A theoretical model of multistakeholder conflict resolution over sustainability issues integrating Indigenous peoples’ perspectives as rightsholders: a systematic literature review

Multistakeholder conflicts over sustainability issues (e.g. competing national policies on conservation, livelihoods issues and land use right violations) have resulted in negative impacts on Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous stakeholders, which can undermine the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) (in particular, Goal 8: Sustainable Economic Growth; Goal 13: Climate Action; 14: Life Below Water; 15: Life on Land; and 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Indigenous peoples suffer landscape loss, livelihood loss and land dispossession due to extractive industrial development (Scheidel et al., 2023). On the other hand, companies incur high costs due to delayed projects and halted production, while the government drains its budget for handling conflicts (Kowszyk et al., 2023).

The conflict management theory is relevant to address these issues, as it provides several resolution strategies, both cooperative (i.e. integrating and compromising) and noncooperative (i.e. obliging, dominating and avoiding) (Rahim, 2002). However, this theory falls short in addressing multistakeholder conflicts related to sustainability issues that involve Indigenous peoples, as it has thus far focused on resolving conflicts in the workplace (Caputo et al., 2019). Although this theory offers a cooperative approach to resolving complex problems, including sustainability-related conflicts, a gap remains in understanding the practices and processes that lead to or hinder cooperation among conflicting parties involving marginalized groups. In addition, such conflicts involve power imbalance issues because governments and extractive corporations occupy Indigenous lands and forests (Banerjee, 2008; Scheidel et al., 2023). Therefore, we need another lens to complement this theory.

We argue that the emerging wisdom theory can enrich the conflict management theory. Wisdom refers to the decision-making capacity (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019) that manifests itself in ethical and social practices (Rooney et al., 2010) to deal with complex social and ecological problems (Grossmann and Brienza, 2018). Aristotle’s notion of phrónēsis and the research findings of psychologists and gerontologists since the 1980s, particularly the Balance Theory of Wisdom (Sternberg, 1998) and the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm (Baltes and Staudinger, 2000), inspired the conceptualization of wisdom in management and organization studies. These theories guide conflicting parties to begin listening to each other’s perspectives, examine their taken-for-granted assumptions and power relations, balance and integrate different interests and perspectives and act ethically to build consensus and cooperation (Brienza et al., 2018, 2021; Brienza and Grossmann, 2017).

To address the theoretical gap, it is essential to explore the factors that determine multistakeholder conflict resolution over sustainability issues through a systematic literature review (SLR). A few SLRs have previously aimed to provide a coherent view of stakeholder conflict resolution. For example, Soliku and Schraml (2018) found that strategies for successfully managing conflicts over the conservation of protected areas in different world regions involve increased and meaningful participation as well as collaborative management. Similarly, Cánovas-Molina and García-Frapolli (2020) suggested that participatory, trusted and inclusive approaches help resolve multistakeholder conflicts in managing marine protected areas. While both studies propose strategies for resolving conflicts related to sustainability, they do not specifically address the viewpoints of Indigenous peoples.

We argue that Indigenous peoples’ perspectives are of significance in any decision-making regarding sustainability-related conflict resolutions for two reasons. First, according to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the rights of Indigenous peoples must be recognized and protected (Stamatopoulou, 2025). Therefore, it is the right of Indigenous peoples to voice their perspectives to resolve conflicts that occur in their own territories. Second, many Indigenous communities worldwide steward nature in their respective territories by considering the land, forests and seas as their kin (Abas et al., 2022). As such, Indigenous peoples stand not only as stakeholders but also as agents and rightsholders whose knowledge and perspectives can add value to understanding conflict resolution in this domain.

Nonetheless, academic discussions on sustainability − including the development of conflict-resolution mechanisms − have not adequately recognized the perspective of Indigenous peoples, which could lead to significant contributions to sustainability-related conflict resolution. Hence, we address the following research question of our SLR: What are the determinants of multistakeholder conflict resolution over sustainability issues from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives? We identified and reviewed 58 articles from various disciplines that focus on Indigenous peoples, addressing the need to synthesize and evaluate the existing literature.

Drawing on the findings of our SLR, we offer two theoretical contributions. First, we develop a theoretical model for multistakeholder conflict resolution that integrates Indigenous perspectives by using the conflict management and wisdom theories. The conflict management theory suggests that integrating and compromising perspectives/interests are appropriate for solving problems cooperatively (Rahim, 2002). Meanwhile, the emerging wisdom scholarship provides a philosophical basis for how conflicting parties can reduce their egos, begin listening to different perspectives and knowledge, reflexively examine taken-for-granted assumptions and act ethically (Glück and Weststrate, 2022; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2024). As Indigenous-related issues are closely linked to colonialism (Banerjee, 2022; Mignolo, 2011), we further adopt a decolonization philosophy to critically examine the causes of such conflicts and justify the need for justice in the conflict resolution model. Decolonization refers to the process of exposing the impact of colonial practices and capitalism on former colonized societies, enabling them to achieve political, cultural, ecological and economic sovereignty (Mignolo, 2011).

