E= Desviación estándar M=Media Total docentes 19 Nota: Valor p calculado con prueba Kruskal Wallis.

The key findings of Paper I are structured according to its focus on the interdisciplinarity of the

research on fragmented sustainability governance, the diversity of the phenomenon of fragmented sustainability governance and the toolbox of management approaches to cope with

fragmented sustainability governance. The findings of Paper I stem from a descriptive and qualitative content analysis of 134 peer-reviewed scientific papers (hereafter called data set). First, considering the composition of the research on fragmented sustainability governance, Paper I reveals that the academic literature grows since 2013, takes place in various scientific journals and entails contributions from different scientific disciplines. Furthermore, the literature still mainly consists of qualitative studies as well as theoretical and conceptual studies, whereas quantitative studies and literature reviews are scarce. Considering the occurrence of scientific journals, Paper I found that the data set of 134 publications stems from 81 journals with a wide range of scientific backgrounds. More precisely, the two most prominent journals contribute eight publications each and 55 out of 81 journals provide only one publication respectively. An encompassing citation network analysis shows that the ten most commonly cited publications within the data set account for 45% of all citations in the citation network. In contrast, 25 out of 134 journal articles in the sample do not show any citation interlinkages. Considering the contributions of different scientific disciplines to the scholarly body of literature on fragmented sustainability governance, Paper I found that various scholarly disciplines are involved, yet the identified literature is clearly dominated by political science contributions. In more detail, 15 out of the 20 most often cited publications in the data set can be assigned to the realm of political science, while two belong to business and economics research and environmental studies respectively and one publication to law and legal studies. Although political science publications deliver valuable contributions to understand the multifaceted phenomenon of fragmented sustainability governance, they provide only limited support to understand the interlinkages between the business firm and fragmented sustainability governance. This can partly be explained by the fact that studies in political science address a different and often more abstract level of analysis and predominantly do not consider the

(internal) perspective of the business firm in environments of fragmented sustainability governance. Furthermore, independent of the respective scientific discipline, 54 out of 134 publications address the interlinkages between fragmented sustainability governance and the business firm. Thereof, the majority (31 out of 54) focuses on companies as governance makers whereas the minority (15) looks at companies as governance takers. Surprisingly, the dual role of companies as governance makers and takers is only addressed by five papers.

Second, regarding the phenomenon of fragmented sustainability governance, Paper I carves out different dimensions of fragmented sustainability governance in order provide a more nuanced assessment. More precisely, the paper introduces the dimensions of ends, means, context,

outcomes and actors which can all show variations of fragmentation. These variations of

sustainability governance fragmentation are captured in a framework and discussed in more detail in Paper I. By doing so, the framework emphasizes that the actual dimensions of governance fragmentation are multifaceted and thus supports the initial assumption of this paper that the phenomenon of fragmented sustainability governance comes in many forms. In more concrete terms, sustainability governance can be fragmented regarding its ends (what is actually governed?), e.g. considering multiple or selected sustainability topics and dimensions, the means (how is governance provided?), e.g. referring to multiple governance instruments in light of soft, hard and hybrid governance approaches, as well as the context (where is sustainability governance provided?), e.g. considering geographic and sectoral differences of governance. Eventually, the outcome of sustainability governance (with what effect?) can be fragmented, e.g. considering differences in governance quality, effectiveness, maturity and legitimacy. Furthermore, Paper I emphasizes the fragmentation of different governance actors (governments, NGOs, companies, etc.) that contribute to the formation and fragmentation of sustainability governance.

Third, Paper I derives an overview of different management approaches to deal with fragmented sustainability governance from the qualitative content analysis. Given the aforementioned multifaceted nature of fragmented sustainability governance, there is naturally no ‘silver bullet’ to manage it. Instead, Paper I derives three overarching categories of how governance makers can manage governance fragmentation: coordination, convergence & integration as well as

meta governance. The management category of coordination leaves the ‘fragments’ of

governance untouched and instead focuses on improving the interplay between them. In more detail, this entails instruments such as governance orchestration, agenda setting and complementary governance approaches. The findings reveal that orchestration (the indirect influence on the coordination of governance fragments via intermediaries) is most prominently

covered in the literature and mainly executed by governments and intergovernmental organizations. In contrast, the management category convergence & integration aims to change the existing governance fragments. This entails the altering, alignment or even merging of the content of governance, e.g. referring to sustainability schemes, standards, policies or laws. Last but not least, meta governance is identified as a field of management that provides the ‘governance of governance’. In more concrete terms, meta governance provides guidance and rules for shaping sustainability governance, e.g. by providing standardized processes and quality criteria for setting sustainability standards (Bernstein & van der Ven, 2017).

3.2.2 Exploring general and sector-specific factors that explain the fragmentation of