Journal of Small Business Management

Bridging digitalisation, sustainability, and resilience through systems thinking tools: Integrated perspectives and collaborative practices for SMEs

The 21st century presents a range of complex and interdependent challenges, including climate change, resource depletion, economic inequality, and technological disruptions. These so-called wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Waddock, 2020) demand a paradigm shift in our approach to problem-solving. Addressing such challenges requires multi-stakeholder partnerships (Dentoni et al., 2018) and holistic, systems-level approaches that transcend traditional, siloed methodologies (Whiteman et al., 2013). As Albert Einstein once remarked, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” In light of this, systems thinking, a powerful tool for understanding complexity and interconnections, offers a pathway to sustainable solutions (Meadows, 1997; Sterman, 2001). 

Although systems theory became foundational in fields such as environmental sciences during the 20th century (Monat & Gannon, 2015), its adoption in strategic management research has been more limited (Grewatsch et al., 2021; Whiteman et al., 2013). This reluctance may be tied to the enduring influence of reductionist approaches rooted in early scientific management and innovation models (Grewatsch et al., 2021; McAvoy et al., 2024). A systems perspective, however, is critical as it views organizations as complex adaptive systems or “functioning wholes”, which contrasts with problem-solving focusing on isolated components (Ackoff & Gharajedaghi, 1996, p. 13). This special collection aims to bring systems thinking methodologies to the forefront and inspire a deeper engagement with systems-based frameworks and tools, advancing both theoretical and practical understanding of their application in business and management contexts, as well as their transformative potential in addressing complex, interconnected challenges.  

By shifting away from traditional reductionist approaches, we seek to highlight how systems thinking can uncover hidden dynamics, identify leverage points, and foster innovative solutions at the intersection of sustainability and digitalization, which has long been a focal point in the literature (Torres de Oliveira et al., 2023). First, the new technologies of the Industry 4.0 revolution, including data-driven insights, automation and increased transparency, are changing the way businesses operate (Ghobakhloo, 2020). However, it is important to better understand the impact of these disruptive innovations as a result of rapidly progressing digital technologies, as they often convey a dark side of digital change in the social and environmental context (Dahlmann, 2024). This duality highlights the importance of applying systems thinking to ensure that digital transformation aligns with sustainability goals. Second, within the sustainability domain, the circular economy introduces a new economic system and logic that also fundamentally disrupts business-as-usual (Blomsma et al., 2023). This requires a shift from individual-level innovation to collective solutions, thus relying on an ecosystem and systemic approaches to achieve a whole-of-lifecycle perspective and integrate supply chains to create closed-loop systems (Bauwens et al., 2024; Schultz & Reinhardt, 2022; Yalçın & Foxon, 2021). However, existing tools and frameworks often fail to accommodate the complexity of such an interconnected approach, limiting their effectiveness in addressing the challenges of circularity and disruptive digital solutions. 

Recent literature increasingly calls for holistic, systems-level assessments and methodologies to address complex sustainability challenges (Grewatsch et al., 2023; Toth-Peter et al., 2023; Wasieleski et al., 2021). While “system change” and “systems thinking” often appear in the political, industry and academic discourse, these calls have yet to be fully realized. Nonetheless, the superficial adoption of systems thinking, which neglects the tools and methods to uncover underlying feedback mechanisms and behaviour over time, risks creating a façade of systemic awareness while inadvertently exacerbating issues and rebound effects, ultimately worsening the planetary crisis (De Angelis & Ianulardo, 2024; Grewatsch et al., 2023; Meuer et al., 2020) and hinder a ‘real’ systemic shift. This online collection seeks to bridge this gap by highlighting innovative research and practices and by advancing our understanding of interconnected systems and the leverage points within them, we can develop more effective business strategies for achieving resilience and sustainable development (Howard-Grenville et al., 2014; Meadows, 1997).

In this call for papers, we emphasize the importance of ‘real’ systemic change in the contexts of sustainability, digitalization, and resilience. By aspiring to a real system change, we recognize that defining what constitutes a ‘real’ systemic shift remains a challenging, often a contested but also underdeveloped issue, with scholars often using terms such as “systemic change” (Clarke & Crane, 2018), “system change” (Selsky & Parker, 2005) or “transformative change” (Linnenluecke et al., 2017), or using “systems thinking” without the adequate tools amd methodologies applied. There is also a variety among the types of systems across disciplines, definitions used and their scale, which makes this even more difficult to clarify (Clarke & Crane, 2018). The literature points to examples, such as large-scale system changes, as outlined by Waddell et al. (2015), who discussed both the breadth of engaging large numbers of people, institutions, and geographies, as well as the depth of transforming the complex power structures and relationships within these systems. Furthermore, Dentoni et al. (2018) highlighted that cross-sector partnerships navigating wicked problems are often marked by knowledge uncertainty, value conflicts, and complexity, which require adaptable governance processes to continuously reassess the problem over time. Similarly, as explained by McAvoy et al. (2025), addressing a complex issue often requires assessing the levers and solutions by examining cross-boundary impacts across different systems and sectors. Expanding the boundary can offer additional insights into intervention points, revealing hidden mechanisms or suggesting that the most effective leverage may “lie on someone else’s patch” (Wolstenholme, 2004, p. 344). Thus, there is a need for new studies and frameworks that capture the complex interactions between actors, partnerships, and societal issues, across different levels, metrics and scales. Together, these perspectives illustrate that ‘real’ systemic change is not a static, singular transformation, but an evolving process shaped by diverse and often conflicting stakeholder interests, involving cross-boundary and cross-sector connections. 

