frameworks and findings and aims to provide a concise and structured visual summary. Additionally, if offers readers the opportunity to obtain a quick, visual overview of the key concepts of sustainable leadership combined.

2.4 Leadership styles

In this chapter, various most commonly found leadership styles as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership and charismatic leadership will be examined to provide a basis for the later discussion focused on the emerging leadership style of sustainable Leadership.

2.4.1 Servant leadership

Servant leadership represents an other-oriented leadership style that places the needs and interests of followers above those of the leader⁵⁸. The Leader demonstrates a stronger concern for the needs of others, both inside and outside of the organization, than for their own interests⁵⁸. Another important aspect of servant Leadership is its foundation in ethical values, a strong sense of responsibility and a commitment to serving the common good⁴⁵.

2.4.2 Transformational leadership

In short, by inspiring and motivating employees, transformational leadership enhances organizational agility and moreover transformational leader’s trough characteristics such as idealized influence or intellectual stimulation, play a crucial role in helping organizations respond effectively to dynamic markets and technological advancements²³. Also, transformational leadership fosters higher levels of employee engagement which is crucial for success in dynamic and rapidly evolving market environments⁵⁹.

2.4.3 Charismatic leadership

Charismatic leaders engage and activate followers’ sense of identity, values and self-perception by articulating a compelling vision, expressing confidence in followers and evoking collective identity and personal commitment⁶⁰. Follower develop a deep admiration for charismatic leaders due to their concern for member needs and vision articulation⁶¹. These Leaders support followers’ self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency by closely aligning their vision and mission with the values and identities of followers⁶⁰.

2.4.4 Ethical leadership

Ultimately ethical leadership embodies moral conduct in relationships and decisions, with integrity serving as a fundamental basis for both traits and behaviors⁸. In addition, by consistently exhibiting normatively appropriate behavior and maintaining open, two-way communication, ethical leaders promote ethical conduct among their followers⁶². Such Leaders are regarded as honest and fair, demonstrating profound care for others and setting themselves apart by their authentic concern for human beings⁶³.

2.4.5 Connections and contrasts between existing leadership styles

This chapter builds upon the preceding findings on Sustainable Leadership and the brief examination of other leadership styles, aiming to elaborate on both contrasts and similarities among them.

Sustainable Leadership demonstrates considerable overlap with ethical leadership, particularly in its ethical orientation and stakeholder focus. It shares strong similarities with Ethical Leadership through its emphasis on fairness, integrity and responsible conduct. Moreover, Sustainable Leadership aligns with Servant Leadership in terms of moral responsibility, empowerment of followers, and the active involvement of others in leadership processes. However, while Servant Leadership centers primarily on the needs of followers, sustainable Leadership adopts a broader perspective that includes all stakeholders.

Parallels also exist between Sustainable and Transformational Leadership, particularly with regard to visionary thinking and a focus on organizational change. Nonetheless while transformational Leadership is primarily concerned with driving change, Sustainable Leadership integrates innovation and transformation into a more comprehensive sustainability-oriented framework.

In contrast, similarities with Charismatic Leadership are limited. Charismatic Leadership is highly leader-centered, often dependent on personal traits and individualized goals, whereas Sustainable Leadership emphasizes the collective and long-term interests of diverse stakeholder groups. Power distribution further differentiates the two: Charismatic Leadership centralizes authority, while Sustainable Leadership promotes decentralization and shared decisionmaking.

Although differences between Ethical and Sustainable Leadership are minor, one key distinction lies in the explicit commitment of Sustainable Leadership to sustainability Goals. However, one could argue that truly ethical behavior must also include sustainability, thereby further blurring the line between both approaches. Finally, unlike many other leadership models, Sustainable Leadership places sustainability not as an ancillary value but as a core guiding principle.

Precisely because sustainability was not a primary concern at the time most traditional leadership styles were conceptualized, Sustainable Leadership arguably represents the most contextually relevant model in addressing today’s urgent environmental and societal challenges.

2.5 Outcomes of sustainable leadership

The following chapter explores the direct and potential outcomes of Sustainable Leadership, examining how this leadership approach transfers results into organizational practices, stakeholder relationships, and long-term performance

The following paragraphs aim to provide a clearer understanding of the key characteristic of long-term orientation-also referred to as long-term perspective-in the context of Sustainable Leadership from a broader perspective.

Given that a long-term orientation lies at the core of the Sustainable Leadership approach, it is essential to examine the outputs that may result from it. Empirical findings suggest that longterm thinking fosters higher levels of innovation²³, frequently supports environmental sustainability⁶⁴, and enhances the likelihood of long-term organizational survival²³. Moreover, it can strengthen resilience against sudden external shocks and help preserve critical stakeholder relationships⁶⁵. When diverse stakeholder groups are integrated into this long-term orientation, financial value is more likely to be created⁶⁶. In summary, a long-term perspective enables the development of sustainable strategies that function as value-creating mechanisms⁶⁴.

Another possible outcome is that organizations develop sustainable capabilities. Such capabilities encompass economic performance, environmental stewardship, and social value creation⁶⁷. Firms achieve these capabilities over time through processes of experimentation, organizational learning, and the integration of external feedback⁶⁷. Given that sustainable leaders drive innovation and encourage continuous learning processes⁴¹, the emergence of the previously discussed outcomes becomes increasingly high.

One outcome of Sustainable Leadership is the development of social trust. When organizations act in a sustainable, fair, honest, and cooperative manner, values embedded in Sustainable Leadership, may generate belief in these ethical principles among various communities, thereby generating social trust⁶⁸.

One possible outcome of modern organizations can be greenwashing. Greenwashing refers to the symbolic use of sustainability-related language or claims, often included as external signals, without initiating any substantial internal changes or aligning internal practices with the stated values¹⁶. A typical example can be seen in ESG funds, which frequently carry sustainability labels but often operate in ways that are largely indistinguishable from conventional investment funds¹⁶. Such behavior can have severe negative consequences for an organization, potentially leading to failures and trade-offs stakeholder engagement and collaboration⁶⁹.

It is important to note that when companies genuinely integrate sustainability into their core values, internal processes, and organizational culture, the risk of greenwashing is significantly reduced-and external observers are less likely to perceive the organization as engaging in such behavior¹⁶. Since sustainable leaders embody values such as integrity, honesty, transparency and fairness, greenwashing is generally not a likely outcome of Sustainable Leadership. Moreover, the long-term orientation that characterizes sustainable leaders reinforces a substantive commitment to sustainability rather than superficial signaling.

Another potential outcome of Sustainable Leadership may be its overlap with other leadership styles.Â As previously mentioned, there are notable connections between Sustainable Leadership and other leadership styles. Since only the most relevant and popular styles were picked and discussed in detail above, it should be briefly noted here that one possible outcome of sustainable leadership is its potentially conceptual overlap with multiple other leadership approaches.

This may include the styles already discussed, as well as, for instance, Responsible Leadership and Environmental Leadership. Responsible Leadership is also characterized by embedded ethical values and a focus on long-term outcomes⁵⁹. Also, Environmental Leadership promotes environmentally behavior and supports environmental values⁷⁰. Both are practices also characteristic of Sustainable Leaders.

Another potential outcome of Sustainable Leadreship is the implementation ofÂ Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM),Â as it has been shown to positively affect environmental, economic, and societal performance. GSCM refers to the integration of environmental considerations into various supply chain activities, including green purchasing, eco-design, internal environmental management, cooperation with suppliers and customers, and reverse logistics⁷¹. GSCM is an activity aimed at reducing environmental harm while enhancing operational efficiency⁷¹. This alignment of environmental responsibility with supply chain efficiency reflects the system thinking embedded in the Sustainable Leadership approach, thereby showing that Sustainable Leaders are likely to implement GSCM activities.

Moreover, the core component of Sustainable Leadership-stakeholder collaboration-can generate a wide range of positive outcomes. Organizations with strong stakeholder relationships are more likely to foster long-term trust, innovation, and legitimacy⁷², as well as achieve improved corporate environmental sustainability⁶⁹. Additional benefits include increased social capital, strengthened supply chains, and enhanced risk management²¹. Firms that embed stakeholder collaboration into their daily operations are also more likely to gain easier access to circular economy practices and to ensure the sustainability of their investments⁵⁰. In summary, the stronger the stakeholder integration, the greater the potential for positive and sustainable outcomes⁷³.

Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) refers to a set of employee-related practices aimed at encouraging pro-environmental behavior and enhancing motivation to contribute positively to the sustainability goals of an organization⁷⁴. These practices can be seen as a potential outcome of effectively implemented sustainable leadership approaches. Since the core responsibility of sustainable leaders is to guide their organizations toward long-term and sustainable development⁶, employee engagement in sustainability efforts is essential. GHRM can serve as a key instrument in this context by embedding sustainability into core HR functions-such as green recruitment, green training and development, green performance appraisal, and green reward systems²¹.