Second, this study extends the wisdom scholarship by incorporating power analysis as called for by previous studies (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2006). This is a significant contribution, as sustainability-related conflicts involving Indigenous peoples often occur within complex socioecological, cultural, economic and political dynamics (Kowszyk et al., 2023; Larson et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2024). Therefore, our findings contribute to studies that use the wisdom theory as a framework to understand conflicts between majority and minority social groups (e.g. Brienza et al., 2021; Grossmann et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2024).

The remainder of this paper is organized in the following manner. We begin by reviewing the theoretical underpinnings of our study in Section 2. In Section 3 and 4, we then explain our SLR methodology and identify relevant findings to inform the development of our theoretical model. Thereafter, we develop three propositions that link multiperspective consideration, trust, socioecological justice and cooperation in Section 5. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our study and provide a future research agenda in Section 6, 7 and 8.

The conflict management theory involves diagnosing the roots of conflict at the interpersonal, intragroup and interorganizational levels and establishing styles or strategies for dealing with conflicts (Rahim, 2002, 2023). Conflict refers to the process of social interaction that manifests in incompatibility, disagreement or dissonance of perspectives, interests, preferences, attitudes, values, skills and goals among social entities (i.e. individuals, groups and organizations) (Rahim, 2002, p. 207). Conflict management strategies involve five dimensions: integrating (high concern for self, high concern for others); obliging (low concern for self, high concern for others); compromising (intermediate concern for self and others); dominating (high concern for self, low concern for others); and avoiding (low concern for self, low concern for others) (Rahim, 2002). This theory proposes that a party could select one of the strategies after considering the nature of the conflict situations at hand, such as the level of complexity, the urgency of the issue and the level of involvement of other parties (Rahim, 2002).

Conflicting stakeholders can use two cooperative strategies to solve complex issues: the integrating and compromising styles (Rahim, 2002, 2023). The integrating style involves the synthesis of ideas, exchange of resources and commitment among different parties to formulate and implement alternative solutions to a problem. The compromising style is appropriate when the conflicting stakeholders are equally powerful. Therefore, each party negotiates to find solutions, thereby helping to reduce each other’s egocentric interests and avoid deadlock. What the two strategies have in common is the willingness to recognize the diversity of perspectives and the need to integrate the parties’ interests in solving problems. However, the conflict management literature has not provided an integrative explanation of the practices necessary for conflicting stakeholders to undertake to achieve cooperative conflict resolution (Caputo et al., 2019). Specifically, in situations where a few of the stakeholders involved in the conflict are marginalized or belong to minority groups, such as Indigenous peoples, the power imbalance inherent in the conflicts complicates cooperation. This is because the more powerful parties − such as governments and companies − may abuse their power to impose their will and ignore Indigenous peoples’ perspectives (Larson et al., 2022).

In this paper, we explain how the contemporary wisdom approach can enrich conflict management theory in the context of sustainability-related conflicts that involve Indigenous peoples.

There is consensus in the literature that wisdom comprises several fundamental meta-principles that can help develop wiser practices to resolve sustainability-related conflicts among stakeholders (Glück and Westrate, 2022; Grossmann et al., 2020; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Sternberg and Karami, 2021; Spiller et al., 2011).

Wisdom refers to decision-making capacity (Intezari et al., 2026; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019) that manifests itself in ethical and social practices (Rooney et al., 2010) to deal with complex social and ecological problems (Grossmann and Brienza, 2018). Wisdom was also discussed in ancient philosophy, but attracted renewed scholarly attention in the 1970s, first among gerontologists (Clayton, 1982), and then subsequently among psychologists aiming to find wise ways to tackle life adversities and social conflicts (e.g. Ardelt, 2003; Baltes and Kunzmann, 2004; Glück and Weststrate; Grossmann et al., 2020, Sternberg, 1998; Yang et al., 2024). Other fields − including organization (e.g. Spiller et al., 2011), management (e.g. Rooney et al., 2010; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019), education (e.g. Brienza et al., 2026; Bruya and Ardelt, 2018; Maxwell, 2012) and leadership (e.g. Intezari et al., 2024; McKenna et al., 2009) − also began paying attention to the concept because traditional approaches are insufficient to deal with extreme unpredictable environments, unethical business practices and conflicts among organizational actors.

The wisdom scholarship can make three contributions to conflict management, thereby achieving the common good for all concerned parties. First, wisdom engages critical reflexivity, which refers to the scrutiny of what we might take for granted − beliefs, values, power, practices, assumptions and social structures (e.g. balanced power in conflicts involving governments, corporations and Indigenous peoples) − with an appreciation of the impacts of one’s actions on others (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019). Practicing reflexivity helps actors in conflict become wiser by reducing ego and fostering open-mindedness, which facilitates negotiation for peace (Brienza et al., 2021). Therefore, conflicting parties need to examine and evaluate each other’s values, beliefs and assumptions that give rise to unsustainable practices.

