In today’s complex business world, “going global” used to be the gold standard. But when it comes to sustainability transitions—especially across global supply chains and networks—it turns out that global strategies alone often fall short.

A recent study published in the Journal of International Management, by Katrin Heucher, Stephanie Schrage and Ibrahim Abosag, puts a spotlight on this very issue. The researchers dive into the world of food packaging, exploring how multinational enterprises (MNEs) are trying to transition toward using bio-based plastics in both Europe and China. What they find is eye-opening: Despite the best intentions and strategic alignment, sustainability efforts frequently get stuck when global ambitions clash with local realities.

Let’s unpack what is behind these dynamics and what businesses can learn:

In our increasingly globalized world, multinational corporations aim for sustainability within supply chains and industries. This leads to tensions, particularly between global strategies and local contexts, which often complicate sustainability efforts.

Understanding the Tensions

Sustainability transitions are not just technical or strategic challenges. They involve knotted tensions: struggles that cannot be resolved through either/or decisions, two salient types are:

●      Sustainability tensions, such as balancing long-term environmental goals with short-term financial performance.

●      Global-local tensions, where global sustainability initiatives clash with local practices, capabilities, or regulatory environments.

For example, in the transition to bio-based plastics, the multinationals set global targets and standards. However, these often failed to gain traction locally, where suppliers—mainly small and medium enterprises—lack the capacity, incentives, or contextual fit to implement them. The result: stalled progress and increased frustration across the system.

Why a Paradox Lens Matters

Rather than treating tensions as problems to be solved or avoided, the authors propose viewing them through a paradox lens. This perspective recognizes that tensions are persistent, interdependent, and potentially productive. Managing paradoxes doesn’t mean choosing sides; it means developing capabilities to engage with competing demands simultaneously.

In this case, that means:

●      Holding the tension between global sustainability ambitions and local operational realities. Navigating differences in timescales, performance metrics, and stakeholder expectations.

●      Accepting that progress will likely be non-linear and iterative, especially when multiple actors must align across contexts.

Glocal Paradox Management

The authors introduce the idea of glocal paradox management as a way forward. A glocal approach acknowledges that while global strategies provide direction and ambition, they only succeed when shaped and redefined through local engagement. In the case of the food packaging transition, this means not just setting global sustainability targets, but working with local partners to understand their realities, co-design workable solutions, and build the capabilities needed to act. This collaborative process is especially crucial when working with small and medium enterprises, who often lack the resources to absorb and implement externally defined standards without support.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is that sustainability transitions within interorganizational systems are not linear. They require ongoing coordination, mutual learning, and the ability to deal with competing demands over time. Rather than treating tensions as barriers, organizations can approach them as productive frictions—sites of innovation, negotiation, and, ultimately, transformation. But this only happens when tensions are surfaced, discussed, and navigated jointly with partners.

In sum, this research suggests to think differently about the role of multinationals in sustainability transitions. When global is not enough, what’s needed is not just local compliance—but deep, contextual engagement and paradoxical thinking. Sustainability, in this view, becomes less about rollout and more about relationship-building: a process that is as much about managing tensions as it is about delivering outcomes.

Author: Katrin Heucher - k.s.heucher@rug.nl