Driving sustainability in organizations: polymathic responsible leadership and circular economy

There has been particular interest in better understanding how organizations can become more sustainable in the context of increasing environmental degradation, heightened societal awareness, and fast approaching policy targets aimed at lowering industrial carbon emissions, while grasping potential economic opportunities linked to ‘green growth’ (Hallegatte et al. 2012). What exactly sustainability means varies depending on context, but at its core, it emphasises the harmonious integration of environmental stewardship, social well-being, and economic prosperity in ways that ensure both current and future generations can thrive (WCED 1987).

One such transformative approach to sustainability is the CE. Guided by the principles of designing out waste and pollution, maximising resource efficiency at high value, and regenerating natural resources, the CE offers a compelling alternative to the traditional linear model of production and consumption (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2023). In a linear model, raw materials are extracted from the Earth system or synthesised via chemical processes, refined, manufactured into products and components, consumed, and once they are considered to have reached the end of their useful life, are discarded as waste and either sent to landfill or incinerated (Stahel 2016). While this logic has been prevalent since at least the mid-twentieth century, it has expedited the release of greenhouse gases and overlooks the inherent value embedded in materials, components, and products already in circulation. By maintaining their quality, these could be retained within the economy for extended periods and repurposed as inputs for new industrial processes where technically feasible and permitted by current regulation.

Consequently, CE has been recognised as a sign of progress towards achieving sustainable development (Valverde and Avilés-Palacios 2021). The concept is underpinned by a whole systems perspective to sustainability transitions that places emphasis on the need for innovative solutions across the value chain, including infrastructural, governmental, behavioral, and organizational change (Iacovidou et al. 2021; Kirchherr et al. 2023). As such the practical implementation of CE has been developed around embedding reverse logistics frameworks within both the technical and biological cycles of the value chain (Julianelli et al. 2020) and, by association, the introduction of circular business models (Okorie et al. 2021).

For example, an electronic device may be designed in a way that makes it easier for consumers to replace components (or have them replaced without convoluted requirements), allowing it to function as the manufacturer intended for longer and therefore extending its time in circulation at high value. Similarly, once the same device does reach end of life, rather than being sent to landfill, it may be collected by a firm who specialise in salvaging the critical minerals inside of it so they can be reused in another product.

Alternatively, we might consider the reuse of materials (that are otherwise destined for landfill) in the production of new consumer goods. There are several waste streams in circulation that have the potential to serve as inputs for new products, including niche materials such as London’s decommissioned firehoses. In their mission to create a zero-waste business, Elvis & Kresse have built a successful business around the identification of such waste streams and remanufacturing the recovered materials into a range of products. We return to this case study in more detail below, in relation to our concept of responsible leadership.

However, despite advancements in circular business models, value chain frameworks, increased understanding of material flows, and the availability of high-quality practitioner tools, there is a recurrent theme in CE research that calls for its social dimension to be drawn out more prominently (Mies and Gold 2021; Monciardini et al. 2023; Padilla-Rivera et al. 2020). While the practices outlined foreground the technical implementation of CE and its potential to support environmental sustainability and economic performance, there is a need for deeper analysis of the human aspect of the transition to circularity to ensure that it is inclusive, equitable, and consistent with the expanded pillars of sustainability (United Nations 2015).

First, rethinking and reshaping organizational practices from linear to circular approaches involves fundamental changes in organizations. Change can be disruptive and requires leadership that actively supports the change and drives the changemaking process forward (Walk 2023). Leaders therefore play a pivotal role in leading and shaping this change, and in embodying the values embedded in a CE framework. Leaders themselves therefore need to start rethinking their own approach to driving these changes and realise the complexities of introducing these changes.

While a growing literature acknowledges the complexities and tensions that leaders face today (see, for example, Volk et al. 2023), current research streams seem to have developed in parallel, with frameworks focusing on CE models and those developing approaches for responsible leaders that also address grand challenges in the sustainability area, having developed in parallel. We bridge this gap by focusing on a conceptualization of responsible leadership that underscores both the central role organizations of all kinds play in addressing grand societal challenges such as sustainable development and the importance of developing informed and capable leaders who can deal with the complexity of the challenge. The latter is increasingly vital for scaling CE in practice, given its emphasis on whole system innovation. It requires a conscious shift away from operational business-as-usual. Therefore, it necessitates leaders who possess a deeper understanding of embedding sustainability strategies across all functions of an organization and a commitment to ethical decision-making beyond.

