Veganism is growing in popularity across numerous research domains, but remains largely unexplored in organizational research, particularly in sustainable business models. In this study, we explore the intersection between veganism and sustainable business models and articulate a vegan value logic along with its interaction with a sustainability logic. Through qualitative research grounded in value logics, the study seeks to elucidate the underlying beliefs and values guiding vegan entrepreneurs in their approach to sustainability and non-human animal rights advocacy. Vegan entrepreneurs are portrayed as institutional actors driving transformative change by rejecting non-human animal exploitation and integrating ethical, sustainable, and socially conscious considerations into their business models particularly the value proposition. Methodologically, the research employs in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis to uncover recurrent patterns and emergent themes in the narratives of vegan entrepreneurs. Anticipated outcomes include a conceptual alignment between veganism and business models for sustainability, depicting vegan business models as embodiments of conscientious engagement with non-human animal welfare and holistic sustainability. The study aims to identify various value logic characteristics in vegan business models, ranging from environmental stewardship to social equity and animal advocacy. Implications for theoretical advancement and practical understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship are discussed.

This conceptual paper examines the means by which the ideological commitments of organizations get in the way of change in practice. In considering the case of business schools we identify a rhetoric-reality paradox in the relationship between how business schools talk about sustainability in management education, and how they proceed to implement it. We explain how the contradictory discourses that emerge play a role in inhibiting progress in the sector, which has been subject to significant critique in the literature. We present a novel framework which combines two perspectives to RME inclusion that have been in conflict. Both strategies, to build-in or to bolt-on, have contradictory yet interrelated qualities that are important to underpin and advance integration. We find neither approach effective without the other and propose a strategic process that involves sequentially addressing both as interchanging aspects of an ongoing process. Our framework can be applied to organizations implementing sustainability more generally, since it seeks to overcome what is a more widely-held idealisation that broad embedding of change is favourable. In this way we illustrate how leveraging and communicating about both strategies can reinforce sustainability practices.

Research on sustainability in business still displays widespread silo-thinking in various areas of management. This paper argues that, as a result of this silo-thinking, sustainability research in management remains anchored at a “business-centric” level, which is problematic, given that sustainability is a system level construct.

In this paper, we analyse sustainability impact conversations within the business and management sub-disciplines, as defined by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS). Within these sub-disciplines, we map the nature (issues), and the levels (business/ system) where sustainability impact conversations are taking place to assess the patterns within and across disciplines. We use the framing of epistemic bubbles, which occur when information and knowledge are filtered or unintentionally excluded, resulting in a system of information that lacks completeness of knowledge, with important knowledge being excluded (Nguyen, 2020).

We argue that it is the epistemic bubble structure that keeps disciplines “anchored” to certain theories and levels of analysis, constraining the interdisciplinary research required. We create a typology of sub-disciplines to explore discipline characteristics and argue that certain characteristics and structures within disciplines lead to stronger epistemic bubbles. From our research, we make recommendations as to how to enable boundary spanning to occur where strong epistemic bubbles exist and overcome siloed thinking.

In the context of cross-sector partnerships (CSP), “places” refer to the geographical location in which the social issue occurs and the contextual conditions of which define the trajectory of partnership rationales (Statdler and Wassenhove, 2023; Gray and Stites, 2013; Hamman, 2014). Massey (2005) conceptualized “place” as a constantly evolving relational concept that is shaped by the interactions and connections between people, events, and processes that occur both locally and globally. Drawing on this notion, we posit that place-based brokering plays a vital role in addressing the complex socio-economic landscapes often encountered in the Global South, where entrenched social hierarchies, particularly around caste and gender, intersect with development interventions. CSPs between global institutions and local actors are increasingly seen as essential for addressing global challenges like those outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Selsky & Parker, 2005; van Tulder et al., 2016). However, the effectiveness of these partnerships hinges not only on high-level collaboration but also on how well local intermediaries, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), navigate local complexities to ensure that development outcomes are both equitable and sustainable. In particular, place-based brokering by local NGOs becomes critical in mitigating power imbalances, fostering community agency, and promoting social justice

Place-based brokering involves the mediation and translation of external development goals into locally relevant terms, ensuring that global partnerships align with local social realities (Healey, 1997; Massey, 2005). In CSPs, especially those operating in institutionally complex environments like rural India, local NGOs play a crucial role in negotiating between external actors, such as multinational funders, and local communities (McFarlane, 2009). These NGOs possess deep, context-specific knowledge that allows them to navigate social hierarchies and address entrenched inequalities. . NGOs are often embedded in local communities, which gives them a deep understanding of the local social hierarchies and spatial inequities (e.g., how lower-caste groups or women might be spatially excluded from access to water, education, or healthcare). They assess which groups are marginalized in terms of physical space and access to resources. By fostering trust, facilitating dialogue, and ensuring inclusive participation, they act as key brokers who enable the success of CSR-driven projects (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012).

