Collaboration is a fundamental process in various fields, enabling diverse stakeholders to work together toward shared goals. Wood and Gray (1991) describe collaboration as a process in which “a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain.” (p.146). This definition of collaboration includes six identified key elements: stakeholders within a problem domain, autonomy, interactive processes, shared rules and norms, action or decision-making, and domain orientation. The concept of collaboration, as a contrast to cooperation, emphasizes voluntary engagement, trust, and commitment, whereas cooperation is driven primarily by external incentives, such as financial rewards (Blomqvist and Levy, 2006). In this view of collaboration, coordinating actions based on extrinsic motivation and economic rationale is insufficient in today’s knowledge-driven global competition. To meet complex challenges and high levels of uncertainty, organizations must foster deeper, more interactive forms of collaboration (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006).

According to Miles et al. (2000) effective collaboration depends on three preconditions: time, trust, and territory. Time is needed for exchanging ideas within and across teams and for engaging in deeper activities like exploring new perspectives, gaining insights from experts and external stakeholders, and experimenting with innovative solutions. Spending time in productive interaction helps to build trust among collaborators. With increasing trust, individuals become more open to share ideas and explore new perspectives without fear of being taken advantage of. The concept of territory in collaboration refers to psychological space that develops when individuals willingly exchange ideas with others. However, territory goes beyond sense of belonging, it involves having a visible and recognized stake in the outcomes of collaboration. This can take forms such as ownership, visible awards, or recognition. When these preconditions are met, collaboration occurs, which in turn leads to knowledge creation (Miles et al., 2000). In this way, collaboration emerges as a process through which knowledge is generated in interaction.

In addition to the notion of collaboration, the concept of boundaries and boundary objects offer a valuable lens for understanding how learning and knowledge transfer unfold across diverse professional contexts (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Gellerstedt et al., 2015; Norström & Hattinger, 2016). In multi-stakeholder processes, such as those examined in this study, actors bring distinct disciplinary knowledge, perspectives, and interests, which can create boundaries that complicate interaction and mutual understanding (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Organizational boundaries are not fixed but strategically constructed to manage efficiency, power, competence, and identity (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005). Learning at these boundaries requires intentional facilitation and supportive structures to bridge differences and foster collaboration. Boundary work plays a critical role in this process, helping to align diverse stakeholder interests and enabling the development of sustainable operations (Veltman et al., 2019). Rather than viewing boundaries solely as obstacles, research highlights their generative potential. As Oonk et al. (2022) argue, boundaries are essential conditions for learning, offering spaces where new connections can be formed. Crossing boundaries creates opportunities for individuals and organizations to expand their knowledge and build collaborative competencies (Veltman et al., 2019).

Boundary objects, function as mediating artefacts that support the translation of concepts, perspectives, and values across diverse social and professional domains, facilitating alignment between otherwise disconnected practices (Star, 1989; Star & Griesemer, 1989). When effectively mobilized, such objects enable actors with different backgrounds to converge around complex issues (Gellerstedt et al., 2015). Akkerman and Bakker (2011) identified four mechanisms of learning at the boundary. The first, identification, involves questioning and redefining one’s own and others’ core identities to gain a deeper understanding of different practices. The second, coordination, focuses on establishing communicative connections between diverse practices, such as exchanging information or using shared languages. The third mechanism, reflection, involves taking and making perspectives, helping individuals and groups critically assess their own and others’ viewpoints. The fourth, transformation, represents the most advanced stage of boundary learning. At this stage, stakeholders engage in creative processes that involve crossing boundaries to develop new, hybrid solutions. This process involves combining elements from different contexts to form something novel and previously unfamiliar, such as new tools. When these four learning mechanisms are applied across different practices, boundary-crossing learning develops (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011).

Oonk et al. (2022) highlight that boundary-crossing competence is essential for sustainable development. They further argue that individuals must develop the ability to identify, appreciate, and leverage boundaries as spaces for learning and co-creation to contribute to sustainability goals. According to Akkerman and Bakker (2011), all learning is constrained by boundaries, and the ability to engage across them is a key aspect of boundary-crossing competence. This competence includes identifying, recognizing, and leveraging boundaries between different practices to facilitate knowledge exchange and co-creation. Collaboration is therefore essential for acquiring new knowledge.