We invite contributions that explore and contribute to the better understanding of ‘real’ systemic change, through investigating the synergy between systems thinking, sustainability, and digitalisation (Toth-Peter et al., 2023). Accordingly, this online collection aims to address the urgent need for a paradigm shift in how we conceptualise and tackle grand challenges (Dentoni et al., 2018; George et al., 2016), building upon cross-sector partnerships and value co-creation (Dentoni et al., 2016), leveraging frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), circular economy principles, and the transformative potential of Industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Ghobakhloo et al., 2023; United Nations, 2019). We invite contributors to discover and use a wide range of tools within systems thinking, including but not limited to causal loop diagrams, system archetypes, system maps, system dynamics models, group model building, and participatory methods (Forrester, 1994; Meadows, 1997).  

Key themes

We welcome submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following topics:

1. A shift towards systems thinking tools and methodologies

• • Applications of systems thinking tools, such as causal loop diagrams (CLDs), system archetypes, and system dynamics modeling, in addressing sustainability challenges (Meadows, 1997; Sterman, 2001)
  • Development and validation of systems-level frameworks and methodologies for sustainable development (Geels & Schot, 2007; Grewatsch et al., 2023)
  • Case studies demonstrating the impact of systems thinking on real-world sustainability and/or digitalisation initiatives (Grewatsch et al., 2023)
  • Use of group model building and participatory system dynamics to support interdisciplinary and ecosystem solutions (Hovmand et al., 2012)
  • Exploration of system archetypes and system dynamics models to identify leverage points for driving transformational change (Meadows, 1997) and to investigate levers in cross-boundary settings (Wolstenholme, 2004)

2. Digitalisation and systems-level solutions
   • The role of digital technologies, including IoT, AI, big data, and blockchain, in enabling systems-level insights and solutions in the circular economy and sustainability initiatives (Rosa et al., 2020; Toth-Peter et al., 2023)
   • Integration of digitalisation with circular economy strategies and Industry 5.0 principles and potentials (Ghobakhloo et al., 2023)
   • Innovative approaches to digital transformation that promote sustainable development (George & Schillebeeckx, 2022; Lopes et al., 2023)

3. Holistic and collaborative approaches to sustainable business strategy and innovative outcomes
   • Cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary research to foster collaboration in bridging sustainability and digitalisation, using systems thinking (Bauwens et al., 2024; Dentoni et al., 2016; George et al., 2016)
   • The role of ecosystems in sustainable business models and the boundaries of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Audretsch et al., 2024; Kanda et al., 2025)
   • Methodologies for recognising, assessing and addressing the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems (Howard-Grenville et al., 2014)
   • Open innovation in new sustainable businesses, considering distinct institutional contexts and economic systems, such as emerging and developed economies (Nguyen et al., 2023; Torres de Oliveira et al., 2022)