Second, wisdom promotes balance and integration (Brienza et al., 2018; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Sternberg, 1998). Balance is the fair representation of different elements or sides (i.e. interests, perspectives, epistemologies, cosmologies and approaches) to reduce bias (Brienza et al., 2021; Nicholson et al., 2019; Sternberg, 1998). Integration refers to the process of bringing these elements together in a holistic, dialectical and participatory manner to produce a shared consensus in deliberation (Brienza et al., 2021; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019). However, it is essential to critique tokenistic practices in stakeholder engagement, particularly in cases involving Indigenous peoples (Reed et al., 2024). For example, a company may only listen to the perspectives of a small elite within an Indigenous community but consider them representative when making decisions. As Indigenous peoples are rightsholders rather than stakeholders, every decision-making related to sustainability needs to apply meaningful participation that is connected to and driven by Indigenous worldviews (Ruwhiu and Carter, 2016). Any conflict resolution mechanisms that assume monetary compensation can replace lost customary land, destroyed cultural practices and damaged forests should also be avoided (Reed et al., 2024). In other words, the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands, respect for their cultural practices and acknowledgment of their right to self-determination, including the right to reject or approve business operations in their customary territories, is mandatory in conflict resolution (Ruwhiu and Carter, 2016).

Third, wisdom manifests in ethical actions and creates virtuous impacts (Glück and Weststrate, 2022; Kristjánsson et al., 2021). Practical wisdom is not only about wise words from people who are considered knowledgeable and experienced; it is also about the insights gained from personal experiences. It primarily involves ethical actions (praxis) taken in the face of complex problems, including multistakeholder conflicts (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010; Spiller et al., 2011). Ethics serves as a standard for judging and doing what is morally right to create the common good (Glück and Sternberg, 2022; Rooney et al., 2010). Therefore, conflicting parties should negotiate their interests and act in accordance with moral values to achieve genuine peace. By doing so, they grow wiser and virtuously impactful.

Furthermore, Indigenous wisdom literature also enriches the wisdom framework by offering ethical principles of relationality, reciprocity and nature stewardship, which aim to decolonize the Western colonial view of nature: the nature-culture binary, Indigenous knowledge subjugation and nature exploitation or extractivism (Gudynas, 2020; Mignolo, 2011; Spiller et al., 2011). Indigenous peoples view nature and nonhuman worlds as kin, reciprocally caring for each other as part of their cultural and spiritual identities, rather than as mere economic commodities (Abas et al., 2022; Reed et al., 2024). They have been sustainably stewarding their traditional territories for hundreds of years before colonizers, governments and extractive corporations occupied them. To defend their rights, many Indigenous communities organize translocal and transnational social movements that collaborate with civil society organizations (Banerjee, 2011; Stamatopoulou, 2025). Thus, Indigenous conflict resolution values social connections, bottom-up deliberations, solidarity, justice and respect for human rights and the rights of nature (Banerjee, 2022; Tynan, 2021; Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew pii tai poo taa, 2020; Yaka, 2019). Multistakeholder forums for conflict resolution involving Indigenous communities are likely to fail if these principles are ignored (Larson et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2024). Having explained our theoretical resources, the following section elaborates on the methodological process used in this study.

To answer the research question − what are the determinants of multistakeholder conflict resolution over sustainability issues from Indigenous perspectives? − we used the SLR method. The aim was to consolidate fragmented and interdisciplinary knowledge by conducting a methodical, comprehensive, transparent and replicable literature review process (Siddaway et al., 2019).

Following Siddaway et al. (2019), we conducted the SLR by formulating the relevant search terms, justifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching the relevant published works in prominent academic databases, screening them to determine the eligibility for inclusion, analyzing the eligible papers and presenting the findings.

To collect articles on sustainability conflict resolution and Indigenous peoples, we used multiple search terms in our search string (Table 1).

We searched the literature in leading academic databases, such as Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science and Google Scholar (Table 2). While the first three databases have higher reliability than Google Scholar (Wanyama et al., 2022), we also searched Google Scholar to ensure that no relevant studies were excluded, as it is the most comprehensive academic search engine (Gusenbauer, 2019). We set the Google Scholar search to a high level of relevance to limit the overwhelming search results.