Even if one assumes that GHRM practices are not a direct outcome of sustainable leadership, it must nonetheless be emphasized that the results of a successful GHRM approach strongly align with-and may even be essential for-achieving the goals of sustainable leadership. In fact, the long-term implementation of sustainability within an organization requires the active engagement and behavior alignment of its employees.

GHRM has been shown positively influence employee green activism⁷⁵ and pro environmental behavior²¹. Moreover, it fosters an organizational environment that supports green innovation behavior by enhancing employees’ abilities, motivation, and perceived opportunities⁷⁴. Additionally, GHRM contributes to improved environmental performance outcomes⁷⁶ and the broader adoption of GHRM practices, the higher the likelihood that employees will engage in green behaviors²³.

These findings reinforce the argument that sustainable leaders can-and perhaps must-leverage GHRM practices to effectively implement sustainability within their organizations. This is also supported by the notion of reciprocal relationship between sustainable leadership and GHRM. Conversely, the effective implementation of GHRM practices depends on leadership that actively embraces sustainability-oriented values⁷⁷ which can be found in the key characteristics of sustainable leadership.

In conclusion, external pressure on sustainable leaders to implement sustainability strategies may not only encourage but in fact necessitate the adoption of GHRM pracices and as these can also serve as essential internal mechanism for embedding external sustainability demands into meaningful organizational processes. Indeed, firms facing high external pressure related to environmental and societal concerns are often likely to implement GHRM practices⁷⁸. Moreover, GHRM can facilitate the alignment of external sustainability expectiations with internal corporate structures, thereby helping to ensure that strong external sustainability signals are not ignored but instead transformed into actionable organizational responses⁷⁹

2.6 Limitations

One limitation could be the blurring boundaries in leadership styles, which reduce conceptual distinctiveness and may challenge empirical validation. Sustainable Leadership as a concept is distinctive and clear, but shares numerous characteristics with other leadership styles like transformational leadership, responsible leadership, environmental leadership, servant leadership and especially with ethical leadership. This overlap may limit its conceptual clarity and uniqueness.

The models and scholars may overestimate organizational willingness to prioritize sustainability approaches, especially sustainable leadership under real-world conditions, regardless of the positive best-practice examples. However, it must be acknowledged that this phenomenon is already recognized within the academic discourse.

Particularly in the context of this bachelor thesis and the chapter on outcomes, a limitation is that the relationship between Sustainable Leadership and outcomes such as GSCM, GHRM, and others has not been specifically and empirically examined, but rather inferred from related literature and conceptual linkages.

Another potential limitation is that published research on Sustainable Leadership is often conducted within specific sectors, some of which differ significantly from the core management domains or large organizational settings. As a result, the findings in these contexts may lack generalizability and may not fully capture the complexities of broader corporate environments.

2.7 Future research

It should be noted that the academic discourse has already examined the domains of stakeholder engagement, sustainability and sustainability in organizational concerns, long-term orientation, and ethical values extensively and in great depth. However, due to the relatively recent emergence of the Sustainable Leadership concept, these elements have not yet been explicitly linked to it in a systematic manner. Future research could therefore investigate how the specific characteristics of Sustainable Leaders influence organizational processes. For instance, one area of inquiry might explore whether the inclusion of a broad and diverse set of stakeholders-along with their potentially conflicting interest-limits the speed of decision-making, or whether the long-term benefits of such inclusive practices significantly outweigh these potential drawbacks.

Another important avenue for future research could be the investigation of sustainable leadership practices within large, complex, and especially global organizations. In light of cultural differences across regions-as extensively demonstrated in the GLOBE project-it would be particularly relevant to examine how Sustainable Leadership practices vary or remain consistent throughout multinational corporations. Such research could provide insights into whether sustainability-related leadership behaviors are universally applicable or require contextual adaption to align with local cultural norms and expectations.

Moreover, future research could investigate how negative personality traits may internally hinder individuals from becoming or remaining effective Sustainable Leadership. Traits such as narcissism, for instance, could potentially conflict with the foundational values of integrity, fairness and honesty, thereby compromising stakeholder trust and long-term orientation. Furthermore, it would be valuable to examine how the coexistence of ethical leadership claims and dysfunctional traits affects followers’ perceptions, organizational culture, and the credibility of sustainability efforts.

2.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be stated that the concept of leadership has undergone a significant evolution. Today, the leader is no longer perceived merely as an isolated individual, but rather as a connecting element between the organization, its stakeholders, employees, the environment and even future generations. A Sustainable Leader balances sustainable challenges and culti vates social relationships with both internal and external actors, influences them through ethical behavior, and actively involves them in the strategic planning processes of the organization. Leader’s actions are grounded in ethical values, which are reflected across nearly all areas of organizational practice.

3 Practical implementation

3.1 Processes, measures, and tools for implementing sustainable leadership

The following section outlines tools and measures that may support the implementation of various aspects of sustainable Leadership mentioned in recent literature.

A key instrument for implementing sustainable leadership practices is the development of a strong and future-oriented vision. Such a vision should encompass a strategic outlook on the organization’s future position, products, financial resources, and capabilities, and ensure that investments are aligned accordingly⁸⁰. It must be clearly articulated and communicated across the organization to guarantee visibility⁸⁰. Moreover, the vision should be supported by long-term goals and measurable targets⁸¹. Strategic foresight, including scenario planning for long-term survival, is essential to foster resilience and ensure organizational viability⁴⁸. Sustainable leaders are expected to remain committed to their vision and to demonstrate patience, resilience, and discipline-particularly when expectations are not met or when facing external pressures-in order to realize their long-term objectives⁸⁰.An important aspect realizing the vision is that sustainable leaders must incorporate ethical values such as fairness, honesty, and responsibility because without these guiding principles, the vision or associated strategies risk becoming unsustainable with regard to ecological and societal objectives⁸².

Another recommended measure is Responsible Innovation (RI), which is defined as sustainable societally desirable, and ethically acceptable⁶⁹. Compared to traditional innovation, it fosters stronger stakeholder collaboration and thereby generates a greater societal benefit⁶⁹.

A supplementary method involves leadership development programs. Recent literature suggests that sustainable leadership programs should emphasize strategic foresight, system thinking and self-efficacy¹¹^,³². Additionally, such programs should incorporate a strong focus on stakeholder responsibility and ethical conduct³⁴, as grounded in the core characteristics of sustainable leadership as shown above.

An alternative model that could enhance the integration of local communities and other key stakeholders is the five-phase stakeholder engagement framework proposed by Eikelenboom et al.¹⁶ in their article “Breaking the Cycle of Marginalization: How to Involve Local Communities in Mutli-Stakeholder initiatives.”

The framework consists of five sequential phases: initiation, exploration, acquaintance, agreement, and implementation¹⁶. Each phase is intended to support inclusive engagement of stakeholders by first identifying key stakeholders, then increasing community knowledge and experience, followed by creating new relationships through shared perspectives and open dialogue¹⁶. Subsequently, it then advises focused discussions in smaller groups to develop concrete solutions, which are ultimately implemented through small scale projects¹⁶. This 5-phasemodell should enhance sustainability by embedding stakeholder ideas into the design and execution of critical processes¹⁶.

One possible instrument for involving stakeholders is the use of workshops. These formats provide opportunities for bottom-up mechanism that enable knowledge and idea sharing from within the organization⁸³ Moreover, workshops can support the identification of similarities and differences in how economic sustainability is perceived among participants⁸³

A state-level tool for implementing sustainability isÂ the ESG regulatory framework. ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) serves not only as a reporting standard but increasingly as a strategic and moral compass intended to support leaders in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and systematic change⁸⁴. It helps translate sustainability goals into concrete business strategies and decision-making processes, thereby embedding ethical values and long-term thinking into organizational governance⁸⁴.

3.2 Institutions as support structures for the implementation of tools and practices

It is worth noting that there are institutions that support leaders in developing sustainable leadership by facilitating the integration of sustainability principles and theÂ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)Â into their leadership practices. Several relevant institutions are presented and examined in terms of how they contribute to the implementation of some of the previous tools, measures and processes related to sustainable leadership.

One example is the UN Global Compact, an initiative that supports businesses to address their strategies with the SDGs and with its ten principles, which fall into the four key areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption⁵⁷. While the initiative does not directly foster the development of sustainable leaders, it indirectly promotes sustainable leadership practices by advocating for its core principles and encouraging long-term orientation, socially responsibility and ethical values-attributes identified as key characteristics of sustainable leadership in previous chapters⁵⁷–

This institution provides key tools and offerings for interested parties, including trainings sessions, webinars, knowledge-sharing platforms and so-called “Thinking Labs”⁵⁷. These Thinking Labs, for instance, create collaborative spaces aimed at developing solutions to sustainability-related challenges. Furthermore, they contribute to the advancements of knowledge, tools and guidelines that support the implementation of sustainable business practices⁵⁷.

