r Academy of Management Journal2016, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1880–1895.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007

UNDERSTANDING AND TACKLING SOCIETAL GRANDCHALLENGES THROUGH MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

GERARD GEORGESingapore Management University

JENNIFER HOWARD-GRENVILLEUniversity of Cambridge

APARNA JOSHIPennsylvania State University

LASZLO TIHANYITexas A&M University

“Grand challenges” are formulations of global problems that can be plausibly addressedthrough coordinated and collaborative effort. In this Special Research Forum, weshowcase management research that examines societal problems that individuals, or-ganizations, communities, and nations face around the world. We develop a frameworkto guide future research to provide systematic empirical evidence on the formulation,articulation, and implementation of grand challenges. We highlight several factors thatlikely enhance or suppress the attainment of collective goals, and identify representativeresearch questions for future empirical work. In so doing, we aspire to encouragemanagement scholars to engage in tackling broader societal challenges through theircollaborative research and collective insight.

The world is besieged by challenges. Discourses inpublic media suggest that this decade is characterizedby political instability, economic volatility, and socie-tal upheaval. Whether it is war in Syria, migrant crisesin Asia and Europe, climate change-induced naturaldisasters, poverty, water scarcity, or famine, globalchallenges remain stubbornly persistent despite tech-nological, economic, and social progress.Whether it iselections to government office or discussions on tradeand open borders, sociopolitical dialogues are in-creasingly nationalistic, populist, and socially divisivein many countries. Nascent technologies, such as the“Internet of Things,”machine learning, and artificial in-telligence, threaten employment andwill likely displacesignificant parts of the workforce. Even if potential so-lutions exist, these global problems require coordinatedaction. In this context, businesses have become active invocalizing theirconcernsandworkingwithgovernmentsand multilateral agencies to address these crises—withagoalofprovidingsocially inclusivegrowthinwhichthepoorest and the disenfranchised will have the opportu-nity to participate in social and economic progress. Thisisanopportunemoment formanagementscholars to jointhe debate and turn research into actionable insights toframe and tackle some of the biggest challenges that weface in our global community.

GRAND CHALLENGES: WHAT ARE THEY ANDWHY SHOULD WE CARE?

The Academy of Management Journal’s 20theditorial team has defined its three-year term witha thematic emphasis on “grand challenges” (hereaf-ter, GCs), and called for research through editorialson a wide array of topics that explored global prob-lems including climate change (Howard-Grenville,Buckle, Hoskins, & George, 2014), aging societies(Kulik, Ryan, Harper, & George, 2014), natural re-sources (George, Schillebeeckx, & Liak, 2015), soci-etal resilience (van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom, &George, 2015), digital workforce (Colbert, Yee, &George, 2016), digital money (Dodgson, Gann,Wladwsky-Berger, Sultan, & George, 2015), andgender inequality (Joshi, Neely, Emrich, Griffiths, &George, 2015) among others, as well as methodo-logical approaches with which to tackle them(Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Sonenshein, 2016;George, Osinga, Lavie, & Scott, 2016). This SpecialResearch Forum is a culmination of the currenteditorial team’s efforts to encourage research onsocietal problems with the aspiration that moremanagement scholars would join global effortsat understanding and solving persistent, buttractable, GCs.

1880

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Defining a Grand Challenge

The term “grand challenge” beginswith the effortsof Dr. David Hilbert, a German mathematician laterrecognized as one of the most influential 20th-century mathematicians, who, in 1900, at the In-ternational Congress of Mathematicians in Paris,listed a set of 23 problems that were collectivelytermed as “grand challenges” (Hilbert, 1902). Thesechallenges were specific mathematical problemsthat were articulated and formulated to spur interestand dialogue among mathematicians, which in turngenerated breakthroughs in mathematics, physics,and other scientific fields. This idea of articulatingchallenges to focus efforts on addressing commonproblemshas beenused successfully by foundations,governments, academies, and multilateral agenciesto engender collaborative responses to solving globalproblems. Though several definitions of GCs exist,they tend to focus on specific domains (e.g., health orengineering). We use a modified definition that wasdeveloped by Grand Challenges Canada (2011: iv),and define a “grand challenge” as specific criticalbarrier(s) that, if removed, would help solve an im-portant societal problem with a high likelihood ofglobal impact through widespread implementation.

GCs, by their very nature, require coordinated andsustained effort from multiple and diverse stake-holders toward a clearly articulated problem or goal.Solutions to GCs typically involve changes in indi-vidual and societal behaviors, changes to how actionsare organized and implemented, and progress intechnologies and tools to solve these problems. Thus,the tackling of GCs could be fundamentally charac-terized as a managerial (organizational) and scientificproblem. Natural and physical scientists and engi-neers have readily adopted such a lens and GC lan-guage in theirdefinitionofglobalproblems,withsocialscientists recently joining this coordinated effort.

Sustainable Development Goals

There are several GCs defined by foundations; forexample, theBill andMelindaGates Foundation’sGCsfor global health have seven stated goals (e.g., improvevaccines) and 14 articulated GCs (e.g., develop vac-cines that do not require refrigeration). Perhaps themost universal and widely adopted GCs, though, arethe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of theUnited Nations (UN). At a historic UN summit inSeptember 2015, 193member states of theUNadopteda set of 17 goals to end poverty, protect the planet,and ensure prosperity for all as part of a sustainable

development agenda. These 17 SDGs set 169 targetsbetween themtobeachievedby2030.Figure1providesa concise representation of the SDGs. In Table 1, weprovide further detail and give specific empirical ex-amples of GC targets and problems faced by differentcountries.

Many SDGs are directly relevant to managementscholars, chief among them “decent work and eco-nomic growth” (SDG 8), “industry, innovation, andinfrastructure” (SDG 9), and “responsible con-sumption and production” (SDG 12). Related SDGson which management scholars already conductsignificant research include “no poverty” (SDG 1),“good health and well-being” (SDG 3), “genderequality” (SDG 5), and “reduced inequalities”(SDG 10). Other SDGs predominantly tend to becontexts for our empirical studies rather than thegoal itself. For example, “affordable and clean en-ergy” (SDG 7) could be served through empiricalresearch on sustainable and green practices of busi-nesses wherein management research might provideinsight for businesses and prepare them to act towardthese goals. The elegance of the SDGs are in the artic-ulation that human progress stems from achievingthese clear targets through collective, collaborative,and coordinated effort.

GRAND CHALLENGES AND MANAGEMENTRESEARCH

The response for this Special Research Forum callon GCs inmanagement was overwhelming.We havereviewed more than 130 submissions and included14 of the accepted articles in this issue.1 The studiesvary in context and issues being addressed, givinga rich variety of ideas for future research in man-agement. In this section, we highlight how manage-ment scholars are studying these social problems.We separate the studies into two broad themes: (1)studies that address how management theories canbe applied to address GCs—that is, management in-sights onhowglobal problems canbe tackled; and (2)studies that identify mechanisms and contexts bywhich GCs affect organizations and institutions—that is, how global problems affect our business andwork environments.

1 At the time of going to print, a handful of manuscriptswere undergoing further revisions. These articles will ap-pear in a 2017AMJ issue. A few studies were conditionallyacceptedwhen this editorialwaswritten andare integratedinto this editorial, but the studies themselveswill appear inprint at a later date.