By integrating theories of collaboration, boundary crossing, and boundary objects, this paper proposes a new model of work-integrated learning that serves as a lens to understand how collaboration between actors leads to mutual learning and knowledge creation in the context of social sustainability. It emphasizes a circular process: as actors collaborate by crossing boundaries and around a boundary object, they learn from one another, generate new knowledge, and share gained knowledge back into the loop, supporting continuous learning (Figure 1).

Inspired by Miles et al. (2000), time, trust, and territory are identified as key preconditions for collaboration. Once these are in place, actors engage in boundary-crossing collaboration, supported by shared artefacts—boundary objects— that help translate concepts and values across practices (Gellerstedt et al., 2015). Learning acts as a bridge between collaboration and knowledge creation, enabling communicative connections and contextual understanding (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Jakubik, 2008). The model thus captures how collaboration, learning, and knowledge creation interact to advance social sustainability in practice.

The data was collected through semi-structured interviews. 11 respondents from 10 organizations across Sweden, Denmark, and Norway were interviewed. The respondents represent a diverse range of stakeholders and hold various professional roles. Selection was based on the following criteria: For companies, eligibility involved meeting the European Commission’s (2003) definition of a SME, namely having fewer than 250 employees and an annual turnover not exceeding €50 million, or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding €43 million. Among the six companies that participated in this study, three met this definition, while the other three exceeded the turnover threshold, yet remained below the employee limit. In addition, companies were required to demonstrate a strong sustainability profile, assessed by the researchers through publicly available data, sustainability reports, and industry recognition. For other types of organisations, such as nonprofit organisations and industry associations, selection was based on their activities, such as providing training, policy guidance, benchmarking tools, and regulatory updates to companies. Finally, all participants were required to hold positions relevant to sustainability, supply chain, compliance, or product development. This diversity enabled us to capture multiple perspectives on collaboration and social sustainability.

Interview durations ranged from 27 to 65 minutes, with an average of approximately 47 minutes. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted online via Microsoft Teams between March and April 2025. They were audio- and video-recorded with informed consent and transcribed using the built in AI-based transcription tool, followed by manual verification to ensure accuracy. The interview guides included questions on: Organisational sustainability practices; Experiences with the CSDDD; Forms and challenges of collaboration and; Knowledge-sharing and learning processes. While all guides were based on these core questions, they were tailored slightly to different stakeholder groups. For SMEs, the focus was placed on how they are preparing to comply with upcoming regulations. For nonprofits, which are not directly subject to regulatory compliance, the questions instead explored how they support and guide businesses in meeting these requirements.

Thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), was employed to identify patterns and themes within the data. The process began with repeated readings of the transcripts to gain a comprehensive understanding of the material. Meaningful units were then inductively coded. These codes were organized into potential themes (sub-themes), which were subsequently refined to ensure internal coherence and relevance to the research questions. During this stage, the validity of each theme in relation to the entire data set was considered, along with whether the proposed themes reflected the overarching meanings present in the data. The final stage involved defining and naming three main themes, which were then interpreted in relation to the theoretical framework. An abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) guided the analysis, allowing for an iterative movement between empirical data and theory. For instance, the concept of boundary objects proved useful in interpreting participants’ descriptions of tools such as supplier manuals, certifications, and seminars that facilitated cross-organisational learning. Figure 2 illustrates an example of the analytical process, showing how the themes were systematically developed through the coding of interview transcripts. Figure 3 shows the three main themes and their corresponding sub-themes that emerged from the final stage of the analysis.

