Navigating Power Dynamics in Sustainability Transformation: Extending Integration Mechanisms Across Organizational Boundaries

Abstract

This study extends research on sustainability transformation by investigating how power dynamics operate across organizational boundaries to enable or constrain substantive change. Using a mixed-methods approach combining survey data (n = 127) from sustainability professionals across multiple sectors and in-depth interviews (n = 18) with transformation leaders, this research identifies how organizations address power asymmetries in supply chains and multi-stakeholder partnerships. Exploratory statistical analysis indicates that inter-organizational power mobilization is associated with the effectiveness of integration mechanisms (β = 0.36, p < 0.01), with digital transparency tools showing the strongest association with integration across boundaries (β = 0.41, p < 0.01). Qualitative findings reveal three critical pathways for addressing power dynamics: technological transparency mechanisms, collaborative governance structures, and capability building networks. The research contributes to sustainability science by advancing understanding of how organizations can move beyond internal transformation to address systemic sustainability challenges through approaches that consider power relationships across organizational boundaries. The findings offer preliminary guidance for practitioners seeking to enhance sustainability impact through strategic management of inter-organizational power dynamics.

1. Introduction

Despite growing commitment to sustainability across sectors, organizations continue to struggle with translating sustainability aspirations into substantive transformation [1,2]. Recent research has identified integration mechanisms and capabilities to manage competing demands as important factors in sustainability transformation, with power mobilization influencing the effectiveness of integration practices [3]. However, previous research has focused primarily on power dynamics within organizational boundaries, leaving important questions about how organizations address power relationships across supply chains, partnerships, and broader systems.

This research investigates how organizations manage power across organizational boundaries to enable more substantive sustainability transformations. Drawing on literature examining power in inter-organizational relationships [4,5], this study examines three critical questions:

• How do organizations address power asymmetries in supply chains and partnerships to advance sustainability transformation?
• What specific mechanisms enable organizations to manage power dynamics across organizational boundaries?
• How do digital technologies function as tools for reconfiguring power relationships in sustainability contexts?

By addressing these questions, this research extends previous findings beyond internal organizational dynamics to examine how power operates at the interface between organizations and broader systems. This extension is critical because many sustainability challenges transcend organizational boundaries, requiring coordinated action across complex networks of actors with unequal power and divergent interests [6].

The literature on sustainability transformation includes several streams of research examining power dynamics, but significant gaps remain. Touboulic’s work on power asymmetries in sustainable supply chains has demonstrated how power imbalances shape sustainability outcomes but offers limited guidance on specific mechanisms for addressing these imbalances [5,7]. Research grounded in Bourdieu’s critical sociology has provided sociological insights into power asymmetries in supply chains by highlighting actors’ unequal endowment in social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital [8]. However, these studies do not fully examine the specific mechanisms that enable organizations to address power dynamics across the supply chain.

Practice-based approaches have suggested more constructive ideas about addressing power dynamics through learning and sustainability initiatives [9] but have not systematically examined how these mechanisms operate across diverse contexts. This research addresses this gap by identifying and analyzing specific mechanisms through which organizations manage power dynamics across organizational boundaries in sustainability contexts.

The study is grounded in three complementary theoretical perspectives. First, it builds on Fleming and Spicer’s [10] multi-dimensional conceptualization of power as operating through direct influence, agenda setting, structural arrangements, and identity formation. Second, it draws on resource dependency theory [10,11,12] to understand how organizations leverage and transform resource dependencies in sustainability contexts. Third, it incorporates insights from socio-technical transition theory [13] to examine how technological innovations reshape power dynamics in sustainability transitions.

While digital technologies are increasingly recognized as potential tools for addressing power dynamics in sustainability contexts [2,14], critical perspectives have highlighted that transparency itself is power-laden. As Monod (2023) argues in “The Illusion of Transparency: Examining Power Dynamics in AI Implementation Strategies,” transparency initiatives often reinforce existing power structures by placing transparency requirements on less powerful actors while more powerful actors remain opaque [15]. This research examines the conditions under which digital transparency tools may challenge rather than reinforce power asymmetries.

This theoretical integration provides a foundation for understanding how power operates not merely as a constraint on sustainability transformation but as a dynamic that organizations can strategically address to enable more substantive change. The research contributes to sustainability science by advancing understanding of how organizations can address systemic sustainability challenges through power-conscious approaches that work across organizational boundaries.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Power Dynamics in Sustainability Transformation

Sustainability transformation inherently involves navigating complex power dynamics that determine which initiatives gain traction, whose interests are served, and how resources are allocated [3,16]. Recent research has demonstrated that power mobilization significantly moderates the effectiveness of integration practices (β = 0.19, p < 0.01), indicating that structural interventions alone are insufficient without attention to power relationships.

Power in organizational contexts operates through multiple dimensions [10]. These include episodic power (direct influence over decisions), manipulative power (shaping agendas and priorities), domination (creating structural arrangements that privilege certain interests), and subjectification (shaping identities and preferences). These dimensions provide a framework for understanding how power shapes sustainability transformation processes across organizational boundaries.

Recent research has extended this understanding by examining how power operates in sustainability contexts specifically. Avelino (2017) distinguishes between “power over” (ability to control resources or influence others), “power to” (ability to create or achieve outcomes), and “power with” (collective ability to achieve shared goals) [16]. This typology is valuable for understanding how organizations might shift from coercive approaches to more collaborative power dynamics in sustainability contexts.

However, existing research has predominantly focused on power dynamics within organizational boundaries, with limited attention to how organizations navigate and reshape power relationships across supply chains, partnerships, and broader systems [5]. This gap is significant because many sustainability challenges require coordinated action across multiple organizations with unequal power and diverse interests.

2.2. Inter-Organizational Power in Supply Chains and Partnerships

Supply chains and multi-stakeholder partnerships represent critical contexts where power dynamics shape sustainability outcomes [4,5]. In supply chains, power asymmetries often enable lead firms to impose sustainability requirements on suppliers but may constrain more collaborative approaches to sustainability innovation [17].

Resource dependency theory provides a valuable lens for understanding these dynamics, suggesting that organizations attempt to manage their dependencies on other actors to maintain autonomy while securing needed resources [11,12]. In sustainability contexts, resource dependencies may include access to materials, knowledge, legitimacy, and market opportunities. Power in inter-organizational relationships derives significantly from these resource dependencies, with more powerful actors controlling resources that others depend upon [18].

