The theoretical and practical understanding of sustainability implementation has been changing in depth and scope. In particular, circular economy paradigms (e.g., Cradle to Cradle or “C2C” practices) have enabled firms to rethink their resource management behavior, resulting in distinct trade‐off patterns among different sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, while many established firms remain reactive and market‐oriented in their sustainability implementations, sustainability‐rooted firms proactively integrate sustainability practices into their core business. The prior literature on sustainability trade‐offs has unduly focused more on established firms that predominantly indulge in market‐oriented decisions and trade‐offs between profit and sustainability, lacking insights into the approaches adopted by sustainability‐rooted firms and trade‐offs among the different dimensions of sustainability. We performed a mixed‐methods study to address this gap and illustrated the rationale and dynamics of trade‐offs among five sustainability dimensions (i.e., material health, material reutilization, renewable energy, water stewardship, and social fairness). We primarily focused on firms in the United States and the European Union since they are the leading areas in terms of circular economy adoption. We explained the pattern of sustainability trade‐offs and associated them with a three‐stage maturity framework, namely, low‐hanging fruits, exploratory, and resource and time intensive. We contributed to the theory by depicting the influence of resource allocation and sustainability maturity level on trade‐offs among the five dimensions of sustainability. Practitioners can leverage our framework to better understand their sustainability transformation and make more informed decisions for attaining higher levels of sustainability with more impact.

This paper investigates what drives collaboration or conflict between domain and method experts in deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI), and how these dynamics can be managed to fairly reshape the space of ethics guiding expert work. The emergence of sophisticated epistemic technologies, e.g., AI, has amplified the importance of method experts. Leveraging their knowledge of data science, mathematics, and coding, method experts have challenged the authority of domain experts, like external auditors. These challenges generate tensions extending beyond jurisdictional and operational control to profound ethical and moral concerns, since jurisdictional authority determines whose values are embedded in AI-driven decision-making. Empirical research presents divergent views on how domain and method experts navigate such tensions in AI deployments, with some studies suggesting that domain experts leverage their status and power to resist changes to ethical considerations. To reconcile these fragmented perspectives, we develop a conceptual framework grounded in the literature that frames expert work as a balance between individual craftsmanship and collective judgment. We offer two contributions. First, drawing on foundational literature on technology and expert work as well as empirical studies on AI and external auditing, we identify existing conditions and mechanisms that foster cooperation or conflict between different expert groups. Second, informed by Habermasian conceptions of deliberative democracy, we explicate how the space of ethics in deploying AI can be fairly reshaped through multi-layered deliberations that account for diverse stakeholder interests. Our framework provides a foundation for future empirical studies to deepen understanding of AI’s impact on expert work and ethics.

Purpose: This study aims to examine how the legitimacy of internal auditing is reconstructed during enterprise resource planning (ERP)-driven technological change. Design/methodology/approach: The study is based on the comparative analysis of internal auditing and its transformation due to ERP implementations at two case firms operating in the food sector in Egypt – one a major Egyptian multinational corporation (MNC) and the other a major domestic company (DC). Findings: Internal auditors (IAs) at MNC saw ERP implementation as an opportunity to reconstruct the legitimacy of internal auditing work by engaging and partnering with actors involved with the ERP change. In doing so, the IAs acquired system certifications and provided line functions and external auditors with data-driven business insights. The “practical coping mechanism” adopted by the IAs led to the acceptance (and legitimacy) of their work. In contrast, IAs at DC adopted a purposeful strategy of disengaging, blaming and rejecting since they were skeptical of the top management team's (TMT's) sincerity. The “disinterestedness” led to the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the stakeholders. Originality/value: The article offers two contributions. First, it extends the literature by highlighting a spectrum of behavior displayed by IAs (coping with impending issues vs strategic purposefulness) during ERP-driven technological change. Second, the article contributes to the literature on legitimacy by highlighting four intertwined micro-processes – participating, socializing, learning and role-forging – that contribute to reconstructing the legitimacy of internal auditing.

This study examines which factors facilitate (obstruct) the discretion exercised by ground‐level governance actors, such as internal auditors, in justifying their governance work. To achieve this objective, we rely on two complementary theoretical perspectives. One perspective proposes that the organizational embeddedness of ground‐level governance actors, ordained by high‐level governance actors (such as the board of directors), obstructs their discretion. In contrast, the other perspective, building on institutional complexity, propounds that multiple institutional demands facilitate the situated agency and discretion of ground‐level governance actors. Consistent with the emerging multilevel research on institutional complexity, we combine these two perspectives by including both the structural and static meso‐level factors (i.e. organizational embeddedness) as well as actors' situated agency. Utilizing three comparative cases, we demonstrate that internal auditors' ability to exercise discretion is facilitated (obstructed) when organizational embeddedness enables (constrains) the cohabitation of multiple institutional logics at the organizational level. In doing so, we identify organizationally situated agency as an underlying factor driving internal auditors’ justification approaches in their governance work.

How does a board of directors respond to stringent transnational regulations on corporate governance? We explore this question in a case study that includes interviews with key governance actors of a bank dealing with regulatory changes in the European Union (EU) initiated in 2010 in response to the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Our findings suggest that transnational regulations introduced a conflicting prescription to the directors, who were caught between two needs: existing local governance practices and transnational regulatory compliance. Contributing to the international corporate governance research, our findings corroborate the resistance to transnational regulations and the distrust attributable to boards of directors’ role struggles and the invasive accountability mechanisms introduced by such regulations. We, therefore, contribute to the ongoing discussion on how the conflicting layers of corporate governance—local versus global—and how the discontinuities between competing existing practices and the prescriptions of transnational regulations can provoke micro-resistance.