Strategic Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) as a Catalyst for Sustainable Governance: Integrating Equity, Climate Resilience, and Renewable Energy in the IMSD Framework

Abstract

This paper introduces the Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD), a theory-driven governance framework that embeds Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) into climate and energy policy to advance systemic equity, institutional resilience, and inclusive innovation. Grounded in Institutional Theory, the Resource-Based View (RBV), and Intersectionality Theory, IMSD unifies fragmented sustainability efforts across five pillars: Climate Sustainability, Social Sustainability (CDR), Governance Integration, Collaborative Partnerships, and Implementation and Monitoring. Aligned with SDGs 7, 10, and 13, IMSD operationalizes inclusive leadership, anticipatory adaptation, and equity-centered decision-making. It addresses the compounded climate vulnerabilities faced by women and marginalized groups in the Global South, integrating insights from Indigenous resilience and intersectional adaptation strategies. Unlike conventional CSR or ESG models, IMSD institutionalizes diversity as a strategic asset and governance principle. It transforms DEIB from symbolic compliance into a catalyst for ethical leadership, legitimacy, and performance in turbulent environments. The model’s modular structure supports cross-sector scalability, making it a practical tool for organizations seeking to align ESG mandates with climate justice and inclusive innovation. Future empirical validation of the IMSD framework across diverse governance settings will further strengthen its applicability and global relevance. IMSD represents a paradigm shift in sustainability governance—bridging climate action and social equity through theory-based leadership and systemic institutional transformation.

1. Introduction

Integrating Sustainability, Equity, and Leadership in Organizational Strategy

Recent research increasingly recognizes the pivotal role of leadership in advancing sustainability within organizations. Scholars such as Zacher et al. (2024), Boeske (2023), Sajjad et al. (2024), and Sbîrcea (2023) have contributed integrative leadership models emphasizing systems thinking, equity, and strategic foresight. These frameworks highlight that sustainability leadership is no longer a peripheral concern but must be embedded within core institutional functions to guide decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive governance (Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022; Liao, 2022).

Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR), first conceptualized and introduced by Fagerland in 2015 (Fagerland & Rambøl, 2015), is defined here as the institutionalization of diversity and inclusion beyond mere compliance mechanisms. Instead, it embeds these as governance capacities that enhance innovation, legitimacy, and systemic resilience (Fagerland, 2019; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018). This transformative governance model has since gained international recognition, documented through peer-reviewed studies and applied frameworks (Vaccaro et al., 2019), and serves as a foundational pillar for social sustainability within the Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

The escalating complexity of global sustainability challenges—from climate volatility and biodiversity loss to social fragmentation and systemic inequality—demands a unifying, cross-cutting governance model capable of integrating climate resilience, equity, and institutional innovation (Brousseau et al., 2024; Reyes-García et al., 2024). Traditional approaches such as CSR, ESG reporting, or DEIB programs are often siloed, limiting their transformative potential (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023).

This article introduces the IMSD—a comprehensive governance meta-framework designed to consolidate previously fragmented approaches into a coherent structure. The IMSD model addresses fragmentation in sustainability governance by integrating critical but often siloed concepts such as equity, resilience, and innovation into a unified governance architecture (Eitrem et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023). Unlike prior approaches focusing on CSR, ESG, DEIB, or SDG alignment individually, IMSD unites these elements under five interrelated pillars: (1) Climate Sustainability, (2) Social Sustainability and CDR, (3) Governance and Policy Integration, (4) Collaborative Partnerships, and (5) Implementation and Monitoring.

To reduce conceptual overload and enhance analytical clarity, IMSD is grounded in three core theoretical perspectives—Institutional Theory, the Resource-Based View (RBV) with Dynamic Capabilities, and Intersectionality Theory—that explicitly map to each pillar (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Barney, 1991; Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022). Embedded dimensions such as climate justice, resilience, adaptation, and dynamic capabilities are integral to IMSD’s interpretive and operational reach (Teece, 2007; Romero-Lankao et al., 2023).

Leadership is conceptualized as an integrative and enabling core rather than an isolated construct. The Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM) is embedded as a mechanism for strategic foresight, ethical governance, and institutional adaptability (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b). Similarly, CDR is incorporated as both a normative principle and a performance enabler of social sustainability (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

IMSD operationalizes global sustainability commitments by aligning with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (notably SDGs 7, 10, and 13), while addressing critical equity gaps exacerbated by climate change and social exclusion (UNFCCC, 2021; UN Women, 2023a). By embedding governance innovation across all five pillars, IMSD offers a pragmatic tool for facilitating systemic transformation in both public and private sectors (Leonidou et al., 2024; Krishnan & Robele, 2024).

The IMSD framework is built on a triadic and interdependent foundation where Institutional Theory, RBV with Dynamic Capabilities, and Intersectionality Theory interact simultaneously to inform institutional resilience, inclusive governance, and strategic sustainability. This multidimensional architecture is designed to be modular and adaptable, allowing organizations to incrementally engage with select pillars or principles based on institutional capacity, sectoral needs, and regulatory contexts. Such a phased approach supports practical uptake without requiring wholesale transformation at the outset.

The Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM) represents the strategic-operational core, emphasizing adaptive capacity, competence development, and digital imagination. Employeeship functions as the cultural enabler by fostering trust, shared responsibility, and participatory structures within institutions. Sustainable Leadership ensures ethical and normative alignment, grounding decision-making in justice, equity, and long-term responsibility. Together, these leadership dimensions converge to form what we define as Integrative Resilient Leadership—an essential condition for transformational sustainability governance (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a; Hutchins & Storm, 2019). Figure 1 shows the Structural overview of the Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD).

Rather than viewing these frameworks as discrete stages, IMSD integrates them into a holistic system of mutually reinforcing capabilities. This integrative model supports just transitions, equity-sensitive institutional reform, and resilient governance across sectors (Kinol et al., 2023; Swanson, 2023).

Each of the five IMSD pillars is anchored in and operationalized through this integrated leadership core:

• Institutional Theory ensures alignment with evolving legitimacy norms, regulatory demands, and stakeholder expectations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018).
• Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capabilities provide a lens for leveraging diversity and inclusive leadership as strategic assets in turbulent environments (Barney, 1991; Teece, 2007).
• Intersectionality Theory embeds an understanding of structural inequalities and compound vulnerabilities, ensuring inclusive adaptation and social justice (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

This theoretical triangulation supports IMSD’s five interdependent governance pillars: Climate Sustainability, Social Sustainability (including CDR), Governance Integration, Collaborative Partnerships, and Implementation and Monitoring (Brousseau et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023).

As detailed in

Table 1. Core components of the Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD).

Component	Conceptual Focus	Key Contributions to Sustainability Governance	Selected References
Climate Sustainability	Renewable energy, climate justice, and resilience planning	Promotes equitable energy access, decentralized systems, and anticipatory adaptation strategies	IPCC (2014a, 2014b); Zhang (2023); Romero-Lankao et al. (2023); Hosan et al. (2024)
Social Sustainability	Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR), systemic equity, and intersectionality	Institutionalizes equity in leadership, strategy, and governance; reinforces inclusive legitimacy	Fagerland (2019); Fagerland and Drejer (2018); A. T. Amorim-Maia et al. (2022); Crenshaw (1989); Vaccaro et al. (2019)
Governance and Policy Integration	ESG integration, policy coherence, and legitimacy-based governance	Aligns corporate and public governance with SDGs, CSRD, and evolving ESG standards	DiMaggio and Powell (1983); Eitrem et al. (2024); Dragomir and Dumitru (2023); Leonidou et al. (2024)
Collaborative Partnerships	Cross-sector alliances, inclusive innovation, and knowledge networks	Facilitates multi-actor cooperation and platform thinking for scalable impact	Brousseau et al. (2024); Friske et al. (2023); Kinol et al. (2023); Swanson (2023)
Implementation and Monitoring	Metrics, KPIs, continuous learning, and adaptive decision-making	Enables iterative governance cycles, accountability mechanisms, and organizational learning	Teece (2007); Galleli et al. (2023); Krishnan and Robele (2024); Eitrem et al. (2024)

Source: own elaboration.

, each IMSD pillar is underpinned by established academic frameworks and empirical studies that substantiate its conceptual focus and governance contributions.

By clearly linking each concept and theoretical reference to the IMSD structure, this model offers not only conceptual clarity but also operational coherence. The remainder of this paper explores the theoretical foundations of IMSD (Section 2), its methodological underpinnings (Section 3), leadership and equity mechanisms (Section 4), and real-world applications across sectors (Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7), culminating in a synthesis of IMSD’s potential to transform contemporary sustainability governance.

2. Overview of the IMSD Framework

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) constitutes a comprehensive and interdisciplinary governance framework designed to assist organizations in aligning climate resilience strategies with systemic equity, inclusive leadership, and long-term sustainability transitions. Developed in response to the limitations of siloed sustainability models, IMSD embeds Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) at its structural core—recognizing diversity and inclusion not merely as ethical imperatives but as strategic assets for innovation, resilience, and legitimacy (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Fagerland, 2019).

Unlike traditional models that treat environmental and social dimensions separately, IMSD offers a modular, flexible, and scalable roadmap rooted in three foundational theoretical frameworks: Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece, 2007), and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989). These foundations enable organizations to engage in transformational change while remaining adaptive to complex, multi-level governance environments (Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Teece et al., 1997; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

In alignment with emerging literature on climate justice, IMSD addresses the disproportionate vulnerabilities experienced by marginalized populations—particularly Indigenous communities and women of color in the Global South—who are often excluded from policymaking and resilience planning (Reyes-García et al., 2024; Versey, 2021). By embedding equity as a central governance principle, IMSD promotes institutional responsibility in dismantling systemic inequities rather than reproducing them (F. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024).

2.1. Purpose and Intended Users

The IMSD framework is designed for a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including both public and private sector actors operating at multiple levels of governance. Primary intended users include the following:

• Corporate executives and board members aiming to align ESG strategies with inclusive governance and emerging regulatory expectations (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023);
• Policymakers and public sector leaders working to institutionalize equity in climate adaptation and sustainability policy (Krishnan & Robele, 2024);
• Civil society organizations and multilateral institutions advocating for justice-based and intersectional sustainability transitions (UN Women, 2023a; Swanson, 2023);
• Academic institutions and think tanks advancing research, innovation, and evaluation in sustainability governance (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

IMSD is particularly relevant to actors in transition-intensive sectors, such as renewable energy, infrastructure, and digital public services, where decarbonization, digitization, and equity must be addressed simultaneously. In these contexts, cross-sectoral collaboration and inclusive design become prerequisites for long-term resilience and legitimacy (Idries et al., 2022).