Recent research has begun to examine how organizations might transform rather than merely manage these dependencies. Touboulic et al. (2014) identified how sustainability initiatives can shift from compliance-based approaches where powerful buyers impose requirements on dependent suppliers to more collaborative approaches that build shared capabilities and mutual benefits [5]. Similarly, Huxham and Vangen (2005) distinguished between “power over” and “power to” in collaborative contexts, suggesting that effective collaboration requires shifting from domination to enablement [4].

However, limited empirical research has examined the specific mechanisms through which organizations reshape power dynamics across organizational boundaries in sustainability contexts. This research addresses this gap by identifying and analyzing these mechanisms.

2.3. Digital Technologies and Power Reconfiguration

Digital technologies are increasingly recognized as potential tools for reshaping power dynamics in sustainability contexts [2,14]. These technologies can enhance transparency, enable new forms of collaboration, democratize access to information, and create platforms for collective action that may alter traditional power arrangements.

Blockchain technologies, for example, can increase supply chain transparency by creating immutable records of sustainability credentials that reduce information asymmetries between powerful buyers and smaller suppliers [19]. Similarly, digital platforms can enable direct connections between producers and consumers, potentially disrupting traditional power structures in supply chains [13].

Socio-technical transition theory provides a framework for understanding how technological innovations interact with social and institutional arrangements to enable system transitions [13]. From this perspective, digital technologies represent not merely technical tools but socio-technical innovations that reshape power relationships, institutional arrangements, and actor networks.

However, digital technologies may also reinforce existing power asymmetries by creating new forms of surveillance, control, and exclusion [20]. Organizations with greater resources and technical capabilities may leverage digital technologies to enhance their power relative to less-resourced actors, as demonstrated in research on boundary spanning in restricted markets [21]. The conditions under which digital technologies enable more equitable power relationships rather than reinforcing inequalities represent an important area for empirical investigation.

Critical perspectives highlight that transparency initiatives often reinforce rather than challenge existing power structures. Monod (2023) [15] argues that transparency is inherently power-laden, with decisions about what should be transparent, who should be transparent, and according to what principles often reinforcing existing hierarchies. In practice, less powerful actors are often required to be transparent while more powerful actors maintain opacity, further entrenching power asymmetries.

2.4. Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses

Based on this theoretical foundation, Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework guiding this research. The framework positions inter-organizational power dynamics as a critical mediating factor between organizational capabilities and substantive sustainability transformation. It identifies three pathways through which organizations may address power dynamics across organizational boundaries: technological mechanisms, governance structures, and capability building networks.

Drawing on this conceptual framework and the theoretical perspectives outlined above, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1. 

Inter-organizational power mobilization positively influences integration across organizational boundaries in sustainability initiatives.

H2. 

Digital transparency mechanisms positively influence integration across organizational boundaries, with stronger effects for less powerful supply chain actors than for dominant focal firms.

H3. 

Collaborative governance structures positively influence integration across organizational boundaries, with stronger effects in service sectors than in manufacturing sectors.

H4. 

Capability building networks positively influence integration across organizational boundaries, with stronger effects for suppliers than focal firms.

H5. 

Integration across organizational boundaries positively influences sustainability transformation outcomes.

H6. 

The relationship between digital transparency mechanisms and integration across boundaries is moderated by supply chain position.

H7. 

The relationship between collaborative governance structures and integration across boundaries is moderated by sector.

These hypotheses guide the empirical investigation while allowing for exploratory analysis of the specific mechanisms through which organizations address power dynamics across organizational boundaries.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to develop a comprehensive understanding of inter-organizational power dynamics in sustainability transformation. The research proceeded in two phases:

• Quantitative phase: Survey of sustainability professionals (n = 127) across multiple sectors to test relationships between inter-organizational power mechanisms, integration practices, and transformation outcomes
• Qualitative phase: In-depth interviews with transformation leaders (n = 18) to develop deeper understanding of the mechanisms and contexts through which organizations address power dynamics

This design allowed for testing hypothesized relationships quantitatively while developing richer insights into mechanisms and contextual factors through qualitative inquiry [22]. The sequential approach enabled qualitative exploration of patterns identified in the quantitative analysis.

3.2. Sampling and Participants

3.2.1. Survey Sample

Survey participants were recruited through professional sustainability networks using a stratified sampling approach to ensure representation across sectors, organizational sizes, and geographic regions. Specific efforts were made to include respondents from both powerful focal organizations and their smaller supply chain partners to capture diverse perspectives on power dynamics.

• The final sample included 127 sustainability professionals with the following characteristics:
• Sectors: Manufacturing (31%), Services (27%), Consumer Products (22%), Technology (12%), Other (8%)
• Organizational size: Large (>5000 employees, 42%), Medium (500–5000 employees, 35%), Small (<500 employees, 23%)
• Geographic regions: North America (37%), Europe (33%), Asia (21%), Other (9%)
• Roles: Sustainability Directors/Managers (48%), Supply Chain/Procurement Managers (22%), Executive Leadership (18%), Other (12%)
• Supply chain position: Focal firms (57%), Tier 1 suppliers (24%), Tier 2+ suppliers (19%)

This diverse sample allowed for analysis of power dynamics from multiple perspectives within supply chains and partnerships.

To evaluate sample size adequacy for the structural equation modeling analysis, we followed the recommendations of Kline (2016) [23], who suggests a minimum ratio of 10 observations per estimated parameter. With 42 free parameters in our model, the sample of 127 participants yields a ratio of approximately 3:1, which falls below the recommended threshold. While this sample size is sufficient for detecting medium to large effects, it limits our ability to detect smaller effects and may result in less stable parameter estimates. Given these limitations, results should be considered exploratory rather than confirmatory, and findings—particularly those with smaller effect sizes—should be interpreted with appropriate caution. We address this limitation through bootstrapping procedures (5000 resamples) to generate more robust standard errors and confidence intervals.