To ensure validity and credibility of the thematic analysis, this study followed established qualitative research standards, using the trustworthiness criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). Credibility was enhanced through persistent observation strategy, where the researchers carefully examined the characteristics of the data during the development of codes, concepts and the core category, involving repeated reading, ongoing analysis and theoretical reflection. Transferability was ensured by providing detailed contextual information about the participants, along with a comprehensive description of the data collection and analysis processes. Such transparency allows readers to determine the relevance and applicability of the findings to other contexts (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). Dependability was addressed through maintaining a clear audit trail that documented all stages of data collection and analysis, enabling transparency and allowing for external scrutiny of the research process. Confirmability was ensured through reflexive practices such as memo writing, researcher discussions, and continuous reflection on personal assumptions and potential biases. This enabled ground interpretations in the data rather than in the researchers’ personal preferences or viewpoints (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). In line with Braun and Clarke (2019), reflexivity was viewed as a key element of qualitative quality, requiring researchers to actively acknowledge and examine own assumptions then critically examine whether those assumptions are valid for any particular project. Involving all researchers in data collection and analysis further reduced the risk of individual bias, contributing to a more balanced and objective interpretation of the data.

This theme illustrates three key tools used by the organizations where the respondents work to address social sustainability in their supply chains: legislation, certifications, and methodological resources obtained through memberships in networks and associations. These tools function both as entry points and as ongoing frameworks for conducting human rights due diligence and ensuring responsible sourcing.

Participants highlighted that the CSDDD offers an important legal foundation for strengthening human rights and responsible sourcing within companies. They noted that having a legislative framework ensures that these practices are no longer optional but mandatory: “There will be a legal framework for companies to actually integrate human rights and responsible sourcing practices. I mean, they [companies] have to do it, they can't choose to do it.” (R6). They also emphasized the importance of a clear legal framework, particularly in the context of complex and geographically distant supply chains: “The legislative framework is super important when we're talking about so detailed and far away supply chains.” (R8)

The respondents described certifications such as GOTS and Bluesign as valuable tools in their social sustainability effort. They emphasized that these certifications offer structured frameworks, guidelines, and systems that align closely with the requirements of the directive, making them a natural starting point for companies aiming to strengthen their due diligence efforts: “We're also going for what we call GOTS certification, that has all the requirements with due diligence. […] GOTS is famously known right now for their due diligence work.” (R2)

Several respondents emphasized the importance of the methodologies offered by platforms such as the Fair Wear Foundation, particularly in the context of addressing the requirements of the CSDDD and ensuring socially responsible practices throughout the supply chain. These platforms have updated their frameworks to align with the directive, providing members with structured tools such as guidelines, reporting templates, and questionnaires: “They [Fair Wear Foundation] also have this framework and methodology for members to follow to be a fair and ethical brand. What they did two years ago was to change their methodology to follow CSDDD […] so they adopted the guidelines or the framework of CSDDD”. (R3)

This theme illustrates the different ways the organizations collaborate to support their sustainability work throughout the supply chain. Participants described how they work closely with other companies and competitors, industry associations, suppliers, and universities to learn from each other, as well within their organization to address challenges in the industry, and build long-lasting relationships.

The respondents stated that collaboration with other brands is seen as essential for driving sustainable change. They noted that collaboration with competitors is becoming more common in this context, and that sharing information with other brands is increasingly valued: “So that [collaboration with competitors] is done very frequently. I think that when I started working with this, it was not as common that you're sharing information and sharing knowledge between brands. But now it feels like very much common practice. It's because, especially with sustainability, everyone wants the same thing, and if another company can do it in a similar way, it's just good in a way.” (R8)

One key enabling factor for collaboration with other companies mentioned by respondents was shared conditions and alignment between organizations. Participants noted that collaboration was more likely when the involved parties faced similar challenges and operated under comparable circumstances. Alignment in context, both in terms of objectives and challenges, was seen as particularly valuable, as it enabled organizations to pursue shared goals, exchange best practices, and strengthen their collaborative relationships: “I would say Scandinavian outdoor group helps us a lot because there, they (members) are in the same field as us, they have the same issues, the same challenges as we have.” (R1)