2.2. Practical Use and Application

IMSD serves not only as a conceptual model but as a strategic toolkit that enables organizations to embed equity and climate responsiveness into decision-making, leadership, and operational practices. Its applications include the following:

• Conducting equity audits and assessing institutional readiness for inclusive sustainability transitions (Sajjad et al., 2024);
• Designing leadership development programs grounded in dynamic capabilities and intersectional governance (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a; Boeske, 2023);
• Aligning ESG reporting and corporate disclosures with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 7 (Clean Energy), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequality), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) (UNFCCC, 2021; Leonidou et al., 2024);
• Integrating intersectionality into governance indicators, investment strategies, and performance management systems (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023).

The IMSD framework is adaptable to diverse organizational and regulatory contexts. It can be implemented as a full institutional transformation model or as a phased framework tailored to evolving capabilities, sectoral dynamics, or geopolitical conditions (Eitrem et al., 2024).

2.3. Structural Overview: The Five Pillars of IMSD

At the heart of the IMSD framework lie five interrelated pillars, each addressing a critical dimension of sustainable governance: climate resilience, social inclusion, policy alignment, institutional collaboration, and adaptive implementation. These pillars operate as mutually reinforcing structures that guide organizations through complexity toward systemic transformation (Radu et al., 2023; Sharma & Patel, 2023).

Table 2. IMSD framework matrix: strategic overview of the five pillars.

IMSD Pillar	Theoretical Foundation	Operational Focus	Practical Application
Climate Sustainability	Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024)	Renewable energy innovation and climate adaptation	Smart grid investment, decentralized energy infrastructure, equitable access policies (IPCC, 2014a, 2014b; Hosan et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023; Zhou et al., 2023)
Social Sustainability and CDR	Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022)	Systemic equity and inclusive governance	Integrating marginalized voices in climate adaptation and decision-making (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2019; Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Swanson, 2023)
Governance and Policy Integration	Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017)	ESG alignment, policy compliance, legitimacy	Regulatory compliance, stakeholder legitimacy, inclusive ESG reporting (Eitrem et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Leonidou et al., 2024; Zampone et al., 2023)
Collaborative Partnerships	Institutional and Network Theory (Greenwood et al., 2002)	Cross-sector alignment and co-production	Public–private partnerships and knowledge-sharing networks (Brousseau et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023; Kinol et al., 2023; Leonidou et al., 2024)
Implementation and Monitoring	Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM) (Teece, 2007; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b)	Learning, adaptive governance, resilience building	Application of DLM’s five capabilities: digital imagination, strategic foresight, soft skills, competence development, and learning culture (Galleli et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024; Idries et al., 2022; Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022)

Source: own elaboration.

presents the five interrelated pillars of the IMSD framework, each representing a distinct governance axis. Together, these pillars form the structural backbone of IMSD and operationalize inclusive and resilient sustainability strategies across diverse institutions and ecosystems.

2.4. Summar

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) advances a transformative shift in sustainability governance by combining theoretical coherence, empirical grounding, and practical applicability. It addresses the fragmentation of prior frameworks by unifying concepts such as equity, resilience, innovation, and intersectional justice within a cohesive, modular structure. Rather than treating climate action and social justice as competing priorities, IMSD operationalizes them as mutually reinforcing imperatives of regenerative governance (Boeske, 2023; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Sajjad et al., 2024; Brousseau et al., 2024).

Central to this framework is the IMSD CORE, visualized in Figure 2, which represents the integrative leadership foundation that underpins all five governance pillars. This core is composed of three interdependent dimensions: (1) the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), which provides strategic foresight, competence development, and digital imagination (Teece et al., 1997; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a; Demneh et al., 2023); (2) Employeeship, which fosters participatory culture, institutional trust, and shared accountability (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025b; Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023); and (3) Sustainable Leadership, which ensures ethical-normative grounding and system-wide responsibility (Sbîrcea, 2023; Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022; Liao, 2022). Together, these dimensions constitute what we define as Integrative Resilient Leadership—a necessary condition for governing complexity, uncertainty, and transformation in the Anthropocene (Zacher et al., 2024; Hutchins & Storm, 2019).

The IMSD CORE is encircled by a dynamic interface of institutional adaptation and foresight, forming a bridge between leadership practice and governance design. As Figure 2 illustrates, this architecture aligns with the framework’s triadic theoretical base: Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Eitrem et al., 2024), Resource-Based View with Dynamic Capabilities (Barney, 1991; Teece, 2007; Mailani et al., 2024), and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; F. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023). These theoretical foundations are not additive but deeply integrated—each contributing overlapping logics of legitimacy, adaptability, and justice to IMSD’s structure (Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Romero-Lankao et al., 2023).

In sum, the IMSD CORE operationalizes a vision of leadership that is not reactive but anticipatory; not hierarchical but participatory; not symbolic but structurally embedded. It provides the normative compass and institutional scaffolding necessary to navigate sustainability transitions across sectors and geographies. The following sections elaborate on each governance pillar in detail, illustrating how IMSD enables both strategic foresight and systemic accountability (Ali et al., 2024; Ghorbani et al., 2024; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

The IMSD CORE integrates the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), Employeeship, and Sustainable Leadership into a unified framework of Integrative Resilient Leadership. This triadic structure enables inclusive foresight, equity-grounded governance, and strategic adaptation across the five interdependent IMSD pillar.

3. Theoretical Foundations of the IMSD

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) is grounded in a robust theoretical triad—Institutional Theory, the Resource-Based View (RBV), and Intersectionality Theory—each of which underpins the model’s five interdependent pillars: Climate Sustainability; Social Sustainability and Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR); Governance and Policy Integration; Collaborative Partnerships; and Implementation and Monitoring. This theoretical foundation transforms IMSD from a conceptual model into a practically deployable, interdisciplinary governance framework (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Barney, 1991; Crenshaw, 1989).

This article does not constitute a systematic or scoping review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Rather, it presents an original theory-building contribution through the development of the IMSD framework, drawing on an interdisciplinary synthesis of established theoretical frameworks—Institutional Theory, RBV, Intersectionality Theory, and Dynamic Leadership—combined with illustrative empirical insights. The purpose is to construct a novel conceptual governance model for sustainability and equity, not to evaluate existing literature through a systematic review process. Consequently, formal eligibility criteria, study selection protocols, or structured data extraction procedures were not applied, and PRISMA compliance is not relevant here.

The IMSD model addresses the fragmentation in sustainability governance by consolidating critical but often siloed concepts—such as equity, resilience, and innovation—into an integrated governance framework. Whereas prior approaches typically present sustainability through lenses such as CSR, ESG, DEIB, or SDG alignment, IMSD unifies these under a cohesive architecture. Instead of layering disconnected models, IMSD explicitly maps foundational theories to each of its structural pillars (Table 2), embedding concepts like climate justice, resilience, adaptation, and dynamic capabilities as interwoven dimensions that enhance both interpretive and operational capacity (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

This conceptual consolidation extends to leadership: the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM) is integrated into IMSD as a mechanism for strategic foresight, ethical governance, and institutional adaptability (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a; Hutchins & Storm, 2019). Similarly, Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) is embedded not as an external add-on but as a normative principle and performance enabler within the social sustainability pillar (Fagerland, 2019; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025). Streamlining theoretical alignment reduces redundancy and enhances interpretability, policy relevance, and usability across sectors, while preserving interdisciplinary depth and directly advancing IMSD’s core objectives: equity, resilience, and sustainable transformation (Boeske, 2023; Sajjad et al., 2024).

Methodologically, IMSD offers a rigorous analytical structure by linking theory to practice through its pillars. Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017) highlights how regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive pressures influence organizational behavior, particularly in sustainability adoption and ESG integration (Friske et al., 2023; Ghorbani et al., 2024). The Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Teece, 2007) situates diversity and inclusive leadership as VRIN (valuable, rare, inimitable, non-substitutable) resources, essential for securing competitive advantage during sustainability transitions (McKinsey & Company, 2020b; Mailani et al., 2024). Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022) provides the analytical lens to recognize and remediate compounded vulnerabilities faced by marginalized communities in climate adaptation and governance processes (Versey, 2021; Reyes-García et al., 2024).

Beyond these theoretical anchors, IMSD incorporates dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007) as operational tools vital for digital transformation and renewable energy transitions. Capabilities such as sensing, seizing, and transforming are critical for enhancing resilience and institutional adaptability within volatile governance environments (Idries et al., 2022). Consequently, IMSD functions not only as a governance framework but as a meta-framework facilitating organizational adoption, scaling, and evaluation of sustainability strategies over time (Demneh et al., 2023).

IMSD draws on the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), which synthesizes insights from Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece et al., 1997), Institutional Entrepreneurship (Greenwood et al., 2002), and Regenerative Leadership (Hutchins & Storm, 2019). Longitudinal empirical research conducted between 2020 and 2025 with 72 Norwegian leaders identified five critical dynamic leadership capabilities underpinning institutional resilience and adaptive governance (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b):

• Digital imagination;
• Strategic imagination;
• Soft skills;
• Competence development;
• Learning culture.

These empirically validated capabilities are essential tools enabling leaders to embed IMSD principles effectively in practice, especially in sectors undergoing AI-driven transformation and sustainability transitions (Sajjad et al., 2024; Boeske, 2023).

3.1. In the Context of IMSD

• Leadership operationalizes Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) by embedding it into institutional routines and strategic agendas (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025);
• It activates adaptive governance through mobilizing foresight, equity literacy, and inclusive decision-making (Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023);
• It facilitates cross-pillar integration, ensuring climate action, equity, and innovation mutually reinforce each other rather than remaining siloed (McKinsey & Company, 2020a, 2020b).

Empirical organizational studies and ESG implementation evidence confirm that inclusive leadership teams more effectively navigate complexity, engage stakeholders, and foster cross-disciplinary innovation (McKinsey & Company, 2020a, 2020b; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025). Strategic leadership is fundamental to operationalizing Intersectionality Theory within governance, ensuring decision-making processes reflect diverse lived experiences and multiple perspectives (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Kinol et al., 2023).

Absent an explicit leadership paradigm, sustainability frameworks risk technocratic stagnation and structural inertia. IMSD’s integration of leadership grounded in DLM ensures governance evolves as a reflexive, morally accountable, and systemically adaptive practice (Sbîrcea, 2023; Hutchins & Storm, 2019).

Designed for scalability and modular deployment, IMSD links each theoretical foundation with its respective pillar, operational focus, and practical governance implications (

Table 3. Theoretical foundations and operational mapping of the IMSD framework.