3.2.2. Interview Sample

• Interview participants were selected using purposive sampling to capture diverse experiences with inter-organizational power dynamics in sustainability contexts. Selection criteria included:
• Direct experience with inter-organizational sustainability initiatives.
• Representation of both powerful and less powerful positions in supply chains/partnerships.
• Experience with digital technologies in sustainability contexts.
• Sector and geographic diversity.

The final interview sample included 18 participants:

• 6 sustainability directors/managers from focal firms.
• 4 supply chain managers from focal firms.
• 5 sustainability/operations managers from supplier firms.
• 3 leaders of multi-stakeholder sustainability initiatives.

This balanced sample enabled exploration of power dynamics from multiple perspectives, including both those traditionally wielding power and those subject to others’ power in supply chains and partnerships.

To address potential selection bias, declined interview invitations (I = 7) were tracked and a non-respondent analysis was conducted, finding no significant differences in organizational characteristics between participants and non-participants.

3.3. Research Instruments

3.3.1. Survey Instrument

The survey instrument included validated scales measuring key constructs, with items adapted from existing research where available and developed through expert review and pilot testing where needed. The survey was administered online using Qualtrics between January and March 2023 (see Appendix A).

Table 1. Sample Survey Items for Key Constructs.

Construct	Sample Items	Source	Cronbach’s α
Inter-organizational Power Mobilization	“Our organization builds coalitions with external stakeholders to advance sustainability initiatives”; “We strategically frame sustainability initiatives to align with partners’ priorities”	Adapted from Westover (2025) [3] and Touboulic et al. (2014) [5]	0.89
Digital Transparency Mechanisms	“Our organization uses digital platforms to create supply chain transparency”; “Digital tools help us make sustainability impacts visible to stakeholders”	Developed based on Saberi et al. (2019) [19]	0.91
Collaborative Governance Structures	“Our organization has established shared decision-making processes with key partners”; “We have formal structures for collaborative problem-solving with external stakeholders”	Adapted from Huxham & Vangen (2005) [4]	0.88
Capability Building Networks	“Our organization invests in building sustainability capabilities across our supply chain”; “We participate in knowledge-sharing networks with external partners”	Developed based on Clarke & Roome (1999) [24]	0.85
Integration Across Boundaries	“Sustainability considerations are integrated into supplier selection and management”; “Our sustainability strategy is developed collaboratively with key external stakeholders”	Adapted from Westover (2025) [3]	0.90
Transformation Outcomes	“Our sustainability initiatives have transformed relationships with suppliers and partners”; “We have achieved significant sustainability improvements across our value chain”	Adapted from Westover (2025) [3] and Williams et al. (2017) [6]	0.87

provides the items, sources, and reliability coefficients for each key construct.

• Scale development for newly created measures followed a rigorous process following De Vellis’ (2016) [25] scale development guidelines:
• Initial item generation based on literature and expert input.
• Content validity assessment by a panel of five academic and practitioner experts.
• Pilot testing with 25 sustainability professionals.
• Exploratory factor analysis to refine item sets.
• Confirmatory factor analysis to validate final scales.

To address potential common method bias, the survey implemented both procedural remedies (separation of predictor and criterion variables, assurance of anonymity, varied response formats) and statistical remedies. Harman’s single-factor test was conducted by loading all items into an exploratory factor analysis with no rotation. Results indicated no single factor accounting for the majority of variance, with the largest factor accounting for 32% of the total variance. Additionally, we employed the marker variable technique described by Podsakoff et al. (2003) [26], using a theoretically unrelated construct (aesthetic preferences for office design) as the marker variable. The average correlation between the marker variable and our substantive constructs was low (r = 0.06), and controlling for this marker variable had minimal impact on the substantive correlations (average change < 0.04), suggesting that common method bias is not a substantial concern.

3.3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

• Semi-structured interviews lasting 60–90 min were conducted with 18 participants between April and June 2023. The interview protocol addressed:
• Experiences with power dynamics in inter-organizational sustainability initiatives.
• Strategies for navigating and addressing power relationships with external stakeholders.
• Use of digital technologies in inter-organizational sustainability contexts.
• Barriers and enablers for collaborative approaches to sustainability.
• Evolution of inter-organizational relationships through sustainability initiatives.

Interviews were conducted via video conference, recorded with permission, and transcribed for analysis (see Appendix B). The interview protocol was refined after initial interviews to explore emerging themes in greater depth.

3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1. Quantitative Analysis

Survey data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test relationships between constructs in the conceptual framework. Analysis proceeded in three stages:

• Measurement validation: Confirmatory factor analysis to assess convergent and discriminant validity of constructs.
• Structural model testing: Examination of hypothesized relationships between constructs.
• Multigroup analysis: Comparison of path coefficients across sectors, organizational sizes, and supply chain positions to test for contextual differences.

Missing data analysis revealed that 3.2% of total data points were missing, with Little’s MCAR test indicating that data were missing completely at random (χ² = 143.52, df = 127, p = 0.15). Missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood estimation.

Measurement model fit was assessed using established criteria: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.90, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < 0.08 [27]. The measurement model demonstrated adequate fit: CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.067 (90% CI = [0.058, 0.076]), SRMR = 0.062.

All constructs demonstrated satisfactory convergent validity with average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.50 and composite reliability values above 0.80. Discriminant validity was established using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, with the square root of AVE for each construct exceeding its correlations with all other constructs.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, Validity, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Inter-org. Power Mobilization	4.78	1.21	0.91	0.64	0.80
2. Digital Transparency Mechanisms	4.33	1.56	0.93	0.68	0.42 **	0.82
3. Collaborative Governance	3.95	1.38	0.90	0.61	0.39 **	0.34 **	0.78
4. Capability Building Networks	4.26	1.27	0.88	0.57	0.45 **	0.38 **	0.51 **	0.75
5. Integration Across Boundaries	4.15	1.33	0.92	0.63	0.48 **	0.52 **	0.44 **	0.49 **	0.79
6. Transformation Outcomes	3.89	1.42	0.89	0.59	0.37 **	0.47 **	0.33 **	0.41 **	0.56 **	0.77

Note: N = 127. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Diagonal elements (in bold) represent the square root of AVE. ** p < 0.01.

presents descriptive statistics, reliability, validity, and correlations among study variables.