We established three inclusion and exclusion criteria, each based on the research question. First, we only included studies published in English before October 1, 2024 (the time this research was conducted) across various disciplines to broaden the search for resolving sustainability-related stakeholder conflicts and eliminate duplicate articles across databases. We only included peer-reviewed empirical articles because what is currently needed is an integrative understanding of the empirical findings regarding the management of sustainability-related conflicts. Second, we excluded studies from non-journal articles (e.g. book chapters, conference papers) to follow what Podsakoff et al. (2005) suggest − that an SLR study focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles is considered more credible and impactful. Finally, we included articles that have significant relevance to stakeholder conflict management, sustainability and Indigenous peoples, and provide indicative variables supporting conflict management, such as trust and inclusivity. Table 3 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The initial search using the abovementioned search string yielded 3,099 articles, including duplicate papers. We first examined the articles’ titles, abstracts and keywords by reading them one by one, manually, and retained 154 articles. We then examined them individually to identify the essential aspects proposed by each author to support conflict management in the context of sustainability involving Indigenous peoples, such as trust and collaboration. Finally, after screening the full texts of the articles to determine whether the inclusion criteria were met, the final total number of peer-reviewed journals for further analysis was 58. Figure 1 illustrates the review process.

We used an inductive analytical approach to identify the essential aspects that support multistakeholder conflict resolution in each of the screened papers (Thomas, 2006). The lead author recorded and coded the context of the conflict, the country in which the study was conducted, the methodology, the stakeholders involved and the main findings of each study, particularly essential aspects for resolving multistakeholder conflicts over sustainability that involved Indigenous peoples (see Appendix – Supplementary Material). The other authors double-checked and discussed the reviewed studies to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the findings.

We identified a trend of increasing research attention on sustainability-related multistakeholder conflict studies from 2003 to 2023, as depicted in Figure 2. Most papers (n = 48) use qualitative case study methods, thereby implying that the research is still in its infancy and researchers are still developing the theories necessary for further quantitative research. The country locations where the studies were conducted are evenly spread across various regions of the world, such as Latin America (e.g. Peru, Brazil); North America (e.g. Canada, USA); Asia (e.g. Indonesia, India); Australia; New Zealand; and Africa (e.g. Tanzania, Kenya). This indicates the global-scale concerns related to multistakeholder conflicts over sustainability issues. A few examples of causes of conflict in these studies include the destruction of marine protected areas and forests, the killing of wildlife and land-use conflicts. Conflicts related to land dispossession and destruction of livelihoods due to the establishment of extractive companies (e.g. mining and plantations) generally occur in Asian, Latin American and African countries (e.g. Peru, Kenya, Indonesia). Meanwhile, numerous conflicts related to competing conservation policies for protected forests and wildlife occur in North America and China. This variation implies differences in prioritizing sustainability issues that are contested by various stakeholders that involve Indigenous communities, even though they still cover the same umbrella theme − that is SDGs (particularly, Goal 8: Sustainable Economic Growth; Goal 13: Climate Action; 14: Life Below Water; 15: Life on Land; and 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Furthermore, we conducted a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022) by grouping the sub-themes/concepts into several main categories. We used the wisdom theory as a guideline to identify the themes. For example, “mutual understanding” (Kujala et al., 2012), “meaningful engagement of stakeholders” (Rasheed and Abdulla, 2020) and “participation in decision-making” (Chang et al., 2012) can be considered as a derivative of the principles of balance and integration in the wisdom theory.

We identified four themes (indicative variables): multiperspective consideration, trust, socioecological justice and cooperation (Table 4). The themes and the development of our hypotheses are defined and explained in the following section.

Based on our analysis, we identified four themes: multiperspective consideration, trust, socioecological justice and cooperation, as explained below.

Our SLR reveals that inclusive decision-making and meaningful and participatory dialogue are essential attributes that determine successful conflict resolution over sustainability issues when Indigenous peoples are involved (e.g. Arevalo et al., 2014; Baylan and Karadeniz, 2018; Burbach et al., 2023; Elgammal, 2022; Fisher et al., 2020; Ilac and Presbitero, 2022; Parsons, 2008; St John et al., 2019). These aspects resonate with one of the principles of wisdom theory: multiperspective consideration (Brienza et al., 2021; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010). Multiperspective consideration refers to a social process of integrating multiple perspectives and knowledge, balancing different interests in decision-making and practicing reflexivity to achieve the common good (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010). Multiperspective consideration helps decision-makers in the public and private sectors produce win−win solutions (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019). However, it is not easy to cultivate diverse perspectives and encourage inclusivity when governments and corporations silence Indigenous peoples subtly or violently. For example, Arevalo et al. (2014) reported that Indigenous peoples in Kenya resisted biofuel plantation companies because they considered these companies did not want to understand their interests and traditional rights in the business development process. Based on our review, this problem also occurred in many other countries, such as Peru (Arenas et al., 2020) and Türkiye (Baylan and Karadeniz, 2018). As a counter to such marginalization, Indigenous communities formed translocal and transnational alliances of resistance to urge the government and companies to involve them in sustainability decision-making related to their customary territories (Banerjee et al., 2023).