IMSD Pillar	Theoretical Foundation	Operational Focus	Practical Application
Climate Sustainability	Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024)	Renewable energy innovation and climate adaptation	Smart grid investment, decentralized energy infrastructure, equitable access policies (IPCC, 2014a, 2014b; Hosan et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023; Zhou et al., 2023)
Social Sustainability and CDR	Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022)	Systemic equity and inclusive governance	Integrating marginalized voices in climate adaptation and decision-making (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2019; Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Swanson, 2023)
Governance and Policy Integration	Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017)	ESG alignment, policy compliance, legitimacy	Regulatory compliance, stakeholder legitimacy, inclusive ESG reporting (Eitrem et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Leonidou et al., 2024; Zampone et al., 2023)
Collaborative Partnerships	Institutional and Network Theory (Greenwood et al., 2002)	Cross-sector alignment and co-production	Public–private partnerships and knowledge-sharing networks (Brousseau et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023; Kinol et al., 2023; Leonidou et al., 2024)
Implementation and Monitoring	Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM) (Teece, 2007; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b)	Learning, adaptive governance, resilience building	Application of DLM’s five capabilities: digital imagination, strategic foresight, soft skills, competence development, and learning culture (Galleli et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024; Idries et al., 2022; Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022)

Source: adapted from Own elaboration. (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b).

). This theoretically grounded and operationally clear structure transforms IMSD from a purely aspirational framework into a practical governance tool adaptable across public, private, and civil society sectors, particularly well-suited for addressing challenges in climate governance, equitable energy transitions, and sustainable innovation (Andersen & Silvast, 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024).

In sum, IMSD’s theoretical foundations ensure the framework is normatively compelling, methodologically rigorous, and practically implementable. Its triadic theoretical structure provides analytical depth, while its integration of leadership and organizational change models (CDR and DLM) guarantees its contemporary relevance for sustainability governance (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b).

3.2. Clarifying Key Concepts: Resilience, Adaptation, and Justice

To operate sustainability within complex governance systems, IMSD incorporates three interrelated constructions:

• Climate resilience is defined as the capacity of socio-ecological systems to absorb shocks and maintain essential functions under climate-related stressors (IPCC, 2014a; Mikulewicz et al., 2023). Within IMSD, resilience is anticipatory, transformative, and equity-informed, emphasizing both technical innovation and institutional mechanisms.
• Resilience strategies must address social and ecological dimensions, incorporating nature-human interactions and traditional ecological knowledge Attributes such as population abundance, learning capacity, responsive governance, ecosystem connectivity, and place attachment are key to resilience pathways. Two primary pathways involve strengthening rural community and ecosystem resilience or enhancing economic assets and governance in urban settings Embedding adaptation strategies into development planning is critical for bolstering overall system resilience (Hosan et al., 2024).
• Climate adaptation encompasses anticipatory and reactive strategies for risk and uncertainty management. IMSD embeds adaptation into strategic foresight, leadership development, and systems design, with particular attention to uneven exposure and differentiated adaptive capacities among marginalized communities (UNFCCC, 2021; Gutterman, 2022; Reyes-García et al., 2024).
• Climate justice emphasizes procedural and distributive equity in climate action (Bullard, 2005; Sultana, 2021), ensuring adaptation and resilience strategies are inclusive and effective (Recent scholarship underscores the need to focus on procedural justice alongside recognitional and distributional justice in climate adaptation (Brousseau et al., 2024). Participatory urban governance approaches should prioritize vulnerable populations (Swanson, 2023). Higher education institutions can promote climate justice by embedding it into teaching, research, and community engagement agendas (Kinol et al., 2023). Analysis of US city adaptation plans reveals equity influences policy through recognition-driven pathways.

Together, these concepts provide the normative foundation for IMSD’s theoretical integration.

3.3. Institutional Theory: Legitimacy, Isomorphism, and Governance Alignment

Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) offers a framework to understand how regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive pressures shape organizational behavior. Within IMSD, it elucidates how Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) evolves from an innovation into an institutionalized norm aligned with ESG frameworks (Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Eitrem et al., 2024).

Institutional isomorphism, especially coercive pressures, drives convergence toward standardized climate reporting practices (Zhang, 2023). Mimetic and normative pressures influence organizational practices as observed in sectors such as electric utilities Recent research highlights the role of these forces in shaping adaptation strategies and sustainability standards Institutional Network Analysis further identifies policy gaps and cross-sector governance dependencies essential for adaptive governance.

Moreover, organizations function as institutional entrepreneurs (Greenwood et al., 2002), proactively shaping governance norms and driving sustainability leadership.

3.4. Resource-Based View (RBV): Diversity as a Strategic Intangible Asset

RBV (Barney, 1991) contends that sustainable competitive advantage arises from the deployment of resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN). IMSD conceptualizes diversity, especially inclusive leadership, as such a VRIN resource (Leonidou et al., 2024; Mailani et al., 2024).

RBV’s support for IMSD includes:

• Defining CDR as a mechanism for capturing intangible value through inclusive leadership.
• Demonstrating strong correlations between gender-diverse leadership and ESG performance outcomes (McKinsey & Company, 2020a);
• Enabling strategic agility in rapidly transitioning sectors like renewable energy (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024).
• This aligns with growing scholarship recognizing intangible assets as central to innovation capacity and long-term value creation (Mailani et al., 2024).

3.5. Intersectionality Theory: Operationalizing Inclusive Climate Governance

Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989) explores how overlapping social identities (race, gender, class) generate compounded vulnerabilities. IMSD applies this theory to design governance systems that dismantle structural inequalities within sustainability planning (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

Key applications include:

• Promoting governance processes that amplify marginalized voices through participatory and equity-focused models
• Identifying how intersecting social positions affect access to resilience strategies (Roy et al., 2022);
• Embedding equity and justice within ESG metrics and corporate disclosure practices (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

This framework anchors IMSD’s social sustainability pillar and CDR in justice-based logic, ensuring inclusion is both systemic and accountable (Sultana, 2022).

3.6. IMSD as a Multidimensional Governance Model

By integrating Institutional Theory, RBV, and Intersectionality Theory, IMSD attains normative depth and practical versatility. These combined theories underpin governance architectures capable of addressing climate risk, embedding equity, and fostering innovation amid volatility (Zampone et al., 2023; Romero-Lankao et al., 2023).

Within IMSD, each theory supports key governance pillars: Institutional Theory underpins legitimacy and governance adaptation; RBV situates diversity as a strategic asset driving innovation and ESG performance; Intersectionality Theory centers justice and inclusive participation (

Table 4. Summary of the theoretical integration.

Theory	Core Focus	Application in IMSD
Institutional Theory	Legitimacy, governance adaptation	Embeds Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) as a normative standard within organizations, aligning Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices with evolving stakeholder expectations and regulatory frameworks, following principles of institutional isomorphism and legitimacy pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Eitrem et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023).
Resource-Based View	Strategic resources and competitive edge	Posits diversity as a valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resource that enhances organizational innovation, agility, and ESG performance, thereby supporting sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024).
Intersectionality Theory	Equity and inclusive design	Centers justice and inclusion in governance by integrating intersectional perspectives to ensure participatory adaptation processes and accountable inclusion of marginalized groups in sustainability initiatives (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023).

Source: Own elaboration.

).

Through this integration, IMSD emerges as a multidimensional governance model that not only addresses ESG challenges but redefines institutional resilience through the lenses of equity, legitimacy, and innovation (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b). For further theoretical elaboration, extended case insights, implementation tools, and supporting integrative tables, including detailed framing of CDR, institutional theory, and cross-sectoral applications—see Appendix A.

4. A New Paradigm for Leadership in Sustainable Development

Recent interdisciplinary research increasingly underscores the urgent need for a redefined leadership paradigm—one that integrates sustainability as a normative and strategic core of organizational design and long-term performance (Liao, 2022; Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022; Sajjad et al., 2024). Sustainable leadership is not a discrete role or function, but a systemic condition embedded within leadership behavior, decision-making, and institutional culture. Defined as leadership that integrates economic viability, environmental responsibility, and social justice, sustainable leadership responds to the growing complexity and interdependence of global sustainability challenges (Sbîrcea, 2023; Boeske, 2023).

This leadership model promotes a holistic, future-oriented mindset that emphasizes ethical relationality, systemic thinking, and multi-stakeholder accountability. Key attributes include foresight capacity, care ethics, relational intelligence, and the ethical acknowledgment of global and intergenerational responsibilities (Sbîrcea, 2023; Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023; Zacher et al., 2024). Moreover, inclusive leadership practices are empirically linked to increased creativity, legitimacy, and system adaptability—factors essential in turbulent, uncertain, and transition-intensive environments (McKinsey & Company, 2020a; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

The IMSD model draws on the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), which integrates insights from Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece et al., 1997), Institutional Entrepreneurship (Greenwood et al., 2002), and Regenerative Leadership (Hutchins & Storm, 2019). This model defines leadership as a dynamic ability to sense, shape, and sustain transformation across rapidly shifting contexts. For conceptual clarity, it is important to emphasize that the DLM’s focus on digital imagination and adaptive capacity refers not to digitization in the narrow sense of converting analog information into digital formats but to digitalization as a broader institutional and socio-technical transformation (Henriette et al., 2015; Reis et al., 2018). In this context, digitalization encompasses the strategic integration of digital technologies into leadership, governance, and sustainability enabling organizations to anticipate disruption, mobilize inclusive foresight, and co-create adaptive, equitable futures (Demneh et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024).

Rather than viewing leaders as static decision-makers, DLM positions them as ecosystem stewards who align strategy, culture, and stakeholder legitimacy toward sustainability outcomes (Grove et al., 2023; Hutchins & Storm, 2019).

In the context of IMSD:

The next section explores how this leadership paradigm is operationalized in institutional settings, drawing on case-based evidence and implementation strategies (Figure 3).

4.1. Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) as an Institutional Pillar of IMSD

As detailed further in Appendix A.1, Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) has emerged as a strategic governance innovation with global institutional uptake and conceptual relevance. The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) places Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) at the core of sustainability-oriented institutional governance. Originally introduced in 2015 by Fagerland in the SHEconomy^® framework (Fagerland & Rambøl, 2015), CDR emerged as a conceptual and strategic advancement beyond traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Over the past decade, it has evolved into a research-validated governance model with international relevance and demonstrable impact across sectors (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Fagerland, 2019; Fagerland, 2019).

CDR is distinguished by its ability to institutionalize diversity as a structural principle in decision-making, strategy, and innovation. It was first articulated as a transformative leadership and equity tool in Fagerland’s foundational works and later expanded through academic literature, pedagogical integration in higher education (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2024), and empirical studies including the CORDA Survey on organizational resilience and total defense strategies (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

In addition to its academic foundation, CDR has been formally integrated into leadership curricula at Norwegian business schools and universities of applied sciences, anchoring it as part of institutional leadership development. Globally, CDR is represented in over 90 countries through its inclusion in the international IPSOS platform (Ipsos, 2019), reinforcing its reach, relevance, and resonance across cultures and industries.