References

• Ackoff, R. L., & Gharajedaghi, J. (1996). Reflections on systems and their models. Systems Research, 13(1), 13-23.
• Ajwani-Ramchandani, R., Figueira, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., Jha, S., Ramchandani, A., & Schuricht, L. (2021). Towards a circular economy for packaging waste by using new technologies: The case of large multinationals in emerging economies [Article]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125139
• Audretsch, D. B., Fiedler, A., Fath, B., & Verreynne, M.-L. (2024). The dawn of geographically unbounded entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 22, e00487.
• Bauwens, T., Hartley, K., Hekkert, M., & Kirchherr, J. (2024). Building innovation ecosystems for circularity: Start-up business models in the food and construction sectors in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 481.
• Blomsma, F., Bauwens, T., Weissbrod, I., & Kirchherr, J. (2023). The ‘need for speed’: Towards circular disruption—What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it's happening. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1010-1031.
• Clarke, A., & Crane, A. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: Systematized literature review and agenda for further research. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 303-313.
• Dahlmann, F. (2024). Conceptualising Sustainability as the Pursuit of Life. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23.
• De Angelis, R., & Ianulardo, G. (2024). Circular economy principles as a basis for a sustainability management theory: A systems thinking and moral imagination approach. Business Strategy and the Environment.
• De Savigny, D., & Adam, T. (2009). Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. World Health Organization.
• Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 35-53.
• Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Schouten, G. (2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 333-356.
• Dentoni, D., Cucchi, C., Roglic, M., Lubberink, R., Bender-Salazar, R., & Manyise, T. (2022). Systems thinking, mapping and change in food and agriculture. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 11(4), 277-301.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_Growth-Within_July15.pdf
• Forrester, J. W. (1994). System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2‐3), 245-256.
• Gajanayake, A., & Iyer-Raniga, U. (2025). If there is waste, there is a system: Understanding Victoria's circular economy transition from a systems thinking perspective. Ecological Economics, 227, 108395.
• Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417.
• George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895.
• George, G., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2022). Digital transformation, sustainability, and purpose in the multinational enterprise. Journal of World Business, 57(3).
• Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,252.
• Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Morales, M. E., Nilashi, M., & Amran, A. (2023). Actions and approaches for enabling Industry 5.0‐driven sustainable industrial transformation: A strategy roadmap. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1473-1494.
• Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., & Bansal, P. (2021). Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 721-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211038635
• Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., & Bansal, P. (2023). Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization, 21(3), 721-732.
• Hovmand, P. S., Andersen, D. F., Rouwette, E., Richardson, G. P., Rux, K., & Calhoun, A. (2012). Group Model-Building 'Scripts' as a Collaborative Planning Tool. Systems research and behavioral science, 29(2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2105
• Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. In (Vol. 57, pp. 615-623): Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.
• Kanda, W., Klofsten, M., Bienkowska, D., Audretsch, D. B., & Geissdoerfer, M. (2025). Orchestration in Mature Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Towards a Circular Economy: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach. Business Strategy and the Environment.
• Leveson, N. G. (2016). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. The MIT Press.
• Linnenluecke, M. K., Verreynne, M.-L., de Villiers Scheepers, M. J., & Venter, C. (2017). A review of collaborative planning approaches for transformative change towards a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3212-3224.
• Lopes, J. D., Estevão, J., & Toth-Peter, A. (2023). Industry 4.0, multinationals, and sustainable development: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137381
• McAvoy, S., Meath, C., Toth‐Peter, A., Jagdish, N., & Karlovsek, J. (2024). A systems thinking approach to reimagining innovation models: The example of clean hydrogen. Systems research and behavioral science.
• McAvoy, S., Toth-Peter, A., Jagdish, N., Nguyen, B. H., Arnott, A., & Nissen, L. (2025). Timely access to specialist outpatient care: can applying systems thinking unblock our waiting lists? BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 121.
• Meadows, D. (1997). Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth, 91(1), 78-84.
• Meuer, J., Koelbel, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2020). On the nature of corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment,33(3), 319-341.
• Monat, J. P., & Gannon, T. F. (2015). What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature plus recommendations. American Journal of Systems Science, 4(1), 11-26.
• Nguyen, T., Verreynne, M.-L., Steen, J., & de Oliveira, R. T. (2023). Government support versus international knowledge: Investigating innovations from emerging-market small and medium enterprises. Journal of Business Research,154, 113305.
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
• Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Terzi, S. (2020). Assessing relations between Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: a systematic literature review [Article]. International Journal of Production Research.https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1680896
• Schultz, F. C., & Reinhardt, R. J. (2022). Facilitating systemic eco‐innovation to pave the way for a circular economy: A qualitative‐empirical study on barriers and drivers in the European polyurethane industry. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(5), 1646-1675.
• Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849-873.
• Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8-25.
• Torres de Oliveira, R., Ghobakhloo, M., & Figueira, S. (2023). Industry 4.0 towards social and environmental sustainability in multinationals: Enabling circular economy, organizational social practices, and corporate purpose. Journal of Cleaner Production, 430, 139712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139712
• Torres de Oliveira, R., Verreynne, M.-L., Figueira, S., Indulska, M., & Steen, J. (2022). How do institutional innovation systems affect open innovation? Journal of Small Business Management, 60(6), 1404-1448.
• Toth-Peter, A., Torres de Oliveira, R., Mathews, S., Barner, L., & Figueira, S. (2023). Industry 4.0 as an enabler in transitioning to circular business models: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136284
• United Nations. (2019). We must act now—for people and our planet. Retrieved March 17, 2021 from https://www.un.org/en/desa/we-must-act-now-%E2%80%93-people-and-our-planet
• Waddell, S., Waddock, S., Cornell, S., Dentoni, D., McLachlan, M., & Meszoely, G. (2015). Large systems change: An emerging field of transformation and transitions. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58(6), 5-30.
• Waddock, S. (2020). Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Global Sustainability, 3, e12.
• Wasieleski, D., Waddock, S., Fort, T., & Guimarães-Costa, N. (2021). Natural sciences, management theory, and system transformation for sustainability. Business & Society, 60(1), 7-25.
• Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307-336.
• Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866-881.
• Wolstenholme, E. (2004). Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 20(4), 341-356.
• Yalçın, N. G., & Foxon, T. J. (2021). A systemic approach to transitions towards circular economy: the case of Brighton and Hove. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 3.