Growing pressure on natural resources and intensifying social tensions pose significant challenges for businesses and society today. At the same time, operating under the current growth-driven economic system, businesses are themselves also contributing to today’s interlinked social and environmental challenges (Martí 2018). The concept of sufficiency is viewed as an urgently needed solution to these pressing problems, when implemented as a paradigm within the economy and businesses (Heikkurinen et al. 2024). By advocating for moderation in consumption and production, sufficiency aims to meet human needs within ecological limits (Jungell-Michelsson and Heikkurinen 2022; Lehtonen and Heikkurinen 2022).

The topic of corporate sufficiency has gained some increased attention in recent years (e.g. Niessen and Bocken 2021; Beyeler and Jaeger-Erben 2022; Freudenreich and Schaltegger 2020). However, the implementation of sufficiency-oriented practices within organizations presents significant challenges, particularly in an economic environment that focusses on expansion and market dominance (Niessen and Bocken 2021; Gossen et al. 2019). Sufficiency is difficult to operationalize due to its abstract nature, creating ambiguities which business aspects it should address, such as profit, employees, or resource consumption (Jungell-Michelsson and Heikkurinen 2022). Additionally, businesses face difficulties in defining clear operational boundaries (Ryberg et al. 2018; Ryberg et al. 2020). We argue that leadership, i.e. the process of committing others to shared objectives (Northouse 2022), plays a pivotal role in this transformative process. Leaders in businesses, as central decision-makers in organisations, play a critical role in this transformative process (Metcalf and Benn 2013). Yet, despite their crucial importance, existing literature offers limited theoretical and empirical insight into how leaders can effectively foster sufficiency within businesses.

To address this gap, we lay out important theoretical groundwork by leveraging Hartmut Rosa’s sociological theory, which centres around social acceleration and resonance (Rosa 2013, 2019). Social acceleration explains how modern societies, as well as businesses therein, structurally rely on growth, increasing speed, and constant innovation (Rosa 2013; Hollstein and Rosa 2023; Rosa et al. 2016). These structural factors are considered key obstacles to the adoption of sufficiency (Jungell-Michelsson and Heikkurinen 2022). They create a high-pressure environment where businesses and their leaders must constantly adapt and compete, often at the expense of sufficiency-orientation. Resonance offers a counterbalance, emphasizing meaningful relationships and a more attuned way of engaging with the world (Rosa 2019). The theory is systemic in nature and provides comprehensive implications on the level of the individual. It provides a unique lens through which we deepen our understanding of the dynamics which hinder or potentially support progress towards sufficiency. We combine the sociological theory with the concept of responsible leadership (Voegtlin 2011; Maak and Pless 2006a) to specifically investigate: (1) how social acceleration creates challenges for leadership in implementing sufficiency within organizations, and (2) how resonance can guide leaders in fostering sufficiency within their organizations.

By applying Rosas’ theory to the context of responsible leadership we develop a comprehensive conceptual framework. The framework identifies key leadership barriers to sufficiency, including a lack of deeper purpose, disconnection from nature and stakeholders, as well as status-driven mentalities. It also delineates practical solutions inspired by Rosa's resonance theory, advocating for a leadership approach that fosters relational quality and organizational change. This framework makes an important contribution both to the leadership as well as the sufficiency literature in enhancing our understanding of the leadership required for sufficiency. For instance, Rosa’s theory of resonance expands our understanding of the relational dimension, which is core to responsible leadership (Maak and Pless 2006b, 2006a). The three axes of resonance proposed by Rosa (2019) enable us to conceptualize resonant relationships to (1) the world at a deep, existential level, (2) other people as well as (3) the natural and material world, as central for sufficiency. Introducing the aim of sufficiency as a boundary condition provides responsible leaders with the flexibility to balance stakeholder interests while providing guidance towards more sustainable and ethically sound decisions. Vice versa, responsible leadership offers a valuable approach how to address key questions and ambiguities how to implement sufficiency in businesses. Stakeholder engagement and deliberative decision-making, as core aspects of responsible leadership (Voegtlin 2011), provide tools for approximating operational boundaries.

References

Beyeler, L., & Jaeger-Erben, M. (2022). How to make more of less: Characteristics of sufficiency in business practices. Frontiers in Sustainability. doi:10.3389/frsus.2022.949710.

Freudenreich, B., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). Developing sufficiency-oriented offerings for clothing users: Business approaches to support consumption reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119589. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119589.

Gossen, M., Ziesemer, F., & Schrader, U. (2019). Why and How Commercial Marketing Should Promote Sufficient Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Macromarketing, 39, 252–269. doi:10.1177/0276146719866238.

