Positive Impact Blog

Thought provoking insights for change makers


Mapping Responsible Leadership Competencies to LeadershipImpact in Business Sustainability

Katrin Muff & Thomas Dyllick

Read full article: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/793

Business decisions increasingly influence societal challenges like climate change, water scarcity, inequality or corruption. As a consequence leadership for sustainability requires competencies that go beyond internal performance and short-term effectiveness. It requires the ability to navigate ambiguity, build trust with diverse stakeholders, manage conflicts of interest, and understand systemic interdependencies. The question is not only how leaders behave, but how their competencies enable organizations to become more capable actors in sustainability transformation.

This article strengthens the bridge between responsible leadership and business sustainability by identifying where leadership can make a difference inside organizations—through specific “impact areas” that enable external contribution. We describe organizations that orient their strategy and value creation toward addressing societal and environmental challenges as Positive Impact Organizations (PIOs). PIOs aim to create products and services that solve relevant problems while maintaining financial viability. They are led by impact leaders: leaders who recognize that contributing to societal problem-solving can be integral to long-term business success and legitimacy.

Conceptual approach

In this article we develop a mapping between a responsible leadership competency model and a developmental sustainability model that share a compatible worldview: sustainability is not only a risk to be managed, but an opportunity to align organizational purpose and value creation with societal needs.

For leadership competencies, many established models explain effectiveness mainly in terms of individual performance, emotional intelligence, or organizational climate. By contrast, the Competency Assessment for Responsible Leadership (CARL) explicitly integrates ethical orientation, stakeholder relations, and systems thinking, and frames leadership in relation to sustainable development. CARL also distinguishes three action domainsknowing, doing, being—which enables competency development to be examined as knowledge bases, visible skills, and underlying value orientations. Here our emphasis is on the doing domain: observable leadership actions that influence organizational change.

For organizational sustainability development, reporting standards, assessment systems, and strategic concepts provide useful classification and benchmarking, but they often lack a developmental logic explaining how organizations progress toward higher levels of societal contribution. The PIO concept addresses this by describing transformation as a shift from an inside-out orientation (reducing negative impacts, managing risks) to an outside-in orientation (societal needs defining strategic priorities, innovation, and accountability).

This alignment supports the introduction of impact leadership: leadership that builds on responsible and sustainable leadership competencies but adds an explicit outcome orientation toward positive societal and environmental contributions via organizational transformation.

The impact cascade: How impact leadership functions

Leaders rarely create societal impact directly. They create it indirectly by shaping the organization that produces it. Their behavior influences governance, incentives, culture, and decision routines. These organizational conditions shape how products are developed, how supply chains operate, how partnerships are formed, and how trade-offs are handled. Only then do outcomes appear in the wider world. We call this the impact cascade.

This shifts sustainability leadership from moral aspiration to practical leverage. The key question becomes: which leadership behaviors strengthen which organizational levers so sustainability becomes part of value creation? Let’s now look at how this impact cascade is internally connected.

Competencies of impact leaders (CARL)

CARL conceptualizes responsible leadership through five competency dimensions:

  1. Ethics and values: integrity and fairness in dilemmas; values-based decision-making.
  2. Self-awareness: reflective practice; adapting communication; learning transparency.
  3. Stakeholder relations: trust-building; dialogue; consensus-oriented engagement across differences.
  4. Change and innovation: challenging the status quo; translating ideas into actionable sustainability change.
  5. Systems thinking: understanding interdependencies; navigating complexity and ambiguity; anticipating consequences.

These competencies matter because sustainability transformation increasingly involves extended value chains and multi-actor ecosystems. Leaders must collaborate beyond organizational boundaries and combine internal execution with external engagement.

Strategic leadership impact areas inside organizations

While sustainability impact is often discussed as external contribution, leadership impact operates first inside organizations. Leaders influence structures and processes that enable the organization to generate credible and scalable external outcomes. We identify five strategic impact areas in which leadership can have direct organizational influence:

  1. Governance alignment: embedding sustainability in decision rules, roles, accountability, incentives, and transparency mechanisms.
  2. Sustainability culture: establishing shared norms and routines that prioritize sustainable solutions, cross-functional collaboration, learning, and long-term orientation.
  3. External validation: integrating stakeholder perspectives into decision-making, supported by credible transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Higher purpose: translating purpose into product and service innovation aligned with societal and environmental challenges.
  5. Transformative sustainability: applying a transformational perspective across all domains—moving beyond incremental improvements toward systemic contribution.