Table 3. Selected Standardized Factor Loadings from Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Construct	Items (Abbreviated)	Loading	Range
Inter-org. Power Mobilization	Build coalitions with stakeholders	0.85 **	0.74–0.85
	Create shared sustainability narratives	0.82 **
	Acknowledge and address power imbalances	0.74 **
Digital Transparency Mechanisms	Use digital platforms for supply chain transparency	0.86 **	0.75–0.88
	Create two-way visibility with digital tools	0.83 **
	Involve partners in design of digital systems	0.75 **
Collaborative Governance	Establish shared decision-making processes	0.84 **	0.72–0.84
	Include representation from external stakeholders	0.78 **
	Distribute decision-making authority	0.72 **
Capability Building Networks	Invest in building supply chain capabilities	0.81 **	0.70–0.81
	Create platforms for cross-organizational learning	0.76 **
	Value diverse stakeholder knowledge	0.70 **
Integration Across Boundaries	Integrate sustainability into supplier management	0.85 **	0.74–0.85
	Develop strategy collaboratively with stakeholders	0.83 **
	Align sustainability goals with partners	0.74 **
Transformation Outcomes	Transform relationships with suppliers/partners	0.80 **	0.71–0.80
	Create shared value for all participants	0.77 **
	Improve overall supply chain resilience	0.71 **

Note: All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.01 (**). Range represents lowest to highest loadings across all items for each construct.

presents standardized factor loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis for key indicators of each construct. For parsimony, we present only the highest and lowest loading items for each construct, along with abbreviated item descriptions. All items loaded significantly on their respective constructs (p < 0.01), with most loadings exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70.

All analyses were conducted using R (version 4.5.2) with the lavaan package for structural equation modeling. Multigroup analyses were conducted using chi-square difference tests with the scaled Satorra-Bentler correction to evaluate whether path coefficients differed significantly across groups. To account for multiple comparisons in the multigroup analyses, we applied the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate at 0.05.

3.4.2. Qualitative Analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) [28] six-step approach:

• Familiarization with the data through repeated reading.
• Generation of initial codes using a hybrid approach combining deductive codes from the conceptual framework and inductive codes emerging from the data.
• Searching for themes by organizing codes into potential themes.
• Reviewing themes in relation to coded extracts and the entire dataset.
• Defining and naming themes with clear descriptions.
• Producing the report with representative quotes and analysis.

To enhance interpretive rigor, two researchers independently coded a subset of interviews (n = 5), compared interpretations, and resolved discrepancies through discussion. This process continued until an inter-coder agreement of >85% was achieved. NVivo software (version 15) was used to organize and analyze the qualitative data.

3.4.3. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings

Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated through a connecting approach [29], with qualitative data explaining mechanisms underlying quantitative relationships and illuminating contextual contingencies. Joint displays were developed to explicitly link quantitative relationships with qualitative explanations.

3.5. Research Quality and Ethics

Several measures were implemented to enhance research quality:

• Construct validity was established through validated scales and expert review of survey items.
• External validity was supported by including a diverse sample across sectors, organizational sizes, and geographic regions.
• Reliability was enhanced through detailed documentation of research procedures and analysis decisions.

Ethical considerations included informed consent from all participants, confidentiality of responses, and secure data storage. The research protocol was approved by the author’s institutional review board.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative Findings: Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between inter-organizational power mechanisms and sustainability transformation outcomes, with digital transparency mechanisms showing the strongest associations. The structural model demonstrated good fit: CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.061 (90% CI = [0.051, 0.071]), SRMR = 0.065. The model explained 52% of the variance in integration across boundaries and 47% of the variance in transformation outcomes.

Table 4. Standardized Path Coefficients and Hypothesis Testing Results.

Hypothesis	Path	Coefficient	95% CI	p-Value	Effect Size (f2)	Result
H1	Inter-organizational Power Mobilization → Integration Across Boundaries	0.36	[0.28, 0.44]	<0.01	0.21	Supported
H2	Digital Transparency Mechanisms → Integration Across Boundaries	0.41	[0.33, 0.49]	<0.01	0.28	Supported
H3	Collaborative Governance Structures → Integration Across Boundaries	0.34	[0.26, 0.42]	<0.01	0.19	Supported
H4	Capability Building Networks → Integration Across Boundaries	0.38	[0.30, 0.46]	<0.01	0.23	Supported
H5	Integration Across Boundaries → Transformation Outcomes	0.45	[0.37, 0.53]	<0.01	0.31	Supported
H6	Digital Transparency Mechanisms × Supply Chain Position → Integration Across Boundaries	0.22	[0.14, 0.30]	<0.01	0.12	Supported
H7	Collaborative Governance Structures × Sector → Integration Across Boundaries	0.17	[0.09, 0.25]	<0.01	0.09	Supported

Note: Effect size f² values: 0.02 = small, 0.15 = medium, 0.35 = large.

presents standardized path coefficients, confidence intervals, p-values, and effect sizes for the hypothesized relationships.

Digital transparency mechanisms showed the strongest association with integration across boundaries (β = 0.41, p < 0.01, f² = 0.28), followed by capability building networks (β = 0.38, p < 0.01, f² = 0.23) and inter-organizational power mobilization (β = 0.36, p < 0.01, f² = 0.21). All three factors showed medium effect sizes.

The moderation effect of supply chain position on the relationship between digital transparency mechanisms and integration (β = 0.22, p < 0.01, f² = 0.12) supported H6. This moderation effect showed a relatively small effect size, indicating a modest but meaningful influence of supply chain position.

Similarly, the moderation effect of sector on the relationship between collaborative governance structures and integration (β = 0.17, p < 0.01, f² = 0.09) supported H7, with an effect size between small and medium.

To further examine these moderation effects, we conducted simple slopes analyses. For the moderation by supply chain position, the relationship between digital transparency mechanisms and integration was stronger for suppliers (β = 0.53, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.65]) than for focal firms (β = 0.29, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.19, 0.39]). For the moderation by sector, the relationship between collaborative governance structures and integration was stronger in service sectors (β = 0.41, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.29, 0.53]) than in manufacturing (β = 0.28, p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.18, 0.38]).

Multigroup analysis using chi-square difference tests revealed additional contextual differences in these relationships.

Table 5. Results of Multigroup Analysis by Context.