While there was a clear willingness to collaborate, it was also raised that finding a suitable partner within the same sector can be challenging. Although the idea of working together with other companies was appealing, opportunities to do so were sometimes limited by the absence of relevant actors in the same industry: “So, we would love to do it [collaborate], but there just isn't yet a company that is really right for you.” (R7)

Several respondents noted that being part of different networks was valuable. These networks were described as platforms that foster openness, exchange knowledge and collaboration across companies on a range of topics. Participating in such networks was seen as beneficial for staying connected with others in the industry: “Both in Scandinavia, but also now to outdoor sustainability groups that we are quite open and we collaborate a lot on different things […] So that's a good thing to be part of different networks.” (R11)

Several respondents also emphasized the importance of collaboration with academic institutions, viewing it as a relevant factor in driving sustainability efforts forward: “We want to share everything we know, we want to share the data we have on our suppliers, on our climate, on our product because, and then academia are really good collaborators in processing this data and creating new projects and driving the sustainability work forward. So, I think that it gains actually a lot of value collaborating with other people outside organizations.” (R3). Respondents also described the mutual value of these collaborations: “I've had some presentations for different, both high schools, but also universities […] I think they represent a really important stakeholder in driving an organization forward as well in what questions do they ask, what do they want to know more about, and everything. This gives a lot of value.” (R3)

Respondents further emphasized the value of cultivating long-term partnerships with suppliers. These enduring relationships were seen as foundational to building mutual trust, facilitating open communication, and driving continuous improvement in sustainable practices: “So we have the same suppliers, many of them we work with for a very long time, that also helps us to maintain the that relationship and also build on that and that becomes very much like a key thing when you try to get data from suppliers, for example on the climate data or any social data for that matter […] So we try to very much work like that, trying to build those relationships and work closely with them”. (R4).

Additionally, several respondents described structured onboarding processes as essential for aligning expectations with new suppliers from the start. These processes helped ensure shared values, clarify social and environmental standards, and establish a foundation for long-term collaboration. Formal agreements and early site visits were also common features: “We have a whole process of onboarding suppliers. First of all, we talk to the suppliers and see if we are aligned, goal wise and also social […] And then we have developed a huge, huge supplier manual with all the needs and demands that we require from a supplier and then they will read it through and they will sign it. And that's kind of a baseline we work from. And then we will go and visit the suppliers”. (R1)

Furthermore, respondents emphasized the importance of factory visits as part of their monitoring process. These visits provide an opportunity to directly assess the working conditions and well-being of the workers, offering insights that might not be otherwise visible through documentation alone: “The first impression is really, really important. Like when you're going to a factory, if people are looking away, if it’s dirty, you see a fire extinguisher not there. You know, you get a very good or bad first impression […] it's not really mentioned in all documents you know. (R11)

One respondent in particular focused on removing power imbalances with their suppliers, working towards mutual business relationships in which both parties are dependent on each other: “Of course there will always be this power imbalance of course with the buying company and the producing company, but on the other hand, we're trying also see them as a partnership more or less because we are dependent on them and they are dependent on us as well.” (R4)

The respondents also described how sustainability work is supported by internal collaboration within their organization: “We've been very connected and close with working with product development.” (R8). Furthermore, team members often work side by side, making communication direct and decisions highly collaborative: “We sit there all together because it is every little detail of our production that we need to focus on and take decisions about. So, it's impossible not to be very, very close related.” (R1). Some respondents noted that sustainability is not the responsibility of one individual or department but is integrated into the daily tasks of everyone in the organization. It is viewed as a shared responsibility that aligns with the company’s overall strategy and values: “Everyone is also expected to have something that focuses on some of the areas that fall into our sustainability strategy. So it's sort of part of the day job really [...] it is part of the overall company strategy, the brand value, so everyone works in some way with sustainability.” (R7). One participant even emphasized how sustainability is so central to their operations that each employee, regardless of role, can be seen as a sustainability manager: “Of course, it's involved in everything we do, so I usually say that everyone who works in [company] is a sustainability manager in some kind.” (R11)

Knowledge creation to ensure social sustainability practices emerged as a third theme. Participants shared that limited knowledge and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the legislation made preparation towards the CSDDD difficult. To navigate these challenges, they emphasised the importance of both internal and external learning opportunities, such as trainings, webinars, and workshops, hosted within their organisations and by external networks or associations.