2016 1881George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

Management as a Tool to Address GrandChallenges

Eradicating and treating diseases that afflict thepoorest in the world is one of the most compellingGCs of our time. Vakili and McGahan (2016) tacklehealth care as a GC, focusing on investments tostimulate basic scientific research on diseases thatafflict the poor. They analyze how policies de-veloped in affluent countries fail to address this im-portant challenge. Specifically, the authors focuson the World Trade Organization’s Agreement onTrade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS), which came into effect in 1994, andthe extent to which it has encouraged the use ofbasic science as a prerequisite to develop drugs forneglected diseases. Vakili and McGahan’s global-response analysis reveals that this requirement didindeed lead to an increase in research in bothneglected and non-neglected diseases in TRIPS-compliant countries, and that this effect was thestrongest for basic research on neglected diseasesand applied research on non-neglected diseases. Atthe local level, basic research on neglected diseasesincreased in TRIPS-compliant low-income coun-tries. The authors conclude that, although policies

designed to enhance science do play a role in in-creasing research on neglected diseases, delays incommercialization given an emphasis on basic re-search may limit the effectiveness of these policies.These findings may be extended to understand theeffects of institutions on innovation and on in-stitutional emergence and development in relationto tackling GCs.

Leveraging observational and interview data col-lected over a decade’s engagement with Gram Vikas,a non-governmental organization tackling water andsanitation issues in rural India, Mair,Wolf, and Seelos(2016) expose how such interventions can beeffective at shifting broader norms underpinningpersistent patterns of inequality. They advance scaf-folding as a process that can transform the institu-tional and cultural patterns that allow GCs such asinequality to persist, drawing attention to how diversegroups of people can be drawn into new patterns ofinteraction that are ultimately stabilized into a newsocial order. While scaffolding involves the mobiliza-tion of specific resources to enable this transformation,it also importantly conceals more controversial goals,by, for example, presenting the proximate goal ofsanitation to mask the goal of upsetting traditionalsocial systems that sustain inequality.

FIGURE 1UN Sustainable Development Goals

Source: United Nations. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/Accessed November 1, 2016

Source: United Nations (2015a)

1882 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

TABLE 1UN Sustainable Development Goals and Exemplars

Goalsa Goal Target ExamplesNumbers from the World,Regions, and Countries

1. No Poverty—end poverty in all its formseverywhere

By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for allpeople everywhere, currently measured aspeople living on less than $1.25 a day

More than 800million people live in extremepoverty,most of theminSouthernAsia andSub-Saharan Africab

2. No Hunger—end hunger, achieve foodsecurity and improved nutrition, andpromote sustainable agriculture

By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by allpeople, inparticular thepoor andpeople invulnerable situations, including infants, tosafe, nutritious, and sufficient food all yearround

Percentage of population undernourished:c

Zambia, 47.8%; Central African Republic,47.7%; Namibia, 42.3%; DemocraticRepublic of Korea, 41.6%

3. Good Health and Well-Being—ensurehealthy lives and promote well-being forall at all ages

By2030, endpreventabledeaths of newbornsand children under 5 years of age, with allcountries aiming to reduce neonatalmortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000live births and under-5 mortality to at leastas low as 25 per 1,000 live births

Children under-5 mortality rates per 1,000live births:d Angola, 156.9; Somalia, 136.8;Haiti, 69.0; Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic, 66.7

4.Quality Education—ensure inclusive andequitable quality education and promotelifelong learning for all

By 2030, ensure that all youth anda substantial proportion of adults, bothmen and women, achieve literacy andnumeracy

Literacy rate, population 24–65 years, bothsexes:e Guinea, 23.9%; Mali, 26.79%;Afghanistan, 27.1%

5. Gender Equality—achieve genderequality and empower all women andgirls

Eliminate all forms of violence against allwomen and girls in the public and privatespheres, including trafficking and sexualand other types of exploitation

Global Gender Gap Index (2015) score:Iceland, 0.881; Norway, 0.850; UnitedStates, 0.740; Pakistan, 0.559; Yemen,0.484f

6. Clean Water and Sanitation—ensureavailability and sustainable managementof water and sanitation for all

By 2030, achieve universal and equitableaccess to safe and affordable drinkingwater for all

Percentage of population using improveddrinking-water sources:g Angola, 28.2%;Papua New Guinea, 32.8%; Afghanistan,47.0%

7. Affordable and Clean Energy—ensureaccess to affordable, reliable, sustainable,and clean energy for all

By 2030, increase substantially the share ofrenewable energy in the global energy mix

Percentage of population with access toelectricity:h Austria, 100%; Singapore,100%; South Sudan, 5.1%; Malawi, 9.8%

8. Decent Work and EconomicGrowth—promote sustained, inclusive,and sustainable economic growth, fulland productive employment, and decentwork for all

Sustain per-capita economic growth inaccordance with national circumstances,and, in particular, at least 7% grossdomestic product growth per annum in theleast developed countries

Two-thirds of young women and men indeveloping countries are unemployedb

9. Industry, Innovation, andInfrastructure—build resilientinfrastructure, promote inclusive andsustainable industrialization, and fosterinnovation

Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, andresilient infrastructure, including regionaland transborder infrastructure, to supporteconomic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable andequitable access for all

Researchers in R&D (per million people):h

Finland, 7,717; Singapore, 6,307;Guatemala, 25; Mali, 29

10. Reduced Inequalities—reduce inequalitywithin and among countries

By 2030, progressively achieve and sustainincome growth of the bottom 40% of thepopulation at a rate higher than thenational average

Gini index (World Bank estimate; referenceyear 2013):h Honduras, 53.7; Brazil, 52.9;Ukraine, 24.6; United States: 41.1

11. Sustainable Cities andCommunities—make cities and humansettlements inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable

By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate,safe, and affordable housing and basicservices, and upgrade slums

Over half of the world population lives incities.i Largest cities around the world (inmillions) include: Tokyo, 38; Delhi, 28;Shanghai, 25

12. Responsible Consumption andProduction—ensure sustainableconsumption and production patterns

Implement the 10-year framework ofprograms on sustainable consumption andproduction, all countries taking action,with developed countries taking the lead,taking into account the development andcapabilities of developing countries

To sustain the current lifestyle levels of anestimated 9.5 billion world population in2050, natural resources equivalent ofalmost three planets will be requiredb

13. Climate Action—take urgent action tocombat climate change and its impacts

Integrate climate change measures intonational policies, strategies and planning

Global average sea level has risen nearly 7inches (178 mm) over the past 100 yearsj

2016 1883George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

Cobb, Wry, and Zhao (2016) investigate the fund-ing of “microfinance organizations,” the providersof financial services that have been considered aseffective means in alleviating poverty in least de-veloped and developing countries. Their articleon funding financial inclusion contributes tothe institutional logics perspective by contrastingthe financial logic of commercial funders with thedevelopmental logic of public funders. Using datafrom 891 microfinance organizations and their1,490 funders in 92 countries over the period of2004–2012, Cobb and his colleagues demonstratethat different funders, owing to their different in-stitutional logics, prefer to invest in different types ofmicrofinance organizations based on the organiza-tions’ size and performance. However, the authorsfind a convergence in these institutional logics,leading to a focus on the size of microfinance orga-nizations and thus to the inability of smaller micro-finance organizations to attract funding. This change

in funding, in turn, has adverse effects on the micro-finance sector and those in need of inexpensive loansduring times of uncertainty.