Another institution is the world Business Council for Sustainable Development, which collaborates with companies to boost together the transition towards a sustainable future. The organization supports the integration of sustainability into core business processes and offers leadership development programs⁸⁵. It also promotes a strategic framework as “Vision 2050,” which outlines a pathway toward a future grounded in equality, human dignity, and a life within the planet’s ecological boundaries for all⁸⁵. This vision and organization likewise do not promote sustainable leadership directly but call for a fundamental shift in leadership mindset-from short-term profit maximization to long-term value creation, and from a shareholder-centric to a stakeholder-oriented approach²³. These elements reflect key characteristics of sustainable leadership as outlined in the previous chapter.

Ultimately, the Peer school for Sustainable Development is a smaller organization that promotes a transformative vision: guiding society toward sustainable development (Peer School, n.d.). This vision focuses on empowering individuals who drive sustainable change within their organizations (Peer School, n.d.). The Peer School offers a “disruptive learning space” for scholars and other like-minded participants engaged in sustainability (Peer School, n.d.). Moreover, it fosters networking among sustainability managers by moderating the exchange of knowledge and expertise (Peer School, n.d.). The organization implements an interactive program consisting of various activities, including information sessions, a book club, working groups, lunch meetings, and introductory gatherings for new participants in the form of an open house event (Peer School, n.d.).

In conclusion, these institutions provide a valuable framework for engaging more deeply with the topic of sustainability, which can be particularly beneficial or leaders on their path toward becoming sustainable leaders. Moreover, they offer the opportunity to join established networks or initiatives, allowing individuals to connect to other sustainable managers as well as to align with existing visions rather than developing one vision independently. This causes that such visions may be adapted and contextualized within their respective organizational environments and lower the barriers for concrete steps towards sustainability.

3.3 Strengths and weaknesses of alternative implementation tools

A different tool could beÂ Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP),Â which-similar to the tools discussed previously-relies on a collaborative development of future scenarios to shape sustainable strategies¹⁶. Advantages of PSP include the promotion of collective thinking, creation of shared visions, the building of trust along the collaborators, and the enhancement of systems understanding¹⁶. Moreover, PSP encourages sustainability thinking in a process-oriented rather than an outcome-oriented manner¹⁶. On the downside, critical points include the high time and moderation effort required, as well as the often unclear translation of developed scenarios into actual business strategies¹⁶.

Another relevant measure is the implementation of the SDGs-not least through the support and guidance provided by the aforementioned institutions. Designed to facilitate the global transformation toward sustainability, the SDGs provide a set of guiding objectives and pathways⁸⁶. On the one hand, they represent a form of soft governance, offering voluntary guidance, inspirational targets, and support mechanism that can be adopted by various actors⁸⁶. However, the actual impact of the SDGs remains limited, primarily due to their voluntary nature, which undermines enforceability and binding commitment⁸⁶. Additionally, national governments vary significantly in how they interpret and implement the SDGs, leaving substantial room for discretion-and even neglect- in their application⁸⁶.

A possible next step could involve national legislators intervening and adopting concrete measures to more strongly incentivize or compel companies to pursue sustainability, potentially alongside the framework of the SDGs. Possible measures may include progressive taxation or green transfer mechanism that link redistribution with ecological sustainability²³. Further policy tools could encompass environmental taxes⁸¹ as well as targeted subsidies to promote sustainable practices⁸⁷.

State-led measure can have positive effects on social justice and help mitigate societal risks associated with climate change and resource overuse⁸⁸^,⁸⁹. Environmental policies may also foster technological adaption, innovation, and long-term productivity gains⁸⁷^,⁸⁹. Moreover, subsidies and fiscal instruments-such as taxation policies-can create incentives that steer behavior toward more environmentally friendly practices⁸⁹.

Potential drawbacks include a lack of effective policy instruments and limited involvement of society and businesses in decision-making processes-factors that tend to foster top-down approaches and may lead to imbalanced outcomes for the affected parties⁸⁹. Poorly designed regulations can result in a misallocation of resources, thereby impeding potential for economic growth³⁴. Additionally, measures with short- or medium-term negative economic impacts may provoke political and societal resistance³⁴. Furthermore, sustainability policies sometimes lead to social division, particularly when perceived as intrusive or overly prohibited-such as in the case of heavily restrictive regulatory approaches⁸⁸.

3.4 Case-based best practices in the implementation of sustainability

An existing representative example of sustainable leadership in practice is the German company BMW. The company promotes long-term strategic orientation by deliberately avoiding short-term focus on shareholder value instead investing in long-term research and development to anticipate future demands¹⁸. Rather than following a hire-and fire approach, BMW seeks to retain its employees during economic downturns, partly through the collaboration with the German state and its assistance programs¹⁸. Additionally, BMW adheres to a strict ethical conduct and actively involves members of its supply chain in production processes, fostering both resilience and long-term relationships¹⁸. Finally, the company shapes its business models in line with sustainability principles-integrating measures such as water and energy reduction, recycling programs and resource-efficient production practices¹⁸.

IKEA also represents a successful case of sustainability implementation. The company integrates sustainability values into its strategic planning and promotes long-term business Goals⁹⁰. One key initiative is the development of IWAY, IKEA’s own code of conduct, which sets standards for working conditions, waste management, chemical use, and energy consumption⁹⁰. Particularly in supply chain management, IKEA has taken significant steps to improve sustainability performance by optimizing transportation and logistics through fuel efficiency, investing in renewable energy, reducing emissions throughout the production process, and promoting intermodal transport solutions⁹⁰. Furthermore, the company emphasizes the use of sustainable materials and incorporates eco-design principles to contribute to the development of a sustainable product lifecycle⁹⁰.

A negative example can be found in corporations that have recently adjusted their DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) strategies in regions of America. Some European companies have integrated DEI as a core element of their broader diversity strategies and continue to promote these programs actively within Europe. However, in the United States, several of these initiatives have been scaled back or discontinued¹⁶. This strategic shift is largely driven by regulatory pressures and political developments-particularly those stemming from the Trump administration¹⁶-which companies must navigate in order to remain eligible for federal contracts. Such decisions may pose reputational risks for the corporations involved, especially in global markets that increasingly value social responsibility and ethical values¹⁶. Currently, there is no empirical evidence in the academic literature indicating negative effects or other outcomes of these actions, making it impossible to clearly assess the extent of their impact. However, it can at least be stated that this course of action is questionable whether these actions align with key characteristics of sustainable leadership, namely long-term orientation and a values-based ethical approach.

An additional practical example is the company Patagonia, which embedded sustainability both in its main business strategy and its brand identity⁴⁶. The Company not only incorporates recycled plastics and biodegradable materials into its production processes, but has also gained big recognition for its counter-market strategy within the fashion industry⁴⁶. While fast fashion trends have driven the industry towards unsustainable practices and waste, Patagonia has promoted repair services and the reuse of products instead of encouraging customers to new purchases⁴⁶. Furthermore, the company is actively engaged with environmental organizations and supports the development of circular economy model for its products⁴⁶.

3.5 Enabling and constraining factors for the operationalization of sustainability

Unfortunately, there are barriers that hinder the implementation of sustainable practices or significantly influence the extent to which they can be adopted. On the other hand, there are drivers that promote and facilitate the integration of sustainability into organizational processes. The following section outlines and discusses these factors in detail.

3.5.1 Barriers

One barrier to implementing sustainable, long-term leadership principles is the surrounding environment un which leaders operate-particularly when it is shaped by short-term investors or short-term expectations. When Leaders are exposed to pressure from short-term-oriented shareholders, they may deviate from sustainable leadership approaches and instead adopt short-term strategies that ultimately undermined long-term organizational performance⁸⁰^,⁵. In fact, they might give in to pressure from outside of the organization which could lead to a divergence of stakeholder orientations⁹¹ This behavior could cause a lower firm valuation and has been linked to negative effects on organizational innovation and strategic resilience¹¹.

Within the leader’s operating environment, uncertainties constitute another major obstacle. Uncertainty can negatively affect organizational stability⁹², which may result in deviations from long-term oriented actions and hinder the consistent pursuit of sustainable strategies as mentioned above.