Heikkurinen, P., Skrbina, D., Bocken, N., Gossen, M., & Princen, T. (2024). Call for Papers - Sufficiency: An Ethic for Ecologically Constrained Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics.

Hollstein, B., & Rosa, H. (2023). Social Acceleration: A Challenge for Companies? Insights for Business Ethics from Resonance Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 188, 709–723. doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05506-w.

Jungell-Michelsson, J., & Heikkurinen, P. (2022). Sufficiency: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 195, 107380. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107380.

Lehtonen, T., & Heikkurinen, P. (2022). Sufficiency and Sustainability: Conceptual Analysis and Ethical Considerations for Sustainable Organisation. Environmental Values, 31, 599–618. doi:10.3197/096327121X16328186623878.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006a). Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A Relational Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9047-z.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006b). Responsible leadership: A relational approach. In T. Maak & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 33–53). New York: Routledge.

Martí, I. (2018). Transformational Business Models, Grand Challenges, and Social Impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 965–976. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3824-3.

Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2013). Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 369–384. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1278-6.

Niessen, L., & Bocken, N. M. (2021). How can businesses drive sufficiency? The business for sufficiency framework. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 1090–1103. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.030.

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. New York City: Columbia University Press.

Rosa, H. (2019). Resonance: A sociology of our relationship to the world. Cambridge, UK, Medford, MA, USA: Polity Press.

Rosa, H., Dörre, K., & Lessenich, S. (2016). Appropriation, Activation and Acceleration: The Escalatory Logics of Capitalist Modernity and the Crises of Dynamic Stabilization. Theory, Culture & Society, 34, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0263276416657600.

Ryberg, M. W., Andersen, M. M., Owsianiak, M., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2020). Downscaling the planetary boundaries in absolute environmental sustainability assessments – A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123287. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123287.

Ryberg, M. W., Owsianiak, M., Clavreul, J., Mueller, C., Sim, S., King, H., et al. (2018). How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-making: An industry case study using a Planetary Boundary-based methodology. Science of The Total Environment, 634, 1406–1416. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.075.

Voegtlin, C. (2011). Development of a Scale Measuring Discursive Responsible Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 57–73. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1020-9.

Many companies and their leaders today engage in some form of corporate sociopolitical activism (CSA), i.e., they take public positions on divisive societal debates, such as abortion, gun control, LGBTQ+ or and minority rights. More recently, however, CSA has evolved into new, so far under-researched practices. In light of growing anti-democratic and populist parties and movements in different countries, we can observe CSA increasingly focusing on the defense of democratic institutions and values, especially in Europe. While research on CSA has gained traction in recent years, it is still limited, especially when it comes to understanding the impacts of pro-democracy CSA on businesses, polity and society at large (Bhagwat et al., 2020; Branicki et al., 2021; Feix & Wernicke, 2024; Lyon, 2023).

Therefore, this paper aims to conceptualize pro-democracy CSA and its implications. We set out to provide a more comprehensive understanding of pro-democracy CSA and to derive suggestions for business and policymakers. To do so, we begin with a critical literature review of CSA and corporate political responsibility research. Building on this, we discuss the potential implications of different forms of CSA for a company’s stakeholders, and more importantly, for democratic institutions and society (Scherrer & Voegtlin 2023). In this context it is important to not limit CSA to raising voice on a particular issue (e.g., Chatterji & Toffel, 2019; Hambrick & Wowak, 2021), while neglecting the political dimension of other aspects of corporate practice, such as human resources, financing, and supply chain management. Critically, if companies regard CSA merely as a public relations task, they might run the risk of being confronted with allegations of might be called “policy-washing”, similar to the widely criticized forms of woke-washing, pinkwashing or greenwashing. In order align “CSA talk” with “CSA walk”, companies need to consider further measures, e.g., strict anti-discrimination policies and in-house trainings on political issues, or ending business relations with partners holding anti-democratic positions, as we already see in some companies emerging. We investigate the processes related to sensemaking of pro-democracy CSA by key organizational stakeholders develop a range of pathways that pro-democracy CSA can take to impact citizens’ attitudes towards political issues. Finally, we aim to line out meaningful and applicable practical implications and guidelines for businesses and policymakers. Thereby, the paper contributes to scholarly and public discussions around CSA and corporate political responsibility and provide insights into how businesses can play a role in strengthening democracy.

