Recently, the concept of resilience has gained new momentum in organization studies. It is held to be a very promising concept to explain how organizations can survive and thrive amidst adversity or turbulence. However, findings from an earlier review about resilience in the organizational and business context show that, although empirical research on the concept has increased, there is still a need for more clarity in terms of its measurement. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of the organizational resilience construct that covers both conceptual and operational issues. We discuss why researchers criticize resilience for being fuzzy and move on to identify and analyse existing literature under the lens of construct development and taxonomies. With this study, we aim to point out conceptual problems for future researchers to address conceptual clarity and to develop a clearer, more parsimonious concept. We conclude with a suggestion about future measurement.

Boards of directors affect corporate strategy and decision-making through monitoring of management and resource provision. Recently, an increasing number of studies have examined the relationships between board characteristics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). These studies have yielded inconsistent findings. This article therefore reports the results of a study applying meta-analytical techniques to a sample of 82 empirical studies to help clarify the relationships between board characteristics and CSR. Although prior research has tended to apply relatively simplistic models investigating the impact of individual board characteristics independently and only directly, we adopt a more complex perspective to shed new light on the board characteristics–CSR nexus. Specifically, we use a meta-analytic path model that accounts for the potential interplay between board characteristics in determining CSR and tests whether the presence of a CSR committee plays a meditating role. Our findings suggest that board size, board independence, and female board representation are partially interrelated with each other and jointly influence CSR directly as well as indirectly via the presence of a CSR committee. In addition, we find that country-level institutional factors act as moderators and that the relationships differ with regard to the specific dimension of CSR (i.e., social, environmental, or aggregate).

Purpose: Case studies on life cycle assessments frequently admit that the precision of their outcome could be undermined due to temporal issues, though they usually refrain from offering much more detail. In addition, available overview papers and reviews on problems and challenges in LCA do not address the whole range of temporal issues. As those are major sources of inaccuracies and influence each other, it is important to get a clear picture of them, to close gaps in definitions, to systemize temporal issues, and to show their interdependencies and proposed solutions. In order to identify the state of science on those questions, we conducted a systematic literature review. Methods: We first systematized temporal issues based on ISO 14040ff and divided them into six types: time horizon, discounting, temporal resolution of the inventory, time-dependent characterization, dynamic weighting, and time-dependent normalization. Building on that, we identified suitable search terms and developed an analysis grid for the content analysis. We included only methodological papers and case studies with original findings on solutions for temporal issues. Bibliographic data, impact types, industrial fields, and methodological contributions were analyzed. Results and discussion: Literature differentiates between different types of time horizons. There is one for the whole assessment, defined in goal and scope, one for the life cycle inventory, and one for the impact characterization. Setting a time horizon for the assessment is regarded as equivalent to the application of discounting. Both very long and very short time horizons of the assessment are not practical depending on the topic assessed in the LCA. Very short ones would offend the principle of intergenerational equality, while very long ones would marginalize short-term actions and thereby reduce incentives to act. There is consensus in the literature that temporally differentiated life cycle inventories and time-dependent, or at least time horizon dependent, characterization improve the accuracy of LCA. Generally, dynamic life cycle assessments are attractive for companies because the calculation results are not only more accurate but are often also lower than in static life cycle assessments. Conclusion: The main questions where we did not find consensus are the issue of the length of the time horizon of the assessment and the issue of discounting. Those are regarded as subjective and are encountered with sensitivity or scenario analysis. Further investigations should be taken for a better understanding of this issue and for concrete solutions because their influence on the results of life cycle assessments is often fundamental.

Purpose: In order to guide sustainability research on the sharing economy, the purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive framework that captures the wide range of activities and business models that are considered to be part of the sharing economy. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic literature review and a content analysis, existing typologies are identified and analyzed for their conceptual intersections. Finally, categorizations from 43 documents are integrated into one framework. Findings: Four main dimensions are identified as being used in different contexts to characterize sharing systems and were combined to form one comprehensive typology: shared good or service, market structure, market orientation, and industry sector. Originality/value: The proposed typology is able to distinguish sharing activities based on their similarities and differences. Social, economic, and communicational avenues for the term “sharing” are merged into a conceptual foundation of the sharing economy. This enables researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to position their projects in the broad field of sharing. By discussing inherent tensions with regard to sustainability of the sharing economy, the offered categorizations can help to guide future research and policy intervention. Last but not least, professional managers should find valuable ideas for new business models.