Zhao andWry (2016) focus on the issues of genderequality and poverty reduction in the context ofmicrofinance lending in 115 developing countries.They conceptualize lending to women borrowers bymicrofinance organizations as a reflection of patri-archy, a broader societal logic. Their analysis of ar-chival data on 2,326 microfinance organizationsfrom 1995 to 2013 and interviews with 27 pro-fessionals in 14 countries reveals that patriarchy hasdifferent influence across sectors of the society suchas the family, religion, professional, and state. Inaddition to contributing to research on institutionallogics, their empirical evidence on the varying effectof patriarchy on different societal sectors may helpmicrofinance organizations in developing differentfunding and lending practices in societies charac-terized by different levels of patriarchy, and, thus,

TABLE 1(Continued)

Goalsa Goal Target ExamplesNumbers from the World,Regions, and Countries

14. Life Below Water—conserve andsustainably use the oceans, seas andmarine resources for sustainabledevelopment

By 2025, prevent and significantly reducemarine pollution of all kinds, in particularfrom land-based activities, includingmarine debris and nutrient pollution

Almost half of theworld population dependson marine and coastal biodiversity for itslivelihoodb

15. Life on Land—protect, restore, andpromote sustainable use of terrestrialecosystems, sustainably manage forests,combat desertification, and stop andreverse land degradation and haltbiodiversity loss

By 2030, combat desertification, restoredegraded land and soil, including landaffected by desertification, drought, andfloods, and strive to achieve a landdegradation-neutral world

The reduction in food production owing toland degradation over the next 25 years isexpected to increase world food prices by30%k

16.Peace and Justice—promote peaceful andinclusive societies for sustainabledevelopment, provide access to justice forall, and build effective, accountable, andinclusive institutions at all levels

End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and allforms of violence against and torture ofchildren

Estimated percentage of population inmodern slavery:l North Korea, 4.373%;Uzbekistan, 3.973%; Cambodia, 1.648%;India, 1.400%; Qatar, 1.356%

17. Partnerships for the Goals—strengthenthe means of implementation andrevitalize the global partnership forsustainable development

Significantly increase the exports ofdeveloping countries, in particular witha view to doubling the least-developedcountries’ share of global exports by 2020

Merchandise exports by least-developedcountries account for 1.1% of world tradeb

a United Nations (2015a)b United Nations (2015b)c Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015)d World Health Organization (2015a)e UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2016)f Global Gender Gap Index 2015 rankings (scores range from 15 equality to 05 inequality) (World Economic Forum, 2015)g World Health Organization (2015b)h World Bank (2013)i United Nations (2014)j NASA (2015)k United Nations (2012)l Walk Free Foundation (2016)

1884 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

improve the effectiveness of financial assistance tothe poor in developing countries.

Lawrence (inpress) analyzeshowNorthAmerica’sfirst and only government-sanctioned supervisedinjection site for illegal drug users was establishedin Vancouver, modeled on such sites in Europe.Drawing on this as a case of the successful transla-tion of a morally, ethically, and emotionally divisivepractice into a community, Lawrence theorizesa process of high-stakes institutional translation.High-stakes institutional translation is energized byintense public emotion around an issue, and pro-ceeds through waves of discursive and materialtranslations by actors with various perspectives,roles, and bases of legitimacy. Through these waves,ideas and practices that were once considered mor-ally repugnant become locally validated and em-bedded in a community’s network of concepts,routines, and relationships. In exposing how high-stakes institutional translation transformed super-vised injection from a violation of moral standards(apparently condoning illegal drug use) into an im-portant component of health care provision (recog-nizing that drug addiction was a medical conditionand drug addicts were worthy of respect and com-passion), Lawrence’s analysis sheds light on howideas and practices surrounding morally chargedGCs might be ultimately transformed.

Using a seven-year panel dataset, Berrone,Gelabert, Foce Massa-Saluzzo, and Rousseau (2016)address income inequalityby testing a framework thatexamines how institutional and competitive dynam-ics across over 200 communities in the United Statesinfluence the role of non-profit welfare organizations.The article reveals an interesting non-linear trend inhow non-profit organization density in a communityimpacts its income inequality—increasing the num-ber of these welfare organizations reduces inequality,but only up to a point and only under certain condi-tions. Beyond a certain density, the authors surmisethat resourcesmaybe inefficientlydeployedandhavediminishing effects on inequality. Surprisingly, weakgovernment policies increased the effectiveness oftheseorganizations in reducing inequality, suggestingthatwelfare organizations compensate for inadequatestate support.

In a similar vein, Olsen, Sofka, and Grimpe(2016) provide an understanding of the complexityof coordination across multiple stakeholders inresolving GCs. Partnerships between multipleorganizations to search for solutions—“searchconsortia”—are successful not only because of thetechnological capabilities of partners, but also based

on the participation of advocacy groups that do nothave any technological capacity and yet occupya unique vantage point to address the challenge.Based on a dataset of all 35,249 applications submit-ted to the European Commission’s Seventh Frame-work Programme for research and technologicaldevelopment (FP7), spanning 192 different problemareas such as health, information, transportation, andenergy, theauthors find thatGCenvironmentsdodifferin the extent to which they include advocacy groups.However, the involvement of these groups reflectsa deeper understanding of stakeholder concerns, par-ticularly when consortia represent dispersed technologi-cal knowledge. These groups also provide a legitimizinginfluencewhen a consortium lacks prior experience.The authors discuss the implications of these find-ings for stakeholder theory.

In their study of resilience and sustenance inthe context of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Williamsand Shepherd (2016) use a grounded methodologyto unpack the role of emergent organizations inresponding to natural disasters. Their analyses revealtwo types of approaches respecting how these organi-zations respond to suffering and build resilience to di-sasters: sustaining and transforming. Both approacheswere able to address basic needs of survivors, but thelatterwasassociatedwithgreaterself-reliance,while theformer led to greater dependence on the organization.Through their rich observational, interview, and archi-val data gathered over two years, the authors developanewunderstandingof thecompetencies organizationsneed to build resilience in the wake of disasters.

Ballesteros, Useem, and Wry (in press) also studydisaster relief, but examine the role of local corpo-rates in disaster response. They predict that, whiletraditional aid providers are important for disasterrecovery, relief will arrive faster and nations willrecovermore fully when locally active firms accountfor a larger share of disaster aid. These authors usea proprietary dataset comprising information on every-natural disaster and reported aid donation worldwidefrom 2003 to 2013. The analysis uses a novel, quasi-experimental technique known as the synthetic controlmethod and shows that nations benefit greatly fromcorporate involvement when disaster strikes.

Grand Challenges and their Impact onOrganizations and Institutions

The following set of studies examines howsocietalproblems and GCs affect organizations and institu-tions, and, in turn, how these actors respond (or fail torespond) to these challenges.

2016 1885George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

In a study of sustainability practices in “conflictminerals,” Kim and Davis (2016) explore the chal-lenge of supply chain accountability in an era ofglobally distributed production and diverse laborand environmental practices. Exploring what com-panies disclosed to comply with legislation re-quiring them to report on whether their productscontain conflict minerals sourced from the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo, Kim and Davis foundthat a mere 1% of companies could certify theirproducts as conflict-mineral free. Based on cross-sectional regression analysis, the authors concludethat nearly eight out of ten companies are unable todetermine the provenance of these minerals in theirproducts. Organizational complexity, most notablythe sheer size and geographical scope of companies’supply chains, is the primary contributor to thisoutcome. Only when controlling for supply chaincomplexity does a company’s reputation influenceits likelihood of verifying its products as conflict-free. The authors present their problem-driven in-quiry as an opportunity to build understanding ofhow greater accountability could be achieved insupply chains through collective, voluntary efforts,including those that might lower the costs of col-lecting verification information.