Our review reveals that trust plays an essential role in conflict resolution over sustainability issues, both internal trust among members of Indigenous communities and across conflicting parties (e.g. Arenas et al., 2020; Burgoyne et al., 2017; Condie et al., 2023; Li and Han, 2023; Lute and Gore, 2014; Przesdzink et al., 2022; St John et al., 2019). Trust is defined as “a psychological state that comprises the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). However, building trust is challenging in the context of complex historical relationships, in which outsiders (i.e. European colonizers, governments and corporations) have long excluded Indigenous peoples from decision-making regarding their living spaces (Colchester, 2004; Hall et al., 2011). For example, Lute and Gore (2014) reported that political power that overrode science and tribal members’ knowledge in wildlife governance in the USA has fueled distrust. This distrust is exacerbated by the government’s failure to involve less powerful stakeholders in making decisions (Lute and Gore, 2014). Another example is Indigenous communities in Peru, which strengthened trust and solidarity among themselves in fighting for their rights to be involved in sustainability decision-making and help resolve conflicts (Arenas et al., 2020). Thus, building trust for conflict resolution requires first recognizing and restructuring the unequal power relations between Indigenous peoples and other parties (Saif et al., 2022), as well as maintaining mutual trust among Indigenous community members in the struggle for conflict resolution.

Our findings suggest that sustainability-related conflicts between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous stakeholders are more than just an environmental challenges; they also involve broader social and cultural issues. Socioecological justice is an essential concern for Indigenous peoples in resolving conflicts (e.g. Larson et al., 2022; Pless et al., 2022; Ravikumar et al., 2018; Ricart and Rico-Amorós, 2022; Yang et al., 2015). Socioecological justice refers to values-based actions that consist of four elements: redistribution-based (e.g. returning occupied Indigenous land to its rightful custodians), recognition-based (e.g. recognizing tribal cultures and the intrinsic rights of nature) and representation-focused (e.g. democratic decision-making) (Yaka, 2019). For example, local populations in Brazil resisted state actors for not providing affirmative justice for the recognition and protection of their lands, which were grabbed due to the expansion of pulpwood companies (Kröger and Nylund, 2012). Affirmative justice refers to a series of policies designed to correct historical injustices and provide equal opportunities to marginalized groups (Yaka, 2019). In addition, our review further reveals that Indigenous peoples are concerned with socioecological justice, which emphasizes the relationality between human and nonhuman lives. For instance, Indigenous communities in Australia challenged the perspective of mining workers, who considered humans superior to nature (Parsons, 2008). In other words, Indigenous peoples’ concept of justice differs from the Western one, which dichotomizes humans and nature, excluding humans from the forests where they live for the sake of conservation purposes (Yaka, 2019).

Indigenous communities consider cooperation − that is, integration and balance − as a key aspect of sustainability-related conflict resolution to achieve win−win solutions (e.g. Veríssimo and Campbell, 2015; Watkin et al., 2012; Yasmi, 2003; Yasmi et al., 2006, 2009; Zoderer et al., 2019). The integrating style involves the synthesis of ideas, exchange of resources and commitment among different parties to formulate and implement alternative solutions to complex problems (Rahim, 2023, 2002). Meanwhile, a compromising style is appropriate when conflicting parties, who are equally powerful, lower their egos and interest levels to negotiate and find temporary solutions to resolve complex problems, thus avoiding deadlock (Rahim, 2023, 2002). For example, Indigenous peoples in Indonesia engaged in deliberations with mining and logging companies to resolve conflicts related to air pollution and land degradation, which necessitated a significant role for the government as a fair arbiter (Yasmi, 2003). Thus, the cooperative approach requires justice to reach a mutually agreed-upon agreement.

Based on the SLR, we propose a theoretical model with supporting propositions. The SLR identifies the determinants of multistakeholder conflict resolution over sustainability issues that involve Indigenous peoples: multiperspective consideration, trust, socioecological justice and cooperation. We further propose that trust and socioecological justice play a mediating role between multiperspective consideration and cooperation. Additionally, we anticipate a two-way causal relationship between trust and socioecological justice. Figure 3 depicts the relationships among the themes.

Our review confirms that trust is an underlying psychological condition that can enable cooperative behavior. Several classic studies indicate that trust can foster trust-related and responsible behavior, including cooperation (Deutsch, 1958; Rousseau et al., 1998). Furthermore, trust “is not a control mechanism but a substitute for control, reflecting a positive attitude about another’s motives” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 399). This resonates with the assumption of the wisdom theory that wise action, including deliberating and cooperatively resolving conflicts, arises out of an ethical awareness that it is the right thing to do and not because of incentives, rules or the control of others (Yang et al., 2024; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019; Rooney et al., 2010). Therefore, we argue that a multiperspective consideration (i.e. the integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge, and the balancing of multiple interests) would not achieve cooperative conflict resolution if the conflicting parties do not trust each other. However, the process of building trust with Indigenous peoples should reflexively recognize the long history of occupation of Indigenous lands (Maddison et al., 2016). Another prerequisite is the acknowledgment that Indigenous peoples have the capability of self-determination to manage their customary territories, which makes their involvement in sustainability decision-making imperative (Murphy, 2014). By fulfilling these conditions, trust can be built to enable the integration of Indigenous peoples’ perspectives and interests for sustainability conflict resolution. Hence, we make the following proposition:

