Earth’s natural systems are increasingly destabilizing as human industrial activity has overshot planetary boundaries such as climate change and biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss). While organizational scholarship on sustainability is increasing in prevalence and importance, the planetary boundaries framework has been under-studied and under-applied. To advance scholarship and practice, we assert the planetary boundaries framework can guide future research in three ways: (1) tuning to and measuring the state of particular planetary boundaries, (2) inviting attention to temporal and spatial properties, and (3) as a tool for inter- and transdisciplinary scholarship. We develop a reference framework that conceptualizes interactions between organizations and the planetary boundaries to develop specific, researchable questions. Organizational attention to planetary boundaries is driven by their dependence on them, which consequently impacts planetary boundaries and ecosystem resilience, with contextual influences shaping these interactions. We hope to encourage organizational scholars to explore how organizations can strategize and implement practices as embedded within planetary boundaries.
AguileraRVAragón-CorreaJAMaranoV, et al. (2021) The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management47(6): 1468–1497.
2.
AhlströmHWilliamsAVildåsenSS (2020) Enhancing systems thinking in corporate sustainability through a transdisciplinary research process. Journal of Cleaner Production256: 120691.
3.
BansalPDesJardineMR (2014) Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization12(1): 70–78.
4.
BansalPSongHC (2017) Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals11(1): 105–149.
5.
BansalPDurandRKreutzerM, et al. (2024) Strategy can no longer ignore planetary boundaries: A call for tackling strategy’s ecological fallacy. Journal of Management Studies. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1111/joms.13088.
6.
BansalPKimAWoodMO (2018) Hidden in plain sight: The importance of scale in organizations’ attention to issues. Academy of Management Review43(2): 217–241.
7.
BaudoinLArenasD (2020) From raindrops to a common stream: Using the social-ecological systems framework for research on sustainable water management. Organization & Environment33(1): 126–148.
8.
BiermannFKimRE (2020) The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: A critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources45(1): 497–521.
9.
BowenFEBansalPSlawinskiN (2018) Scale matters: The scale of environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strategic Management Journal39(5): 1411–1436.
10.
ChazdonRLLaestadiusL (2016) Forest and landscape restoration: Toward a shared vision and vocabulary. American Journal of Botany103(11): 1869–1871.
11.
ChenZLiCLiM, et al. (2021) Revisiting the application and methodological extensions of the planetary boundaries for sustainability assessment. Science of the Total Environment788: 147886.
12.
DahlmannFStubbsWGriggsD, et al. (2019) Corporate actors, the UN sustainable development goals and earth system governance: A research agenda. The Anthropocene Review6(1–2): 167–176.
13.
DentoniDPinkseJLubberinkR (2021) Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological resilience through cross-sector partnerships: A complex adaptive systems view. Business and Society60(5): 1216–1252.
14.
DobsonCBeckGG (1999) Watersheds: A Practical Handbook for Healthy Water. Richmond Hill, ON, Canada: Firefly Publishing.
15.
DohJPHahnED (2008) Using spatial methods in strategy research. Organizational Research Methods11(4): 659–681.
16.
DohJPTashmanPBenischkeMH (2019) Adapting to grand environmental challenges through collective entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives33(4): 450–468.
17.
ErgeneSBanerjeeSBHoffmanAJ (2021) (Un)sustainability and organization studies: Towards a radical engagement. Organization Studies42(8): 1319–1335.
18.
FegerCMermetL (2022) New business models for biodiversity and ecosystem management services: Action research with a large environmental sector company. Organization & Environment35(2): 252–281.
19.
GatignonACapronL (2023) The firm as an architect of polycentric governance: Building open institutional infrastructure in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal44: 48–85.
20.
GreckschK (2021) Drought and business. In: GreckschK (ed.) Drought and Water Scarcity in the UK: Social Science Perspectives on Governance, Knowledge and Outreach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43–62.
21.
GrewatschSKennedySBansalP (2023) Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization21(3): 721–732.
22.
GundersonLH (2000) Ecological resilience—In theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics31: 425–439.
23.
HaffarMSearcyC (2018) Target-setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?Business Strategy and the Environment27(7): 1079–1092.
24.
HahnTTampeM (2021) Strategies for regenerative business. Strategic Organization19(3): 456–477.
25.
HansenMCPotapovPVMooreR, et al. (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science342(6160): 850–853.
26.
HeikkurinenPCleggSPinningtonAH, et al. (2021) Managing the anthropocene: Relational agency and power to respect planetary boundaries. Organization & Environment34(2): 267–286.