An aging workforce has been recognized as a GCfacing employers and governments alike all overthe world. Using a stereotype threat model, Kulik,Perera, and Cregan (2016) examine the impactof threat-inducing and threat-inhibiting contextualfactors on the engagement of older workers. A keyinsight offered by the study is that diversity-conscious organizational practices helped mitigatethe effects of threat-inducing factors, but diversity-blind or high-performance practices had a directeffect on engagement among mature-age workersregardless of other threat-inducing facets of thecontext. The authors recommend that organizationsrely on the complementarities between these differ-ent types of practices tomaintain engagement amongtheir mature-age workforce.

Luo, Zhang, and Marquis (2016) explore thequestion of how civil society can influence busi-nesses operating in countries with authoritarian re-gimes. Because the Internet is a potentially potentvehicle for activism in societies where traditionalmedia is restricted, the authors theorize that Internetusers might trigger corporate responses throughamechanism of social comparison. Using regressionanalysis of corporate contributions to disaster relieffollowing the catastrophic 2008 earthquake inSichuan Province, China, the authors explore the

relationship between Internet activism and thespeed and scope of corporate responses. They findthat online rankings and articles on corporate dona-tions are tactics that speed corporate responses,as does firms’ higher image vulnerability. Luo,Zhang, and Marquis’ findings shed light on a newform of activism that might be especially importantin societieswhere traditional socialmovementshavelimited leverage, suggesting the power of socialcomparison for addressing corporate power in au-thoritarian societies, aswell as newdirections for theliterature on social movements and organizations.

Speaking to societal inequality and growing up inpoverty, Martin, Cote, andWoodruff (2016) find thatearly-childhood economic status exerts a long-terminfluence onmany facets of effective leadership. Theauthors test their hypotheses in the context of active-duty U.S. army soldiers, a setting in which the cur-rent income of respondents is comparable. Usingmultisource data, the authors combine social learn-ing theory with the trait-behavioral model of lead-ership to put forth a serially mediated model thatshows a link between parental income, narcissism,task-, relational-, and change-oriented leadership be-haviors and reduced engagement behaviors amongdirect reports.

Climate change is aGC that has been characterizedas a “super wicked” problem because of the scale,scope, and time horizon over which mitigation ef-forts must take place, without central authority. AsWright andNyberg (in press) demonstrate, corporateresponses to such challenges might be visionary andexpansive at first, but become watered down con-siderably over time due to the sheer contentiousnessof the issue. Drawing on longitudinal analysis of fiveAustralian companies operating in different indus-tries, Wright and Nyberg develop a process modelthat captures a common trajectory of the early fram-ing of climate change as an urgent issue for businesseventually being normalized into business as usual.The authors assert that this response to a GC, by thevery organizations that are at the heart of contribut-ing to the challenge, is a cautionary tale for the limitsof business alone to address GCs.

In their article onhealth care service provision andregulatory environments, Heese, Krishnan, andMoers (2016) offer insights into the organizing ofthe global health GC by studying regulatory re-actions to mispricing practices in the health care in-dustry of the United States. Using patent and hospitaldata fromCalifornia from 1996 to 2007, they illustratethe challenges local governmental agencies face intheir efforts of providing access to affordable health

1886 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

care in the state while reducing the occurrence offraudulent practices, such asmispricing. The authorscontribute to the literature on decoupling by in-troducing the idea of selective decoupling, exhibitedby regulators’ greater leniency toward the mispricingpractices of beneficent hospitals, or hospitals thatprovide charity care and medical education, relativeto other nonprofit hospitals. Beneficent hospitals, inturn, also selectively decouple their activities,according to the findings of Heese and his colleagues.These hospitals provide medical services to theiruninsured patients while “upcoding” their servicesfor the care of their insured patients.

Drawing on an ethnographic study ofmedics at theBritish-led CampBastion hospital inAfghanistan, deRond and Lok (2016) explore how institutional andorganizational contexts shape psychological injuryfromwar.War and its psychological costs are under-examined because rarely have injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder been considered in lightof the cultural, professional, and organizationalcontexts that produce them. The authors find thatmedics’ feelings of senselessness, futility, and sur-reality arose from the dissonance they experiencedbetween their professional and cultural values andthe reality they faced on the ground. Unable to enactan ethic of care while conforming to organizationalrules, such as those that demanded they hand overinjured Afghan children to inadequate local hospi-tals, led medics to use various ultimately ineffectivecoping mechanisms. The authors explore implica-tions of a contextual understanding of war and itspsychological costs for extending institutional the-ory to consider the existential stakes associated withparticipating in organizational life. They also exposethe dark side of people’s calling to meaningful workthat is both essential to addressing GCs but stymiedby the very organizational contexts in which thosechallenges are acted upon. Additionally, the authorsreflect on implications for studyingGCs, and, similartoMair and colleagues’ (2016) study, assert that suchchallenges cannot be adequately addressed withoutconsidering the social, institutional, and culturalcontexts in which they reside.

Exploring the research–practice gap througha stakeholder lens, Banks, Pollack, Bochantin,Kirkman, Whelpley, and O’Boyle (2016) inter-view management academics and practitioners tobuild theory on the causes of the gap. Consideringthis gap itself a GC for academics and managementpractitioners, the authors also survey a larger sampleof academics and practitioners to learn their per-spectives on the management field’s GCs. This

reveals 22 topics that could benefit from collabora-tive research between academics and practitioners,of whichmore than one third are recognized by eachstakeholder group (academics and practitioners). Thearticle summarizes some challenges that we have goodknowledgeabout, and finds that thepaygap is themost-articulatedchallengeneeding furtherwork.Theauthorsreflect on ways to address the research–practice gapthrough collaboratively designed projects and atten-tion to issues that matter to both stakeholder groups.

Taken together, this set of studies provides detailedinsight into interventions to address GCs. The studiesdraw on a range of theoretical lenses to better explainwhy, andunderwhat conditions, certainpractices are(in)effective or (in)appropriate. Similarly, the secondset of studies focus on how organizations are affectedby and respond to global problems. These studies ar-ticulate the challengeof accommodating global issueswithin a work environment. Whether it is an agingworkforce or gender inequality, organizations are beingshaped by the global context. The questions examinedin this research serve as exemplars of management re-searchwithpotential for societal impact, andengendersnew streams of research on tackling GCs. These studiescollectively highlight that management research canserve a complementary function to corporate, social,andmultilateral initiativesbyhelpingbetterunderstandthe problems, and, indeed, by providing an organiza-tionalperspective toconvert stubbornsocietalproblemsinto tractable managerial challenges.

A FRAMEWORK TO STUDY GRANDCHALLENGES

Wedevelop a frameworkwithwhich to explore thestudy of GCs from anorganizational andmanagementperspective. Our goal is not to provide a comprehen-sive review of prior work. Indeed, many researchershave articulated theneed to studyGCs (e.g., Colquitt& George, 2011; Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015;George, 2014) or have developed models and theo-retical lenses useful for examining the organizationaldrivers of socially inclusive growth (e.g., George,McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). However, in this article,we propose a higher-order framework that integratesworkonGCs andprovides a structure to embed futureresearch in this area. In Figure 2, we provide an il-lustration of our framework.