A notable barrier may lie in the direct influence exerted by shareholders within organizations. When shareholders directly steer corporate actions, they may limit managerial discretion and introduce conflicting priorities that hinder cohesive, sustainability-oriented decision-making⁹³–

One barrier to the implementation of sustainable practices is the divergent understanding or framing of sustainability among stakeholders. Different cognitive framings can lead to com munication breakdowns and fragmented actions⁹⁴. Shareholders, for example, may hold differing views or expectations regarding sustainability priorities²³^,³⁴ which could lead to stakeholder frictions and conflicts⁹⁵. In addition, stakeholder-related barriers may include communication problems when articulating sustainability goals⁵, as well as information asymmetries that hinder transparency and mutual understanding⁹⁶.

Another barrier is unethical behavior and its associated effects. Destructive leadership-defined in contrast to ethical leadership principles-can be understood as a systematic and repeated violation of the organization’s interests, undermining organizational goals, depleting resources, and diminishing employee motivation and job satisfaction⁴⁸. Such unethical leadership behavior has been shown to produce significant long-term negative effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, stress levels, and burnout²³. Moreover, it contributes to the erosion of long-term organizational functioning by reducing employee morale and psychological safety, increasing turnover rates and weakening ethical standards and stakeholder trust⁹⁷. Cooperators may collaborate less than usual if they believe their leader is dishonest²⁰.

A further barrier is short-term thinking and planning. Short-term maximization behavior can lead to recruiting disruptions and undermine organization stability⁶⁵.

Moreover, when short-term priorities dominate strategic planning, this way diminish a firm’s long-term competitiveness and adaptability to future challenges²³

An important obstacle arises from poor conflict management. Conflicts may emerge both among shareholders themselves and between shareholders and other stakeholders. Such tensions can result in defensive entrenchment⁹⁸ and create conflicting requirements and expectations for leaders, complicating effective and consistent decision-making⁹¹

Another Barrier may lie in the unequal distribution of power among stakeholders. Local communities often hold a weaker position in stakeholder dynamics due to limited influence and access to decision-making processes⁹⁹^,²¹. This imbalance can also affect smallholder farmers and informal workers, whose lack of structural power restricts their ability to advocate for their interests in sustainability-related decisions²¹.

A limiting factor may arise from resistance within society or the broader environment in which a company operates. In some cases, societal actors may reject or oppose change altogether. This behavior can stem from culture resistance to transformation⁷. Also, it could stem from a persistent denial or sceptics toward climate change, which continues to undermine sustainability efforts in various regions and sectors.

Finally, a significant barrier can be found in obstructive state structures. Top-down approaches by policymakers that exclude the participation of key societal actors such as scientists, civil society, or business experts may be part of those structures⁸⁹. Welfare states, in particular, are often characterized by institutional inertia due to their historically embedded structures. This lack of agility may represent a substantial obstacle to transformation, especially when state institutions are unable to respond flexibly to emerging sustainability challenges⁸⁹.

3.5.2 Drivers

State structures can contain important drivers for the implementation of sustainability. As one of them regulations can serve as a driver of innovation, particularly when they support green and sustainable transformations and contribute to the creation or stabilization of sustainable markets⁸⁸. In addition, targeted public support schemes can advantage sustainability goals by investing in education, infrastructure, and green technologies⁸⁹

Another driver for the implementation of sustainability can be found in ethical values. In general, ethic values like honesty, fairness and respect may strengthens trust and cooperation and may lead to better performance outcomes⁵⁴. Ethic values of leaders like honesty could also result in better group performances²⁰. Also, these values may create long-term value when embedded in all organizational levels in processes of decision making⁸². Moreover, ethical values can provide a strong guidance for leaders in times of conflict when they engage in ethical self-reflection⁸².

As explained previously, there are different factors in a leader’s environment that may have negative effects, but the environment may also have positive effects. One of these factors can be climate-oriented shareholder activism, which may generate positive effects-such as the adoption of emission reduction goals, changes in board compensation structures favouring sustainability supportive leaders, and a long-term boost in climate-related disclosures by organizations²³. Moreover, a leader’s environment can influence behaviors through formative experiences. For instance, research has shown that a negative factor-such as a family business collapse-can lead to positive effects in character development, including long-term orientation and increased motivation for CSR engagement¹⁰⁰.

