The aim of this paper is to provide clues to industry and academia on how best to approach the challenge of developing a sustainable supply chain. A case study was undertaken of the Westpac Banking Corporationone of the world's most socially responsible banks -to examine how they approached the challenge of managing corporate social responsibility (CSR) in their supply chain. This paper highlights some of the challenges and opportunities associated with extending corporate governance beyond the firm boundary. Specific attention is given to a discussion of assessment and governance tools. The use of a single case study limits the generalizability of these findings. Future research can build on these findings by extending the scope to include additional firms, regions and methods. A best practice model is developed from the discussion to provide practical guidance to firms. While the extension of CSR to the supply chain is an emerging area of interest, the literature provides few clues on how best to pursue sustainable supply chain management. This paper provides a valuable and timely contribution to this topic by reviewing the lessons and practices of a recognised CSR leader.

Purpose – This paper seeks to focus on industry clusters and a rationale for why they may be considered an antidote for stimulating knowledge sharing and collaborative innovation. Design/methodology/approach – Community based participatory research was undertaken using case studies and interviews within four industry clusters based in two countries – Australia and Dubai. Findings were ranked according to a knowledge sharing relational framework. Findings – Industry clusters can play a key role in growing both established and new areas of economic development. Member firm collaboration, knowledge sharing and innovation can result in positive outcomes if the cluster is managed and facilitated appropriately and knowledge sharing is nurtured. Research limitations/implications – The paper examines top-down, hybrid and bottom-up clustering from a variety of sectors as a way of understanding knowledge sharing and innovation exchange. However, given this research comprised case studies, it is recommended that broader, more internationally generalizable research is conducted that includes cluster firms within a range of sectors. Practical implications – The stimulation of opportunities for collaboration and innovation are mandatory for firms and regions to move forward. Irrespective of the uncertainty of the outcome, cluster managers/facilitators need to ensure that they provide regular opportunities for cluster firms facilitators/managers and representatives to network and generate new ideas. Originality/value – The role of cluster managers/facilitators in supporting knowledge sharing processes has been largely overlooked to date. Agglomeration needs both visible and invisible hands to stimulate knowledge sharing and exchange.

Trust is acknowledged as a central tenet of business relationships. Yet for all the attention it receives, rarely has trust been investigated in the Chinese business setting. This paper uses an emic approach to unearth some within-culture 'truths' about Chinese notions of trust in business exchange. The findings of this research suggest that deep trust (xinren), which is driven by reciprocal help and emotional bonding, is critical for doing business in China. A conceptual framework is provided to assist Western businesspersons to better understand the Chinese concept of trust as well as the interplay between its key antecedents.

Although action research offers great advantages of connecting academia and practice, it is surprisingly underutilised in innovation management. This paper, therefore, focuses on how innovation management research and researchers can more effectively and efficiently apply action research to their domain. The analysis commences with the rationale for aligning action research and innovation management before assessing the strengths and limitations of existing interdisciplinary action research approaches from an innovation management perspective. Combining and enhancing the strengths of these approaches, a new Action Innovation Management Research (AIM-R) framework is developed to assist in resolving the increasing demand for action-orientation in innovation management. AIM-R offers a structured research process for systematically applying action research as a way of encouraging rigorous research processes, while also importantly stimulating relevant practical outcomes. AIM-R specifically considers different change levels (individual, team, organisational) and objects (e.g. outcome, process, capability) critical for the multi-faceted character of innovation management. A real-world example towards the end of the article illustrates how AIM-R has been applied to a complex problem-solution space. This example adds important insights for readers wanting to apply this more engaged, but currently underutilised, innovation management research technique. Starkey et al., 2009;Flyvbjerg and Sampson, 2011;Mårtensson et al., 2016). Therefore, calls for more problemoriented, human centred and interdisciplinary approaches in modern

Innovation is critical to organisational success and is a process steered, and potentially thwarted, by individuals. However, despite the importance of public sector innovation given the complexity of policy issues faced and the sector's specific contextual features, our understanding of innovation processes in government requires expansion. This study, using in-depth case analyses of three Australian Public Service agencies, focuses on understanding the 'human component' of the innovation process by drawing on both innovation champion and promotor theories to explore, through the lens of organisational power, how multiple human agents progress public sector innovations. The results highlight the key, and often tandem, roles of individuals at multiple organisational levels who work to inspire and motivate others to progress an innovation (champions) and those with specific power bases who help overcome organisational barriers to innovation (promotors).