Responsible leadership as a concept has been discussed in the literature for quite some time. Waldman et al. (2020, p. 5) view responsible leadership as “an orientation or mindset taken by people in executive-level positions toward meeting the needs of a firm’s stakeholder(s).” In contrast, Maak and Pless (2006a, p. 112) introduced the element of morality and good character and defined responsible leadership as “a social-relational and ethical phenomenon that occurs in interaction between a leader and a broader group of followers, inside and outside the organization.” The variety of definitions and views on the topic has led to a proliferation of conceptualizations, with research studying both outcome- (e.g., corporate governance, Filatotchev and Nakajima 2014; CSR, Siegel 2014) and content-based conceptualizations (e.g., relationships, Maak and Pless 2021b; globalised leadership, Voegtlin et al. 2012). In consequence, the contents and foci of responsible leadership appear elusive in the extant literature (Waldman et al. 2020) as different outcomes and contents are studied in isolation while still being referred to collectively as responsible leadership. This also affects the definitional elements of responsible leadership, since the types of responsible leader behaviors vary depending on the researchers’ positions (e.g., stakeholders, Waldman et al. 2020; relationships, Maak and Pless 2021b; or a global focus, Voegtlin et al. 2012).

Given these variations in understanding how responsible leadership is understood, we suggest a more comprehensive definition of responsible leadership. Integrating the different viewpoints on responsible leadership allows us to grasp the commonalities of different approaches. Thus, we define responsible leadership as an orientation or mindset adopted by leaders to take actions toward meeting the needs of and realizing value for an organization and their stakeholders through social processes of interaction with a local and global focus. This definition illustrates that, due to the complexities of our world and the wicked nature of grand challenges, responsible leaders cannot confine their focus solely to specific aspects of sustainability (James and Priyadarshini 2021) or other outcomes; responsible leaders rather need a comprehensive, holistic perspective to fulfil the multifaceted responsibilities intrinsic to leadership roles.

Since responsible leadership focuses on a value set that guides leadership behaviors (Maak and Pless 2021a), ethical conduct and values are at the core of responsible leadership (Ciulla 2021). Thus, responsible leadership should serve as a meta-leadership concept that encompasses different types of behaviors, aimed at different goals, for example relationships (Maak and Pless 2021b), corporate governance (Filatotchev and Nakajima 2014), or CSR (Siegel 2014). In that way, it is different from more specific leadership behaviors like ethical leadership (Den Hartog 2015), which focusses on “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). Here, the emphasis is on enforcing and promoting ethical conduct, that promotes honesty, integrity, and fairness. In contrast, responsible leadership is broader in its goals taking not only ethical decision making and values that (can) drive responsible leadership actions into account, but also extends this view by considering the long-term well-being of stakeholders and the organisational impact on society and environment (Mirvis et al. 2021).

Similarly, responsible leadership shares some communalities with sustainability leadership, but fundamentally it is a different, higher-order construct. Sustainability leadership encompasses “any ethical behaviour that has the intention and effect of helping groups of people achieve environmental or social outcomes” (Bendell and Little 2015, p. 16). While sustainability leadership also includes ethical conduct, the main goal here is the facilitation and creation of a positive environmental impact. In contrast, responsible leadership is broader in its conceptualization, and while it emphasizes responsiveness to environmental concerns, it also goes beyond them to consider other stakeholders like customers and employees (Waldman and Galvin 2008). Additionally, it aims for the long-term success of the organization in harmony with society and the environment (Han et al. 2019).

Finally, responsible leadership also shares some commonalities, but also differences with the functional leadership approach (McGrath 1962). The functional leadership approach argues that leadership effectiveness stems from the interaction between the leader and the situational context. Thus, certain behaviors are more effective than others in specific situations. While the core focus of this approach is improved organizational effectiveness and performance (Homan et al. 2020), responsible leadership is motivated by the underlying value-system to do good (Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014). Thus, responsible leadership might be, but is not exclusively, targeted at organizational performance. More specifically, responsible leadership strives to create long-term positive effects not only for the organization (e.g., organizational performance) but also the environment and society.

Like the functional leadership approach, which looks for the “right behaviors in the right situation”, there is a question regarding which behaviors should be recognized as manifestations of responsible leadership. While others have taken narrower views on responsible leadership (see above), we draw from an integrative model of leadership that serves as a hyper-taxonomy aimed at consolidating the diversity of leadership behaviors in research and practice while using values as a guiding principle: The Big X model of leadership.

The Big X model of leadership is a multi-layered matrix that aims to help navigate the complexity of approaches to effective leadership. While Yukl (2012) introduced a taxonomy of leadership effectiveness, others have joined this discussion suggesting a different taxonomy of what effective leadership entails (e.g., Anderson and Sun 2017; DeRue et al. 2011; Morgeson et al. 2010). These scholars have not only used different labels, but also included varying aspects of leadership. Yukl’s (2012) initial model only focused on task-, relation-, and change-oriented behavior. In contrast, Anderson and Sun (2017) considered ethical leadership but left out change-oriented leadership, while DeRue et al. (2011) excluded ethical leadership.