References

1
Stogdill, R. M.: Leadership, membership and organization. In Psychological Bulletin 1950 (47), pp. 1-14. Available online at https://de.scribd.com/document/615150400/Leadership-Membershipand-Organization, checked on 6/6/2025.
2
W.C.H. Prentice: Understanding Leadership. In Harvard Business Review 1961.
3
Afzali, Mansoor; Colak, Gonul; VÃ¤hÃ¤maa, Sami (2025): Climate Change Denial and Corporate Environmental Responsibility. In J Bus Ethics 196 (1), pp. 31-59. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-02405625-y.
4
Dahlmann, Frederik (2025): Conceptualising Sustainability as the Pursuit of Life. In J Bus Ethics 196
5
Jack McCann and Matthew Sweet (2014): The Perceptions of Ethical and Sustainable Leadership. In
6
Louise Metcalf and Sue Benn (2013): Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability. In J Bus Ethics Vol. 112 (3), pp. 369-384.
7
Bendell, Jem; Little, Richard (2015): Seeking Sustainability Leadership. In Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2015 (60), pp. 13-26. DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.de.00004.
8
Alan Lawton and Iliana PÃ¡ez (2015): Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership. In Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 130 (3).
9
Zakeer Ahmed Khan, Allah Nawaz, Irfan Ullah Khan (2016): Leadership Theories and Styles: A Literature Review. In Journal of Resources Development and Management Vol. 16.
10
Wright, Frank L. (1940): Leadership. In Phi Delta Kappa International (No. 1).
11
Cremers, Martijn; Pareek, Ankur; Sautner, Zacharias (2020): Short-Term Investors, Long-Term Investments, and Firm Value: Evidence from Russell 2000 Index Inclusions. In Management Science 66 (10), pp. 4535-4551. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3361.
12
Northouse, P. G. (2019): Leadership: Theory and Practice. In Sage publications (7).
13
Yukl, Gary (2013): Leadership in organizations. 8. ed., global ed. Boston, Munich u.a: Pearson (Always learning).
14
Meindl et al., 1985
15
Harrison, Jeffrey S.; Bosse, Douglas A.; Phillips, Robert A. (2010): Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. In Strategic Management Journal 31 (1), pp. 58-74. DOI: 10.1002/smj.801.
16
Abouarab, Rabab; Mishra, Tapas; Wolfe, Simon (2025): Spotting Portfolio Greenwashing in Environmental Funds. In J Bus Ethics 197 (4), pp. 811-839. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05783-z.
17
J.C. Wofford (1982): An Integrative Theory of Leadership. In Journal of Management Vol. 8 (1), pp.
18
Avery, Gayle C.; Bergsteiner, Harald (2011): How BMW successfully practices sustainable leadership principles. In Strategy & Leadership 39 (6), pp. 11-18. DOI: 10.1108/10878571111176583.
19
Brown, Michael E.; TreviÃ±o, Linda K. (2006): Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. In The Leadership Quarterly 17 (6), pp. 595-616. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
20
Liao, Zhongju; Zheng, Peiyan; Chen, Ke; Wang, Yufei (2025): How Does Environmental Innovation Affect Firms’ Long-Term Performance? An Analysis Based on Different Innovation Motivations. In Bus Strat Env, Article bse.4370. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4370.
21
Ansari, Nabeel Younus; Farrukh, Muhammad; Raza, Ali (2021): Green human resource management and employees pro-environmental behaviours: Examining the underlying mechanism. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 28 (1), pp. 229-238. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2044.
22
Amy Edmondson (1999): Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. In Adminstrative Science Quarterly Vol. 44 (3), pp. 350-383.
23
Antunez, Marlond; Ramalho, Nelson; Marques, TÃ¢nia M. G. (2024): Context Matters Less Than Leadership in Preventing Unethical Behaviour in International Business. In J Bus Ethics 192 (2), pp. 307-322. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05520-y.
24
Javidan, Mansour; Dorfman, Peter W.; Luque, Mary Sully de; House, Robert J. (2006): In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. In AMP 20 (1), pp. 67-90. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2006.19873410.
25
Ciulla, 1995
26
Kociatkiewicz, Jerzy; Kostera, Monika (2012): The Good Manager: An Archetypical Quest for Morally Sustainable Leadership. In Organization Studies 33 (7), pp. 861-878. DOI: 10.1177/0170840612445124.
27
Mena, SÃ©bastien; Parker, Simon (2024): The Temporal Structuring of Corporate Sustainability. In J Bus Ethics 195 (1), pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05648-5.
28
Huang, Xinhuan; Bao, Yanzhen; Yu, Xianyu; Cai, Binqing; Wang, Qunwei (2023): Exploration of the long-term performance-oriented incentive mechanism for balancing environmental and economic policies. In Journal of Cleaner Production 429, p. 138870. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138870.
29
Barta, Sergio; Belanche, Daniel; FlaviÃ¡n, Marta; TerrÃ©, Mari Cruz (2023): How implementing the UN sustainable development goals affects customers’ perceptions and loyalty. In Journal of environmental management 331, p. 117325. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117325.
30
Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin; Man, Yimei (2025): Environmental Violation and Cost of Equity Capital-Evidence From Europe. In Bus Strat Env, Article bse.4315. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4315.
31
Patrick T. Gibbons (1992): Impacts of Organizational Evolution on Leadership Roles and Behaviors. In Human Relations Vol 45 (1).
32
Iqbal, Qaisar; Piwowar-Sulej, Katarzyna; Agarwal, Reeti; Yaqub, Muhammad Zafar (2025): Sustainability-Oriented Leadership and Business Strategy: Examining the Roles of Procedural Environmental Justice and Job Embeddedness. In Bus Strat Env 34 (3), pp. 2917-2933. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4133.
33
Freeman, R. Edward (2004): The Stakeholder Approach Revisited. In zfwu 5 (3), pp. 228-241. DOI: 10.5771/1439-880X-2004-3-228.
34
Baird, Kevin; Su, Sophia; Munir, Rahat (2023): The mediating role of levers of controls on the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. In J Manag Control 34 (2), pp. 167-200. DOI: 10.1007/s00187-023-00354-1.
35
Iqbal, Qaisar; Ahmad, Noor Hazlina (2021): Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. In Sustainable Development 29 (1), pp. 108-119. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2135.
36
Sajjad, Aymen; Eweje, Gabriel; Raziq, Muhammad Mustafa (2024): Sustainability leadership: An integrative review and conceptual synthesis. In Bus Strat Env 33 (4), pp. 2849-2867. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3631.
37
Vanka, Sita; Rao, Madasu Bhaskara; Singh, Swati; Pulaparthi, Mallika Rao (2020): Sustainable Human Resource Management. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
38
Sikand, Ratika; Saxena, Shaily (2022): Sustainable Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring Mediating Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility. In Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, Article 09722629221087370. DOI: 10.1177/09722629221087370.
39
Richard E. Boyatzis, Melvin L. Smith and Nancy Blaize (2006): Developing Sustainable Leaders through Coaching and Compassion. In Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol. 5 (1), pp. 8-24.
40
Shafait, Zahid; Huang, Jiayu (2024): Examining the impact of sustainable leadership on green knowledge sharing and green learning: Understanding the roles of green innovation and green organisational performance. In Journal of Cleaner Production 457, p. 142402. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142402.
41
Iqbal, Qaisar; Ahmad, Noor Hazlina; Halim, Hasliza Abdul (2020): How Does Sustainable Leadership Influence Sustainable Performance? Empirical Evidence From Selected ASEAN Countries. In Sage Open 10 (4), Article 2158244020969394. DOI: 10.1177/2158244020969394.
42
Zhang, Ge; Chen, Pengfei; Xu, Si (2025): Developing and validating a scale for measuring sustainable leadership development among teachers in Chinese higher education institutions. In Journal of Cleaner Production 486, p. 144403. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144403.
43
Spector, Bert A.; (2016): Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. In Leadership Vol. 12 (12), pp. 250-260.
44
MARYA. FERDIG (2007): Sustainability leadership- Co-creating a sustainable future. In Journal of Change Management Vol. 7 (1).
45
Peterlin, Judita; Pearse, Noel; Dimovski, Vlado (2015): Strategic Decision Making for Organizational Sustainability: The Implications of Servant Leadership and Sustainable Leadership Approaches. In Economic and Business Review 17 (3). DOI: 10.15458/85451.4.
46
Bendell, Jem; Sutherland, Neil, Little, Richard (2017): Beyond unsustainable leadership: critical socialtheory for sustainable leadership. In Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
47
Liu, Yurou; Liu, Jinyang (2024): Social Integrity and Stock Price Crash Risk. In J Bus Ethics 190 (3), pp. 703-721. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05384-2.
48
Bercovitz, Janet; Mitchell, Will (2007): When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long-term business survival, while controlling for profitability. In Strategic Management Journal 28 (1), pp. 61-79. DOI: 10.1002/smj.568.
49
Isaac Kanyangale, MacDonald (2023): The Nature of Sustainable Leadership: Pitfalls, Insights and New Model. In Joseph Crawford (Ed.): Leadership for Sustainable and Educational Advancement – Advancing Great Leaders and Leadership, vol. 6: IntechOpen (Business, Management and Economics).
50
Arroyave, Juan J.; SÃ¡ez-MartÃnez, Francisco J.; Ruiz-Palomino, Pablo; GonzÃ¡lez-Moreno, Ãngela (2025): From Environmental Orientation to Circular Economy Practices: Is It Easier When Firms Frequently Cooperate With Stakeholders? In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32 (4), pp. 4802-4818. DOI:10.1002/csr.3209.
51
Freeman, 1984, p.84
52
Zhang, Zhen; Ilies, Remus; Arvey, Richard D. (2009): Beyond genetic explanations for leadership: The moderating role of the social environment. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110 (2), pp. 118-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.004.
53
Mejia, Santiago; Bonaldi, Pietro (2025): Maximizing Shareholder Welfare: A Normative Examination of Hart and Zingales’ Corporate Governance Account. In J Bus Ethics 196 (2), pp. 309-323. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05551-5.
54
Laplume, AndrÃ© O.; Harrison, Jeffrey S.; Zhang, Zhou; Yu, Xin; Walker, Kent (2022): Evidence of an Inverted U-Shaped Relationship between Stakeholder Management Performance Variation and Firm Performance. In Bus. Ethics Q. 32 (2), pp. 272-298. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.19.
