Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Natural sciences and physics have long identified laws—that is, rules of the game—that humans have to play by: the laws of conservation of energy, entropy, and gravity, as well as ecological dynamics… Some rules are very well known; others are more rife with uncertainty. However, whatever technology we develop, some rules cannot be broken: Energy cannot be created out of nowhere; species have maximum wet-bulb temperatures beyond which they cannot survive for long. The Earth system also tells us about planetary boundaries—that is, nonnegotiable biophysical constraints that govern socioeconomic activity—that humanity should respect if it does not want to see its biophysical environment tip over into another, much less desirable, game of survival (Steffen et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it seems that in both management research and practice, organizations play games by ignoring these biophysical laws and continue to operate as if these constraints were optional. Indeed, the economic and social activities are currently pushing Earth and our societies toward dangerous tipping points, such as mass coral bleaching events or the collapse of climate-regulating ocean currents (Lenton et al., 2025).

The interconnected socioecological crises of our time can only be addressed if management and organization scholars create new spaces to redefine sustainable practices (Gümüsay & Reinecke, 2022). This involves fostering collaboration, encouraging experimentation, and combining disciplines to better understand and support planetary health (Baudoin et al., 2022). In other words, we need a scholarship that bridges organizational and natural sciences to investigate and advance socioecological resilience. Drawing on insights from the natural sciences, such as planetary boundaries, is essential for understanding the socioecological foundations of our society, the rules we cannot escape in the organizing game, and the inherent contradictions they entail (Ergene et al., 2021). Achieving this goal demands collective mobilization to develop novel, rigorous, and ambitious interdisciplinary research (Gladwin et al., 1995; Wohlgezogen et al., 2020) and adopt a more systemic perspective (Williams et al., 2017).

However, this type of scholarship remains nascent and continues to face challenges in gaining visibility and recognition (Baudoin et al., 2022; Leahey et al., 2017). Recent research highlights a persistent lack of engagement of management studies in response to the transgression of planetary boundaries (Williams et al., 2024). Management and organizational theories and practices have largely overlooked the importance of integrating disciplines to investigate socioecological relations and businesses’ responsibilities to operate within such planetary limits (Pinkse & Gasbarro, 2019; Williams et al., 2024). Furthermore, there remains insufficient focus and momentum on how to effectively “bring sciences into the boardroom” to help organizations better understand the socioecological foundations and impacts of their actions and strategies at individual, organizational, and systemic levels (Whiteman et al., 2013).

Given this background, we aim to bring together organization and management scholars working with planetary boundaries, biophysical, and ecological data (e.g., see Etzion et al., 2026) in a safe space to discuss how to leverage advanced research that fully addresses the key challenges driven by our transgression of planetary limits. Moreover, we aim to bring together theoretical perspectives from diverse fields of knowledge to foster effective, innovative cross-disciplinary collaborations and share best practices. This will push forward the work and discussion of the EGOS 2024 Colloquium “Sub-theme 38: Ecological Insights on Sustainable Organizing: Bridging Organizational and Natural Sciences” and the EGOS 2026 Colloquium “Sub-theme 42: Organizing within Boundaries: Integrating Management and Natural Sciences” by co-creating a space for shared learning. Our goal is to help these scholars connect, form a stronger, more diverse research community, and advance a more recognizable, impactful stream of management research deeply engaging with planetary boundaries (Baudoin et al., 2022).

We welcome submissions, both theoretical and empirical, that engage directly with planetary boundaries through novel, innovative strategies that combine insights from the social and natural sciences. This includes developing new methods that incorporate biophysical and ecological variables, concepts, or frameworks, as well as redefining levels and scales of engagement with social actors, organizations, and nonhuman agencies. We particularly encourage submissions from authors who employ approaches and methodologies less common in management or organization studies but widely used in other disciplines. In this sub-theme, we will also exchange experiences and insights on the methodological and theoretical challenges inherent in this interdisciplinary endeavor.

Submissions might explore, for instance, the following questions:

• How do significant Earth system changes, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, influence organizational strategies, decision-making, and resilience, and how can organizations adapt to these shifts while ensuring sustainability and effectiveness?

• How can planetary boundaries be operationalized in organizational strategy and decision-making?

• How can we integrate diverse scientific domains to reduce organizations’ environmental footprint, achieve sustainability goals, and contribute positively to Earth’s health?

• How can organizations improve the measurement, transparency, and reporting of their ecological and social impacts, and what role do scientific collaborations play in enhancing stakeholder understanding and accountability for sustainable practices?

• How do different perspectives interpret and respond to observed or experienced changes in socioecological systems?

• What methods and data enable integration of socioecological contexts, and what barriers persist?

• Baudoin, L., Carmine, S., Nava, L., Poggioli, N., & van den Broek, O. M. (2022). Imagining a place for sustainability management: An early career call for action. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12887
• Ergene, S., Banerjee, S. B., & Hoffman, A. J. (2021). (Un)Sustainability and organization studies: Toward a radical engagement. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620937892
• Etzion, D., Baudoin, L., Pongeluppe, L. S., Callery, P. J., Lancaster, C. A., & Panwar, R. (2026). Good data, good questions: Leveraging comprehensive, direct-observation data sets for impactful research on organizations and the environment. Organization & Environment, 39(1), 112–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266251403388
• Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.
• Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2022). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 236–242.
• Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364
• Lenton, T. M., Milkoreit, M., Willcock, S., Abrams, J. F., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Buxton, J. E., Donges, J. F., Loriani, S., Wunderling, N., Alkemade, F., Barrett, M., Constantino, S., Powell, T., Smith, S. R., Boulton, C. A., Pinho, P., Dijkstra, H. A., Pearce-Kelly, P., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., & Dennis, D. (Eds.). (2025). The global tipping points report 2025. University of Exeter.
• Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.
• Pinkse, J., & Gasbarro, F. (2019). Managing physical impacts of climate change: An attentional perspective on corporate adaptation. Business & Society, 58(2), 333–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316648688
• Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), Article 1259855.
• Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x
• Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.002
• Williams, A., Perego, P., & Whiteman, G. (2024). Boundary conditions for organizations in the Anthropocene: A review of the planetary boundaries framework 10 years on. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13150
• Wohlgezogen, F., McCabe, A., Osegowitsch, T., & Mol, J. (2020). The wicked problem of climate change and interdisciplinary research: Tracking management scholarship’s contribution. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(6), 1048–1072. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.14