These areas can progress developmentally: from compliance and episodic initiatives toward integrated decision-making, externally oriented priorities, and accountability for measurable outcomes.

Mapping competencies to organizational impact areas

A core contribution of this article is a mapping that connects each leadership competency to the organizational leverage point it most directly strengthens:

  • Ethics and values → Governance alignment. Values-based, fair decision-making builds trust and supports credible accountability structures, decision rights, and transparent performance assessment.
  • Self-awareness → Sustainability culture. Reflective leaders model learning, openness, and adaptive communication, enabling norms and incentives that make sustainability part of daily work.
  • Stakeholder relations → External validation. Trustful collaboration and structured dialogue integrate legitimate external perspectives into decisions, reducing symbolic engagement and strengthening legitimacy.
  • Change and innovation → Higher purpose. The capacity to challenge assumptions and implement solutions translates purpose into tangible offerings, partnerships, and business model evolution.
  • Systems thinking → Transformative sustainability. Systems awareness supports navigation of complexity, helps avoid unintended consequences, and aligns transformation efforts with system-level outcomes.

This mapping is intentionally simplified: competencies overlap, and contextual factors may moderate what leaders can achieve (e.g., organizational culture, sector pressures, geography, life circumstances, and geopolitical conditions). The framework is therefore best seen as a heat map of primary leverage points, not a full causal explanation.

Implications for leadership development and research

By mapping CARL leadership competencies to strategic organizational impact areas drawn from the PIO concept, this framework clarifies how leadership development can connect to concrete mechanisms of sustainability transformation—governance, culture, stakeholder integration, purpose-driven innovation, and transformative systems change.

For educators and leadership development specialists, the mapping enables two complementary approaches:

  • Strength-based focus: leaders can concentrate on the organizational impact area that matches their strongest competency.
  • Developmental scaffolding: leaders can actively develop weaker competencies through targeted learning and support.

Practical development might include ethical deliberation and policy implementation; 360-degree feedback and reflective routines; stakeholder mapping and co-creation workshops; pilot projects and innovation processes; and scenario planning and systems training.


Beyond Green Promises: why listening to Business School’ stakeholders is the next step in Sustainability

Sustainability has become a defining issue for business and education. Companies and schools alike are quick to showcase commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, green operations, and responsible practices. Yet, today’s critical challenge is not about adding more promises. It is about creating systems of accountability that genuinely reflect the voices of those most affected.
Listening is no longer optional. Employees, students, customers, communities: all demand to be heard. And for business schools, which shape the leaders of tomorrow, this means embedding stakeholder feedback directly into strategy, teaching, and governance.

From awareness to accountability

For years, many institutions focused on net zero commitments or isolated sustainability projects. These were important first steps, but they are no longer enough. Stakeholders now expect:

  • Authenticity over greenwashing: measurable actions instead of symbolic initiatives.
  • Integration over isolation: sustainability woven into every decision, not just a single department.
  • Participation over hierarchy: transparent governance where students, staff, and faculty can co-create solutions.
  • Practical relevance over theory: practice-based learning that connects classrooms with real-world sustainability challenges.

In other words, progress depends not only on what schools do, but on how their communities experience it.

Why stakeholder voices matter

Stakeholder expectations are also becoming more sophisticated. Students call for systemic change in curricula, mental health support, and partnerships with ethical businesses. Communities demand engagement that goes beyond research papers and includes tangible collaboration. Faculty, too, want their institutions to model the values they teach.

When schools ignore these voices, they risk credibility gaps that undermine their mission. However, when they embrace them, they gain legitimacy, innovation, and long-term trust.

The Positive Impact Rating: turning voices into insights

This is precisely where the Positive Impact Rating (PIR) comes in. Now in its sixth year, PIR provides schools with a structured way to assess their societal impact, directly through the perceptions of their own stakeholders.

In 2025, over 17,000 students worldwide participated, offering clear calls to stop outdated practices and start embedding sustainability in meaningful ways. New in recent editions, PIR also integrates faculty perspectives, enabling a dual stakeholder comparison. This allows schools to see where perceptions align, where blind spots exist, and where dialogue can build coherence and trust.

Such insights are more than data points. They are practical tools that schools can use to adapt curricula, strengthen governance, and meet international standards such as  AACSB, EQUIS, and PRME.