55
Visser, Wayne; Courtice, Penny (2011): Sustainability Leadership: Linking Theory and Practice. Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge.
56
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D (2004): The seven principles of sustainable leadership. In Educational Leadership Vol 61 (7), pp. 8-13.
57
Trombini, Chiara; Jiang, Winnie; Kinias, Zoe (2025): Receiving Social Support Motivates Long-Term Prosocial Behavior. In J Bus Ethics 197 (4), pp. 689-711. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05743-7. UN Global Compac (2025): The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact. UN Global Compac.
58
Eva, Nathan; Robin, Mulyadi; Sendjaya, Sen; van Dierendonck, Dirk; Liden, Robert C. (2019): Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. In The Leadership Quarterly 30 (1), pp. 111-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004.
59
Christof Miska, Mark E. Mendenhall (2018): Responsible Leadership: A Mapping of Extant Research and Future Directions. In J Bus Ethics Vol. 148 (1), pp. 117-134
60
Boas Shamir, Robert J. House and Michael B. Arthur (1993): The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. In Organization Science (4), pp. 577-594.
61
Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo and Sanjay T. Menon (2000): Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects. In Journal of Organizational Behavior (21), pp. 747-767.
62
Michael E. Brown Linda K. TreviÃ±o (2005): Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97 (2), pp. 117-134.
63
Silke Astrid EisenbeiÃ and Felix Brodbeck (2014): Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Sectoral Analysis. In Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 140 (2), pp. 343-359.
64
Dou, Junsheng; Su, Emma; Wang, Song (2019): When Does Family Ownership Promote Proactive Environmental Strategy? The Role of the Firm’s Long-Term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics 158 (1), pp. 81-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3642-z.
65
Hyndman, Kyle; Honhon, DorothÃ©e (2020): Flexibility in Long-Term Relationships: An Experimental Study. In M&SOM 22 (2), pp. 273-291. DOI: 10.1287/msom.2018.0736.
66
Flammer, Caroline; Bansal, Pratima (2017): Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. In Strategic Management Journal 38 (9), pp. 1827-1847. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2629.
67
Bianchi, Guia; Testa, Francesco; Boiral, Olivier; Iraldo, Fabio (2022): Organizational Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Internalizing Lifecycle Management. In Organization & Environment 35 (1), pp. 103-129. DOI: 10.1177/1086026621998744.
68
Shahab, Yasir; Ye, Zhiwei; Liu, Jia; Nadeem, Muhammad (2025): Social Trust, Environmental Violations, and Remedial Actions in China. In J Bus Ethics 198 (3), pp. 637-654. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05818-5.[
69
Valentinov, Vladislav; Oliveira Santos Jhunior, Ronaldo de; Araujo GÃ³es, Helna Almeida de (2025): Corporate Environmental Sustainability Via Stakeholder Collaboration: Insights from Classical Institutional Economics. In J Bus Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-025-06023-8.
70
Banks, George C.; Fischer, Thomas; Gooty, Janaki; Stock, George (2021): Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. In The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2), p. 101471. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471.
71
MorÃ¡n, Pablo David Tapia; Fan, Mingyue; Sampene, Agyemang Kwasi (2025): Green Supply Chain
72
Dias, Gabriela Nobre; Hamza, Kavita Miadaira; Lievens, Annouk; Moons, Ingrid (2025): Sustainability-based value creation within a multi-stakeholder network: Balancing expectation conflicts within the Amazon context. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 116-128. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3981.
73
Rathobei, Kabelo Esther; RanÃ¤ngen, Helena; Lindman, Ãsa (2024): Stakeholder integration in sustainable business models to enhance value delivery for a broader range of stakeholders. In Bus Strat Env 33 (4), pp. 3687-3706. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3651.
74
Huang, Yi-Chun; Gong, Tian-Jyun; Shih, Li-Ting (2024): Examining the impact of green human resource management on green innovative work behavior: A multilevel analysis. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 31 (6), pp. 6401-6418. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2932.
75
Usman, Muhammad; Akhtar, Muhammad Waheed; Zahoor, Nadia; Khan, Muhammad Aamir Shafiq; Adomako, Samuel (2025): Triggering employee green activism through green human resource management: The role of green organizational learning and responsible leadership. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 1085-1096. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4028.
76
Yong, Jing Yi; Yusliza, Mohd-Yusoff; Ramayah, Thurasamy; Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose; Sehnem, Simone; Mani, Venkatesh (2020): Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. In Bus Strat Env 29 (1), pp. 212-228. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2359.
77
Santana, Monica; Lopez-Cabrales, Alvaro (2019): Sustainable development and human resource management: A science mapping approach. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 26 (6), pp. 1171- 1183. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1765.
78
Yong, Jing Yi; Yusliza, Mohd Yusoff; Ramayah, Thurasamy; Seles, Bruno Michel Roman Pais (2022): Testing the stakeholder pressure, relative advantage, top management commitment and green human resource management linkage. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 29 (5), pp. 1283-1299. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2269.
79
VÃ¡zquez-Brust, Diego; Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta; Plaza-Ãbeda, JosÃ© Antonio; Perez-Valls, Miguel; Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de; Renwick, Douglas W. S. (2023): The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices. In Bus Strat Env 32 (6), pp. 3628-3648. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3319.
80
RON ASHKENAS, PETER D. MOORE: Thinking Long-Term in a Short-Term Economy. In Harvard Business Review 2023.
81
Yang, Jeremy; Eckles, Dean; Dhillon, Paramveer; Aral, Sinan (2024): Targeting for Long-Term Outcomes. In Management Science 70 (6), pp. 3841-3855. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4881
82
Nevins, Jennifer L.; Bearden, William O.; Money, Bruce (2007): Ethical Values and Long-term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics 71 (3), pp. 261-274. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9138-x.
83
Jiang, Yanjie; Ding, Xiaodi (2025): Exploring the Nexus Between Ecosystem Services and Economic Sustainability: A Stakeholder Perspective. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32 (3), pp. 3639- 3658. DOI:10.1002/csr.3110.
84
Crosby, Tiffany M.: How Leaders Make Sense of ESG to Lead Sustainable Businesses: Multiple Case Studies. In Doctorial dissertation, Southeastern University 2024.
85
Bader, Verena; Schneider, Anna-Lisa; Kaiser, Stephan; Loscher, Georg (2025): The Engagement and Disengagement of Heterogeneous Stakeholders: A Relational Practice Perspective on Strategy Development. In Business & Society 64 (6), pp. 1111-1148. DOI: 10.1177/00076503241271295.
86
Funk, Stephanie (2025): Does being a leader make them stay? Short- and long-term effects of supervisory responsibility on turnover intentions. In Human Res Mgmt Journal 35 (1), pp. 25-44. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12550.
87
Zou, Han (2024): The social welfare effect of environmental regulation: An analysis based on Atkinson social welfare function. In Journal of Cleaner Production 434, p. 140022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140022.
88
Witt, Ulrich (2021): Does sustainability-promoting policy making reduce our welfare? In Ecological Economics 188, p. 107130. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107130.
89
Bohnenberger, Katharina (2023): Peaks and gaps in eco-social policy and sustainable welfare: A systematic literature map of the research landscape. In European Journal of Social Security 25
90
Laurin, Francine; Fantazy, Kamel; (2017): Sustainable supply chain management: a case study at IKEA. Transnational Corporations Review; Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309-319
91
Park, Eunyoung; Lange, Donald; Jeon, Chunhu (2025): How shareholder litigation risk influences firm orientation toward stakeholders. In Strategic Management Journal 46 (5), pp. 1149-1182. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3689.
92
Gasbarro, Federica; Tencati, Antonio (2025): The influence of complexity, uncertainty, and munificence on long-term organizational resilience to natural disasters. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 1257-1266. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4055.
93
Mansell, Samuel (2025): Who Speaks for the Corporation? A Hobbesian Theory of Managerial Authority and Shareholder Responsibility. In Bus. Ethics Q. 35 (2), pp. 187-215. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2024.17.
94
Preuss, Lutz; Fischer, Isabel; Arora, Bimal (2024): How do stakeholder groups make sense of sustainability: Analysing differences in the complexity of their cognitive frames. In Bus Strat Env 33 (3), pp. 2367-2383. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3611.
95
Martin, Kirsten; Phillips, Robert (2022): Stakeholder Friction. In J Bus Ethics 177 (3), pp. 519-531. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04652-9.
96
K. Sivaramakrishnan (1994): Information Asymmetry, Participation, and Long-Term Contracts. In Management Science Vol. 40 (10), pp. 1228-1244.
97
Thoroughgood, Christian N.; Sawyer, Katina B.; Padilla, Art; Lunsford, Laura (2018): Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives and Toward a More Holistic Definition. In J Bus Ethics 151 (3), pp. 627-649. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3257-9.
98
Beccarini, Irene; Beunza, Daniel; Ferraro, Fabrizio; Hoepner, Andreas G. F. (2023): The Contingent
99
Hambrick, Donald C.; Wowak, Adam J. (2021): CEO Sociopolitical Activism: A Stakeholder Alignment Model. In AMR 46 (1), pp. 33-59. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2018.0084.
100
Cai, Mengyu; Zhou, Nan (2024): A CEO’s Childhood Family Decline and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Mediating Role of Long-Term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551024-05856-z.