Path	Large Organizations	SMEs	Difference	95% CI of Difference	p-Value *
Digital Transparency → Integration	0.46 ** [0.34, 0.58]	0.33 ** [0.21, 0.45]	0.13 *	[0.02, 0.24]	0.025
Collaborative Governance → Integration	0.35 ** [0.23, 0.47]	0.32 ** [0.20, 0.44]	0.03	[−0.08, 0.14]	0.571
Capability Networks → Integration	0.37 ** [0.25, 0.49]	0.40 ** [0.28, 0.52]	−0.03	[−0.14, 0.08]	0.571
Path	Focal Firms	Suppliers	Difference	95% CI of Difference	p-Value *
Digital Transparency → Integration	0.29 ** [0.19, 0.39]	0.53 ** [0.41, 0.65]	−0.24 **	[−0.36, −0.12]	<0.001
Collaborative Governance → Integration	0.32 ** [0.22, 0.42]	0.36 ** [0.24, 0.48]	−0.04	[−0.16, 0.08]	0.571
Capability Networks → Integration	0.31 ** [0.21, 0.41]	0.44 ** [0.32, 0.56]	−0.13 *	[−0.25, −0.01]	0.038
Path	Manufacturing	Services	Difference	95% CI of Difference	p-Value *
Digital Transparency → Integration	0.40 ** [0.28, 0.52]	0.43 ** [0.31, 0.55]	−0.03	[−0.15, 0.09]	0.571
Collaborative Governance → Integration	0.28 ** [0.18, 0.38]	0.41 ** [0.29, 0.53]	−0.13 *	[−0.25, −0.01]	0.038
Capability Networks → Integration	0.35 ** [0.23, 0.47]	0.40 ** [0.28, 0.52]	−0.05	[−0.17, 0.07]	0.571

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. Confidence intervals obtained via bootstrapping with 5000 resamples.

presents the results of these analyses, including confidence intervals for the group-specific path coefficients and the differences between groups.

These multigroup analyses revealed three significant differences after controlling for multiple comparisons:

• The association between digital transparency mechanisms and integration was significantly stronger for suppliers (β = 0.53) than focal firms (β = 0.29), with a difference of 0.24 (p < 0.001).
• The association between capability building networks and integration was significantly stronger for suppliers (β = 0.44) than focal firms (β = 0.31), with a difference of 0.13 (p = 0.038).
• The association between collaborative governance structures and integration was significantly stronger in service sectors (β = 0.41) than manufacturing (β = 0.28), with a difference of 0.13 (p = 0.038).

These findings highlight the importance of considering organizational context when implementing power-conscious approaches to sustainability transformation.

4.2. Qualitative Findings: Mechanisms and Contextual Dynamics

Thematic analysis of interview data revealed three key themes that illustrate how organizations address power dynamics across organizational boundaries in sustainability contexts.

Table 6. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings.

Quantitative Finding	Qualitative Theme	Illustrative Quote	Mechanism
Digital transparency has strongest effect on integration (β = 0.41)	Transparency as Power Equalizer	“The blockchain traceability system fundamentally changed our relationship with suppliers. Instead of us imposing requirements and them struggling to comply, we now have shared visibility of sustainability impacts that enables collaborative problem-solving. Information access has become more democratic, which shifts the power balance in subtle but important ways.” (Sustainability Director, Consumer Goods Firm)	Digital transparency creates shared understanding of sustainability impacts and reduces information asymmetries that traditionally advantage more powerful actors
Digital transparency effect stronger for suppliers (β = 0.53) than focal firms (β = 0.29)	Technology Design for Power Balancing	“When we designed the system, we made a conscious choice to create bidirectional transparency—not just visibility for us into supplier practices, but also visibility for suppliers into how their materials flow through our system. This bidirectional design was critical for creating more balanced relationships rather than just another surveillance tool.” (Technology Director, Manufacturing Firm)	Digital tools must be specifically designed for power equalization through bidirectional transparency and collaborative development processes
Collaborative governance stronger in services (β = 0.41) than manufacturing (β = 0.28)	From Power Over to Power With	“We realized that using our purchasing power to demand compliance was yielding minimal results. Suppliers would do the minimum to check the box. When we shifted to a partnership approach—joint innovation projects, shared goal-setting, mutual accountability—we saw transformative improvements in sustainability performance.” (Supply Chain Director, Manufacturing Firm)	Shift from coercive to collaborative approaches happens through intentional governance structures that institutionalize more balanced relationships
Capability building stronger for suppliers (β = 0.44) than focal firms (β = 0.31)	Power Dynamics as Evolutionary Process	“Our sustainability journey has transformed relationships with our larger customers. Initially, we were just responding to their requirements, feeling pressure without support. Over time, as we demonstrated value and built our own expertise, the relationship evolved. Now we’re viewed as sustainability partners rather than just suppliers who need to be monitored.” (Operations Manager, Small Manufacturing Supplier)	Power relationships evolve over time as capability building enables less powerful actors to contribute unique value to sustainability initiatives

presents these themes with illustrative quotes and connections to quantitative findings.

These themes illustrate the mechanisms through which organizations address power dynamics across organizational boundaries.

4.2.1. Technological Transparency Mechanisms

Interview participants consistently identified digital transparency tools as potentially powerful mechanisms for addressing power dynamics in supply chains and partnerships. These tools include blockchain traceability systems, digital monitoring platforms, and collaborative data-sharing networks that create shared visibility of sustainability impacts.

A technology director from a multinational consumer goods company explained how their digital platform transformed power relationships: “Our digital traceability platform has fundamentally altered power relationships in our agricultural supply chain. Previously, we had limited visibility beyond tier 1 suppliers, and farmers had limited understanding of how their practices affected overall sustainability performance. The platform creates transparency in both directions, which has shifted conversations from compliance checking to collaborative problem-solving.”

This transparency functions as a power equalizer by reducing information asymmetries that traditionally advantage larger, more powerful organizations. However, participants also noted that the democratizing potential of digital tools depends significantly on how they are designed and implemented. A sustainability manager from a technology company noted: “Technology can either reinforce power imbalances or help overcome them—it depends entirely on the design choices and implementation approach. When systems are designed collaboratively with suppliers and provide value to all participants, they can shift power dynamics in positive ways.”