27.
HollingCS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics4: 1–23.
28.
Howard-GrenvilleJLahnemanB (2021) Bringing the biophysical to the fore: Re-envisioning organizational adaptation in the era of planetary shifts. Strategic Organization19(3): 478–493.
29.
KennedySFuchsMVan IngenW, et al. (2023) A resilience approach to corporate biodiversity impact measurement. Business Strategy and the Environment32(5): 2567–2582.
LalondeEMcKnightBRobinneF (2023) Does wildfire exposure influence corporate disaster preparedness? A study of natural resources extraction firms in Canada. Organization & Environment36(4): 590–620.
32.
LangDJWiekABergmannM, et al. (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science7: 25–43.
33.
LemosMCArnottJCArdoinNM, et al. (2018) To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability, 1(12): 722–724.
34.
MaranguitDGuillaumeTKuzyakovY (2017) Effects of flooding on phosphorus and iron mobilization in highly weathered soils under different land-use types: Short-term effects and mechanisms. Catena158: 161–170.
35.
MauserWKlepperGRiceM, et al. (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability5(3–4): 420–431.
36.
McGahanAMPongeluppeLS (2023) There is no planet B: Aligning stakeholder interests to preserve the Amazon rainforest. Management Science69(12): 7860–7881.
37.
McGinnisMDOstromE (2014) Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society19(2): 30–41.
38.
MeadowsDH (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
39.
MuthulingamSDhanorkarSCorbettCJ (2021) Does water scarcity affect environmental performance? Evidence from manufacturing facilities in Texas. Management Science68(4): 2785–2805.
40.
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (2024) Assessing the global climate in March 2024. NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Agency). Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202403 (accessed June 2024).
41.
Ortiz-de-MandojanaNBansalP (2016) The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal37(8): 1615–1631.
42.
PanwarROberHPinkseJ (2023) The uncomfortable relationship between business and biodiversity: Advancing research on business strategies for biodiversity protection. Business Strategy and the Environment32(5): 2554–2566.
43.
PickJB (2005) Geographic Information Systems in Business. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
44.
PinkseJGasbarroF (2019) Managing physical impacts of climate change: An attentional perspective on corporate adaptation. Business and Society58(2): 333–368.
45.
PogutzSWinnMI (2016) Cultivating ecological knowledge for corporate sustainability: Barilla’s innovative approach to sustainable farming. Business Strategy and the Environment25(6): 435–448.
46.
PurserREParkCMontuoriA (1995) Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm?Academy of Management Review20(4): 1053–1089.
47.
RichardsonKSteffenWLuchtW, et al. (2023) Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances9(37): eadh2458.
48.
RockströmJSteffenWNooneK, et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature461(7263): 472–475.
49.
Roux-RosierAAzambujaRIslamG (2018) Alternative visions: Permaculture as imaginaries of the anthropocene. Organization25(4): 550–572.
50.
RybergMWAndersenMMOwsianiakM, et al. (2020) Downscaling the planetary boundaries in absolute environmental sustainability assessments—A review. Journal of Cleaner Production276: 123287.
51.
SakamotoMAhmedTBegumS, et al. (2019) Water pollution and the textile industry in Bangladesh: Flawed corporate practices or restrictive opportunities?Sustainability11(7): 1951.
52.
SchalteggerSBeckmannMHansenEG (2013) Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment22(4): 219–229.
53.
SiglerWAEwingSAWankelSD, et al. (2022) Isotopic signals in an agricultural watershed suggest denitrification is locally intensive in riparian areas but extensive in upland soils. Biogeochemistry158(2): 251–268.
54.
SlawinskiNBansalP (2012) A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies33(11): 1537–1563.
55.
SteffenWRichardsonKRockströmJ, et al. (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science347(6223): 1259855.
UnterKMMParkSRiveraJ (2024) Business response strategies to climate change: An integrative and research frontiers outlook. Organization & Environment37(2): 325–357.
58.
WhitemanGWalkerBPeregoP (2013) Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies50: 307–336.
59.
WilliamsAPeregoPWhitemanG (2024) Boundary conditions for organizations in the anthropocene: A review of the planetary boundaries framework 10 years on. Journal of Management Studies. Epub ahead of print 7 October. DOI: 10.1111/joms.13150.
60.
WilliamsAWhitemanGKennedyS (2021) Cross-scale systemic resilience: Implications for organization studies. Business and Society60(1): 95–124.
61.
WinnMIPogutzS (2013) Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization & Environment26(2): 203–229.