1
Stogdill, R. M.: Leadership, membership and organization. In Psychological Bulletin 1950 (47), pp. 1-14. Available online at https://de.scribd.com/document/615150400/Leadership-Membershipand-Organization, checked on 6/6/2025.
2
W.C.H. Prentice: Understanding Leadership. In Harvard Business Review 1961.
3
Afzali, Mansoor; Colak, Gonul; VÃ¤hÃ¤maa, Sami (2025): Climate Change Denial and Corporate Environmental Responsibility. In J Bus Ethics 196 (1), pp. 31-59. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-02405625-y.
4
Dahlmann, Frederik (2025): Conceptualising Sustainability as the Pursuit of Life. In J Bus Ethics 196
5
Jack McCann and Matthew Sweet (2014): The Perceptions of Ethical and Sustainable Leadership. In
6
Louise Metcalf and Sue Benn (2013): Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability. In J Bus Ethics Vol. 112 (3), pp. 369-384.
7
Bendell, Jem; Little, Richard (2015): Seeking Sustainability Leadership. In Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2015 (60), pp. 13-26. DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.de.00004.
8
Alan Lawton and Iliana PÃ¡ez (2015): Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership. In Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 130 (3).
9
Zakeer Ahmed Khan, Allah Nawaz, Irfan Ullah Khan (2016): Leadership Theories and Styles: A Literature Review. In Journal of Resources Development and Management Vol. 16.
10
Wright, Frank L. (1940): Leadership. In Phi Delta Kappa International (No. 1).
11
Cremers, Martijn; Pareek, Ankur; Sautner, Zacharias (2020): Short-Term Investors, Long-Term Investments, and Firm Value: Evidence from Russell 2000 Index Inclusions. In Management Science 66 (10), pp. 4535-4551. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3361.
12
Northouse, P. G. (2019): Leadership: Theory and Practice. In Sage publications (7).
13
Yukl, Gary (2013): Leadership in organizations. 8. ed., global ed. Boston, Munich u.a: Pearson (Always learning).
14
Meindl et al., 1985
15
Harrison, Jeffrey S.; Bosse, Douglas A.; Phillips, Robert A. (2010): Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. In Strategic Management Journal 31 (1), pp. 58-74. DOI: 10.1002/smj.801.
16
Abouarab, Rabab; Mishra, Tapas; Wolfe, Simon (2025): Spotting Portfolio Greenwashing in Environmental Funds. In J Bus Ethics 197 (4), pp. 811-839. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05783-z.
17
J.C. Wofford (1982): An Integrative Theory of Leadership. In Journal of Management Vol. 8 (1), pp.
18
Avery, Gayle C.; Bergsteiner, Harald (2011): How BMW successfully practices sustainable leadership principles. In Strategy & Leadership 39 (6), pp. 11-18. DOI: 10.1108/10878571111176583.
19
Brown, Michael E.; TreviÃ±o, Linda K. (2006): Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. In The Leadership Quarterly 17 (6), pp. 595-616. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
20
Liao, Zhongju; Zheng, Peiyan; Chen, Ke; Wang, Yufei (2025): How Does Environmental Innovation Affect Firms’ Long-Term Performance? An Analysis Based on Different Innovation Motivations. In Bus Strat Env, Article bse.4370. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4370.
21
Ansari, Nabeel Younus; Farrukh, Muhammad; Raza, Ali (2021): Green human resource management and employees pro-environmental behaviours: Examining the underlying mechanism. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 28 (1), pp. 229-238. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2044.
22
Amy Edmondson (1999): Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. In Adminstrative Science Quarterly Vol. 44 (3), pp. 350-383.
23
Antunez, Marlond; Ramalho, Nelson; Marques, TÃ¢nia M. G. (2024): Context Matters Less Than Leadership in Preventing Unethical Behaviour in International Business. In J Bus Ethics 192 (2), pp. 307-322. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05520-y.
24
Javidan, Mansour; Dorfman, Peter W.; Luque, Mary Sully de; House, Robert J. (2006): In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. In AMP 20 (1), pp. 67-90. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2006.19873410.
25
Ciulla, 1995
26
Kociatkiewicz, Jerzy; Kostera, Monika (2012): The Good Manager: An Archetypical Quest for Morally Sustainable Leadership. In Organization Studies 33 (7), pp. 861-878. DOI: 10.1177/0170840612445124.
27
Mena, SÃ©bastien; Parker, Simon (2024): The Temporal Structuring of Corporate Sustainability. In J Bus Ethics 195 (1), pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05648-5.
28
Huang, Xinhuan; Bao, Yanzhen; Yu, Xianyu; Cai, Binqing; Wang, Qunwei (2023): Exploration of the long-term performance-oriented incentive mechanism for balancing environmental and economic policies. In Journal of Cleaner Production 429, p. 138870. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138870.
29
Barta, Sergio; Belanche, Daniel; FlaviÃ¡n, Marta; TerrÃ©, Mari Cruz (2023): How implementing the UN sustainable development goals affects customers’ perceptions and loyalty. In Journal of environmental management 331, p. 117325. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117325.
30
Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin; Man, Yimei (2025): Environmental Violation and Cost of Equity Capital-Evidence From Europe. In Bus Strat Env, Article bse.4315. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4315.
31
Patrick T. Gibbons (1992): Impacts of Organizational Evolution on Leadership Roles and Behaviors. In Human Relations Vol 45 (1).
32
Iqbal, Qaisar; Piwowar-Sulej, Katarzyna; Agarwal, Reeti; Yaqub, Muhammad Zafar (2025): Sustainability-Oriented Leadership and Business Strategy: Examining the Roles of Procedural Environmental Justice and Job Embeddedness. In Bus Strat Env 34 (3), pp. 2917-2933. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4133.
33
Freeman, R. Edward (2004): The Stakeholder Approach Revisited. In zfwu 5 (3), pp. 228-241. DOI: 10.5771/1439-880X-2004-3-228.
34
Baird, Kevin; Su, Sophia; Munir, Rahat (2023): The mediating role of levers of controls on the association between sustainable leadership and organisational resilience. In J Manag Control 34 (2), pp. 167-200. DOI: 10.1007/s00187-023-00354-1.
35
Iqbal, Qaisar; Ahmad, Noor Hazlina (2021): Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. In Sustainable Development 29 (1), pp. 108-119. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2135.
36
Sajjad, Aymen; Eweje, Gabriel; Raziq, Muhammad Mustafa (2024): Sustainability leadership: An integrative review and conceptual synthesis. In Bus Strat Env 33 (4), pp. 2849-2867. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3631.
37
Vanka, Sita; Rao, Madasu Bhaskara; Singh, Swati; Pulaparthi, Mallika Rao (2020): Sustainable Human Resource Management. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
38
Sikand, Ratika; Saxena, Shaily (2022): Sustainable Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring Mediating Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility. In Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, Article 09722629221087370. DOI: 10.1177/09722629221087370.
39
Richard E. Boyatzis, Melvin L. Smith and Nancy Blaize (2006): Developing Sustainable Leaders through Coaching and Compassion. In Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol. 5 (1), pp. 8-24.
40
Shafait, Zahid; Huang, Jiayu (2024): Examining the impact of sustainable leadership on green knowledge sharing and green learning: Understanding the roles of green innovation and green organisational performance. In Journal of Cleaner Production 457, p. 142402. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142402.
41
Iqbal, Qaisar; Ahmad, Noor Hazlina; Halim, Hasliza Abdul (2020): How Does Sustainable Leadership Influence Sustainable Performance? Empirical Evidence From Selected ASEAN Countries. In Sage Open 10 (4), Article 2158244020969394. DOI: 10.1177/2158244020969394.
42
Zhang, Ge; Chen, Pengfei; Xu, Si (2025): Developing and validating a scale for measuring sustainable leadership development among teachers in Chinese higher education institutions. In Journal of Cleaner Production 486, p. 144403. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144403.
43
Spector, Bert A.; (2016): Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. In Leadership Vol. 12 (12), pp. 250-260.
44
MARYA. FERDIG (2007): Sustainability leadership- Co-creating a sustainable future. In Journal of Change Management Vol. 7 (1).
45
Peterlin, Judita; Pearse, Noel; Dimovski, Vlado (2015): Strategic Decision Making for Organizational Sustainability: The Implications of Servant Leadership and Sustainable Leadership Approaches. In Economic and Business Review 17 (3). DOI: 10.15458/85451.4.
46
Bendell, Jem; Sutherland, Neil, Little, Richard (2017): Beyond unsustainable leadership: critical socialtheory for sustainable leadership. In Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
47
Liu, Yurou; Liu, Jinyang (2024): Social Integrity and Stock Price Crash Risk. In J Bus Ethics 190 (3), pp. 703-721. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05384-2.
48
Bercovitz, Janet; Mitchell, Will (2007): When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long-term business survival, while controlling for profitability. In Strategic Management Journal 28 (1), pp. 61-79. DOI: 10.1002/smj.568.
49
Isaac Kanyangale, MacDonald (2023): The Nature of Sustainable Leadership: Pitfalls, Insights and New Model. In Joseph Crawford (Ed.): Leadership for Sustainable and Educational Advancement – Advancing Great Leaders and Leadership, vol. 6: IntechOpen (Business, Management and Economics).
50
Arroyave, Juan J.; SÃ¡ez-MartÃnez, Francisco J.; Ruiz-Palomino, Pablo; GonzÃ¡lez-Moreno, Ãngela (2025): From Environmental Orientation to Circular Economy Practices: Is It Easier When Firms Frequently Cooperate With Stakeholders? In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32 (4), pp. 4802-4818. DOI:10.1002/csr.3209.
51
Freeman, 1984, p.84
52
Zhang, Zhen; Ilies, Remus; Arvey, Richard D. (2009): Beyond genetic explanations for leadership: The moderating role of the social environment. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110 (2), pp. 118-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.004.
53
Mejia, Santiago; Bonaldi, Pietro (2025): Maximizing Shareholder Welfare: A Normative Examination of Hart and Zingales’ Corporate Governance Account. In J Bus Ethics 196 (2), pp. 309-323. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05551-5.
54
Laplume, AndrÃ© O.; Harrison, Jeffrey S.; Zhang, Zhou; Yu, Xin; Walker, Kent (2022): Evidence of an Inverted U-Shaped Relationship between Stakeholder Management Performance Variation and Firm Performance. In Bus. Ethics Q. 32 (2), pp. 272-298. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.19.
