This article investigates agency as a way of being and acting in sustainability leadership. Our primary aim is to enhance understanding of agentic strategies that facilitate transcending systemic complexities in sustainability leadership. We make a distinction in our analytical approach by drawing from Emirbayer and Mische’s conceptualisation of agency as ‘an interactive process of reflexive transformation and relational pragmatics, a temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past, oriented towards the future and enacted in the present’ . We (...) add ontological sources of agency to these dynamics which interact with habit, imagination, judgement and learning in the transformation of social systems. This approach underpins our model ‘Dynamic Interactions of Agency in Leadership’ , an integrative framework for analysing agency in sustainability leadership. We examine the efficacy of our framework in higher education initiatives in which sustainability aspirations, aims and actions are envisioned, articulated and mobilised. We conclude by offering further avenues of research in sustainability leadership designed to advance this burgeoning field and contribute to bridging the gap between sustainability challenges and our abilities to solve them. (shrink)

Despite the promise of new gene editing technologies (GETs) (e.g., CRISPR) in accelerating sustainable agri-food production, the social acceptability of these technologies remains unclear. Prior literature has primarily addressed the regulatory and economic issues impacting GETs ongoing acceptability, while little work has examined socio-cultural impacts despite evolving food policies and product commercialisation demanding input from various actors in the food system. Our systematic review across four databases addresses this gap by synthesising recent research on food system actors’ perspectives to identify (...) the key socio-cultural factors influencing GET acceptability. This review extends prior literature by including views from a more diverse range of actors (e.g., farmers and NGOs) and provides a better understanding of their perceived social benefits and concerns. We find food system actors perceive positive and negative impacts of using GETs in agriculture. These perspectives are often entangled in broader debates regarding sustainability and food systems issues (e.g., social justice). We discuss practical recommendations for policymakers, agri-food industry managers, and scientists to better align gene edited foods (GEFs) with food system actors’ values. GEF policy, development, and commercialisation must reflect social values such as collective wellbeing and transparency to improve actors’ acceptability. More research is required among marginalised food actors such as Indigenous and smallholder farmers. (shrink)