Beyond scholarly contributions, CDR has been promoted globally through keynote presentations for UN Women (2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d) and the Nordic Council of Ministers, and strategically advanced through the SHEconomy^® initiative. This global platform—founded by Fagerland—has engaged a diverse coalition of stakeholders including the Chief of Defense, General Consul to Norway, Nordic Ambassadors, and global corporate leaders from Google, Google X, Microsoft, META, Accenture, and the Norwegian Armed Forces. Moreover, CDR is supported by leading financial and insurance institutions, including Storebrand and The Norwegian Union of Financial and Insurance Employees, among the largest players in Norway’s banking and insurance sector, and is actively implemented by Digital Norway as part of national innovation and sustainability strategies. CDR also constitutes a core conceptual foundation in major Nordic research programs on equitable transformation and institutional resilience (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

These partnerships have translated CDR from theory into practice, validating its application in fields as diverse as AI ethics, ESG strategy, inclusive innovation, digital governance, and civil-military resilience. Collectively, they affirm CDR as a globally scalable, diplomatically anchored, and operationally effective model for governing diversity with impact.

Informed by Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) within IMSD reflects how normative and regulatory pressures are driving a paradigmatic shift in corporate governance—from symbolic compliance with DEIB goals to the structural integration of diversity in strategic decision-making. CDR operationalizes the institutional embedding of diversity as a strategic asset, advancing legitimacy, innovation, and stakeholder trust in the sustainability era (Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Eitrem et al., 2024).

Recent research emphasizes the growing importance of diversity and sustainability in corporate governance. Board diversity, both demographic and structural, positively influences eco-innovation and helps mitigate political risks (Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies mediate the relationship between institutional pressures and triple bottom line performance, with digitalization capabilities enhancing this effect (Imitation and competitive pressures drive Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) reporting across industries and countries, although these interactions can sometimes negatively impact reporting quality (Zampone et al., 2023). In Australia, while gender diversity in corporate leadership has improved, ethnic diversity remains stagnant, highlighting the gap between public commitments and actual practices (Wright et al., 2023). These studies underscore the critical role of institutional pressures in shaping corporate sustainability practices and demonstrate the need for balanced and effective diversity initiatives (Friske et al., 2023).

4.2. Institutional Theory and CDR Integration

Corporate diversity responsibility (CDR) within the IMSD model transcends traditional CSR paradigms by positioning diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) as core components of governance architecture. Institutional Theory provides an analytical lens to understand how organizations adopt and institutionalize practices like CDR to maintain normative legitimacy and meet stakeholder expectations (Eitrem et al., 2024). CDR thereby functions as both a response to institutional pressures and a proactive mechanism for embedding justice, equity, and adaptive capacity into governance systems. Recent international reporting underscores that female leadership is no longer just a diversity issue, but a survival necessity in navigating contemporary governance challenges (The Korea Times, 2023b), reinforcing the IMSD framework’s strategic emphasis on diversity-integrated resilience.

4.3. CDR as a Strategic Imperative in Corporate Governance

Empirical research increasingly confirms that CDR enhances organizational performance across multiple domains. Within the IMSD framework, CDR enables the following:

• Innovation: through cognitive diversity and inclusive leadership, CDR catalyzes novel problem-solving and low-carbon innovation (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024);
• Resilience: diverse leadership enhances agility and adaptive governance in volatile and uncertain contexts (Leonidou et al., 2024);
• Legitimacy: representation in leadership strengthens social license to operate and investor confidence.

Partnerships with globally recognized technology firms such as Google, Microsoft, META, and Accenture have demonstrated CDR’s applicability in AI ethics, product innovation, and ESG-aligned workforce transformation. Similarly, collaboration with national defense institutions underscores its value in crisis governance, civil preparedness, and hybrid threat management (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

4.4. The Role of CDR in Sustainable Business Strategy

CDR is integrally linked to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies and global sustainability frameworks, as demonstrated in applied contexts:

• Renewable Energy: Diverse teams enhance decision-making and innovation in renewable energy transitions, driving sustainability and equity (Olutimehin et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023); Strategies such as workforce diversity and inclusive engagement support comprehensive green energy solutions (Ghorbani et al., 2024).
• Supply Chains: CDR fosters transparency, anti-discrimination, and ethical procurement (Leonidou et al., 2024);
• Compliance and Reporting: CDR supports proactive adaptation to evolving regulatory landscapes, including EU taxonomy and corporate sustainability disclosure standards (McKinsey & Company, 2020b; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023).

Through these mechanisms, IMSD conceptualizes CDR not as a separate initiative but as a structural principle for long-term competitiveness and institutional legitimacy.

4.5. Intersectionality and Institutional Adaptation in CDR Governance

Building on Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989), IMSD ensures that CDR addresses compound vulnerabilities across gender, race, class, and geographic exposure to climate risks (Mikulewicz et al., 2023). In this way, CDR promotes the following:

• Equity-sensitive policy design;
• Institutional responsiveness in climate-vulnerable regions;
• Inclusive governance for marginalized stakeholders in transition processes

The dual application of Institutional and Intersectionality Theory fortifies CDR as both a compliance instrument and a normative force for structural transformation (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024).

4.6. CDR as a Cornerstone of Future Institutional Governance

As equity-centered norms proliferate across ESG frameworks, Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) is becoming institutionalized as a transformative governance standard. The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) prepares organizations to:

• Align diversity initiatives with innovation ecosystems and risk management practices;
• Strengthen organizational legitimacy through inclusive leadership and ethical reporting;
• Build institutional capacities for long-term resilience and stakeholder alignment (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

CDR, originally conceptualized and introduced by Fagerland in 2015 (Fagerland & Rambøl, 2015), has evolved into a transformative governance model with international reach and institutional endorsement. Its development has been documented through several peer-reviewed studies and applied frameworks (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2019), including its integration into sustainability strategies across sectors such as technology, finance, education, and national defense. Fagerland’s contribution in the Ipsos MORI publication A Woman’s World (Fagerland, 2019) emphasized the strategic value of CDR in building equitable, innovative, and resilient organizations.

The CDR framework has been widely disseminated through high-level keynote presentations delivered by Fagerland, including for the Nordic Council of Ministers in Seoul, the opening keynote for UN Women Korea, a diplomatic briefing for Nordic Ambassadors, and strategic presentations at Google HQ and IPSOS—where the concept was introduced across 90 countries. These engagements have solidified CDR’s visibility and influence in shaping international governance discourses around inclusion and sustainability.

Nationally, CDR has been recognized as a critical dimension of societal resilience. The Norwegian Armed Forces, under the leadership of Chief of Defence General Eirik Kristoffersen—who also serves as a board member of SHEconomy^®—have endorsed the CDR approach as part of their institutional mission. Kristoffersen publicly affirmed that “equality is part of the Armed Forces’ societal mission” (Kristoffersen, 2023), underscoring CDR’s relevance to both civic preparedness and total defense. The recent extension of CDR into crisis management and emergency governance further confirms its applicability in addressing complex, systemic challenges (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

In the field of higher education, CDR has been operationalized through leadership development programs, most notably in executive sustainability education—where it underpins sustainable, equity-centered approaches to public governance (Fagerland & Bergh, 2025). Moreover, CDR constitutes core curriculum in all executive-level sustainability programs at the University of South-Eastern Norway (USN), including Sustainable Leadership (BARLED), Strategic Sustainability (ESB100E), and Sustainable Solutions in the Financial Sector—a national program supported by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir) (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2024).

Collectively, these developments position Corporate Diversity Responsibility not merely as a tool for inclusive leadership, but as a foundational pillar in the global shift toward adaptive, ethical, and resilient governance systems. Fagerland’s visionary leadership and academic contributions have been central to this evolution, establishing CDR as an internationally recognized, research-based framework for transformative change.

4.7. Strategic Governance Contributions of CDR

Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR), as conceptualized within the IMSD framework, constitutes both a strategic capability and a transformative instrument of governance. It bridges ethical leadership and institutional performance by institutionalizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) as operational assets rather than rhetorical commitments. As shown in

Table 5. Strategic Governance Impact of Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR).

Strategic Impact Dimension	Description	Supporting References
Institutional Legitimacy	Positionalizes DEIB som en strukturell styringsimperativ som øker tillit og legitimitet på tvers av interessentgrupper, med vekt på rettferdighet i klima- og tilpasningsplaner (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024; UN Women, 2023a).	A. T. Amorim-Maia et al. (2022); Brousseau et al. (2024); UN Women (2023a)
ESG Integration	Integrerer DEIB i ESG-arkitektur og sikrer samsvar med CSRD, GRI og TCFD-standarder for systematisk bærekraftsledelse (Ali et al., 2024; Galleli et al., 2023b; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023).	Ali et al. (2024); Galleli et al. (2023b); Dragomir and Dumitru (2023)
Strategic Foresight	Fremmer anticipatorisk kapasitet gjennom interseksjonell analyse for langsiktig planlegging og risikohåndtering (Demneh et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024; Grove et al., 2023).	Demneh et al. (2023); Krishnan and Robele (2024); Grove et al. (2023)
Inclusive Innovation Ecosystems	Aktiverer inkluderende FoU, produktinnovasjon og styringsdesign gjennom mangfoldsledet kunnskapsintegrasjon (Hutchins & Storm, 2019; Vaccaro et al., 2019; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).	Hutchins and Storm (2019); Vaccaro et al. (2019); Fagerland and Behdani (2025)
Global Strategic Alignment	Justerer organisasjonsstrategi med FNs bærekraftsmål 5, 7, 10 og 13 via DEIB-forankrede styringsmodeller som fremmer sosial rettferdighet og klimahandling globalt (Leonidou et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023; Zampone et al., 2023).	Leonidou et al. (2024); Sharma and Patel (2023); Zampone et al. (2023)

Source: Own elaboration.

, this integration enables organizations to transition from compliance-oriented DEIB strategies to embedded, systemic governance structures—anchored in legitimacy, innovation, and long-term sustainability (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; Ali et al., 2024; Hutchins & Storm, 2019).

CDR enhances strategic foresight, fosters inclusive innovation ecosystems, and aligns institutional models with global goals such as SDGs 5, 7, 10, and 13 (Leonidou et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023; Zampone et al., 2023). It also reinforces anticipatory planning by leveraging intersectional insight into social and environmental risks (Demneh et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024) and promotes equity-integrated ESG reporting in accordance with GRI, TCFD, and CSRD frameworks (Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023). This convergence of normative and performative dimensions makes CDR a strategic cornerstone of just and regenerative institutional development.

“CDR shifts the focus from representation to regeneration—embedding justice into the very DNA of governance”.

