Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact of leadership on culture and on the structure of learning, and of these two constructs on the innovation capacity.Design/methodology/approach: A quantitative study utilising a survey was carried out. By means of an ad hoc questionnaire, educational administrators were asked about some characteristics of their organisations. The authors have proven the model of research through a model of structural equations, that is, by means of the partial least squares technique.Findings: The hypothesis is confirmed that leadership affects culture and learning structure, and both impact on the innovation capacity of schools.Practical implications: This work addresses the role of three critical aspects in the management of educational organisations—leadership, culture and structure—in the development of innovation that is essential in improving organisational development.Originality/value: The role of leadership in the development of favourable conditions for innovation is verified, as is the impact of these conditions on the innovation capacity of educational organisations.

Triple bottom line (3BL) approaches to sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) often involve trade-offs between their three dimensions (economic, environmental, and social), thus curtailing its application and leading to goal unalignment among stakeholders. Under some circumstances, however, synergic approaches (typically involving disruptive innovations) might allow simultaneous improvement in one or more dimensions without compromising the others. This paper analyzes one such case: the potential of properly designed additive manufacturing approaches in the automotive spare parts industry to simultaneously boost profits and reduce environmental impact. It is based on the systematic analysis of the real spare parts business of a mid-size automotive brand in Spain. Its results suggest that such synergic, self-reinforcing opportunities do indeed exist, and might even be further developed by strategically integrating sustainability constituents such as circularity.

This study analyzes supply chain sustainability governance mechanisms, and their characterization, typology, adoption and relationship with the overall level of sustainability in the supply chain, and with the adopting firm’s competitive strategy. It is a case-based study conducted in the Spanish retail sector. A representative set of mechanisms is identified, and both their theoretical background and their degree of practical adoption is established. These mechanisms are then characterized in terms of several traits regarding either the mechanisms themselves or the way they are adopted both by the focal company (internal view) and by its suppliers (external view) in each of the cases. Results suggest that mechanisms might be classified into either ‘enablers’, which increasingly constitute a prerequisite for achieving acceptable levels of sustainability, and ‘differentiators’, which can potentially confer sustainable strategic advantages. Actually, achieving these advantages, however, seems contingent on the additional attainment of a comprehensive ‘depth’ in the implementation of an integrated set of mechanisms of both types, both internally within the focal company and throughout the whole supply chain, as measured by the traits proposed in the study. Furthermore, the concept of ‘circular improvement models’ for sustainable supply chains, akin to Total Quality Management models, is proposed by the authors. The resulting model encompassing enabling and differentiating governance mechanisms could guide the self-evaluation and improvement plans of companies aiming to improve their supply chains sustainability; further guidance on ‘deep adoption’ comprehensive strategies and on the potential for self-reinforcing continuous improvement in sustainability beyond a certain threshold are provided by the study’s conclusions.

Innovation supports the development of Sustainable Supply Chains (SSCs) through Sustainability-Oriented Innovation (SOI) practices. This study aims to validate and further develop, through its practical application, a baseline SOI practices framework, which can be used as a benchmark model. While applying and validating this framework, several new, conceptually distinctive SOI practices were identified that were not included in the proposed baseline model. This led the authors to propose expanding the initial baseline model with a new category of “transversal” SOI practices, so that the expanded model provides a more comprehensive view of the mechanisms that foster innovation at SSCs. These “transversal” SOI practices are highly contingent on the adopting company’s traits and strategy, thus suggesting that they might be a major conduit through which its strategy is reflected in its SSCM. Besides their transversal and contingent nature, another key trait of the identified SOI practices is their integrated, dynamic, time-dependent, feedback-loop-based interrelationship. These findings suggest the potential effectiveness, for processes such as sustainability innovation that involve substantial time lags, to reposition top management focus and performance evaluation “upstream” in the causal chain. This potentially promising approach involves shifting focus from results (particularly short-term results) to its causes (processes, methods), and systematically managing the ensuing feedback loops.