A call to act

The journey toward sustainability is no longer about declarations. It is about measurable impact, visible accountability, and authentic inclusion of those who matter most.

Business schools ready to embrace this shift can now join PIR 2026. By registering, institutions will not only benchmark themselves globally but also gain actionable insights from the very people who experience their education.

Registration is open. Shape the next edition of the Positive Impact Rating and show your commitment to a future where business education drives real, positive change.

https://positiveimpactrating.org


“Why School?” Collaboratory in Stockholm

We arrived in Thursday evening, August 21, 2014 for a 4-day Collaboratory event. The water looked dark, deep and much colder than turqouise water I have just returned from. Yet in great contrast, the people are super friendly and engaging. The four days ahead were structured as follows: Day 1 was our LiFT internal pre-collaboratory callibration day, Day 2 was the big public event of the “Why School?” Collaboratory. At the end of Day 2 we would leave to „the island“, Ekskäret is a private island transformed into a personal and societal development center by its visionary owner Thomas Bjorkman, where we would be staying for Day 3 and 4.

During the preparatory Day 1, we learned about the specific challenges around the school issue in Sweden. I was surprised to learn about how badly the voucher system works (each student is free to select his/her school of choice and brings the related government funding to the chosen school). This liberal practice seems to have brought down the educationsl level due to the fact that a number of venture capitalists have invested in new educational institutions and have focussed on maximizing their return rather than investing in facilities and quality teachers. And I had always thought that a Voucher system could help innovate the Swiss schooling system.

In addition, the facilitation team walked us step by step through their vision and resulting schedule for the next day. They had made interesting changes to the basic Collaboratory and I became very curious about how this amendment to the Collaboratory would work out.

Why School Collaboaratory in Stockholm

Picture 1: Pre-collaboratory day among LiFT team with Collaboratoy books in center

The 1-day Collaboratory session moderated by Jonathan Reams (Norway), Christiane Seuhs-Schoeller (Vienna) and Anne Caspari (Basel) started in a plenuary setting with a short film on being “awe-struck”. Jonathan set the stage for the day with his deep, reflective introduction hinting at the opportunity that schools could be places that kids leave “awe-struck”. Both his reflective tone and future orientation brought a light energy that somehow guided us through the entire day.

Overview of the large meeting space

Picture 2: Overview of the large meeting space

The room was large enough to have three different spaces set-up in advance. The 70+ participants shifted from the plenary to the Collaboratory circle setting (see picture 2), where selected experts highlighted important critical perspectives on the subject of school in Sweden (see picture 3). We had the founder of the School-Spring movement, an enlightened teacher, a school-drop out with an appetite to bring about change in the school system, a highly committed CEO who was concerned about graduates, an academic from Austria with a European perspective on school challenges and responsible leadership. What surprised me most was the significant degree of mutual respect, the appreciative inquiry among these experts. While there could have been much reason for debate and dispute, the tone was incredibly constructive.

The Collaboratory Circle

Picture 3: The Collaboratory Circle

In a next phase, these insights were discussed and reflected on in eight small group sessions of 6-8 participants, allowing again for each participant to be heard and to remain engaged. Leaders from each team shared back in the Collaboratory circle after lunch their key findings, setting the stage for the visioning phase that Christiane mastered beautifully, taking us on a journey of creative exploration.

Rather than debriefing the visioning in the circle, the facilitation team introduced a highly effective, one-to-one debriefing and sharing by having people get up and reflect on 3 key questions in every-changing pair settings (see picture 4). This brought not only movement and thus energy into the room, but also allowed every single participant to be personally concerned and involved, bringing individual and collective visions and ideas quickly to the surface.

Picture 4: Inter-active, dynamic debriefing after the visioning exercise

Picture 4: Inter-active, dynamic debriefing after the visioning exercise

In a dynamic open brainstorming session, the many ideas were first collected and subsequently grouped into major themes. Using open space and the law of two feet (you go where you feel you are adding most value), a variety of theme-teams formed to work on prototypes to translate these ideas into concrete projects that could be implemented. I was most touched to see how the CEO and the drop-out student had hit it off and how they collaborated naturally and easily together in a new exiting project. My secret guess is that beyond everything we had achieved for the school issue in Sweden, that we had witnessed a match made in heaven between these two individuals and I am willing to bet that we are going to hear great things from this young high potential who had shown courage beyond imagination when dropping out of school a few years back to figure out where and how he wanted to spend his energy and drive (I am leaving out names on purpose).