Our findings indicate that many Indigenous communities require socioecological justice before engaging in discussions with other parties, such as governments and companies, to achieve mutually beneficial solutions. We define socioecological justice as values-based actions, which consist of four elements: redistribution-based (e.g. returning occupied Indigenous land), recognition-based (e.g. recognition of tribal cultures and the intrinsic rights of nature) and representation-focused (e.g. democratic decision-making) (Yaka, 2019). The wisdom theory emphasizes the importance of applying moral values in decision-making to achieve the common good, including justice (Glück and Sternberg, 2022; Intezari, 2016; Rooney et al., 2010). In this regard, Indigenous peoples perceive socioecological justice when they witness that other stakeholders respect their rights over their territories, cultural and spiritual beliefs and participation in development decision-making (Schlosberg, 2007; Yaka, 2019). Meanwhile, a multiperspective consideration can manifest in multistakeholder forums or deliberation to integrate diverse perspectives and interests (Grossmann et al., 2017). However, if these forums involve Indigenous peoples, other stakeholders must first provide socioecological justice affirmation to them to ensure they have an equal opportunity to negotiate win−win solutions (Kowszyk et al., 2023; Larson et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2024). Thus, we contend that socioecological justice mediates the relationship between multiperspective consideration and cooperation. In other words, for Indigenous peoples, there will be no peace without justice. Thus, we offer the following proposition:

We argue that socioecological justice and trust have a bidirectional relationship. The failure of stakeholders to recognize Indigenous peoples’ rights, ensure an unequal distribution of resources and facilitate their participation in decision-making can disrupt trust. Such distrust can intensify if certain parties subtly or violently manipulate, silence and impose their will and interests on others (Townsend and Townsend, 2020). For example, Indigenous communities in Nova Scotia, Canada, claimed that their knowledge of harvesting fish without harming nature has not been integrated into marine conservation planning (Kapoor et al., 2021). Some Indigenous harvesters even faced discrimination and violence (Kapoor et al., 2021). As a result, they lacked trust in the government because they have not received recognitional justice for their ways of life (Kapoor et al., 2021). This has led to the failure of consultation processes, which undermined conflict resolution regarding marine conservation and economic development in Nova Scotia (Kapoor et al., 2021). On the other hand, building trust among parties can serve as a prerequisite for providing socioecological justice for Indigenous peoples (Saif et al., 2022). Trust can be established through inclusive discussions, where each party evaluates the other’s values and interests, reflexively acknowledges power relations and demonstrates a reliable track record (Hamilton and Jepson, 2017). By doing so, recognition and representation justice can come to the fore. For instance, a multistakeholder forum prioritizes trust building by making bottom-up decisions and enhancing the capacity of Indigenous communities in Jambi, Indonesia (Larson et al., 2022). This process enabled the Indigenous communities to participate equitably and effectively, ultimately achieving socioecological justice (i.e. legal recognition of their customary forests) and resolving the conflict (Larson et al., 2022). Hence, we make the following proposition:

We have developed several hypotheses involving the elements of trust and socioecological justice as prerequisites for peace and cooperation from the perspective of Indigenous communities. Furthermore, based on our SLR findings, we argue that addressing capitalism as the root of the problem is essential for sustainability-related conflicts to cease. Capitalism is both a project and a process (Moore, 2015). As a project, capitalism considers “nature is external and may be coded, quantified, and rationalized to serve economic growth, social development, or some other higher goods” (Moore, 2015, p. 14). Capitalism is also a historical process through which capital accumulation and free market domination have created social classes and inequalities that have persisted since the colonial era to the present day (Moore, 2015). Capitalism can manifest itself in extractivism, an unsustainable practice prevalent in many former colonial countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Gudynas, 2020). Extractivism refers to the mode of appropriating nature in large volumes as raw materials for export, with minimal local processing or benefit, whose profits are accumulated by the privileged few (Gudynas, 2020). Scholars initially ascribed the term “extractive” to timber, oil and mining companies, and later also to large-scale monoculture plantation companies, such as those involved in palm oil, sugar and eucalyptus production (Kröger, 2022). Under state licenses, extractive companies grab Indigenous lands and forests for business development (Hassan and Prasad, 2024).

Contemporary extractive practices are historically a continuation of colonialism. European colonizers established trading empires that extracted resources from colonized countries to fund their imperial agendas (Kröger, 2022). Many Global South countries (such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, India, Congo and South Africa) then used extractivism as a way of development supported by Global North countries (such as Japan, the USA and Finland) since the 1950s (Gudynas, 2020). Extractivism has also created many sacrifice zones in various countries (Klein, 2014). Sacrifice zones refer to “places that, to their extractors, somehow do not count and therefore can be poisoned, drained, or otherwise destroyed, for the supposed greater good of economic progress” (Klein, 2014, p. 155). Such zones are linked to racial superiority, where extractors consider Indigenous peoples unfit to live in their territories as they are framed as unproductive and uncivilized, who must be sacrificed (Klein, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that extractive practices often go hand in hand with criminalization, violence, torture and killings of Indigenous peoples who resist them (Banerjee, 2008).