Articulating and Participating

The core of beginning to address a GC lies in itsarticulation. The call to address the challenge needs

2016 1887George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

to inspire others to contribute effort and resourceswith a sense of purpose. An organization with pur-pose likely embraces certain values such as dignity,solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity, reciprocity, andsustainability, and targets its efforts at a commongood in addition to the pursuit of its own goals(Hollensbe, Wookey, Loughlin, George, & Nichols,2014). In our editorial on natural resource scarcity(George et al., 2015), we highlighted minimal en-gagement with this topic in the management litera-ture and articulated a research agenda aroundcorporate and institutional responses aswell societaland individual impacts of scarcity. In doing so, weattempted to frame the GC of resource sufficiencywithin a global context in such a way that it wouldappeal to scholars within many divisions of theAcademy. The participation, vocalization, and identi-fication ofGCgoals is a foundational step to its success,which requires sponsors to develop collectivegoals that harness individual and societal aspira-tions by giving them a collective sense of purpose.

TheSDGswere built onconsensus among theUN’smember states and achievement of the UN’s Mil-lenniumDevelopment Goals. Whether it is the GatesFoundation or the Executive Office of the Presidentof the United States, articulation of GCs towarda common goal (e.g., “improve nutrition” or “landa person on the moon and return them safely toEarth”) and the participation of stakeholder groupsraise interesting questions for management scholarson how organizations can inspire purpose. In addi-tion, the statement of the GC as a consensus of mul-tiple stakeholder voices also creates opportunitiesfor research on negotiations, consensus-seekingbehaviors, re-directing narratives, and identifyingachievable but inspiring goals. For example, VakiliandMcGahan (2016)exploreorganizational responses

when a goal is articulated to stimulate basic re-search on therapies that address diseases of thepoor. Alternatively, scholars can explore how thearticulation of GC goals sometimes leads to organi-zational efforts that fall short, but nonetheless rep-resent important movement toward addressing theGC. For example, Kim andDavis (2016) find that theexpression of concern over mining of conflict min-erals led to organizational efforts to learn moreabout their supply chains, even when full disclo-sure of conflict-free supply was rare.

Actor Needs and Aspirations

The GC is a reflection of actor needs and aspira-tions, even if the actors themselves do not have thevoice to articulate needs (e.g.,marine life or poverty).Regardless of whether the focal actors are able tovoice their ownneeds andaspirationsor rely on thirdparties to give them voice, these actors likely havemultiple goals and agendas, and priorities withinand among them. These goals could also have con-flicting elements; for example, provision of em-ployment in the natural resource-rich countries ofAfrica could also conflict with the exploitation ofnatural resources and protection of the local envi-ronment. The identification of actor needs and thealignment of goals toward a common, shared agendais a researchagenda in itself.Mair et al.’s (2016) studyof how a non-governmental organization concealedits actual goal of eliminating persistent social in-equality under a proximate goal of providing sani-tation is an example of how actors can work toachieve goals thatmight be threatening to otherswhomay not share their aspirations. At the same time,when multiple actors attempting to coordinate ef-forts as members of a search consortium have

FIGURE 2A Framework for Addressing Grand Challenges

Actor Needs and Aspirations Organizational Constraints Coordinating Architectures

Articulating and Participating Outcomes and in Grand Challenges Multilevel Actions Impact

Societal Barriers Institutional Contexts Reinforcing Mechanisms

1888 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

complementary capabilities, Olsen and colleagues(2016) show that they can resolve coordinationchallenges and enhance goal alignment.

Societal Barriers

GCs are targeted toward the eliminationof a specificbarrier, which could be manifest in several forms. In-dividual barriers (e.g., physical disability or lack ofeducation), sociocultural barriers (e.g., caste or stig-matized communities), technological barriers(e.g., Internet or medical access), and structural bar-riers (e.g., poverty) are the root causes of disenfran-chisement and disengagement from mainstreamsocioeconomic progress andwell-being (e.g., Georgeet al., 2012). How these barriers influence access toopportunities or livelihood, and what roles organiza-tions can play in mitigating or overcoming these bar-riers, are at the foundation of GCs. For example, Kuliket al. (2016) consider how organizational policies in-fluence the experiences of mature-age workers. InZhao and Wry’s (2016) study, patriarchy underpinsthe widespread practice of lending to women bymicrofinance organizations, but is shown to havedifferent outcomes under different conditions.

Organizational Constraints

When collective goals are involved and orches-trated resources areneeded, the questionbecomesoneof benefit and to whom it accrues. Given the nature ofthe problems, several organizational constraints arise,including coordination costs among stakeholders,goal and incentive conflicts within the managementteam, information asymmetry, and transaction costsbetween partner firms in a collaborative effort. Theseorganizational problems likely frustrate goal-directedaction. The related challenge is also to decide whobears the cost and how these costs are shared ina multi-actor, multi-engagement model over time.Here, studies on public–private partnerships and is-sues of conflicts, constraints, and costs between part-nerswho have differing agendas and goals become animportant areaof research (Tihanyi,Graffin,&George,2014). Organizational constraints are also manifest inhow organizational actors approach their work; Cobbet al. (2016) find that microfinance funders targeteda certain size of microfinance organization becauseof the institutional logics that guided them, resultingin the exclusion of somemicrofinance organizationsfrom funding. In acting on initially bold aspirationsto address climate change, businesses inWright andNyberg’s (in press) study eventually regressed as

actions were deemed too risky in light of the issue’scontentiousness.

Institutional Contexts

When we discuss the global reach of GCs, it is crit-ical to recognize that institutional contexts differwidely. Societal norms or logics may influence howparticipants think of the goal, whether they engage,and how they act. Institutional contexts also reflectissues such as stability and intent of governments,societal norms and taboos, regulatory environmentand rule of law, social activism in public life, andorganizational engagement with public problems.Institutional contexts vary by communities, coun-tries, and regions, and this pluralism will affect co-ordinated action and behavior of actors in a looselymonitored coalition or collaboration. In our review ofstudies in the African continent, for example, we findthat the ability to shape the institutional context to-ward the achievement of common goals remainsa significant roadblock for shared socioeconomicprogress (George, Corbishley, Khayesi, Haas, &Tihanyi, 2016). For example, Martin and coauthors(2016) show how childhood poverty acts as a bar-rier to people in their workplace relationships andinhibits their leadership. Berrone and colleagues(2016) also highlight the role of institutional context,showing compensatory dynamics at play among in-stitutional actors such as local governments andwelfare agencies in reducing income inequality.