(Fagerland & Behdani, 2025)

In conclusion, the IMSD framework institutionalizes CDR as a transformative governance lever—empowering organizations to operationalize inclusive sustainability, mitigate socio-climatic risks, and lead with justice in an era of systemic transformation (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

4.8. Methodological Foundations and Practical Application of IMSD

The IMSD framework is rooted in integrated sustainability governance, where climate resilience and systemic equity function as mutually reinforcing imperatives. The model’s theoretical foundation—Institutional Theory, Resource-Based View (RBV), and Intersectionality Theory—is not abstract but directly mapped to its five operational pillars (see Table 2). These theories collectively ensure the model’s analytical coherence, while its modular architecture enhances scalability and sector-specific adaptation (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Barney, 1991; Crenshaw, 1989).

Methodologically, IMSD applies a theory-to-practice logic, ensuring that conceptual insights translate into actionable strategies. For example, RBV’s focus on intangible assets informs how leadership diversity is treated as a competitive advantage, while Institutional Theory guides regulatory alignment and stakeholder legitimacy. Intersectionality Theory ensures that governance is not only effective, but also just and inclusive (Eitrem et al., 2024; Mailani et al., 2024).

To demonstrate real-world relevance,

Table 6. Strategic recommendations for implementing IMSD in practice.

Sector/Setting	IMSD Entry Point	Stakeholders Involved	Expected Outcomes
Public Sector (Municipal)	Governance and Policy Integration	City councils, planning agencies	Equitable climate adaptation policies og ESG compliance, styrket gjennom institusjonell rettferdighet og inkludering (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024; UN Women, 2023a).
Energy and Infrastructure	Climate Sustainability	Grid operators, regulators, NGOs	Smart grid implementering og inkluderende energitilgang, støttet av systematisk bærekraft og rettferdighetsrammer (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Sharma & Patel, 2023).
SMEs and Startups	Social Sustainability and CDR	Founders, HR leads, incubators	Inkluderende ansettelse, DEIB-målinger og sosial legitimitet som drivere for bærekraftig vekst og innovasjon (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2019; Sajjad et al., 2024).
Higher Education	Collaborative Partnerships	University boards, student orgs	Co-governance modeller og inkluderende innovasjonshuber som fremmer tverrfaglig samarbeid og bærekraftig lederskap (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2024; Kinol et al., 2023; Sbîrcea, 2023).
Multinational Corporations	Implementation and Monitoring	Sustainability Officers, strategy leads	KPI-rammeverk for robusthet og mangfold, integrert i global ESG-praksis og SDG-tilpasning (Leonidou et al., 2024; Galleli et al., 2023; Zampone et al., 2023).

Source: adapted from Own elaboration & (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a, 2025b).

outlines strategic recommendations for implementing IMSD in organizational settings. These include sector-specific applications, stakeholder roles, and potential outcome indicators.

5. Operationalizing IMSD: Architecture, Modularity, and Governance Design

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) is a transformative governance framework designed to reconcile equity, resilience, and environmental stewardship through modular adaptability. Drawing from Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017), the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Teece, 2007), and the tenets of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022), IMSD offers a blueprint for sustainable transformation across diverse institutional landscapes. This approach is vital to advancing global sustainability objectives while mitigating the systemic inequities present across industries and sectors (Fagerland & Bergh, 2025).

5.1. IMSD as a Modular Architecture for Systems Change

IMSD comprises five interdependent yet semi-autonomous pillars: (1) Climate Sustainability, (2) Social Sustainability, operationalized via Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR), (3) Governance and Policy Integration, (4) Collaborative Partnerships, and (5) Implementation and Monitoring. This modular composition allows institutions to implement IMSD incrementally, aligning with sectoral maturity, policy landscapes, and organizational readiness (Ali et al., 2024; Friske et al., 2023).

The integration of Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) into sustainable business practices is not merely about regulatory compliance, but a critical factor for long-term organizational resilience. Embedding CDR into the transition to renewable energy, supply chains, and compliance frameworks fosters a more inclusive, innovative, and resilient approach to corporate governance. As research has shown, CDR is not only an ethical obligation but also a strategic asset that strengthens both organizational innovation and legitimacy in the face of global sustainability challenges (McKinsey & Company, 2020b; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

CDR provides a framework for diverse leadership that strengthens decision-making in complex environments such as renewable energy. By integrating diversity into leadership teams, organizations can enhance creativity and problem-solving abilities, which are crucial for accelerating the transition to low-carbon economies. Research indicates that diverse teams are better equipped to navigate uncertain and turbulent environments, thus enabling more effective and sustainable solutions (McKinsey & Company, 2020a). In the renewable energy sector, diversity drives sustainable innovation and ensures that energy solutions are not only efficient but also just aligning with global sustainability goals such as SDG 7 on clean energy (Olutimehin et al., 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023).

Innovative approaches to diversity and inclusion in the renewable energy sector have demonstrated tangible governance benefits, including improved stakeholder engagement and resilience, as evidenced by recent sector-specific case studies (Windfeldt & Barnard, 2024). In supply chains, CDR encourages organizations to adopt more ethical and transparent procurement processes, promoting diversity in both supplier and customer bases. As noted by Leonidou et al. (2024), fostering inclusion within the supply chain can reduce discrimination and promote ethical sourcing that aligns with sustainable business models. Through CDR, companies can also better adapt to and implement the increasingly complex regulatory landscapes, such as the EU taxonomy and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), facilitating long-term compliance (McKinsey & Company, 2020a).

Moreover, CDR supports proactive adaptation to evolving regulatory frameworks by enhancing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting systems. This allows organizations to meet both regulatory requirements and stakeholder expectations for accountability and sustainability (Zampone et al., 2023). As institutional pressures grow to include diversity and inclusion measures in corporate governance, the shift towards a structural integration of CDR helps foster innovation, resilience, and trust across industries (Bromley & Meyer, 2017). Recent findings from higher education settings further reinforce these insights For example, Fagerland and Bergh (2025) demonstrate how integrating sustainable leadership principles—grounded in Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR)—into police education curricula can foster transformative leadership, equity-oriented governance, and institutional resilience within public sector institutions. Complementing this, , Fagerland et al. (2025) illustrate how dynamic leadership capabilities—such as strategic foresight, participatory governance, and digital adaptability—can be embedded in higher education institutions to support inclusive, innovation-driven responses to complex sustainability challenges. Through the strategic application of CDR in these sectors, organizations can achieve a triple bottom line—delivering social, environmental, and economic benefits. By embedding CDR, diversity can be transformed from a compliance requirement into a strategic resource, allowing companies to remain competitive, promote greater equity and innovation, and contribute to climate resilience. This approach is supported by studies demonstrating the strategic value of diverse leadership in driving organizational performance and adaptive governance (McKinsey & Company, 2020a; Leonidou et al., 2024). Thus, embedding CDR in business operations ensures that sustainability transitions are not only effective but also just, positioning diversity as a key driver of long-term competitiveness and institutional legitimacy across sectors (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

5.2. From Principle to Practice: Translating Governance into Action

IMSD operationalizes normative sustainability goals into actionable governance routines through:

• Intersectional equity mechanisms in recruitment, leadership, and decision-making (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Swanson, 2023);
• Digital foresight and innovation capacity embedded within institutional processes (Demneh et al., 2023; Grove et al., 2023);
• ESG-aligned metrics integrated into adaptive policy cycles and reporting frameworks (Galleli et al., 2023a; Dasinapa, 2024).

This translation from principle to practice is central to ensure that sustainability and justice are embedded in the operational DNA of institutions, not merely their rhetoric (Brousseau et al., 2024; Sultana, 2022).

5.3. IMSD as a Blueprint for Governance Innovation

The IMSD model enables iterative learning, sectoral scaling, and international transferability. Institutions can pilot individual pillars, evaluate impact, and scale systemically while preserving institutional legitimacy and responsiveness (Greenwood et al., 2002; Zampone et al., 2023).

Strategic advantages of IMSD modularity include:

• Cross-sectoral applicability (Leonidou et al., 2024);
• Flexibility under regulatory and climate uncertainty (Zhang, 2023; Mitra & Shaw, 2023);
• Compatibility with multilateral climate and equity frameworks (IPCC, 2014a; UNFCCC, 2021).

Moreover, the model enhances institutional resilience by allowing for recalibration in response to polycrisis dynamics such as pandemics, geopolitical instability, and ecological collapse (Boeske, 2023; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

5.4. IMSD as a Driver of Systemic Governance Transformation

IMSD offers more than integration; it enables governance redesign. By centering justice and intersectionality (Bullard, 2005; Mikulewicz et al., 2023), it supports institutions in moving beyond performative diversity or greenwashing to systemic change. Innovations in leadership pipelines, digital governance, and equity-integrated performance frameworks are not optional but structurally embedded (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Wright et al., 2023).

Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) within the Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) transcends mere representation by actively confronting systemic inequities. By incorporating Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989), IMSD ensures that governance frameworks address the compounded vulnerabilities faced by marginalized communities, particularly those impacted by climate change.

Equity-driven policy design ensures that climate vulnerability, which disproportionately affects marginalized communities—is addressed through targeted, adaptive measures (Roy et al., 2022; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022). IMSD supports policy design that enhances adaptive capacity and reduces exposure to climate-related risks (Gutterman, 2022; Reyes-García et al., 2024).

Inclusive decision-making processes ensure that marginalized voices shape institutional priorities and policies, fostering co-produced and context-responsive sustainability strategies (2023; Swanson, 2023; Institutional responsiveness within IMSD enhances adaptability by prioritizing equity in high-risk regions and among vulnerable populations (Sultana, 2021; Swanson, 2023).

By incorporating intersectionality, IMSD reframes CDR as both a compliance mechanism and a catalyst for systemic transformation. This approach moves beyond performative diversity initiatives, ensuring that governance structures address underlying social and environmental injustices, promoting a more just and inclusive framework for sustainability

Through its modular logic and actionable architecture, IMSD can serve as a blueprint for public and private governance innovation, particularly in high-stakes sectors such as renewable energy, education, and critical infrastructure (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024; Olutimehin et al., 2024).

5.5. The Future of CDR in Institutional Governance

As sustainability norms continue to evolve with a heightened emphasis on equity, Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) will increasingly serve as a foundational governance standard. The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) prepares organizations for strategic actions such as:

• Fostering trust through representation and equity-oriented strategies that contribute to long-term organizational resilience (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).
• Navigating evolving ESG and DEIB reporting frameworks with integrity, ensuring that equity and sustainability principles are embedded in corporate strategy (McKinsey & Company, 2020b).
• Developing inclusive leadership capabilities to address ongoing sustainability challenges, ensuring that diversity remains a central driver of governance and organizational performance.

