NEED FOR RESEARCH. To secure a future-proof future for all species, there is need to undertake systemic change toward sustainable ways of living and doing business (Loorbach et al., 2017; Dyllick & Muff, 2015). In this endeavor, the agency of actors is critical (Geels, 2020; Onkila & Sarna, 2022). Yet, who are these actors and how are they supposed to act? METHOD. In this paper, we focus on sustainability actors relevant to business, asking ‘which actors engage in furthering sustainable business, and, how?’ To this end, by analysing articles published across the disciplines in management sciences over a 25-year period (1994-2019), we present a systematic review of the literature on actors engaged in making business more sustainable. To include a diversity of management disciplines and a focus on top-tier journals, the sample consisted in journals in general management (AMJ, AMR, AMA, ASQ, JOM, JMS, BJM), organization studies (OSc, OStud, HuRel), international business (JIBS, IJMR), strategy (SMJ, LRP, SO); policy (RP), and responsible business (OE, JBE, BSE, B&S, JCP), across a quarter of a century (1994–2019). From an initial sample of 767 articles, our final sample consists in 269 articles.

FINDINGS. In order to bring clarity to the currently scattered literature, the paper’s contribution is in developing a typology of actors working toward sustainable futures. While conducting our review, we noted that the concept of agency (Ritzer, 2005) captures the intentional action that these sustainability actors engage in. Consequently, we built on agencyrelated concepts in developing the dimensions of our typology, including an individual’s agency (Bandura, 2006; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), collective agency (Crozier & Friedberg, 1980), non-human agency (Knappett & Malafouris, 2008), material agency (Cooren, 2020) and relational agency (Burkitt, 2015). In furthering our categorization and making sense of the diversity of actors and forms of agency represented in the reviewed papers, the developed typology of sustainability agency thus builds on four dimensions, each portraying a specific form of agency. The first dimension considers whether papers focus on human or non-human forms of agency. The second dimension considers the studied level of analysis, be it individual, organizational or institutional. The third dimension assesses whether the papers study the agency of influential, incumbent, or proactive, niche, actors. The fourth dimension takes its interest in whether papers focus on forms of relational agency, be it via collective or collaborative action.

In closing, our findings are a call to recognize the cruciality of human agency in building sustainable futures. By highlighting the actors’ agency, we join calls to take agency seriously in the sustainability context. It can be argued that a scattered literature on sustainability actors might, in part, impede actors’ agency on the ground, as there is a lacking appreciation of the variety of means of acting toward sustainable futures. This highlights the significance of integrative views, as developed here.