The analysis revealed three critical factors that determine whether digital transparency tools function as power equalizers or power reinforcers:

• Collaborative design processes that involve less powerful actors in system development.
• Bidirectional transparency that makes information visible to all participants rather than only to powerful actors.
• Shared value creation that ensures benefits flow to all participants in the system.

These findings help explain the quantitative result showing stronger effects of digital transparency for suppliers than focal firms, as suppliers may particularly benefit from well-designed transparency systems that reduce information asymmetries.

4.2.2. Collaborative Governance Structures

Interview participants described how formal governance structures can institutionalize more balanced power relationships in inter-organizational sustainability initiatives. These structures include supplier advisory councils, multi-stakeholder governance bodies, and formal joint decision-making processes that give voice to traditionally less powerful actors.

A manager from a supplier organization explained how collaborative governance shifted power dynamics: “Being invited to participate in our customer’s Supplier Sustainability Council fundamentally changed our relationship. Instead of just receiving requirements, we now have a voice in shaping sustainability priorities and approaches. This formal recognition of our perspective has created a more balanced relationship where both sides contribute expertise.”

The analysis revealed that effective collaborative governance structures typically include three elements:

• Formal representation of diverse stakeholders, particularly those traditionally excluded from decision-making.
• Clear decision rights and processes that ensure representation translates into genuine influence.
• Resource support that enables less-resourced stakeholders to participate effectively.

However, participants also noted that collaborative governance can be challenging to implement, particularly in contexts with deeply entrenched power asymmetries. A sustainability director from a manufacturing firm observed: “Establishing genuine collaborative governance is difficult when power imbalances are significant. We’ve found that starting with limited scope—specific sustainability challenges where different perspectives are clearly valuable—helps build comfort with shared decision-making before expanding to broader governance.”

The finding that collaborative governance has stronger effects in service sectors than manufacturing suggests that industry context significantly shapes the feasibility and impact of these governance approaches. Service organizations may have organizational cultures and stakeholder relationships more conducive to collaborative governance models.

4.2.3. Capability Building Networks

Interview participants identified capability building networks as a third critical mechanism for addressing power dynamics. These networks include training programs, knowledge-sharing platforms, and collaborative innovation initiatives that build sustainability capabilities across organizational boundaries.

A manager from a small supplier explained: “Access to the sustainability training program and innovation network has been transformative for us. Previously, we lacked the expertise and resources to develop sophisticated sustainability approaches, which reinforced our dependent position. The capability building program has enabled us to develop our own sustainability expertise and even innovate solutions that we now share with customers.”

The analysis revealed that effective capability building networks operate through three pathways:

• Knowledge democratization that makes sustainability expertise accessible to less-resourced organizations.
• Innovation support that enables smaller organizations to develop and scale sustainability solutions.
• Relationship building that creates social capital across traditional power boundaries.

By developing capabilities throughout supply chains and partnerships, organizations create conditions where power becomes more distributed and collaborative approaches become more feasible.

The finding that capability building networks have stronger effects for suppliers than focal firms reinforces the importance of these networks for addressing power dynamics. By building capabilities in less powerful organizations, these networks help address fundamental power imbalances based on knowledge and expertise.

4.3. Contextual Contingencies and Integration

The qualitative data revealed important contextual contingencies that shape how inter-organizational power dynamics affect sustainability transformation. Three particularly significant contingencies emerged from the analysis:

4.3.1. Regulatory Context

Regulatory environments significantly influence how organizations navigate power dynamics in sustainability contexts. In regions with strong regulatory frameworks, power tends to be more balanced as all organizations face similar compliance requirements. In contrast, voluntary contexts often amplify existing power asymmetries.

A sustainability director explained: “The regulatory environment fundamentally shapes how power operates in sustainability initiatives. In Europe, where regulation creates a level playing field, our relationships with suppliers are more collaborative—we’re all working to meet the same requirements. In regions with limited regulation, we have more power to define standards and requirements, which can create more hierarchical relationships if not managed carefully.”

This observation aligns with the quantitative finding that collaborative governance structures have stronger effects in more regulated industries and regions, where shared compliance creates a foundation for collaboration.

4.3.2. Market Positioning

An organization’s market positioning—including brand visibility, consumer proximity, and competitive positioning—significantly influences how it navigates power in sustainability contexts. Organizations with strong consumer-facing brands typically experience greater external pressure for sustainability, which can motivate more collaborative approaches with suppliers and partners.

A supply chain manager observed: “As a consumer-facing brand, we face intense scrutiny of our sustainability performance, including how we engage with suppliers. This external pressure has pushed us toward more collaborative approaches because we need genuine transformation, not just compliance.”

4.3.3. Cultural Context

Cultural contexts, including both national cultures and organizational cultures, shape how power is understood and exercised in sustainability initiatives. Participants noted significant differences in how power dynamics manifest across cultural contexts.

A global sustainability director from a manufacturing firm explained: “In our Asian operations, hierarchical cultural norms significantly influence how we approach supplier relationships. Collaborative approaches require careful attention to maintaining face and respecting hierarchical positions while still creating space for genuine input. In contrast, our European operations operate in cultural contexts where flatter relationships are more normative, making certain collaborative approaches easier to implement.”

These contextual contingencies help explain the variations observed in the quantitative analysis and highlight the importance of tailoring approaches to specific contexts rather than applying universal best practices (see

Table 7. Power Dynamics Approaches Across Contextual Factors.

Contextual Factor	Characteristic	Recommended Approach
Regulatory Environment	Strong regulation	Emphasize shared compliance through collaborative working groups
	Voluntary context	Develop incentive structures to balance power and create mutual benefits
Market Positioning	Consumer-facing	Leverage external stakeholder pressure to drive collaborative approaches
	B2B	Emphasize business case and competitive advantage of power-sharing
Organizational Size	Large organization	Implement formal governance structures with clear representation
	SME	Focus on network-based approaches and coalition building
Cultural Context	Hierarchical	Design collaborative approaches that respect formal positions while enabling input
	Egalitarian	Implement direct participation and flat governance structures
Supply Chain Position	Focal firm	Proactively share power through formal mechanisms and capability building
	Supplier	Build coalitions and leverage unique sustainability expertise
Sector	Manufacturing	Emphasize digital transparency and operational integration
	Services	Focus on collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement

).