Hope is a very important concept in leadership as the world is facing ever more complex and pressing challenges. Interestingly, while researchers in the natural sciences investigate the connected consciousness of humans to address grand challenges, management theory has largely neglected such avenues. Drawing on theories from ecology, we suggest a novel framework that outlines leader approaches to hope in the context of theories of interconnectedness. We distinguish interconnected identity from personal and social identity and explore the concept of interconnected identity to propose differences in leader approaches to hope. While personal identity speaks to the salience of individual characteristics that differentiate one person from another; and social identity speaks to the salience of group characteristics that differentiate groups from another; interconnected identity speaks to the salience of universal characteristics which unite rather differentiate groups and individuals. We build on the extant management literature, which views hope as being about both agency (the will) and pathway (the how) and explore the interplay between hope and interconnected identity to propose four leadership approaches to hope. First, when interconnected identity salience is high (a sense that all people are connected and impacted by human action) in relation to both agency and pathway - we propose a leader may operate as ‘hope enablers’ resulting in communal practices and the co-creation of approaches and solutions. Second, when interconnected identity salience is low in relation to both agency and pathway - we propose that a leader may operate as ‘hope dictators’, i.e. setting goals and pathways for others based on introspection, monitoring and compliance. Third, when interconnected identity is salient in relation to agency, but not pathway - we propose a leader may operate as ‘hope heroes’, believing in the will of others, but expecting others to follow their roadmap. Finally, when interconnected identity is salient in relation to pathway, but not agency - we propose leader may operate as ‘hope enforcers’- allowing cocreation of solutions but setting penalties for non-conformance. We explore how different approaches may have benefits and drawbacks and their appropriateness in different situations.

Modern society imposes various challenges to ensure that social sustainability is pursued, such as paying attention to the community, the territory, and disadvantaged people, to name a few (Mazutis et al., 2015). In this context, the activities and practices non-profit organisations represent value for the community as they guarantee that objectives of general interest can be pursued (Seitanidi et al., 2009).

As stated by Jong and Ganzaroli (2024) non-profit organisations play a fundamental role in pursuing the social Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition to non-profit organisations, companies can actively support social sustainability practices that generate shared value (Porter and Kramer, 2011). In literature, companies’ social function is widely discussed in terms of creating and distributing value, allowing the prosperity of societies and communities (Ordonez-Ponce et al., 2021). Integrating sustainable development aims in their business model, Benefit corporations and BCorps have recently seen a rapid evolution (Cantele et al., 2023). These companies represent a form of hybrid organisation as they simultaneously pursue both private and public interests (Riso et al., 2024). In recent years, some scholars studied the value for communities expressed by collaboration between companies and non-profit organizations within cross-sector partnerships (Cantele et al., 2020; Hede Skagerlind et al., 2015). The interaction between companies and non-profit organisations can foster social innovation by creating strategic partnerships (Le Ber and Branzei,2010). The authors propose an analysis of the factors that lead these collaborations to the success or failure through the analysis of four longitudinal case studies and identify three factors: relational attachment that explains how the actors relate over time the commitment to carry forward the collaboration project and the necessary investment, and the disillusionment of the partner or the erosion of trust (as negative factor). Maintaining mutual objectives over time is a key aspect of effective and long-lasting collaboration, as explained by Clarke and MacDonald (2019).

Pedersen et al. (2021) study how to carry out long-lasting collaborations to achieve system sustainability goals and explain how new studies are needed to analyse the actors' perspective and the role of orchestrators. This study aims to contribute to this gap with a longitudinal case study through an interventionist and action research approach (Argyris et al., 1985). The analysis aims to understand how the hybrid organization form motivates companies to collaborate with non-profit organizations, how non-profit organisations consider partnering with these kinds of firms and how coordination systems are required to favour the partnerships. The intervention project is based on the initiative of an Italian local association of non-profit organisations which presented a project to involve the Benefit corporations of the province (that is one among those with the largest number of Benefit Corporations in Italy) by coordinating their social practices towards the common good with non-profit organisations’ aims and needs.

The analysis describes the project started with identifying the companies to be involved, through the analysis of their social practices presented in the sustainability disclosure. Furthermore, through interviews with the different subjects involved (the association, the companies and the non-profit organisations), the opportunities and difficulties in these relationships, the propensity of the organisations to collaborate and the effectiveness of the form of coordination promoted by the association will be analysed.

This paper examines how individual preferences for redistribution depend on subjective physical and emotional well-being. In addition to estimations that socioeconomic conditions, perceptions of future mobility, and perceptions of fairness determine redistribution preferences, we explore the role of individual physical and emotional well-being (Alesina and La Ferrara 2005; Alesina and Angeletos 2005). We expect that physical and emotional well-being make people on the one hand more satisfied with their circumstances and therefore more able to share and on the other hand, more desiring of well-being for others. We expect people who feel happy to be more caring of others and more altruistic.