55
Visser, Wayne; Courtice, Penny (2011): Sustainability Leadership: Linking Theory and Practice. Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge.
56
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D (2004): The seven principles of sustainable leadership. In Educational Leadership Vol 61 (7), pp. 8-13.
57
Trombini, Chiara; Jiang, Winnie; Kinias, Zoe (2025): Receiving Social Support Motivates Long-Term Prosocial Behavior. In J Bus Ethics 197 (4), pp. 689-711. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05743-7. UN Global Compac (2025): The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact. UN Global Compac.
58
Eva, Nathan; Robin, Mulyadi; Sendjaya, Sen; van Dierendonck, Dirk; Liden, Robert C. (2019): Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. In The Leadership Quarterly 30 (1), pp. 111-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004.
59
Christof Miska, Mark E. Mendenhall (2018): Responsible Leadership: A Mapping of Extant Research and Future Directions. In J Bus Ethics Vol. 148 (1), pp. 117-134
60
Boas Shamir, Robert J. House and Michael B. Arthur (1993): The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. In Organization Science (4), pp. 577-594.
61
Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo and Sanjay T. Menon (2000): Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects. In Journal of Organizational Behavior (21), pp. 747-767.
62
Michael E. Brown Linda K. TreviÃ±o (2005): Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97 (2), pp. 117-134.
63
Silke Astrid EisenbeiÃ and Felix Brodbeck (2014): Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Sectoral Analysis. In Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 140 (2), pp. 343-359.
64
Dou, Junsheng; Su, Emma; Wang, Song (2019): When Does Family Ownership Promote Proactive Environmental Strategy? The Role of the Firm’s Long-Term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics 158 (1), pp. 81-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3642-z.
65
Hyndman, Kyle; Honhon, DorothÃ©e (2020): Flexibility in Long-Term Relationships: An Experimental Study. In M&SOM 22 (2), pp. 273-291. DOI: 10.1287/msom.2018.0736.
66
Flammer, Caroline; Bansal, Pratima (2017): Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. In Strategic Management Journal 38 (9), pp. 1827-1847. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2629.
67
Bianchi, Guia; Testa, Francesco; Boiral, Olivier; Iraldo, Fabio (2022): Organizational Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Internalizing Lifecycle Management. In Organization & Environment 35 (1), pp. 103-129. DOI: 10.1177/1086026621998744.
68
Shahab, Yasir; Ye, Zhiwei; Liu, Jia; Nadeem, Muhammad (2025): Social Trust, Environmental Violations, and Remedial Actions in China. In J Bus Ethics 198 (3), pp. 637-654. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05818-5.[
69
Valentinov, Vladislav; Oliveira Santos Jhunior, Ronaldo de; Araujo GÃ³es, Helna Almeida de (2025): Corporate Environmental Sustainability Via Stakeholder Collaboration: Insights from Classical Institutional Economics. In J Bus Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-025-06023-8.
70
Banks, George C.; Fischer, Thomas; Gooty, Janaki; Stock, George (2021): Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. In The Leadership Quarterly 32 (2), p. 101471. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471.
71
MorÃ¡n, Pablo David Tapia; Fan, Mingyue; Sampene, Agyemang Kwasi (2025): Green Supply Chain
72
Dias, Gabriela Nobre; Hamza, Kavita Miadaira; Lievens, Annouk; Moons, Ingrid (2025): Sustainability-based value creation within a multi-stakeholder network: Balancing expectation conflicts within the Amazon context. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 116-128. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3981.
73
Rathobei, Kabelo Esther; RanÃ¤ngen, Helena; Lindman, Ãsa (2024): Stakeholder integration in sustainable business models to enhance value delivery for a broader range of stakeholders. In Bus Strat Env 33 (4), pp. 3687-3706. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3651.
74
Huang, Yi-Chun; Gong, Tian-Jyun; Shih, Li-Ting (2024): Examining the impact of green human resource management on green innovative work behavior: A multilevel analysis. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 31 (6), pp. 6401-6418. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2932.
75
Usman, Muhammad; Akhtar, Muhammad Waheed; Zahoor, Nadia; Khan, Muhammad Aamir Shafiq; Adomako, Samuel (2025): Triggering employee green activism through green human resource management: The role of green organizational learning and responsible leadership. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 1085-1096. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4028.
76
Yong, Jing Yi; Yusliza, Mohd-Yusoff; Ramayah, Thurasamy; Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose; Sehnem, Simone; Mani, Venkatesh (2020): Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. In Bus Strat Env 29 (1), pp. 212-228. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2359.
77
Santana, Monica; Lopez-Cabrales, Alvaro (2019): Sustainable development and human resource management: A science mapping approach. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 26 (6), pp. 1171- 1183. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1765.
78
Yong, Jing Yi; Yusliza, Mohd Yusoff; Ramayah, Thurasamy; Seles, Bruno Michel Roman Pais (2022): Testing the stakeholder pressure, relative advantage, top management commitment and green human resource management linkage. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 29 (5), pp. 1283-1299. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2269.
79
VÃ¡zquez-Brust, Diego; Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta; Plaza-Ãbeda, JosÃ© Antonio; Perez-Valls, Miguel; Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de; Renwick, Douglas W. S. (2023): The role of green human resource management in the translation of greening pressures into environmental protection practices. In Bus Strat Env 32 (6), pp. 3628-3648. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3319.
80
RON ASHKENAS, PETER D. MOORE: Thinking Long-Term in a Short-Term Economy. In Harvard Business Review 2023.
81
Yang, Jeremy; Eckles, Dean; Dhillon, Paramveer; Aral, Sinan (2024): Targeting for Long-Term Outcomes. In Management Science 70 (6), pp. 3841-3855. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4881
82
Nevins, Jennifer L.; Bearden, William O.; Money, Bruce (2007): Ethical Values and Long-term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics 71 (3), pp. 261-274. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9138-x.
83
Jiang, Yanjie; Ding, Xiaodi (2025): Exploring the Nexus Between Ecosystem Services and Economic Sustainability: A Stakeholder Perspective. In Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32 (3), pp. 3639- 3658. DOI:10.1002/csr.3110.
84
Crosby, Tiffany M.: How Leaders Make Sense of ESG to Lead Sustainable Businesses: Multiple Case Studies. In Doctorial dissertation, Southeastern University 2024.
85
Bader, Verena; Schneider, Anna-Lisa; Kaiser, Stephan; Loscher, Georg (2025): The Engagement and Disengagement of Heterogeneous Stakeholders: A Relational Practice Perspective on Strategy Development. In Business & Society 64 (6), pp. 1111-1148. DOI: 10.1177/00076503241271295.
86
Funk, Stephanie (2025): Does being a leader make them stay? Short- and long-term effects of supervisory responsibility on turnover intentions. In Human Res Mgmt Journal 35 (1), pp. 25-44. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12550.
87
Zou, Han (2024): The social welfare effect of environmental regulation: An analysis based on Atkinson social welfare function. In Journal of Cleaner Production 434, p. 140022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140022.
88
Witt, Ulrich (2021): Does sustainability-promoting policy making reduce our welfare? In Ecological Economics 188, p. 107130. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107130.
89
Bohnenberger, Katharina (2023): Peaks and gaps in eco-social policy and sustainable welfare: A systematic literature map of the research landscape. In European Journal of Social Security 25
90
Laurin, Francine; Fantazy, Kamel; (2017): Sustainable supply chain management: a case study at IKEA. Transnational Corporations Review; Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309-319
91
Park, Eunyoung; Lange, Donald; Jeon, Chunhu (2025): How shareholder litigation risk influences firm orientation toward stakeholders. In Strategic Management Journal 46 (5), pp. 1149-1182. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3689.
92
Gasbarro, Federica; Tencati, Antonio (2025): The influence of complexity, uncertainty, and munificence on long-term organizational resilience to natural disasters. In Bus Strat Env 34 (1), pp. 1257-1266. DOI: 10.1002/bse.4055.
93
Mansell, Samuel (2025): Who Speaks for the Corporation? A Hobbesian Theory of Managerial Authority and Shareholder Responsibility. In Bus. Ethics Q. 35 (2), pp. 187-215. DOI: 10.1017/beq.2024.17.
94
Preuss, Lutz; Fischer, Isabel; Arora, Bimal (2024): How do stakeholder groups make sense of sustainability: Analysing differences in the complexity of their cognitive frames. In Bus Strat Env 33 (3), pp. 2367-2383. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3611.
95
Martin, Kirsten; Phillips, Robert (2022): Stakeholder Friction. In J Bus Ethics 177 (3), pp. 519-531. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04652-9.
96
K. Sivaramakrishnan (1994): Information Asymmetry, Participation, and Long-Term Contracts. In Management Science Vol. 40 (10), pp. 1228-1244.
97
Thoroughgood, Christian N.; Sawyer, Katina B.; Padilla, Art; Lunsford, Laura (2018): Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives and Toward a More Holistic Definition. In J Bus Ethics 151 (3), pp. 627-649. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3257-9.
98
Beccarini, Irene; Beunza, Daniel; Ferraro, Fabrizio; Hoepner, Andreas G. F. (2023): The Contingent
99
Hambrick, Donald C.; Wowak, Adam J. (2021): CEO Sociopolitical Activism: A Stakeholder Alignment Model. In AMR 46 (1), pp. 33-59. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2018.0084.
100
Cai, Mengyu; Zhou, Nan (2024): A CEO’s Childhood Family Decline and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Mediating Role of Long-Term Orientation. In J Bus Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551024-05856-z.