IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v35y2026i2p954-975.html

Navigating Acceptance of Paradoxical Tensions: A Self‐Efficacy Perspective on Paradox and Goal Setting Theories

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Alosi
  • Giulia Casamento
  • Eleonora Annunziata
  • Francesco Rizzi
  • Marco Frey

Abstract

This study examines how individuals accept and navigate paradoxical tensions within a sustainability context, using a multiple case study of five Italian companies implementing circularity measurement tools. By exploring the interplay between self‐efficacy and acceptance of paradoxical tensions, drawing upon the Goal Setting and Paradox theories, we found that self‐efficacy and collective efficacy are significant drivers for accepting paradoxical tensions at the individual level. The study contributes to the literature on Corporate Sustainability by better understanding tension management through two key findings. Firstly, based on our results, we propose a model that describes the motivational roles of self‐efficacy and collective efficacy within “reactive‐leader centric” and “proactive‐team centric” organisations. Secondly, it reveals how training and information sharing reinforce self‐efficacy and collective efficacy. This study also offers practical managerial insights, suggesting strategies for enhancing self‐efficacy and collective efficacy in organisational settings, thereby facilitating the successful navigation of paradoxical tensions in pursuing circular economy goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Alosi & Giulia Casamento & Eleonora Annunziata & Francesco Rizzi & Marco Frey, 2026. "Navigating Acceptance of Paradoxical Tensions: A Self‐Efficacy Perspective on Paradox and Goal Setting Theories," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 954-975, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:35:y:2026:i:2:p:954-975
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12825
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12825?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garima Sharma & Anand Kumar Jaiswal, 2018. "Unsustainability of Sustainability: Cognitive Frames and Tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid Projects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 291-307, March.
    2. Chacko G. Kannothra & Stephan Manning & Nardia Haigh, 2018. "How Hybrids Manage Growth and Social–Business Tensions in Global Supply Chains: The Case of Impact Sourcing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 271-290, March.
    3. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    4. Salifu Yusif & Abdul Hafeez-Baig, 2024. "Impact of stakeholder engagement strategies on managerial cognitive decision-making: the context of CSP and CSR," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(6), pages 1101-1121, January.
    5. Laura F. Sasse-Werhahn & Claudius Bachmann & André Habisch, 2020. "Managing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability Through a Practical Wisdom Lens," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 53-66, April.
    6. Tobias Hahn & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss & Frank Figge, 2015. "Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 297-316, March.
    7. Jay Joseph & Helen Borland & Marc Orlitzky & Adam Lindgreen, 2020. "Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 349-370, June.
    8. Fabien Martinez, 2019. "On the Role of Faith in Sustainability Management: A Conceptual Model and Research Agenda," Post-Print hal-02887640, HAL.
    9. Fabien Martinez, 2019. "On the Role of Faith in Sustainability Management: A Conceptual Model and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 787-807, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Riikka Tapaninaho, 2025. "Examining the competing demands of business and sustainability: What do corporate sustainability discourses reveal?," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 1278-1299, October.
    2. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    3. Jay Joseph & Helen Borland & Marc Orlitzky & Adam Lindgreen, 2020. "Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 349-370, June.
    4. Claire Beach & Sitong Michelle Chen & Michael S. W. Lee, 2025. "Developing consumers’ paradox mindsets: Making sense of tensions in sustainability," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 15(1), pages 289-300, June.
    5. Lutz Preuss & Isabel Fischer & Bimal Arora, 2024. "How do stakeholder groups make sense of sustainability: Analysing differences in the complexity of their cognitive frames," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 2367-2383, March.
    6. Tobias Hahn & Garima Sharma & Ante Glavas, 2024. "Employee‐CSR Tensions: Drivers of Employee (Dis)Engagement with Contested CSR Initiatives," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 1364-1392, June.
    7. Julia Benkert, 2021. "Reframing Business Sustainability Decision-Making with Value-Focussed Thinking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 441-456, November.
    8. Nitha Palakshappa & Sarah Dodds & Suzanne Grant, 2024. "Tension and Paradox in Women-Oriented Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: A Duality of Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 327-346, March.
    9. Kirsti Iivonen, 2018. "Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes: Have Your Coke and Drink It Too!," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 309-327, March.
    10. Gerard Farias & Christine Farias & Isabella Krysa & Joel Harmon, 2020. "Sustainability Mindsets for Strategic Management: Lifting the Yoke of the Neo-Classical Economic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Christof Miska & Mark E. Mendenhall, 2018. "Responsible Leadership: A Mapping of Extant Research and Future Directions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 117-134, March.
    12. Nuria Fernández-Muñiz & Angela Triguero & Marta de la Cuesta, 2026. "Circling the Sustainable: A Systematic Review of Theories and the Heroic (or not) Leaders Steering to Corporate Sustainability, Circular Economy and Eco-innovation Transition," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1-32, April.
    13. Tina C Ambos & Sebastian H Fuchs & Alexander Zimmermann, 2020. "Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(6), pages 906-932, August.
    14. Canan Kocabasoglu‐Hillmer & Sinéad Roden & Evelyne Vanpoucke & Byung‐Gak Son & Marianne W. Lewis, 2023. "Radical innovations as supply chain disruptions? A paradox between change and stability," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(3), pages 3-19, July.
    15. Adriana Liute & Maria Rosa De Giacomo, 2022. "The environmental performance of UK‐based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 810-827, March.
    16. Jeon, Euiju & Maula, Markku, 2022. "Progress toward understanding tensions in corporate venture capital: A systematic review," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4).
    17. Ualison Rébula de Oliveira & Rodolfo Pombo Menezes & Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes, 2024. "A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 3045-3079, February.
    18. Leona Aimée Henry & Tine Buyl & Rob J.G. Jansen, 2019. "Leading corporate sustainability: The role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 173-184, January.
    19. Carolin Brix‐Asala & Stefan Seuring & Philipp C. Sauer & Axel Zehendner & Lara Schilling, 2021. "Resolving the base of the pyramid inclusion paradox through supplier development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3208-3227, November.
    20. Grace B. Villamor & Lisa Wallace, 2024. "Corporate social responsibility: Current state and future opportunities in the forest sector," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 3194-3209, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:35:y:2026:i:2:p:954-975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.