Evolving governance frameworks, such as those proposed by Sbîrcea (2023), underscore the necessity of values-based commitments to inclusion. CDR facilitates the embedding of these commitments into formal governance processes, enhancing organizational legitimacy and improving strategic agility in the face of global complexity (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025).

5.6. Strategic Integration of CDR Across Governance Levels

To strengthen the operational relevance of CDR within IMSD, it is essential to understand how diversity-oriented governance practices can be embedded at multiple institutional levels. The following table presents an integrated overview of how CDR functions across layers of organizational governance, highlighting the strategic levers available to different stakeholders (

Table 7. Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) Integration Across Governance Levels.

Governance Level	CDR Integration Lever	Strategic Impact
Executive Leadership	Inclusive leadership pipelines and equity oversight	Enhances institutional legitimacy and long-term foresight through inclusive leadership for sustainable development (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023; Bromley & Meyer, 2017).
Middle Management	ESG-aligned DEIB strategies and inclusive monitoring frameworks	Promotes operational sustainability and ethical decision-making by integrating ESG frameworks and diversity targets (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Galleli et al., 2023).
Frontline Staff	Equitable hiring, inclusive training, and participatory culture	Increases employee engagement and innovation in problem-solving through inclusive practices and active participation (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Vaccaro et al., 2019; Sajjad et al., 2024).
Cross-Sectoral	Multi-actor collaboration in policy and supply chain innovation	Improves adaptive capacity, stakeholder trust, and co-produced governance through cross-sector collaboration (Brousseau et al., 2024; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Romero-Lankao et al., 2023).

Source: Own elaboration.

). This strategic layering of CDR integration provides a comprehensive blueprint for embedding equity at the operational core of institutional governance. It also ensures that inclusion is not siloed to top-down mandates but structurally activated throughout the governance spectrum—from boardroom to frontline. In doing so, IMSD reinforces its systemic potential to transform sustainability transitions into equitable, participatory, and future-ready governance processes.

5.7. Summary and Strategic Contributions

The IMSD framework institutionalizes CDR as both a social justice instrument and a strategic capability that enhances adaptive capacity, innovation, and resilience. It transforms diversity from a compliance requirement into a source of competitive value and ethical leadership. CDR supports organizations in navigating the complex interplay between climate risk, institutional responsibility, and systemic equity, positioning diversity as a key enabler of corporate resilience and global sustainability.

This approach aligns with Sbîrcea (2023), who emphasizes that sustainable leadership must be grounded in values-based commitments to inclusion. Through CDR, these commitments are embedded into formal governance architectures, thus enhancing both legitimacy and performance.

To translate these strategic ambitions into measurable outcomes,

Table 8. Operational KPIs and Performance Metrics for CDR Implementation.

Category	Specific KPIs	Rationale and Source
Workforce Equity	- % of leadership roles held by underrepresented groups - Gender/race pay equity index	Tracks progress in DEIB representation and internal fairness (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; UN Women, 2023d)
Inclusive Culture	- Employee inclusion & belonging survey score - DEIB grievance resolution rate	Measures internal culture and psychological safety (McKinsey & Company, 2020a; Swanson, 2023)
Transparency & Reporting	- Intersectional ESG KPI disclosure - CSRD/GRI compliance for DEIB metrics	Supports accountability and compliance (Ali et al., 2024)
Community Engagement	- #1 of community-based co-creation programs - Local inclusion partnership outcomes	Links corporate DEIB to social impact (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Olutimehin et al., 2024)
Organizational Learning	- DEIB training hours per employee - % of leaders completing inclusive leadership development	Ensures capability-building and organizational adaptability (Boeske, 2023; Hutchins & Storm, 2019)

Source: Own elaboration.

outlines operational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and performance metrics for implementing Corporate Diversity Responsibility across five core domains. These metrics reflect the organizational internalization of DEIB principles and their alignment with ESG reporting standards. By tracking indicators related to workforce equity, inclusive culture, community engagement, and organizational learning, leaders can monitor progress, adjust strategies, and ensure continuous learning and accountability.

In conclusion, the IMSD framework institutionalizes CDR as a transformative governance lever—empowering organizations to operationalize inclusive sustainability, mitigate socio-climatic risks, and lead with justice in an era of systemic transformation.

6. Operationalizing the IMSD Framework in Practice

Building on the structural and theoretical underpinnings described in Section 5, this section demonstrates how the IMSD framework can be operationalized through sector-specific strategies and institutional practices that integrate inclusive leadership, sustainability reporting, and governance transformation. Drawing on Barney’s (1991) Resource-Based View, sustainable competitive advantage emerges from firm-specific capabilities such as inclusive leadership and institutional adaptability—core tenets of the IMSD framework (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024; Teece, 2007).

The imperative for integrating equity, transparency, and resilience into governance is increasingly reinforced by cross-sectoral scholarship. For instance, Ali et al. (2024) highlights how sustainability governance attributes, including board diversity, stakeholder engagement, and ESG transparency—are crucial predictors of comprehensive CSR reporting in developing country contexts (Ali et al., 2024). This finding aligns with Dasinapa (2024), who underscores the growing institutional expectation that ESG and sustainability disclosures be embedded into the fabric of corporate reporting, not simply appended as compliance exercises (Dasinapa, 2024). Furthermore, Miloud (2024) emphasizes how corporate governance features such as independent directors and social responsibility committees critically improve the quality of integrated reporting, enhancing transparency and accountability (Miloud, 2024).

At the same time, insights from Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017) emphasize how organizations internalize external pressures and norms, often in the form of isomorphic adaptations reflecting legitimacy-seeking behavior (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017). These institutional logics shape the adoption of sustainability practices, yet as Eitrem et al. (2024) critically review, institutional complexity and potential misalignments can inhibit effective governance transformation, underscoring the importance of coherent, equity-centered frameworks like IMSD (Eitrem et al., 2024).

Leadership, as a mediating and transformational force, is central to operationalizing the IMSD framework. Boeske (2023) and Cuhadar & Rudnák (2022) provide comprehensive reviews of sustainability-oriented leadership, with Boeske highlighting the urgent need for models that transcend traditional environmental paradigms to include ethical, regenerative, and socially embedded approaches (Boeske, 2023; Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022). This aligns with Anane-Simon & Atiku’s (2023) assertion that inclusive leadership is no longer optional but foundational to navigating sustainable development in times of rapid societal change (Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023). The integrative leadership approach in IMSD echoes emerging frameworks emphasizing adaptive, justice-oriented governance capable of responding to systemic crises (Sajjad et al., 2024).

Furthermore, justice-oriented implementation of climate adaptation strategies is vital to IMSD’s sectoral embedding. As Brousseau et al. (2024) argue, justice considerations in climate adaptation planning remain inconsistently applied, signaling a critical governance gap that IMSD’s participatory and equity-focused structures explicitly address (Brousseau et al., 2024). Echoing this, Andersen and Silvast (2023) underscore the necessity of anticipatory foresight and scenario planning to guide sustainability strategies under uncertainty, making a compelling case for IMSD’s dynamic and future-oriented model (Andersen & Silvast, 2023; Demneh et al., 2023; Grove et al., 2023). This is consistent with Krishnan and Robele’s (2024) concept of anticipatory development foresight as a core capability for institutional resilience (Krishnan & Robele, 2024).

As seminal works by Bullard (2005) and Crenshaw (1989) have demonstrated, structural exclusion and intersectional inequities in environmental decision-making persistently limit sustainability interventions’ efficacy (Bullard, 2005; Crenshaw, 1989). The IMSD framework, grounded in intersectionality and systemic governance, directly confronts these embedded injustices, thereby transforming diversity from a performative metric into a systemic mechanism fostering institutional resilience and long-term legitimacy (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Sultana, 2022).

The following strategic actions translate IMSD’s theoretical insights into actionable organizational practices, as synthesized in

Table 9. Strategic recommendations for implementing IMSD in organizations.

Strategic Action	Expected Outcome
Develop Inclusive Leadership Frameworks	Enhance agility, creativity, and adaptive decision-making (Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023; Liao, 2022).
Embed CDR in Governance Structures	Institutionalizes intersectional inclusivity for long-term resilience (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018).
Strengthening ESG Reporting and Equity Metrics	Build trust and ensures alignment with global compliance norms (Ali et al., 2024; Galleli et al., 2023a).
Invest in Smart Renewable Energy and Energy Equity	Accelerates transition and addresses structural disparities in energy access (Roy et al., 2022; Sharma & Patel, 2023; Olutimehin et al., 2024).
Foster Cross-Sector Sustainability Alliances	Expands capacity for systemic impact through multistakeholder engagement (Leonidou et al., 2024).

Source: Own elaboration.

.

6.1. Climate Sustainability Pillar

The climate dimension of IMSD emphasizes renewable energy integration and infrastructure equity as central to climate resilience. It promotes smart grid deployment, decentralized systems, and equitable access policies to mitigate energy poverty and increase systemic adaptability (Roy et al., 2022; Sharma & Patel, 2023). This emphasis is critical to achieving SDG 7 (clean energy) while addressing socio-environmental vulnerabilities.

Moreover, IMSD explicitly addresses climate injustice by ensuring marginalized communities are prioritized in clean energy transitions. This entails participatory governance that empowers communities historically excluded from infrastructural planning to influence renewable energy strategies (Versey, 2021). Such approaches align with Romero-Lankao et al.’s (2023) framework centering justice in energy transition innovations (Romero-Lankao et al., 2023).

Public attitudes toward national energy transitions, revealed in recent Norwegian studies, underscore the necessity of inclusive governance frameworks that bridge socio-political divides and build legitimacy, fostering broader societal support (Zeyringer et al., 2024; Zampone et al., 2023).

6.2. Social Sustainability Pillar

Social sustainability in IMSD is operationalized through Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) and intersectionality. Drawing on Crenshaw (1989) and Sbîrcea (2023), IMSD embeds inclusive decision-making and structural representation across all governance levels (Crenshaw, 1989; Sbîrcea, 2023). It encourages organizations to transcend superficial diversity metrics by promoting:

• Leadership diversity and participatory decision-making (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; The Korea Times, 2023a; UN Women, 2023a).
• Community engagement and co-production of sustainability policies (Swanson, 2023; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).
• Equity assessments mapping systemic disparities in impact and access (Sultana, 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023).

This approach fosters transformative inclusion, strengthening social cohesion and climate justice within sustainability strategies (Kinol et al., 2023).