By recognizing capitalism or extractivism as the root of the problem, tokenism is not an ethical practice in the process of multiperspective consideration and cooperation for conflict resolution. What is inherent in tokenism is power imbalance and the loss of the right to participate as an equal in deliberations (Banerjee, 2022). For Indigenous peoples, losing their land means losing their power and sovereignty. Without such sovereignty, the government and extractive companies will only position Indigenous peoples as objects of consultation, rather than sovereign subjects who can accept or reject business operations in their customary territories (Banerjee, 2022; Gudynas, 2020). In other words, governments and companies participate in multistakeholder forums primarily to pursue symbolic and performative images that demonstrate their concern for Indigenous peoples and ecological sustainability (Banerjee, 2022). As such, instead of expecting systemic change by seeking alternative modes of production and ways of life that are fair and sustainable beyond capitalism, such a process reinforces the hegemony of capitalists over Indigenous peoples and nonhuman lives. Therefore, we agree with Banerjee (2022, pp. 293–294) that multiperspective consideration and cooperation “requires an epistemic diversity that will allow us to investigate how different populations conceptualize and experience democracy, freedom, rights, development, prosperity, and ecology by listening to the demands of voices from below.”

This study makes several theoretical contributions by integrating wisdom theory into conflict management theory, recognizing Indigenous perspectives. First, we present a theoretical model for multistakeholder conflict over sustainability issues, which comprises propositions regarding the mediating roles of trust and socioecological justice in the relationship between multiperspective consideration and cooperation. The study of wisdom has garnered widespread attention in psychology and management, aiming to develop ethical approaches to navigating life’s adversities and socially complex dilemmas in decision-making (Glück and Weststrate, 2022; Glück and Brienza, 2025; Intezari and Pauleen, 2019). Furthermore, some researchers have confirmed a positive relationship between wisdom and cooperation (Grossmann et al., 2017), on the one hand, and social conflict mitigation, on the other (Brienza et al., 2021; Brienza et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024). We extend this relationship by proposing to build trust and socioecological justice between conflicting parties as a means to implement integrative insights obtained from the wisdom theory − for example, wise reasoning (Brienza et al., 2021; Brienza et al., 2018), wise decision-making (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019) or wise leadership (Brienza et al., 2026; McKenna et al., 2009] − for cooperation. This concern is vital because contemporary governments and extractive corporations have long marginalized Indigenous peoples in sustainability decision-making and undermined their collective capacities for self-determination (Murphy, 2014; Reed et al., 2024).

Second, this study contributes to wisdom scholarship by analyzing power differentials, as recommended by some studies (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2006). The features include who holds power, how it is exercised, who benefits, who is disadvantaged and whether power imbalances lead to the imposition of specific interests on others that hinder the common good (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2006). In the propositions offered above, we recognize that Indigenous peoples have experienced a long history of subjugation by outsiders in terms of land grabbing and the destruction of their ecological living spaces and knowledge, which ultimately makes them powerless (Hassan and Prasad, 2024; Scheidel et al., 2023). Governments and corporations could encounter structural barriers that may hinder the cultivation of wisdom to resolve multistakeholder conflicts. Among these barriers are an overreliance on the modernization paradigm and the abusive power of oligarchs, which influence public policymakers to avoid cooperative conflict resolution and overlook marginalized groups of people (Li, 2007). In other words, multistakeholder conflicts over sustainability issues involving Indigenous peoples emerge in complex socioecological, cultural, economic and political dynamics. Hence, by integrating multiperspective consideration and socioecological justice into our model, we argue that the wisdom theory can be extended to be more reflexive regarding the issue of power abuse and overreliance on modern or technoratic paradigm. Moreover, it involves recognition, redistribution and representation justice to anticipate and mitigate such structural barriers.

The findings of our study have some important practical implications. First, as land is at “the heart of agrarian conflict and pivot of power” (Christodoulou, 1990, p. 1), states and corporations need to return customary lands to their rightful stewards to address the power imbalance and resolve the conflicts. That is an example of wise leaders and organizations taking transformational actions (Intezari et al., 2026; Sternberg and Soleimani Dashtaki, 2024). However, it is difficult to imagine that governments or extractive companies would return occupied Indigenous lands in a capitalist system that justifies all means of profit accumulation in the hands of a few oligarchs. Furthermore, many countries consider the modernization or techno-rationalism approach as the sole means of civilization, at the expense of excluding local or Indigenous initiatives (Li, 2007). To impose extractive political-economic interests and techno-rationalism on Indigenous communities, many countries deploy the military and police to remove Indigenous peoples from their living spaces (Dunlap and Fairhead, 2014; Li, 2007). Put another way, such structural problems could compel even wise figures to become toxic leaders (Sternberg, 2018).