Whereas these prior reviews (Fischer and Sitkin 2023; Morgeson et al. 2010) are typically limited in the focus of singular value-driven leadership styles such as transformational or charismatic leadership, our Big X of model of leadership goes beyond a singular value-based model towards the ability to address and embrace the tension among the values. Such an approach highlights the potential conflict among values. For example, leaders might need to balance between safety and rules (principle) and motivation (progress) or between performance and people. Bridging seemingly opposite values is necessary to tackle the grand challenges that our world currently faces, as research on the paradoxical lens (Smith and Lewis 2011; Zhang et al. 2015) and integrative complexity (Tetlock 1986) suggests. By integrating a plurality of perspectives, we therefore argue that the values we proposed are not opposing but complementary, where overreliance on one requires a shift towards the other to maintain balance. The ‘Big X of leadership’ aims at bringing structure and coherence to the leadership field akin to what was achieved by personality researchers with the Big 5 of personality (Goldberg 1993). Therefore, guided by theory, the ‘Big X of leadership’ research seeks to synthesize the variety of leadership constructs available. To achieve this goal, the research looks to build upon previous hyper-taxonomies of leadership, where four overarching dimensions have emerged repeatedly namely task-, relation-, change-, and ethics-oriented leadership (Yukl 2012). Whether it is through meta-analytical reduction (DeRue et al. 2011) or competency modelling (Bartram 2005), a key strength of these approaches is their strong empirical basis. However, ideally strong data should be complemented by strong theory (Astley 1985), which further explains the different ways of leadership rather than simply categorizes different types of leaders (Meuser et al. 2016). This is where Inceoglu et al. (2023) suggested that prior work can be reconsidered from a value perspective and showed, using various studies, how values help to capture the diversity of leadership perspectives.

Thus, the Big X framework highlights that there are four value-based key dimensions that leaders can work towards (see also Fig. 1). The four P’s of leadership are: Performance, People, Progress, and Principle, which can be divided into additional sub-categories for each dimension. Performance-oriented leadership is associated with leaders who structure and organize for effectiveness (e.g., initiating structure; Fleishman 1953). Performance-oriented leadership is sometimes seen as “just management” or “only transactional” (Anderson and Sun 2017), but leadership in organizations cannot be effective without good organizational talent (Morgeson et al. 2010). Furthermore, this orientation can be differentiated into achievement and power. Exemplary behaviors for achievement would be transactional or goal-focused behavior, while power consists of behaviors like authoritative and instrumental leadership behaviors.

People-oriented leadership focuses primarily on support (or consideration, Fleishman 1953). The ability to connect with or relate well to others is a key determinant of leadership effectiveness (Yukl 2012). People-oriented leaders cultivate their perceptions of warmth and benevolence (DeRue et al. 2011). This orientation can be differentiated into equality, which encompasses behaviors like authentic and inclusive leadership behaviors, as well as benevolence, which includes behaviors like servant and supportive leadership.

Progress-oriented leadership is best captured through the concept of change. Some leaders can cope with the changes and are even instigating change for others (Yukl 2012). These leaders realize that the world keeps changing and that change must be facilitated (Morgeson et al. 2010). This orientation can be separated into improvement and autonomy. Improvement consists of behaviors like innovative and developmental leadership, while autonomy includes consultative and empowering leadership behaviors.

Finally, Principle-oriented leadership focuses on leader behaviors aimed at taking care of followers and protecting themselves and others against a clear set of values and guidelines (Anderson and Sun 2017; Morgeson et al. 2010). These principles offer some guidance and stability on how to lead with integrity and moral values to keep everyone safe. Consequently, this orientation can be differentiated into stability with behaviors like following rules and bureaucratic leadership, and security, which includes ethical and protective leadership behaviors.

Linking the Big X of leadership to circular economy, the “progress” dimension, and more specifically improvement, encompasses activities aimed at positive impacts for future generations and the environment (Millar et al. 2012). However, in light of the more holistic nature of responsible leadership behaviors, we argue that mastery of all four dimensions is vital for implementing CE approaches. For meaningful change to occur, leaders must build relationships with stakeholders both inside and outside the organization, excel in their day-to-day operational performance, and embody moral integrity that resonates with entities affected by and contributing to change. In essence, we consider responsible leadership as a “polymathic leadership concept”, signifying that genuinely responsible leaders should possess mastery across all dimensions rather than merely excelling in one or a few. Still, we agree with Yukl and Gardner (2020) that all leaders possess weaknesses that should be somehow addressed. Whether or not these weaknesses are addressed is also a key consideration.

In the next section, we show how being a “polymathic” responsible leader helps when implementing CE approaches. We use a case study to highlight retrospectively how CE approaches are supported by leaders’ behaviors across all four dimensions of the Big X.