Respondents pointed out that they do not always have all the necessary knowledge about upcoming legislation within their own companies, but they believe there is a lot of useful knowledge available outside their organisations: “But yeah, getting the knowledge that other people have, because I'm sure there is a lot of knowledge everywhere, but just we don't have everything within internally in our company.” (R2)

To address this, respondents emphasised the crucial role of collaboration in fostering knowledge creation, highlighting the importance of learning in this process. It was also seen as an important way to stay informed and up to date: “So collaboration, I would say is a really important purpose and also to the learning experience.” (R4)

“That's also the way we keep, you know, keep updated, of course, to listen to others. […] And to participate in other conferences, like we have the collaboration with the UN Global Compact, but there are the different organisations, networks or agencies working with similar areas and to be in dialogue, to collaborate, to do talks or just to attend different types of other events and conferences, in order to learn again and get updated.” (R9)

Some participants shared that their organisations actively contribute to knowledge-sharing by hosting their own trainings and webinars focused on sustainability topics and upcoming legislation requirements: “We host different B Head sessions. That's experts sharing knowledge on the policies on legislations on different relevant topics that's relevant for the B corps.” (R9)

“We do provide, like it depends with who we are partnering with, and so we have like webinars and the training sessions, but it can be adjusted with our like a stakeholders together […] we have also really good public speakers who go to this like a bigger events Europe wide.” (R10)

In terms of upcoming legislation, several respondents expressed that the uncertain situation surrounding CSDDD, especially with the ongoing discussions with Omnibus package, makes it difficult to know in which direction the legislation is turning: “And now they make this Omnibus thing, that they will reopen it up again. Like postpone it, but also not just postpone it, but also try to change quite a lot of stuff there […] So I would say it just, it doesn't look good, like it is uncertain.” (R10)

“But again, not much is settled within the EU, so it is hard to say you can prepare for this because we don't exactly know what to prepare for.” (R2)

In addition, participants shared that limited internal resources pose significant challenges when addressing the requirements of the CSDDD. These constraints, especially in terms of time and staff capacity, were mentioned. Respondents expressed concerns about the administrative burden, noting that much of the work centres around paperwork, documentation and reporting requirements, all of which are resource consuming: “I think the challenges for our company as a small/medium sized company, I would say it's the administrative work of creating this. It's very much administrative and I think also it's very much documents and papers.” (R3)

Several participants emphasised that knowledge is actively developed within the workplace through internal workshops, seminars, and regular meetings. For example, one interviewee described how they gain valuable insights from senior colleagues who engage directly with legal frameworks: “My boss is […] part of that team who forms all these directives and so they have like very much knowledge in these areas. And from that, we all, me and my colleagues, learn very much from them […] like we are in school, so we have seminars where we get information about it and workshops and things like that.” (R5)

Another respondent discussed how internal meetings are used strategically as knowledge-sharing platforms to keep all staff informed about upcoming legislation and the necessary preparations: “So we have monthly meetings, the whole company where I provide any updates, going through all the legislation coming up, so they have like a status report of what is coming up and what they need to prepare for.” (R2)

Respondents also highlighted how the diverse academic backgrounds within their teams enrich the learning environment and lead to more holistic approaches to sustainability: “I think it's beneficial because we have both knowledge in very much different aspects and topics and areas, and also that we have different like views of sustainability. […] when you have like different educational backgrounds, you get a bigger picture of sustainability […] we can like share different views on it and together we have a big knowledge and different views, how to both view sustainability and how to adopt it.” (R5)

The findings demonstrate that SMEs in the Nordic textile industry engage in multifaceted collaborations to address the challenges of social sustainability in complex supply chains. Internally, sustainability is increasingly embedded across departments and roles, moving beyond the responsibility of individual specialists to become a shared organizational concern (Henriksson & Grunewald, 2020; Sunnemark et al., 2024). This internal integration fosters situated learning, where knowledge is developed through everyday work and cross-functional interaction (Björck & Willermark, 2024; Vallo Hult et al., 2024). Externally, SMEs collaborate with a wide range of actors including suppliers, competitors, NGOs, academic institutions, and industry associations to access knowledge, align practices, and build capacity. These collaborations are often facilitated by shared tools and frameworks, such as certifications (e.g., GOTS), supplier manuals, and legal guidelines, which function as boundary objects that support communication and coordination across diverse organizational and cultural contexts (Gellerstedt et al., 2015; Star & Griesemer, 1989).