This typology provides guidance for tailoring power dynamics approaches to specific organizational contexts and positions, acknowledging that effective strategies must be adapted to contextual factors rather than applied universally.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This research makes three primary theoretical contributions to sustainability science and organizational theory.

First, it advances understanding of how power operates in sustainability transformations by demonstrating that power is not merely a constraint to be navigated but a dynamic that can be strategically addressed to enable more substantive change. While previous research has often treated power as a fixed contextual variable [30], this study reveals how organizations actively engage with power relationships through specific mechanisms that aim to create more collaborative dynamics. This perspective aligns with Avelino’s (2017) conceptualization of “transformative power” but extends it by identifying specific mechanisms through which organizations attempt to address power dynamics in inter-organizational contexts [16].

This contribution extends resource dependency theory [11] by showing how sustainability contexts provide unique opportunities to address rather than merely manage dependencies. Traditional resource dependency theory focuses on strategies to manage dependencies while maintaining organizational autonomy. In contrast, the findings suggest that sustainability contexts can motivate organizations to transform dependency relationships into more collaborative arrangements that create mutual benefits through shared capability development and collaborative governance.

At the same time, our findings suggest important tensions with critical theoretical perspectives on power. While we identify mechanisms through which organizations attempt to address power dynamics, these approaches may be constrained by deeper structural and systemic power asymmetries that are embedded in economic and social structures. Our findings suggest that organizational-level interventions may have important but inherently limited effects without broader systemic changes that address more fundamental power inequalities.

Second, the research contributes to theory on digital technologies in sustainability transitions by examining how these technologies can function as power equalizers under specific conditions. While previous research has identified the potential of digital technologies to enhance sustainability [2], this study specifically examines how these technologies reshape power dynamics and identifies the conditions under which they enable more equitable relationships rather than reinforcing existing power asymmetries.

This perspective both extends and challenges critical views of digital transparency. While Monod (2023) argues that transparency initiatives often reinforce existing power hierarchies [15], our findings suggest that under specific conditions—collaborative design, bidirectional transparency, and shared value creation—digital transparency can potentially challenge rather than reinforce power asymmetries. However, the study confirms Monod’s concern that without explicit attention to power dynamics in their design, digital tools may indeed function primarily as surveillance mechanisms that benefit more powerful actors.

This contribution extends socio-technical transition theory [13] by specifying how technological innovations reshape power relationships in sustainability transitions. While Geels’ multi-level perspective acknowledges the importance of power in transitions, it provides limited guidance on how technological innovations specifically reconfigure power relationships. The findings suggest that digital transparency technologies may create more distributed power arrangements when designed with specific attention to power dynamics.

Third, the study enhances theory on inter-organizational collaboration by demonstrating how organizations shift from hierarchical to collaborative approaches through deliberate strategies that address power dynamics. While previous research has identified the importance of collaboration for addressing complex sustainability challenges [31], this study reveals the specific pathways through which organizations transform power relationships to enable more effective collaboration.

This perspective both builds on and extends Lissillour’s (2021) critical analysis of power in supply chain sustainability governance [8]. While Lissillour highlights how unequal endowment in various forms of capital leads to exclusion of weaker actors from governance, our findings suggest mechanisms through which organizations might address these inequalities to create more inclusive governance. However, the contextual contingencies identified in our research confirm Lissillour’s observation that power dynamics are deeply embedded in broader social and economic structures, suggesting that addressing power asymmetries requires systemic rather than merely organizational interventions.

5.2. Alternative Explanations

While the findings suggest that intentional strategies to address power dynamics may enhance sustainability transformation, several alternative explanations warrant consideration.

First, the observed associations between power mechanisms and transformation outcomes may reflect broader organizational capabilities rather than power dynamics specifically. Organizations with strong general capabilities may simultaneously implement effective power-sharing approaches and achieve transformation outcomes without a causal relationship between these variables. The capability to navigate complex external relationships may be part of general organizational competence rather than a specific power-focused capability.

Second, external pressures rather than internal strategic choices may drive both power reconfiguration and sustainability outcomes. Organizations facing intense stakeholder pressure may adopt both collaborative approaches and substantive sustainability initiatives in response to this pressure rather than because power reconfiguration enables transformation. This explanation aligns with institutional theory perspectives that emphasize external legitimacy as a driver of organizational behavior [32].

Third, resource availability may be the underlying factor driving both power-sharing approaches and sustainability outcomes. Organizations with abundant resources may have greater capacity to invest in both collaborative approaches and substantive sustainability initiatives. This would suggest that addressing resource inequalities is a prerequisite for addressing power inequalities in sustainability contexts.

Fourth, the association between digital transparency and transformation outcomes may reflect technological sophistication rather than power effects specifically. Organizations with advanced technological capabilities may achieve superior sustainability outcomes through these capabilities rather than through power reconfiguration.

While the mixed-methods approach and analytical techniques help address these alternative explanations, they cannot be entirely ruled out with the current research design. Future research with longitudinal designs could more definitively establish causal relationships between power mechanisms and transformation outcomes.

5.3. Practical Implications

The findings have several practical implications for organizations seeking to enhance sustainability impact through more effective management of inter-organizational power dynamics.

First, organizations should strategically leverage digital transparency tools as mechanisms for addressing power relationships, with particular attention to collaborative design processes, bidirectional transparency, and shared value creation. The association between digital transparency mechanisms and integration across boundaries (β = 0.41, p < 0.01, f² = 0.28) suggests that these tools may enhance sustainability collaboration when implemented effectively. This implication extends Saberi et al.’s (2019) work [19] on blockchain in sustainable supply chains by identifying specific design principles that determine whether digital tools challenge or reinforce power asymmetries.

Second, organizations should establish formal collaborative governance structures that institutionalize more balanced power relationships, particularly when addressing complex sustainability challenges that require diverse perspectives and capabilities. The association between collaborative governance structures and integration (β = 0.34, p < 0.01, f² = 0.19) suggests the potential value of these formal structures for enabling more effective sustainability collaboration. This recommendation aligns with Gray and Purdy’s (2018) emphasis on governance design in cross-sector partnerships but adds specific attention to power dynamics in governance design [31].