Extant literature on place-based brokering highlights its importance in collaborative planning (Healey, 1997) and inter-organizational collaboration (Swyngedouw, 2004), where local actors mediate between external funders and community needs. These studies emphasize the role of brokers in facilitating participatory development processes that are essential for fostering community agency (Cornwall, 2002). In rural contexts, where caste hierarchies and gender norms often exclude marginalized communities from decision-making, place-based brokering enables inclusive governance, ensuring that local knowledge and needs are integrated into the project design (Massey, 2005).

However, despite the growing body of literature on CSPs (e.g., Selsky & Parker, 2005; van Tulder et al., 2016), the specific role of place-based brokering remains relatively understudied. Much of the scholarship on partnerships emphasizes governance structures, resource-sharing, and innovation, but few studies focus on the social navigation skills required to mediate local complexities, especially in highly stratified environments (Kolk, 2014) such as those in rural India. This gap is particularly important given the increasing reliance on local NGOs to implement global projects in ways that do not exacerbate existing social inequalities (Cornwall, 2002). By focusing on how place-based brokers mediate local social dynamics, this study adds to our understanding of how these actors contribute to both the sustainability and social justice outcomes of development initiatives. Additionally, studies have often focused on external partnerships or institutional collaborations, but there is a lack of detailed empirical work on the localized, on-the-ground processes that activate community agency and ensure social justice in such settings. Motivated by this gap, the following line of inquiry guides my research:

How do local NGOs employ place-based brokering to navigate social hierarchies and promote equitable outcomes in CSP projects?

I examine the dynamics of place-based brokering within the empirical setting of the India Water Project (IWP), a CSR initiative sponsored by the Danish-based Poul Due Jensen Foundation (PDJF), in partnership with Indian-based solar energy provider Sunlit Future (SF) and where local NGOs are empaneled as implementation partners for the project. The project, which aims to establish sustainable clean drinking water access systems across rural India serves as a compelling case for exploring how local NGOs navigate complex social structures, particularly concerning caste and gender, to ensure that marginalized groups are included in decision-making processes. The success of these systems largely hinges on the effectiveness of the NGOs in managing these socio-cultural intricacies to create equitable outcomes. I employ an embedded multiple case study approach by examining the overarching phenomenon across distinct cases within the overall project (Yin, 2003). Of the 618 villages impacted by the project, I visited 15 villages across three Indian states (Telengana, Tamil Nadu, and Odisha) where three of the local implementation NGO partners were based, to explore the complexity of each region (case) individually, while also drawing cross-case comparisons, thus allowing for a rich, nuanced understanding of how context-specific factors influence outcomes.

This paper adds to the CSP research tradition by examining how place-based brokers, local NGOs in particular, mediate between external corporate funders and community members in the IWP, facilitating the creation of inclusive water management systems. By focusing on the specific challenges and strategies involved in managing communal dynamics, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how localized brokering ensures sustainable and socially just outcomes in CSR-driven projects.

In the case of IWP, local NGOs played a crucial role in forming an inclusive governance model that included diverse community members, including those from traditionally marginalized castes and women and treating community members more than as mere passive beneficiaries. This model allowed for more equitable access to resources and decision-making processes, ensuring that the project did not reinforce existing hierarchies. Without such brokering, there is a risk that CSR-driven projects will inadvertently favor powerful local elites, further entrenching inequalities (Massey, 2005; McFarlane, 2009). Thus, place-based brokering not only ensures project success but also advances social justice by empowering marginalized communities to take ownership of the development process.

This study makes several theoretical contributions to the partnership literature and the broader discourse on social justice in development. First, it expands on the scarce literature on place-based brokering as a critical, yet underexplored, function within CSP. Traditional partnership models often emphasize top-down governance and resource exchange, but this study highlights the need for localized mediation that addresses the specific social and cultural barriers to equitable participation (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Kolk, 2014). Second, by focusing on the IWP, the study demonstrates how place-based brokers navigate social hierarchies, offering a new lens through which to understand the dynamics of community agency in development partnerships (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Furthermore, the study makes a case for social justice as a central outcome of CSPs, particularly in the Global South. Much of the partnership literature has focused on economic or environmental sustainability, but this study argues that partnerships must also prioritize equity and inclusivity if they are to achieve long-term success (Fransen & Kolk, 2007). By showing how place-based brokers address caste and gender inequalities in rural India, the research contributes to a broader understanding of how partnerships can be structured to promote inclusive development and social justice.

This paper explores the role and benefits of constructive dialogue for societal transitions towards multispecies democracy. More specifically, we present two types of dialogue – interpersonal and internal dialogues – which we argue are essential for organizing a multispecies democratic future. By multispecies democracy, we refer to an approach that combines the well-being of both human and non-human life on Earth while including more-than-human actors in decision making process. This paper contributes to the inclusion of multispecies interests in mostly human decision-making processes in organizations (Tallberg, Huopalainen and García-Rosell, 2024).

This study is part of the ongoing international and interdisciplinary research project MUST: Enabling Multispecies Transitions Across Cities and Regions, which investigates and co-creates strategies for just multispecies transitions in urban development. Our analysis draws on audio-visual data from dialogue workshops with stakeholders (citizens, officials, businesses and NGO’s) on urban development of Finnish cities 2024–2025.