Multilevel Actions

Actors operate at multiple levels—at the individ-ual level (e.g., person, group), community level(e.g., village or city), country or regional level (e.g.,Syria or Middle East), and the multilateral level(e.g., UN, European Union, Gulf Cooperation Coun-cil). These actors’ behaviors or actions have multi-level influences, either as trickle-down or bottom-upeffects. Regulation and government interventionscould drive corporate actions toward sustainablegoals or could divert them. These multilevel actionscouldbe aligned synergistically towardgoals or couldalsocompete and frustrate the attainment ofhigher- orlower-level goals. The relationship between actors atdifferent levels and their mutualism affects how ac-tors behave, and has important implications for theattainment of GC outcomes. For example, in theirstudy of corporate responses to the Sichuan earth-quake, Luo et al. (2016) consider how Internet activ-ism by Chinese citizens influenced the speed and

2016 1889George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

scope of corporate giving, especially in the absence ofother channels for activism in an authoritarian soci-ety. De Rond and Lok’s (2016) account demonstrateshow individual experience of post-traumatic stressdisorder is shaped by organizational and professionalnorms that operate within the even broader institu-tional contexts of warring nations. And, Kulik et al.(2016) demonstrate how organizational practices canseep into the individual-level stereotype threat re-sponses of mature-age workers to influence their at-titudes toward work.

Coordinating Architectures

Given the multistakeholder, multilevel function-ing of global GCs, coordination and structuralarchitectures to enable dialogue and mutual under-standingbecomecritical.Management scholars havestudied multi-actor coordination in different con-texts; for example, standard setting in technologicalor social platforms. Structural apparatus helps tocoordinate goals, develop and reinforce norms,standards, and compliant behaviors, and funnelresources toward those actors implementing ac-tions or bearing the costs of this effort. The pacing,building, empowering, or dismantling of these co-ordinating architectures has implications for thenature of the outcome attainment and whether spe-cific goals are met. For example, the study by Olsenet al. (2016) shows that the involvement of advocacygroups within consortia searching for solutions toGCs enables a deeper understanding of stakeholderconcerns and brings a legitimizing influence to theconsortia’s work. Berrone et al. (2016) illustrate thelimits to the effectiveness of non-profit welfareorganizations when these increase in density be-yond a certain point. Ballesteros and colleagues (inpress) find that local private entities were likelymore responsive than other organizational struc-tures in responding to disasters, which frames thisissue of coordination as a fundamental problemin GCs.

Reinforcing Mechanisms

The UN SDGs are targets to be achieved by 2030,and continued efforts to achieve these targets needto be sustained over time. Reinforcing mechanismsare those structural (e.g., poverty, hunger), natural(e.g., earthquakes, fresh water), or social mechanisms(e.g., immigrant crises) by which actors are moti-vated and replenish their efforts toward goal-directed solutions in a sustained manner. These

mechanisms include continued societal vocalismthat sheds attention on specific problems and exog-enous or natural events such as climate change-driven Arctic ice melt, bleaching of the Great BarrierReef, famine due to water scarcity, or tsunamis andrising sea levels. These events focus our attention onexistential problems and do not permit diversion ofattention or dilution of effort toward GC goals. Forexample, the 2010 Haiti earthquake focused at-tention on relief and recovery efforts, as Williamsand Shepherd (2016) document, but also drewattention to the socioeconomic fragility of thecommunities within which the disaster struck.Reinforcing mechanisms may be less event drivenand more experiential, as when empathy drove andsustained the response of people with different ex-periences to contribute to addressing the problemofdrug addiction in Vancouver in Lawrence’s (inpress) study.

Outcomes and Impact

Measures of success vary across GCs, and theyare contingent on how these GCs were articulated.Commonly discussed outcomes, however, capturescale in implementation and impact. Societal resil-ience to disasters and wars, organizational in-novation and implementationofpractices to addresscomponents and milestones toward a GC, as well asbehavioral and societal change are all plausibleoutcomes. It is important to recognize that the 17 UNSDGs have 169 constituent targets, which can thenbe further decomposed into geographical, commu-nity, or organizational outcomes. Heese et al. (2016)show that efforts to reduce mispricing practices inhospitals are influenced by the reactions of regula-tors to hospital’s other characteristics, demonstrat-ing that measures of success are often subject topolitical processes.

Our framework provides an architecture to situatea rather complex, global, and multilevel challenge.Our intent is not to provide specific constructs but tofacilitate ways to think about the GC issues. Theframework might help management scholars iden-tify specific societal or organizational barriers, andparse larger problems into smaller, definable re-search questions that can be tested with empiricalrigor. To that end, in Table 2, we provide a summarytable with the elements of the framework and somerepresentative empirical questions. These questionscould then use a micro, meso, or macro theoreticallens to draw out a theoretical contribution. The ul-timate goal, beyond theory development, is impact

1890 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

TABLE 2Constituent Elements of the Grand Challenge Framework

Categories Exemplar Dimensions Representative Empirical Questions

ActorNeeds andAspirations • Individual Needs

• Organizational Aspirations

• Community Goals

• Societal Welfare

• Who articulates or sponsors a GC? How does that affect theparticipation of others?

• Why and when do individuals (as consumers) change behaviortoward collective social goals such as water conservation andfood waste? How do organizations facilitate behavioral changeprocesses through innovation, product development, andservice design?

• Howdo communities react to organizational practices that create ordestroy social value? How do community aspirations shapeorganizational responses toward GCs?

• When and why do aspirations and needs remain unsurfaced?What institutional, cultural, or organizational forces suppress thearticulation of GCs?

• Howdo interactions among organizations at the community or locallevel shape the expression of GCs?

Societal Barriers • Individual Barriers

• Technological Barriers

• Structural Barriers

• Social Barriers

• How do life circumstances, like childhood poverty, disability, orage, influence organizational participation and opportunity?

• How does the Internet of Things affect individual employability,skills, organizational value chains, and business models? Do newtechnologies exacerbate poverty and employment? What modelsof reskilling and training are most effective for organizations,individuals, and governments?

• When and how do social stigma or social structures (such asuntouchability or caste, tribes) affect work environments, thetypes of work roles, and emotional well-being among the poor?

Articulating andParticipating in GCs

• Multivocalism

• Identification

• Prioritization

• What factors promote voice and engagement in multilateraldialogs among organizations, societies, and their stakeholders?When is it most effective?

• When and how do institutional logics shape identification andprioritization of issues worthy of action? How can alternativevoices and additional perspectives be integrated?

• How can topmanagement teams identify and prioritize social goalsand articulate organizational vision that aligns stakeholder andstockholder interests?

Organizational Constraints • Coordination Costs

• Transaction Costs

• Goal Conflict

• Incentive Conflict

• Information Asymmetry

• Why do goal and incentive conflicts encourage short-termismand discourage long-term pursuit of GCs? How do employee andleadership commitment shape narratives on GCs?

• Why and when do organizations self-disclose information onsupply chain practices that violate social norms or inappropriatelyexploit natural resources?

• Do certain compensation structures and incentives crowd outmotivation toward GCs? What processes or practices canmitigate goal conflict?

Institutional Contexts • Societal Logics

• Institutional Pressures

• Institutional Pluralism

• Why and when do societal logics shift to galvanize action towardGCs? How do societal shifts shape organizational practices andstrategies?

• How do professional norms suppress or help surfacecontradictions between intentions and actions on GCs?

• Howdoorganizations navigate institutional pressures andnegotiateinvestment to achieve specific GC outcomes or targets?

2016 1891George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

through empirical analysis that truly assists thecoordinated and collaborative effort toward a socie-tal GC.

A CALL TO ACTION

Businesses should add value to society, and yetthere are divergent views on how to create and de-liver social value (Wang, Tong, Takeuchi & George,2016). Management scholars are conflicted, but ina different way—we recognize and aspire to engagein solving global problems, but feel that these

questions, data, and contexts are structurally in-accessible to us. This Special Research Forumhighlights that tackling global problems does notimply that we cannot publish our results in leadingjournals. Indeed, our field is richer andmore diversebecause of the work being done to understand soci-etal GCs.