As such, our work has several implications for research. First, our work shows that the primary and sole focus on sustainability leadership (Bendell and Little 2015) might be underestimating the necessary skillsets and behaviors leaders need to be more successful in their sustainability endeavours. Moving away from the operation-oriented approach of sustainability leadership (Millar et al. 2012) can enable leaders and organizations to implement circularity practices and principles more systematically.

Next, our work extends the concept of responsible leadership by linking it to a set of clear behaviors that leaders should show. While multidimensional approaches of leadership effectiveness have been discussed for quite some time (DeRue et al. 2011; Yukl 2012), such approaches are largely absent from the concept of responsible leadership. By linking a value-based leadership taxonomy with responsible leadership, we broaden the scope of responsibility and highlight the complexity of leadership in contemporary organizations. Instead of simply being the effective change agent or relationship-oriented leader, responsible leaders need to possess all qualities to a certain extent. Applying such principles therefore has the potential to not only change how leaders see their tasks in organizations, but also structure research approaches in the area of sustainability leadership or other related areas, going beyond our illustrative example of CE.

Finally, linking responsible leadership and CE addresses calls for more engaged contributions to the social dimension of CE research (e.g., Mies and Gold 2021; Monciardini et al. 2023). Integrating CE research with human aspects that facilitate the transition to circularity enables scholars to investigate how leaders can manage, facilitate, and implement CE change that increases organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, it underscores the importance leaders play in creating an inclusive, equitable, and consistent understanding of sustainability that addresses the global needs (United Nations 2015).

Our research also highlights several practical implications. First, we raise awareness for the multi-faceted approach of leaders that is needed to implement circularity in organizations. Instead of relying only on principle-based sustainability leadership (Bendell and Little 2015), our understanding of responsible leadership provides leaders and organizations with complementary behaviors that create necessary foundations and accompany transitions by considering the complex nature of stakeholders involved when implementing circularity. Viewing responsible leadership as polymathic highlights the absence of single or multiple orientations, which can result in a fragmented approach that may not be effective or even detrimental.

Next, we identify two actions that are necessary to enable leaders to implement circularity. First, management education in leadership needs to integrate the broader conceptualization of responsible leadership. Instead of relying solely on stakeholder perspectives, students and leaders need to learn about the necessity and importance of being a polymathic leader. This requires reflection on these different orientations in order to allow (ongoing) leaders to adequately integrate the importance of these orientations into their value system.

Second, professional training and executive education offerings must consider the nature of polymathic leadership. As our case studies have illustrated, effective leaders are good actors in all orientations. However, traditional leadership training programmes mainly focus on single aspects of leadership (e.g., training in people management, or strategy development and implementation). While such snapshot approaches might be quite common and based on the availability of time, educators, trainers, and leaders now need to re-evaluate their understanding of leadership and adapt it to address the societal and environmental challenges humanity is facing (United Nations 2015).

Alternatively, we suggest that leaders that are aware of their weaknesses surround themselves with individuals that can complement their strengths by adding the skills and expertise leaders are missing or unable to develop (Yukl and Gardner 2020). In the end, responsible leadership is the goal, and leadership behaviors are the means to achieve the required level of responsibility. Whether it is one leader or a leader with a team who achieve this should be secondary.

Of course, our paper is not without limitations. First, we primarily focused on CE as one aspect of sustainability. Although our arguments can easily be extended to other sustainability efforts, these links and explanations need to be made explicit. However, we would argue that the polymathic approach also applies to different forms of sustainability, but it might be that the relative degree of involvement for the different leadership orientations changes. Next, we have used a retrospective case study to illustrate the applicability of the polymathic leadership approach. While this provides initial insights into the complexity of leadership and how circularity can be achieved, more prospective studies and in-depth case studies are needed to examine how the orientations interact in practice to foster effective sustainability. We encourage other researchers to consider and use the Big X taxonomy as a holistic approach to responsible leadership to broaden the empirical foundations and utility of using the Big X.

Furthermore, our research offers several avenues for future studies. Regarding the integration of leadership and circularity, future studies could investigate the relative impact of leadership orientations compared to operations-based approaches.

Next, future studies should also consider time as a contextual element. The process of transforming an organization from a linear to a CE is lengthy, and the leadership orientations may play a different role at different stages of that problem. For example, it is possible that the principle- and progress-orientation come into effect at the beginning of strategy development, when the shift to circularity is initiated and developed. Later people-oriented leadership becomes more important to facilitate the communication of change and allow for consideration of different stakeholders. At the same time, while change initiatives take place, continuity plays an important role in increasing confidence in the organization and its management (Gibb and Buchanan 2006). Thus, leaders are required to sustain daily business operations, thereby engaging in performance-oriented leadership. Examining circular transformations over time and the associated leadership behaviors in different stages of this transformation might provide novel insights.