Picture 5: our transfer on a small taxi-boat to the far-away island Ekskäret

Picture 5: our transfer on a small taxi-boat to the far-away island Ekskäret

At the end of the long Collaboratory day, our international LiFT team took off in taxi-boats to Ekskäret (see picture 5), the amazing small island a good two hours away from Stockholm. Karin Finnson, our local LiFT host, had arranged the transfer and for the host Thomas Bjorkman to welcome us to this magic island.

We spent two more days at the island with day 1 focussed on evaluating the „why school“ Collaboratory event and learnings for next sessions and day 2 looking forward to our next Collaboratory session scheduled in November in Vienna, Austria where we were going to look in „the future of organizations“. The playful attitude we had all developed around the Collaboratory methods had worked well. Increasingly, our LiFT team has become comfortable with the philosophy and methodology (see chapter 22 in the „Collaboratory“ book[1] where I had used our Norway LiFT collaboratory to outline a narrative roadmap for designing and delivering a collaboratory).

Picture 6: Welcome with hot tea in the Collaboratory circle at Ekskäret island

Picture 6: Welcome with hot tea in the Collaboratory circle at Ekskäret island

[1]  Muff, K. (ed) (2014) : “The Collaboratory – a co-creative stakeholder engagement process for solving complex problems”, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield UK


Otto Scharmer on a Global Action Leadership School (the “u-school”)

Read this inspirational personal account of one of our key thought leaders of today, Otto Scharmer, and how he is finding courage and will within him to drive towards a dream he has had for a long time. More on Otto’s blog.


1 Comment

Breaking Down the Wall Between Academia and Practice

Our current scientific heritage has driven us to fractionate knowledge and a deepened understanding within specific areas or disciplines. It has also led us to a society and organizations structured by functions rather than issues or challenges. For any school of the future it will be of fundamental importance to break these man-made and inherited barriers between interdependent and interconnected areas of knowledge and of society.

In order to effectively develop future-relevant research and establish the basis for practice-relevant education, the management school of the future will tear down the currently existing, yet unnecessary, walls between business and management practitioners and researchers. New research and educational priorities will demand the removal of current barriers between academics and practitioners, allowing free movement in both directions, e.g.:

  • A professor takes 2-years off [1] to work in a start-up in Somalia, or
  • An entrepreneur spends a 2-year executives-in-residence [2] sabbatical to digest and distill his professional experience

Business leaders, entrepreneurs, directors of NGOs, consultants and activists will be encouraged to join the management school for one or more years to digest and distill their experience as research from the work place.

More than anything, the management school of the future needs a comprehensive mix of educators and researchers with a wealth of experiences and backgrounds. Moving back and forth between reflective work at a management school and work in the action frontier of business and other organizational work is a critical success factor of ensuring high relevance of the faculty in their role as lead-learners in the educational and research process.


[1]           Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

[2]            IMD, Lausanne


Inspired by Ken Robinson’s talk on escaping education’s death valley

A truly inspiring video worth sharing – Ken Robinson: How to escape education’s death valley. An important message for us all.

Ken Robinson outlines 3 principles crucial for the human mind to flourish — and how current education culture works against them. In a funny, stirring talk he tells us how to get out of the educational “death valley” we now face, and how to nurture our youngest generations with a climate of possibility.

Enjoy watching!


Business and management schools must educate leaders in any organization

While business remains a key focus of future management education, we must embrace leaders in any other organization as well. Borders between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are blurring, the emergence of “social entrepreneurship” is a good example of this. Government and non-government organizations are challenged to become a lot more professional in their strategies and operational implementation.

More to the point, enabling managers and leaders to understand and embrace the idea of serving the Common Good requires an inclusive approach to education, involving stakeholders beyond business to allow dialogues that have not yet taken place. Developing such leaders is a high order and requires a fundamental paradigm shift in the goal of management education: from assuring that graduates know about leadership to ensure that they are being leaders. Awakening and developing the human being in the leader and the leader in the human being becomes the central purpose and starting point of management education.

Patrick Awuah on educating leaders

Sharing an astonishing example of a business school and shaping the next generation of leaders. Hope you enjoy watching as much as I did!

A call to action – launching the 50+20 vision

During the 3rd Global Forum on Responsible Management Education the 50+20 vision is launched with the unveiling of the 50+20 Agenda and short film.

Business Schools Without Borders

50+20 visits the People’s Summit in Flamengo Park during the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro to host a collaboratory.