However, collaboration is not without its challenges. SMEs often struggle to find suitable partners within their niche sectors, which limits opportunities for meaningful exchange and joint initiatives (Ethical Trade Sweden, 2025). Even when collaboration is desired, differences in organizational size, resources, or strategic priorities can hinder alignment and trust-building. The administrative burden associated with compliance, particularly in relation to the CSDDD, further complicates collaborative efforts, as SMEs frequently lack the internal capacity to manage extensive reporting and due diligence requirements (Smit et al., 2020a; Setyaningsih et al., 2024). Moreover, power asymmetries in supplier relationships persist, making it difficult to establish truly reciprocal partnerships. While some SMEs actively work to reduce these imbalances and foster long-term relationships based on mutual dependence and trust (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006), the structural realities of global supply chains often reinforce hierarchical dynamics. Despite these constraints, the findings of this study suggest that collaboration remains a vital strategy for SMEs to navigate regulatory demands, share responsibility, and collectively advance social sustainability goals.

Applying a Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) perspective provides a deeper understanding of how SMEs in the Nordic textile industry engage with social sustainability as a dynamic and relational learning process. Rather than viewing sustainability as a static compliance task, WIL emphasizes how knowledge is created and shared through collaboration across organizational and sectoral boundaries (Björck & Willermark, 2024; Vallo Hult et al., 2024; Sunnemark et al., 2024). The empirical findings illustrate how SMEs participate in boundary-crossing learning by engaging with external networks, industry platforms, and academic institutions. These interactions enable the coordination of diverse perspectives and the co-creation of knowledge, particularly in response to the evolving requirements of the CSDDD (European Commission, 2024; Dempere et al., 2024). Boundary object, such as certifications, supplier manuals, and legal frameworks, play a central role in this process by translating abstract sustainability principles into concrete, actionable practices (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Gellerstedt et al., 2015; Star & Griesemer, 1989).

However, the capacity to engage in WIL is contingent on the availability of time, trust, and territory (Miles et al., 2000). Time is required for reflection, dialogue, and relationship-building, yet is often scarce in resource-constrained SMEs. Trust is essential for open communication and the sharing of sensitive information, particularly in supply chains where visibility is limited beyond first-tier suppliers (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006). Territory, understood as a sense of ownership and recognition, is reflected in how sustainability is embedded in employees’ everyday work and in how SMEs position themselves within collaborative networks (Henriksson & Grunewald, 2020; Espínola et al., 2025). When these preconditions are met, learning becomes a transformative process that enables SMEs to move beyond compliance and develop context-sensitive approaches to social sustainability.

The model of Work-Integrated Learning for Social Sustainability proposed in this paper captures this iterative and relational process. It highlights how collaboration, boundary crossing, and the use of boundary objects interact to support knowledge creation. This perspective aligns with calls to reconceptualize social sustainability not as a checklist of compliance tasks, but as a continuous learning journey shaped by engagement, reflection, and shared responsibility (Marshall et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2024; De Neve, 2014). In this way, WIL offers a valuable framework for understanding how SMEs can build the capacity needed to navigate complex supply chains and contribute to more socially sustainable business practices.

While the empirical focus in this paper is on Nordic SMEs in the textile industry, the theoretical framework contributes insights for other industries and international contexts. The study highlights how collaboration, boundary- crossing learning, and the use of boundary objects can support capacity-building and compliance in resource-constrained settings, challenges that are common across sectors facing increasing sustainability demands.