No abstract

Usage of any items from the University of Cumbria's institutional repository 'Insight' must conform to the following fair usage guidelines.Any item and its associated metadata held in the University of Cumbria's institutional repository Insight (unless stated otherwise on the metadata record) may be copied, displayed or performed, and stored in line with the JISC fair dealing guidelines (available here) for educational and not-for-profit activities provided that• the authors, title and full bibliographic details of the item are cited clearly when any part of the work is referred to verbally or in the written form • a hyperlink/URL to the original Insight record of that item is included in any citations of the work• the content is not changed in any way• all files required for usage of the item are kept together with the main item file. You may not• sell any part of an item• refer to any part of an item without citation • amend any item or contextualise it in a way that will impugn the creator's reputation• remove or alter the copyright statement on an item.The full policy can be found here. Alternatively contact the University of Cumbria Repository Editor by emailing insight@cumbria.ac.uk.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to prepare the conceptual groundwork for the future study of leadership for sustainable development. The paper demonstrates the relevance of Critical Leadership Studies to future research on sustainable development policies and practices. A critical approach is also applied to concepts of sustainable development, with three paradigms of thought described. Design/methodology/approach The approach taken is an extensive literature review in fields of leadership and sustainable development, with a focus on some of the broad assumptions and assertions in those literatures. Findings A key finding is that leadership studies drawing from critical social theory can provide important insights into future research and education on leadership for sustainability. This literature shows that some assumptions about leadership may hinder opportunities for social or organisational change by reducing the analysis of factors in change or reducing the agency of those not deemed to be leading. These limitations are summarised as “seven unsustainabilities” of mainstream leadership research. Research limitations/implications The paper calls for the emerging field of sustainable leadership to develop an understanding of significant individual action that includes collective, emergent and episodic dimensions. The paper then summarises key aspects of the papers in this special issue on leadership for sustainability. Practical implications The implications for practice are that efforts to promote organisational contributions to sustainable development should not uncritically draw upon mainstream approaches to leadership or the training of leaders. Originality/value The authors consider this the first paper to provide a synthesis of insights from Critical Leadership Studies for research in sustainability.

The paper sets the o te t for the spe ial issue o Colla orati e e gage e t for sustainability in the Asia-Pa ifi regio . The rele a e a d risks of ross-sectoral strategic alliances for sustainable development vary greatly across the region. Potential alliances face unique hurdles given different public challenges, political systems, types of development, forms of civil society and cultural traditions. The four papers in the special issue highlight some key issues that have not been well explored in the current literature, such as the role of collaboration in state-centric societies, the applicability of a tri-sectoral model (of state, business and civil society) in places where ownership and accountability are more complex, and the business rationale for partnering when there is limited consumer, media or civil society demand for voluntary action. In this special edition the papers bring further light to some of these debates.

This paper explores the idea that businesses are being moved to proactively manage their political activities and influence in relation to their often-expressed responsibility for promoting sustainable development, which we define as managing the 'political bottom line'. We argue that three key drivers account for this shift: first, the growing criticism of voluntary corporate responsibility initiatives; second, the increasing awareness and targeting of corporate political activities, and third, a realization among certain corporate executives and financiers that, without changes to public policies, an individual company's own voluntary responsibility may not deliver sufficient commercial returns. We describe several initiatives on public policy dimensions of sustainable development, which indicate that some companies are beginning to manage their political power in light of societal concerns. In conclusion, we discuss the potential and limits of a 'political bottom line' concept by critiquing the mainstream triple bottom line discourse