Management for a More Inclusive Society

There are plenty of GCs around us and in our owncommunities. Global hunger andpoverty is not just in

TABLE 2(Continued)

Categories Exemplar Dimensions Representative Empirical Questions

Multilevel Actions • Individual Behaviors

• Organizational Practices

• Government Regulation

• How do governments effectively regulate corporate responsibilityactions? Are regulatory interventions successful in enablingorganizational action toward GC goals?

• Whatorganizationalprocessesandstructures areneeded to generatesocially responsive practices in employment, production, andsupply chains? How do practices help attain GC goals?

• Underwhat conditions do changes in individual behavior accrue toshifts at the community, organizational, or societal levels? Whatroles do information technology, “celebrity” actions, and/or highlyvisible events have in enabling or inhibiting such shifts?

Coordinating Architectures • Community Platforms

• Shared Norms

• Shared Resourcing

• When and how do shared norms develop betweenorganizational stakeholders and their communities in thepresence of goal and incentive conflicts?

• How do advocacy organizations shape action on GCs? Whatinfluences do Internet and communication technologies have onadvocacy organizations and their effectiveness?

• Whydo organizations commit to resource investments towardGCs?What are their motives, and how does it shape coordination ofstakeholders?

Reinforcing Mechanisms • Societal Vocalism / Attention

• Exogenous / Natural Events

• Goal-Directed Progress

• What triggers consumer, investor, or employee attention towardspecific GCs? What factors sustain and reinforce their attentiontoward these goals over time?

• How do exogenous shock events (e.g., drought, disaster) andmediaattention bias organizational goals?

• Does short-term demonstrated organizational success towarda GC goal strengthen or reduce subsequent investments? Why doorganizations persist (or desist) with GC goal-directed action?

• What role do extreme advocacy groups play in altering thediscourse around GCs and how do they shape opportunitiesfor action by more moderate advocacy groups?

Outcomes and Impact • Resilience

• Innovation

• Sustainability

• Goal attainment

• How do organizations celebrate or vocalize success in their GCgoals? Do narratives of celebration and attainment spur furthercoordinated action toward GC?

• How do organizations contribute to individual and societalresilience? What organizational practices and strategiespromote innovation for socially inclusive growth?

• Given their complex and nonlinear nature, how does onemeasure progress on GCs?

1892 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

a different continent but also in our backyards. In2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees andEurostat reported thatmore than 1.3millionmigrantshave reached European shores to apply for asylum,and thatdoesnot account for the scores lost at sea.Thenumber of forciblydisplacedpeopleworldwide at theendof 2014 is about 60million, the highest level sinceWorldWar II (UNHCR, 2015).Water scarcity and foodwaste are topics that appear distant, but some of thesestatistics are staggering and local. According to a re-port by the United Nations Environment Programmeand theWorld Resources Institute, about a third of allfood production worldwide (around $1 trillion) getslost or wasted in food production, distribution, andconsumption (Lipinski, Hanson, Lomax, Kitinoja,Waite, & Searchinger, 2013). In the USA, 30–40% ofthe food supply is wasted, equaling more than 20pounds of food per person per month (Lipinski et al.,2013). Coordinated actions, such as the Global Agri-business Alliance, launched in September 2016, andthe Food Waste Reduction Alliance, are exemplarsof globally coordinated efforts at a multilevel, geo-graphically dispersed problem—yet, many solutionsare local and involve changes to individual behaviorsand organizational responses.

It is not just about research. As educators, we havean equal responsibility in social inclusion, retrainingof skills, and the focusing of our efforts on not just thecream of the crop, but at the globally and locallyunemployed, displaced, and disenfranchised. Newtechnologies such as the Internet of Things and ar-tificial intelligence are increasingly equipping ma-chines to perform tasks thatwere done by skilled andeducated individuals, thus starting what is expectedto be a larger structural unemployment problem asindustries harness these technologies to improveproductivity and financial performance by drivingdown labor costs. Educational initiatives could thenembrace different business models and pedagogicalinitiatives through lifelong learning and continuingeducation to retrain for new skills. Similarly,technology-enhancedblended learning and low-costeducation models could be more global and open,providing opportunities for global citizens to lever-age local educational resources and creating oppor-tunities for new skills, entrepreneurship, and betterlivelihoods.

There are numerous examples of potential ave-nues for engagement as management scholars andeducators, and, for each SDG, there are equally nu-merous local and global targets, participants, andaspirations. Collectively, the Academy of Manage-ment has taken pride in several of its annual

conferences to engage in fundamental debates onsociety and organizations. Management scholars,thus, are uniquely positioned to address GCs towarda more socially inclusive society by tackling funda-mental individual, behavioral, organizational, and in-stitutional challenges that are omnipresent in theformulation, articulation, coordination, and imple-mentation of these GCs.

There is No Plan B because there is No Planet B

When proposing the UN’s SDGs, the SecretaryGeneralH. E. BanKi-Moon reiterated in his speech atwhat was thought to be the largest ever gathering inthe United States (People’s Climate March in NewYork City, September 2014) his often-quoted remarkthat “There is no Plan B for action, as there is noPlanet B.”As scholars and educators, there is amoralimperative that we act to guide business leaders,employees, and stakeholders with systematic, un-biased, and empirically robust evidence on mecha-nisms with which to tackle the persistent, buttractable, global problems confounding us. ThisSpecial Research Forum is a step in that direction.

REFERENCES

Ballesteros, L., Useem, M., & Wry, T. In press. Masters ofdisasters? An empirical analysis of how societiesbenefit from corporate disaster aid. Academy ofManagement Journal.

Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L.,Whelpley, C. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. 2016. Management’sscience-practice gap: A grand challenge for all stake-holders. Academy of Management Journal, 59:2205–2231.

Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., FoceMassaSaluzzo, F., &Rousseau,H. E. 2016. Understanding community dynamics inthe study of grand challenges: How nonprofits, in-stitutional actors, and the community fabric interact toinfluence income inequality. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 59: 1940–1964.

Cobb, J. A., Wry, T., & Zhao, E. Y. 2016. Funding fi-nancial inclusion: Institutional logics and the con-textual contingency of funding for microfinanceorganizations. Academy of Management Journal,59: 2103–2131.

Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. 2016. The digital work-force and the workplace of the future. Academy ofManagement Journal, 59: 731–739.

Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ:Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal,54: 432–435.

2016 1893George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi

de Rond, M., & Lok, J. 2016. Some things can never beunseen: The role of context in psychological injuryat war. Academy of Management Journal, 59:1965–1993.

Dodgson,M., Gann, D.M.,Wladwsky-Berger, I., Sultan, N.,&George, G. 2015.Managing digitalmoney.Academyof Management Journal, 58: 325–333.

Eisenhardt,K., Graebner,M.,&Sonenshein, S. 2016.Grandchallenges and inductive methods: Rigor withoutrigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59:1113–1123.

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. 2015. Tackling grandchallenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited.Organization Studies, 36: 363–390.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.2015. The FAOhungermap 2015. InThe state of foodinsecurity in the world 2015: Meeting the 2015 in-ternational hunger targets—taking stock of unevenprogress. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of theUnitedNations.Available at http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/. Accessed September 5, 2016.