Third, organizations should invest in capability building networks that develop sustainability expertise throughout supply chains and partnerships rather than concentrating capabilities within focal organizations. The association between capability building networks and integration (β = 0.38, p < 0.01, f² = 0.23) suggests that these networks may enhance sustainability collaboration by creating conditions where power becomes more distributed. This recommendation extends Clarke and Roome’s (1999) concept of learning-action networks by specifically connecting capability development to power dynamics [24].

Fourth, organizations should tailor their approaches to specific contextual conditions, including regulatory environments, market positioning, and cultural contexts. The significant variations observed in both quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight the importance of context-sensitive strategies rather than universal best practices.

Based on these findings, a staged approach is proposed for organizations seeking to address power dynamics across organizational boundaries:

• Assessment stage: Analyze existing power dynamics and contextual factors to identify appropriate intervention points.
• Foundation stage: Implement digital transparency initiatives with collaborative design to create shared understanding.
• Governance stage: Establish formal collaborative governance structures with representation of diverse stakeholders.
• Capability stage: Develop shared capability building networks that distribute expertise more equitably.
• System stage: Scale successful approaches to influence broader system dynamics beyond immediate relationships.

This staged approach acknowledges that addressing power dynamics is an evolutionary process that requires strategic interventions across multiple dimensions rather than isolated initiatives.

However, it is important to recognize the limitations of this staged approach in light of the critical perspectives on power discussed earlier. As Monod (2023) [15] and Lissillour (2021) [8] highlight, power dynamics are deeply embedded in broader social, economic, and institutional structures. This suggests that organizational-level interventions, while important, may have inherent limitations in their ability to transform power relationships without corresponding changes in these broader structures.

Organizations implementing this staged approach should therefore be mindful of these systemic constraints and recognize that truly transformative change may require engagement with broader policy, regulatory, and institutional environments. The approach should be viewed as one component of a more comprehensive strategy that includes advocacy for systemic changes that enable more equitable power distributions.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

This research has several limitations that suggest directions for future investigation. First, while the mixed-methods design enhances validity through methodological triangulation, the cross-sectional nature of the survey data limits causal inference. Future research using longitudinal designs could more definitively establish causal relationships between power mechanisms and transformation outcomes.

Second, the sample, while diverse, includes a higher proportion of organizations from developed economies and may not fully capture dynamics in emerging economy contexts. Future research should specifically examine how power operates in sustainability initiatives in Global South settings where power asymmetries may be more pronounced and may operate through different mechanisms given distinct institutional, economic, and cultural contexts.

Third, the research focuses primarily on formal inter-organizational relationships (supply chains and partnerships) with limited attention to broader system dynamics involving civil society, government, and community stakeholders. Future research should adopt a broader systems perspective to examine how power operates across these diverse relationships.

Fourth, the sample size (n = 127) is relatively small for the complexity of our structural equation model, potentially affecting the stability of parameter estimates, particularly for more complex relationships like moderation effects. This limitation means our findings should be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory. Future research should employ larger samples to provide more robust tests of these relationships.

Fifth, while the research identifies mechanisms through which organizations attempt to address power dynamics, it provides limited insight into the effectiveness of these mechanisms in challenging deeper structural power inequalities. The critical perspectives from Lissillour [8] and Monod [15] suggest that organizational interventions may have limited effects without broader systemic change. Future research should examine the interaction between organizational approaches and systemic power structures to develop more comprehensive understanding of how substantive power transformation occurs.

Four promising directions for future research emerge from this study:

• Longitudinal studies of how inter-organizational power dynamics evolve over time through sustainability initiatives, identifying critical junctures and intervention points. Future research should test the proposition that power relationships in sustainability contexts follow an evolutionary pathway from compliance-based to collaborative approaches through specific transitional mechanisms.
• Comparative studies of digital transparency initiatives across diverse contexts to develop more nuanced understanding of how technological design choices affect power outcomes. Future research should examine how specific design features influence power distribution in digital sustainability platforms.
• Multi-level analyses connecting organizational, inter-organizational, and system-level power dynamics to develop more comprehensive models of power in sustainability transformations. This research should test the proposition that successful system-level sustainability transitions require coherent power reconfiguration across multiple levels rather than isolated changes at specific levels.
• Action research approaches that actively engage with organizations in designing, implementing, and evaluating power-conscious approaches to sustainability transformation. This engaged research approach would provide deeper insights into the practical challenges of addressing power dynamics while simultaneously contributing to meaningful change.

By pursuing these research directions, scholars can build on the foundation established in this study to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how power shapes sustainability transformations and how organizations might leverage power more effectively to enable substantive change.

6. Conclusions

This exploratory research demonstrates that addressing the gap between sustainability aspirations and substantive action requires not only developing internal organizational capabilities but also strategically engaging with power dynamics across organizational boundaries. By investigating how organizations navigate and attempt to transform power relationships in supply chains and partnerships, this study advances understanding of how organizations can address systemic sustainability challenges that transcend organizational boundaries.

The findings reveal three critical mechanisms through which organizations address inter-organizational power dynamics: (1) technological transparency mechanisms that democratize information access, (2) collaborative governance structures that institutionalize more balanced relationships, and (3) capability building networks that distribute expertise more equitably. These mechanisms function most effectively when tailored to specific contextual conditions, including regulatory environments, market positioning, and cultural contexts.

The research makes significant theoretical contributions to sustainability science by advancing understanding of power as a dynamic that can be strategically addressed rather than merely a constraint to be navigated, demonstrating how digital technologies can function as power equalizers under specific conditions, and revealing the pathways through which organizations shift from hierarchical to collaborative approaches in sustainability contexts.

At the same time, the research recognizes the limitations of organizational-level interventions in addressing power dynamics that are embedded in broader social, economic, and institutional structures. While the mechanisms identified can help organizations navigate and potentially transform immediate power relationships, more fundamental transformation may require systemic changes beyond the organizational level.

As organizations continue to grapple with complex sustainability challenges that require coordinated action across organizational boundaries, this research offers preliminary guidance for developing more effective approaches to inter-organizational collaboration. By moving beyond traditional hierarchical relationships toward more collaborative dynamics, organizations can enhance their collective capacity to address pressing sustainability challenges and contribute more meaningfully to sustainable development, while recognizing the broader systemic changes needed for more fundamental power transformation.