Sustainable development requires coopetition, that is, the cooperation of organizations that compete at the same time. Research on coopetition for sustainability is sparse. From a sustainability perspective, coopetition contributes to sustainability when it makes a positive contribution on the societal level. Existing research on coopetition however focuses on organizational outcomes. In this paper, we link organizational and societal outcomes of coopetition. We show that for the simple case of two coopting firms and an economic and an environmental dimension, there are 51 different combinations that make a positive contribution to sustainability. All but one of these combinations consist of a mix of positive and negative outcomes. We identify four types of trade‐offs that can occur in coopetition for sustainability and that point to different pathways of achieving sustainability.

Cross‐sectoral collaboration is argued to be vital for business model innovation for sustainability and the tension‐filled choices it involves but brings its own complexities. We therefore investigate how institutional logics and power affect the interests and dependencies of City planners and real‐estate developers involved in developing a business model for sustainable mobility. Through analyzing how partners deal with tension‐filled choices regarding business model elements, we develop a model to explain how compromises are made in partnerships characterized by conflicting interests coupled to strong interdependencies. We finish by cautioning that conflicting interests and power characteristics may delimit the potential for such cross‐sectoral collaborations to contribute to sustainable development in sectors where public actors are used to rely on their authority.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate perceptual differences between employees characterized by various levels of internal brand commitment and sustainability importance. The identified clusters of employees are compared considering the main determinants of internal brand commitment and their evaluations of a company’s sustainability performance. Design/methodology/approach: The study was conducted among employees of industrial companies operating in Belarus. Two hundred thirty-eight responses were analyzed by using the K-means cluster analysis. The analysis of variance was applied for evaluating differences between the three identified clusters. Findings: Based on internal brand commitment and sustainability importance, the paper identifies three alternative clusters of employees: uncommitted sustainability laggards, committed sustainability followers and committed sustainability leaders. The results show that the three clusters differ in regard to the main determinants of internal brand commitment, which are brand orientation, internal brand knowledge and internal brand involvement. The findings demonstrate significant perceptual differences between the three clusters regarding their evaluations of a company’s sustainability performance. The assessment of sustainability performance focuses on sustainability objectives, sustainability policies and sustainability decision-making and disclosure. Research limitations/implications: The study was conducted in the context of a transition economy. Future studies are recommended to develop a cross-cultural comparison of relationships between employees’ perceptions about sustainability performance, different determinants and the outcomes of internal brand commitment. Originality/value: The paper makes a theoretical contribution to research on internal branding and sustainability by examining the potential interrelationships between internal branding strategies and sustainability performance.

By using resources more efficiently, resource users help to overcome the inherent resource scarcity on “spaceship earth.” One strategy in this context is to close resource loops and to use resources circularly. With fewer resources wasted, a more circular use of resources should also increase the efficiency of resource use and create more value. However, when resource users aim for a greater degree of efficiency, inadvertently they might contribute to resources being used less rather than more circularly and, consequently, less instead of more efficiently. We show how to assess the value that is created by the efficient use of resources for the case of linear and circular resource use. This allows us to identify three distinct types of positive externalities related to the circular use of resources: (1) systemic static externalities; (2) idiosyncratic dynamic externalities; and (3) systemic dynamic externalities. We describe how the value created by these externalities can be assessed and argue that they need to be considered when evaluating environmental resource use.