George, G. 2014. Rethinking management scholarship.Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1–6.

George, G., Corbishley, C., Khayesi, J., Haas,M., & Tihanyi,L. 2016. Bringing Africa in: Promising directions formanagement research. Academy of ManagementJournal, 59: 377–393.

George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. C. 2012. In-novation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoreticalframework and research agenda. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 49: 661–683.

George, G., Osinga, E., Lavie, D., & Scott, B. 2016. Big dataand data science methods for management research.Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1493–1507.

George, G., Schillebeeckx, S., & Liak, T. L. 2015. Themanagement of natural resources: An overview andresearch agenda. Academy of Management Journal,58: 1595–1613.

Grand Challenges Canada. 2011, January. The grand chal-lenges approach. Toronto, Canada: McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health.

Heese, J., Krishnan, R., & Moers, F. 2016. Selective reg-ulator decoupling and organizations’ strategic re-sponses. Academy of Management Journal, 59:2178–2204.

Hilbert, D. 1902. Mathematical problems. Bulletin of theAmericanMathematical Society, 8: 437–479. Earlierpublications (1900; in the original German) appearedin Gottinger Nachrichten: 253–297.

Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Loughlin, H., George, G., &Nichols, V. 2014. Organizations with purpose. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 57: 1227–1234.

Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George,G. 2014. Climate change and management. Academyof Management Journal, 57: 615–623.

Joshi, A., Neely, B., Emrich, C., Griffiths, D., & George, G.2015. Gender research in AMJ: An overview of fivedecades of research and call to action. Academy ofManagement Journal, 58: 1459–1475.

Kim, Y. H., & Davis, G. F. 2016. Challenges for global supplychain sustainability: Evidence from conflict minerals re-ports.AcademyofManagementJournal,59:1896–1916.

Kulik, C. T., Perera, S., & Cregan, C. 2016. Engage me: Themature-ageworker and stereotype threat.Academy ofManagement Journal, 59: 2132–2156.

Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. 2014. Agingpopulations and management. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 57: 929–935.

Lawrence, T. In press. Importing contentious responsesto social problems: Establishing North America’s firstgovernment-sanctioned supervised injection site.Acad-emy of Management Journal.

Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L.,Waite, R., &Searchinger, T. 2013. Installment 2 of Creatinga sustainable food future: Reducing food loss andwaste (Working paper). Washington, D.C.: WorldResources Institute. http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf. AccessedNovember 1, 2016.

Luo, X., Zhang, J., & Marquis, C. 2016. Mobilization in theInternet age: Internet activismandcorporate response.Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2045–2068.

Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Seelos, C. 2016. Scaffolding: A processof transforming patterns of inequality in small-scalesocieties. Academy of Management Journal, 59:2021–2044.

Martin, S. R., Cote, S., & Woodruff, T. 2016. Echoes of ourupbringing: How growing upwealthy or poor relates tonarcissism, leader behavior, and leader effectiveness.Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2157–2177.

NASA. 2015. Sea level rise. In Climate change: How doweknow? [Global climate change:Vital signs of theplanetwebsite].Available athttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.Accessed September 5, 2016.

Olsen, A. Ø., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. 2016. Coordinatedexploration for grand challenges: The role of advocacygroups in search consortia.AcademyofManagementJournal, 59: 2232–2255.

Tihanyi, L., Graffin, S., & George, G. 2014. Rethinkinggovernance in management research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 57: 1535–1543.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2016. Literacy rate [UIS.Stat database]. Available at http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid5166. Accessed September5, 2016.

1894 DecemberAcademy of Management Journal

UNHCR. 2015. World at war: UNHCR global trends—forced displacement in 2014. Geneva, Switzerland:United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.http://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html. Accessed No-vember 1, 2016.

United Nations. 2012. Desertification, land degradation,and drought (DLDD): Some global facts and figures. InUNCCD Brochure. New York, NY: United Nations.http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD%20Facts.pdf.Accessed onSeptember5, 2016.

United Nations. 2014, July 10. World’s population in-creasingly urban with more than half living in urbanareas [World Urbanization Prospects press release].Available at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html. Accessed September 5, 2016.

United Nations. 2015a. Sustainable development goals.In Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Ed.),Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda forsustainable development. New York, NY: UnitedNations.Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs. Accessed September 5, 2016.

United Nations. 2015b. Sustainable developmentgoals: Fact sheet. Available at http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Factsheet_Summit.pdf. Accessed September 5,2016.

Vakili, K., & McGahan, A. M. 2016. Health care’s grandchallenge: Stimulating basic science on diseases thatprimarily afflict the poor. Academy of ManagementJournal, 59: 1917–1939.

van der Vegt, G., Essens, P., Wahlstrom, M., & George, G.2015. Managing risk and resilience. Academy ofManagement Journal, 58: 971–980.

Walk Free Foundation. 2016. Global Slavery Index [data-base]. Available at http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/. Accessed on September 5, 2016.

Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. 2016. Cor-porate social responsibility: an overview and new re-search directions.AcademyofManagement Journal,59: 534–544.

Williams, T.A., & Shepherd, D.A. 2016. Building resilienceor providing sustenance: Different paths of emergentventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.Academy of Management Journal, 59: 2069–2102.

WorldBank. 2013.Worlddevelopment indicators [Database](2013 data). Available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source52&series5SI.POV.GINI&country5/. Accessed September 5, 2016.

World Economic Forum. 2015. The global gender gap index[Database]. In The global gender gap index 2015.

Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Avail-able at http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings. Accessed September 5, 2016.

World Health Organization. 2015a. Under-five mortality:Situation by company. In Global Health Observatorydata [Database] (2015 data). Available at http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/mortality_under_five/en/. Accessed September 5, 2016.

World Health Organization. 2015b. Water and sanita-tion. In Global Health Observatory data. [Database](2015 data). Available at http://www.who.int/gho/mdg/environmental_sustainability/en/. Accessed Sep-tember 5, 2016.

Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. In press. An inconvenienttruth: How organizations translate climate changeinto business as usual. Academy of ManagementJournal.

Zhao, E. Y., & Wry, T. 2016. Not all inequality is equal:Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to un-derstand microfinance lending to women. Academyof Management Journal, 59: 1994–2020.

Gerry George is dean and Lee Kong Chian Chair professorof innovation and entrepreneurship at the Lee Kong ChianSchool of Business at Singapore Management University.His work investigates business models, organizationaldesign, and its implications for innovation and entrepre-neurship, with an emphasis on social inclusion. He servesas the editor of AMJ.

Jennifer Howard-Grenville is the Diageo reader in man-agement studies at the University of Cambridge’s JudgeSchool of Business. Her work addresses the topics of sus-tainability and organizational adaptation, furthering the-ories of organizational routines, culture, and identity. Sheserves as an associate editor of AMJ.

Aparna Joshi is Arnold Family Professor of Managementat the Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State Uni-versity. Herwork focuses onmultilevel issues inworkplacediversity, gender issues in science and engineering, col-laboration in global and distributed teams, generational is-sues in the workplace, and international and cross-culturalmanagement. She serves as an associate editor for AMJ.

Laszlo Tihanyi is professor of management at Texas A&MUniversity. His research covers the topics of internationalbusiness, multinational firms, emerging economies,and institutional theory. He serves as an associate editor ofAMJ.

2016 1895George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, and Tihanyi