6.3. Governance and Policy Integration

IMSD redefines governance as a vehicle for inclusive accountability. By aligning ESG reporting requirements with intersectional equity measures, the framework addresses both compliance and systemic reform. Recent research highlights the critical role of transparent and equity-integrated reporting structures across sectors (emphasize transparency in mortgage lending as a means to promote equity and reduce systemic disparities). Similarly, Dasinapa (2024) affirm that integrating sustainability and ESG accounting enhances transparency, accountability, and firm value (Dasinapa, 2024). Dragomir and Dumitru (2023) further reveal how corporate governance features positively influence integrated reporting quality, reinforcing stakeholder trust (Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023).

Moreover, IMSD encourages regulatory innovation through diversity mandates in climate policy, inclusive performance metrics, and adaptive disclosure frameworks responding to environmental and social risks (Zhang, 2023; UNFCCC, 2021). These elements manifest IMSD’s commitment to integrating diversity and equity into governance, underpinning organizational resilience and sustainable transformation (Galleli et al., 2023a; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025).

6.4. Collaborative Partnerships

Cross-sector collaboration is essential to scale IMSD. The framework draws on institutional network analysis (Ghorbani et al., 2024; and dynamic capability theory Teece, 2007) to foster:

• Distributed responsibility across public and private sectors (Greenwood et al., 2002).
• Joint investments in inclusive sustainability innovations (Leonidou et al., 2024).
• Shared governance models tackling climate and equity challenges (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024).

IMSD thereby facilitates knowledge circulation, capacity enhancement, and policy coherence across institutional boundaries, vital for transformative sustainability governance (Krishnan & Robele, 2024).

6.5. Implementation and Monitoring

Operationalizing IMSD requires robust monitoring and adaptive learning structures. Organizations are urged to:

• Use intersectionality-informed KPIs and disaggregated data to capture nuanced equity outcomes (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Swanson, 2023).
• Engage communities in feedback loops to inform iterative policy development (Brousseau et al., 2024).
• Employ digital foresight tools to anticipate equity and climate vulnerabilities, fostering proactive governance (Demneh et al., 2023; Grove et al., 2023).

Such mechanisms promote accountability, responsiveness, and continuous improvement, hallmarks of sustainable institutional transformation (Moore, 1995; Sajjad et al., 2024).

6.6. Strategic Implications and Institutional Impact

The IMSD framework represents a strategic and ethical paradigm shift in sustainability governance. By embedding Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) and intersectional equity across its five pillars, IMSD equips organizations to address the intertwined crises of climate change and systemic inequality. This comprehensive approach ensures sustainability becomes both inclusive and impactful, delivering institutional resilience, stakeholder trust, and long-term competitive value (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; Sbîrcea, 2023).

7. Aligning IMSD with the SDGs, ESG Frameworks, and Future Research

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) represents a paradigm-shifting governance approach that holistically embeds social equity and climate resilience within the architecture of global sustainability frameworks. Contrary to traditional compartmentalized models that treat environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities in isolation, IMSD synergistically integrates these dimensions through a systemic, theory-informed structure anchored by Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR) (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018). Rooted firmly in Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024), and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022), IMSD addresses the complex interdependencies characterizing the converging crises of climate degradation, energy inequity, and social exclusion.

IMSD aligns explicitly with multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly:

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, by advancing decentralized, just energy systems that prioritize equitable access and resilience (Mysore, 2024; Muthusamy Thirumalai et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023). This is critical given the role of energy as a social determinant of health and economic participation (Roy et al., 2022).
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequality, through institutionalization of inclusive governance practices and embedding CDR to drive equitable distribution of resources, leadership pipelines, and opportunity (Sbîrcea, 2023; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025). This structural inclusion addresses intersectional vulnerabilities by tailoring policies to marginalized groups’ compound risks (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023).
• SDG 13: Climate Action, by reframing climate adaptation as an equity-centered governance challenge, embedding justice and participatory frameworks that uplift historically excluded voices (Sultana, 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024). IMSD’s emphasis on transparent, intersectional KPIs strengthens monitoring of social and environmental outcomes (Leonidou et al., 2024).

7.1. IMSD and SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

SDG 7’s mandate for universal access to reliable, modern energy services finds practical expression in IMSD’s support for smart, localized infrastructure, including microgrids and distributed energy resources (DERs), which enhance grid resilience while reducing dependence on centralized utilities—especially benefiting underserved communities (Mysore, 2024; Muthusamy Thirumalai et al., 2024).

Through the integration of CDR into energy governance, IMSD prioritizes historically marginalized communities’ ownership and participatory decision-making rights, ensuring clean energy transitions are just and inclusive (Roy et al., 2022). This approach aligns with critical frameworks emphasizing energy access as fundamental to mobility, well-being, and social equity (Romero-Lankao et al., 2023; Hosan et al., 2024).

7.2. IMSD and SDG 10: Reduced Inequality

IMSD tackles SDG 10’s imperative to reduce disparities in power, access, and opportunity through systemic transformation of leadership and governance. The framework advances intersectional audits and leadership pipelines reflecting diversity across race, gender, and class, transcending tokenistic diversity to foster meaningful inclusion (Sbîrcea, 2023; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025). CDR operationalizes redistributive governance by ensuring equitable sharing of green economy benefits—jobs, infrastructure, investments—particularly for multiply marginalized populations (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023). Moreover, vulnerability-informed adaptation policies within IMSD recognize and address the compounded socio-economic exclusion experienced by these groups (Versey, 2021; Sultana, 2021).

7.3. IMSD and SDG 13: Climate Action

Responding to SDG 13’s call for urgent climate action, IMSD centers intersectional climate governance that elevates participatory inclusion of historically excluded communities in adaptation planning, thereby addressing layered vulnerabilities and fostering community resilience (Sultana, 2022; Brousseau et al., 2024). The framework’s integration of transparent ESG metrics enables simultaneous tracking of social and environmental performance (Leonidou et al., 2024). IMSD also incorporates Indigenous knowledge systems and gender-aware approaches into climate adaptation strategies, thereby strengthening local agency and justice-oriented resilience (Gutterman, 2022; Reyes-García et al., 2024).

7.4. IMSD and ESG Integration

Within ESG frameworks, IMSD reinforces each pillar by embedding equity and CDR into organizational systems. The Environmental (E) pillar is expanded beyond carbon reduction to emphasize equitable energy access and resilient infrastructure (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024; Sharma & Patel, 2023). Social (S) pillar integration institutionalizes diversity and intersectionality, fostering organizational legitimacy and innovation as documented by McKinsey & Company (2020a) and corroborated by Windfeldt & Barnard’s (2024) case studies in renewable energy sectors (McKinsey & Company, 2020a; Windfeldt & Barnard, 2024). Governance (G) is strengthened through enhanced transparency and compliance with global reporting standards such as the CSRD and GRI, supported by evidence that robust governance correlates positively with quality sustainability disclosures (Miloud, 2024; Ali et al., 2024; Radu et al., 2023; Friske et al., 2023). As shown in

Table 10. IMSD’s strategic contributions to SDG and ESG frameworks.

IMSD Contribution	ESG Dimension	SDG Alignment	Impact
Equitable access to renewable energy	Environmental	SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy	Expands decentralized systems and promotes energy justice, supporting just energy transitions and inclusive access (Ekechukwu & Simpa, 2024; Hosan et al., 2024; Javed et al., 2025).
Institutionalizing Corporate Diversity	Social	SDG 10: Reduced Inequality	Embeds equity in governance frameworks, fostering inclusive leadership and reducing social inequalities (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Vaccaro et al., 2019).
Intersectional climate adaptation	Environmental and Social	SDG 13: Climate Action	Enhances resilience through tailored, intersectional climate adaptation strategies addressing social equity (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Roy et al., 2022).
Inclusive and transparent governance	Governance	Cross-cutting	Builds stakeholder trust and aligns with ESG reporting standards, promoting transparency and accountability (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Galleli et al., 2023).
Adaptive monitoring and digital foresight	Governance	SDG 13 and SDG 10	Enables responsive, data-driven sustainability planning through strategic foresight and digital tools (Demneh et al., 2023; Grove et al., 2023; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a).

Source: own elaboration.

, IMSD’s strategic contributions to SDG and ESG frameworks drive comprehensive environmental, social, and governance impacts across organizations.

7.5. IMSD as a Scalable, Research-Informed Framework

As a multidimensional and adaptable model, IMSD is responsive to diverse sectors, regulatory regimes, and cultural contexts. It synthesizes empirical insights from renewable energy innovation, digital governance, and organizational diversity to establish a future-ready, theory-informed framework for institutional transformation. By conceptualizing diversity as a VRIN (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, Non-substitutable) resource, IMSD turns inclusion into a core driver of innovation, stakeholder trust, and sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024; Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997).

7.6. Future Research and Empirical Validation

Despite IMSD’s rigorous conceptual foundations, the framework necessitates extensive empirical validation to assess its practical efficacy and adaptability. Priority research avenues include:

• Longitudinal evaluations that measure CDR’s impact on organizational resilience, innovation trajectories, and ESG performance metrics over extended time horizons (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Sajjad et al., 2024).
• Cross-sectoral and geographic implementation studies to investigate IMSD’s transferability across industries such as education, finance, and energy, as well as diverse regional contexts including the Global South (Leonidou et al., 2024; Kinol et al., 2023).
• Development of intersectionality-informed KPIs tailored to rigorously quantify equity outcomes within climate and sustainability governance structures (A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Swanson, 2023).
• Technological integration research exploring how AI, digital foresight tools, and advanced data analytics can enhance IMSD’s dynamic and adaptive governance capabilities (Demneh et al., 2023).
• Policy diffusion analysis to evaluate how IMSD principles influence the evolution of national and international climate governance frameworks and ESG regulatory regimes (Greenwood et al., 2002).

It is acknowledged that IMSD requires further empirical testing across heterogeneous institutional environments to substantiate its operational utility and guide scalable implementation strategies.

8. Conclusions

The Integrated Model for Sustainable Development (IMSD) stands as a paradigmatic rearticulation of sustainability governance—fusing conceptual depth, empirical precision, and pragmatic foresight. Rooted in the intersecting genealogies of Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Greenwood et al., 2002), the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991; Mailani et al., 2024), Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997), and Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw, 1989; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022; Sultana, 2022), IMSD is not merely a framework but a dynamic epistemology of institutional renewal and structural justice.

Departing from fragmented ESG and CSR regimes (Ali et al., 2024; Dasinapa, 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023), IMSD advances an integrated governance architecture predicated on anticipatory capability, inclusive innovation, and regenerative leadership. At the center of this architecture lies the concept of Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR)—redefined from symbolic representation to a strategic institutional mechanism for embedding Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) into systemic governance processes (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).

Anchoring this transformation is the IMSD CORE: an integrative leadership infrastructure comprising the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), Employeeship, and Sustainable Leadership. This triadic foundation operationalizes Integrative Resilient Leadership—embedding distributed foresight, ethical coherence, and participatory inclusion into institutional structures and decision-making (Zacher et al., 2024; Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023). As illustrated in Figure 4, this CORE enables institutions to shift from reactive leadership to foresight-driven, inclusive resilience.

As illustrated in Figure 4, this CORE enables institutions to shift from reactive leadership to foresight-driven, inclusive resilience.

This diagram visualizes the integrative leadership infrastructure that anchors the IMSD model. It illustrates the dynamic interplay between the Dynamic Leadership Model (DLM), Employeeship, and Sustainable Leadership. Together, these form the IMSD CORE—a strategic triad for enabling inclusive foresight, regenerative institutional capacity, and participatory governance in the Anthropocene.

IMSD’s governance model is further operationalized through five interdependent pillars: Climate Sustainability, Social Sustainability (via CDR), Governance Integration, Collaborative Partnerships, and Implementation & Monitoring. As shown in Figure 5, these pillars are structurally aligned with key ESG frameworks and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 7, 10, and 13), reinforcing modularity, scalability, and foresight-based institutional transformation.

As shown in Figure 5, these pillars are structurally aligned with key ESG frameworks and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 7, 10, and 13), reinforcing modularity, scalability, and foresight-based institutional transformation

This model illustrates the systemic positioning of IMSD pillars in relation to ESG standards and SDG targets. It captures how institutional actors can align foresight-driven governance with inclusive sustainability outcomes.

Table 11. IMSD Strategic Summary: Key Dimensions and Contributions.

Dimension	IMSD Summary
Theoretical Foundations	Synthesizes Institutional Theory, Resource-Based View (RBV), Intersectionality Theory, and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Barney, 1991; Bromley & Meyer, 2017; Crenshaw, 1989; Teece et al., 1997).
Strategic Focus	Integrates equity, diversity, climate resilience, and inclusive governance into a unified strategy (Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Sajjad et al., 2024; Swanson, 2023).
Operational Pillars	Five pillars: Climate Sustainability, Social Sustainability (CDR), Governance Integration, Partnerships, Monitoring (Fagerland, 2019; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Ghorbani et al., 2024).
Key Contributions	Aligns with SDGs 7, 10, 13 and ESG frameworks (CSRD, GRI, TCFD); embeds CDR as a strategic asset (Dasinapa, 2024; Leonidou et al., 2024; Vaccaro et al., 2019).
Organizational Implications	Supports inclusive strategy, enhanced ESG compliance, and stakeholder trust through adaptive governance (Ali et al., 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Eitrem et al., 2024).
Managerial Implications	Equips leaders with intersectional foresight, digital agility, and inclusive leadership capabilities (Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025a; Grove et al., 2023).
Research Directions	Calls for longitudinal studies, sector-specific case analysis, digital foresight applications, and KPI development (Demneh et al., 2023; Fagerland & Fjuk, 2025b; Mailani et al., 2024).

Source: Own elaboration.

summarizes the key theoretical and strategic components of the IMSD framework, highlighting its focus on sustainability, governance, and inclusive innovation across organizational structures.

Table 11 summarizes the key theoretical and strategic components of the IMSD framework, highlighting its focus on sustainability, governance, and inclusive innovation across organizational structures.

Table 12. Strategic Dimensions of Corporate Diversity Responsibility (CDR).

CDR Dimension	Description
Normative Commitment	Positions DEIB as a moral, strategic, and institutional imperative across governance contexts (Anane-Simon & Atiku, 2023; Sajjad et al., 2024; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Bromley & Meyer, 2017)
Structural Integration	Embeds CDR within ESG frameworks, policy architecture, leadership pipelines, and governance systems (Dasinapa, 2024; Dragomir & Dumitru, 2023; Fagerland, 2019; Miloud, 2024; Radu et al., 2023)
Performance Indicators	Utilizes intersectional KPIs spanning innovation, inclusion, risk reduction, and transparency (Ali et al., 2024; Galleli et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2023; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Vaccaro et al., 2019)
Strategic Partnerships	Anchored in cross-sectoral collaboration with industry, defense, academia, and diplomacy (Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Olutimehin et al., 2024; Leonidou et al., 2024; Grove et al., 2023)
Educational Anchoring	Integrated into academic curricula and executive education across multiple institutional platforms (Fagerland & Fjuk, 2024; Fagerland et al., 2025; Sbîrcea, 2023; Liao, 2022)
Political Endorsement	Presented to UN Women, Nordic governments, and international governance forums (UN Women, 2023a, 2023b; Kristoffersen, 2023; The Korea Times, 2023a, 2023b; Fagerland & Bleveans, 2024)
Research Foundation	Originated by Fagerland and Rambøl (2015); expanded via SHEconomy® and validated through empirical studies (Fagerland & Rambøl, 2015; Fagerland & Drejer, 2018; Fagerland, 2019; Fagerland & Sørensen, 2025; Mikulewicz et al., 2023)

Source: Own elaboration.

outlines the core dimensions of CDR, from its normative commitment to its performance indicators and strategic partnerships, providing a comprehensive view of how CDR is integrated into organizational governance.

Table 13. Comparative Analysis of IMSD vs. Traditional Governance Models.

Criteria	Description	References
Equity Integration	IMSD: Structurally embedded (CDR-based) ESG-Only Models: Often implicit or compliance-led CSR Models: Generally aspirational	Fagerland and Drejer (2018); Ali et al. (2024); Dragomir and Dumitru (2023); Sajjad et al. (2024); Wright et al. (2023)
Leadership Philosophy	IMSD: Distributed & regenerative ESG-Only Models: Executive-centered CSR Models: Often hierarchical	Boeske (2023); Hutchins and Storm (2019); Anane-Simon and Atiku (2023); Sbîrcea (2023); Fagerland and Fjuk (2025a, 2025b)
Adaptability (Dynamic Capabilities)	IMSD: Core design logic ESG-Only Models: Limited CSR Models: Variable	Teece (2007); Teece et al. (1997); Fagerland et al. (2025); Idries et al. (2022); Mitra and Shaw (2023)
SDG Alignment	IMSD: SDGs 7, 10, 13 explicitly operationalized ESG-Only Models: Referenced but not internalized CSR Models: Weak or symbolic	Zampone et al. (2023); Leonidou et al. (2024); McKinsey and Company (2020a, 2020b); Fagerland and Sørensen (2025)
Reporting & Foresight Capacity	IMSD: AI-ready, intersectional KPIs ESG-Only Models: Compliance-driven CSR Models: Retrospective & qualitative	Dasinapa (2024); Demneh et al. (2023); Grove et al. (2023); Radu et al. (2023)

Source: Own elaboration.

compares IMSD with traditional governance models, illustrating the enhanced equity integration, adaptability, and SDG alignment of the IMSD framework in contrast to ESG-only and CSR models.

Table 14. Operational KPIs for Implementing the IMSD Framework.

IMSD Pillar	KPI Category	Specific KPIs	Description and Rationale
Climate Sustainability	Environmental Impact	- Carbon footprint reduction - Renewable energy share (%) - Climate risk mitigation actions	Reflects dynamic capabilities in climate resilience and emissions reduction (IPCC, 2014a; Sharma & Patel, 2023).
Social Sustainability (CDR)	Equity & Inclusion	- Workforce diversity metrics (intersectional) - Inclusive leadership representation - Community engagement indices	Tracks systemic equity and social justice (Fagerland & Behdani, 2025; A. T. Amorim-Maia et al., 2022).
Governance Integration	Transparency & Accountability	- ESG integrated reporting completeness - Intersectional KPI disclosure - Compliance with CSRD and GRI standards	Evaluates integration of equity in transparent governance (Ali et al., 2024)
Collaborative Partnerships	Network and Innovation	- Number of cross-sector partnerships - Joint sustainability initiatives - Innovation outputs	Measures stakeholder collaboration for scalable innovation (Leonidou et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2023).
Implementation & Monitoring	Adaptive Capacity & Foresight	- Frequency of monitoring cycles - Use of AI-enabled data analytics - Policy adjustment cycles	Demonstrates institutional agility and foresight capacity (Teece, 2007; Demneh et al., 2023).

Source: Own elaboration.

details the key performance indicators (KPIs) across IMSD pillars, illustrating how each pillar’s impact can be measured and tracked through specific, actionable metrics.

8.1. Final Synthesis

The IMSD framework offers an empirically validated and conceptually mature alternative to traditional ESG architecture. It institutionalizes intersectional climate justice as a performative and accountable system, embedding equity at the core of environmental governance, and responding to the urgent calls for gender-inclusive, culturally sensitive, and community-anchored sustainability governance (Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Brousseau et al., 2024; Bullard, 2005).

By integrating anticipatory foresight, civic inclusion, and digital responsiveness, IMSD addresses the epistemic gaps and systemic limitations in legacy models (Demneh et al., 2023; Krishnan & Robele, 2024). It transitions governance logic from reactive compliance to proactive transformation—capable of navigating complex institutional environments, emergent risks, and cascading global shocks (Eitrem et al., 2024; Mitra & Shaw, 2023).

Moreover, IMSD aligns with Sustainable Development Goals 7, 10, and 13, not merely as aspirational signposts, but as structural design principles guiding implementation across sectors and jurisdictions (Leonidou et al., 2024; Zampone et al., 2023; Sharma & Patel, 2023). In doing so, it positions equity—particularly gender equity, racial justice, and inclusive climate resilience—as a non-negotiable foundation of institutional legitimacy and public value creation (UN Women, 2023a; Versey, 2021; Swanson, 2023).

8.2. Limitations and Future Research

While IMSD provides a robust governance architecture, this framework is primarily conceptual and should be further substantiated through longitudinal empirical studies across diverse institutional contexts. Future research should examine sector-specific implementation challenges, cross-national comparability, and the effectiveness of operational KPIs across time. Additionally, the integration of AI-enabled foresight systems within IMSD requires deeper exploration, particularly with regard to ethical guardrails, algorithmic bias, and inclusionary design. Cross-sectoral co-creation models involving Indigenous, Global South, and marginalized stakeholder perspectives remain an underdeveloped but essential research frontier.

In sum, IMSD is not only a governance model—it is an anticipatory institutional blueprint for the Anthropocene. It bridges fragmented epistemologies of leadership, resilience, and sustainability into a coherent, modular, and adaptable system. Through its normative clarity and pragmatic depth, IMSD enables organizations to transform symbolic ESG rhetoric into actionable sustainability strategies grounded in justice, equity, and capability.

“Sustainability without equity is a half-built bridge. IMSD completes the span”. Fagerland and Bleveans (2024). Corporate Diversity Responsibility and Its Role in Transforming Governance (Statement at SHEconomy Summit, September 2024, Google headquarters, Silicon Valley).