We support the development of alternative forms of organizing to push for systemic change (Vijay et al., 2025). For example, many Indigenous communities worldwide have built translocal and transnational movements to demand recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights, reform states, resist corporate greed, eliminate extractivism and develop new, more just and sustainable systems of living (Banerjee, 2011; Banerjee et al., 2023). They also collaborate with NGOs, journalists, academics and various elements of civil society to support all possible forms of advocacy, including lobbying, political negotiations, legal defense, campaigns, research, street protests and critical education (Banerjee, 2011; Banerjee et al., 2023). The Buen Vivir movement (living well) in Latin America and the Ubuntu movement (community spirit and humanity) in Africa can serve as references. Such movements advocate conflict resolution, bottom-up participation involving women, biodiversity preservation and the equitable distribution of resources to meet the needs of all community members (Gudynas, 2020).

Second, as more organizations adopt SDGs as part of their performance assessment, we recommend a wisdom approach to help achieve them. This implies that effectively resolving conflicts necessitates more than merely possessing accumulated knowledge or domain-specific technical expertise, which is often emphasized through regulatory frameworks and financial incentives. Wisdom, on the other hand, refers to the decision-making capacity and discretion that transcends rules (Intezari and Pauleen, 2019). It guides organizations to integrate different perspectives, interests, knowledge and traditions, engage in reflexivity and take ethical actions, including achieving the SDGs. We can collectively incentivize people to do things that align with wisdom. For example, an organization should establish good governance and incorporate human rights perspectives in development decision-making to foster wise practitioners (Ardelt and Sharma, 2021; Spiller et al., 2011). As wiser practitioners within organizations grow, they are more likely to meet sustainability performance indicators, including resolving conflicts, which ultimately enhances their overall organizational performance.

Third, we suggest that stakeholders need to build trust first through various means to achieve cooperative conflict resolution. For example, they can conduct preliminary meetings to understand each other’s values, interests and perspectives before further organizing multistakeholder conflict resolution forums (Oh et al., 2023). Such meetings could help each party cultivate practical wisdom by reducing their ego, listening to different perspectives, reflexively examining potential hidden agendas and attempting to identify the best common ground. These meetings should also acknowledge Indigenous peoples’ capability to manage their territories sustainably. It is important to note that such recognition is not for an instrumental purpose of placing the burden of saving the environment on the shoulders of Indigenous peoples, even though they are the ones who lost their livelihoods and lands in the first place. Nature preservation is everyone’s responsibility. For a permanent resolution to the conflict, no stakeholder should impose their will and interests on Indigenous peoples.

Fourth, Indigenous peoples suffer from land loss, land dispossession and destruction of livelihoods (Scheidel et al., 2023). On the other hand, companies also incur high costs due to delayed projects and halted production, while the government drains its budget to handle conflicts (Kowszyk et al., 2023). Therefore, resolving these conflicts can restore the rights of Indigenous peoples and their sovereignty to live in customary territories. Companies also benefit from restoring their legitimacy and credibility in conducting business operations, as well as saving on both production and risk management costs. Once conflict resolution is achieved, the government can also accelerate the achievement of SDGs that require multistakeholder collaboration and save on the funds previously used for conflict handling. Hence, conflict resolution can lead to a genuine common good for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders.

Finally, business schools need to evaluate their contribution to producing business leaders who engage in unethical practices, including marginalizing Indigenous peoples. Some scholars report that management education still reinforces colonial legacies by not valuing non-Western knowledge systems and rarely discussing alternative systems outside of capitalist ways of organizing (Ergene et al., 2021; Parker, 2018; Vijay et al., 2025). Therefore, business schools should adopt alternative approaches to deconstruct existing mainstream pedagogical paradigms and methods, such as transformational wisdom pedagogy and critical education (Manik et al., 2026). We also recommend involving Indigenous communities in the reconstruction of management education curricula, including by providing critical learning through case studies on how to resolve conflicts related to sustainability.

This study explored the determinants of sustainability-related conflict resolution by integrating the perspectives of Indigenous peoples through an SLR approach. Indigenous people’s perspective is critical because they are victims of sustainability conflicts and suffer from land dispossession, forest destruction and loss of livelihood sources that undermine global sustainability missions. Drawing on conflict management theory and the wisdom approach enriched by decolonization philosophy, we developed a multistakeholder conflict resolution model. We postulate that trust and socioecological justice serve as mediating variables between practical wisdom and cooperative conflict resolution. In addition, we also hypothesized a bidirectional causal relationship between trust and socioecological justice.

We acknowledge, however, that each community or country has its own contextual characteristics and challenges. Nonetheless, by examining the commonalities of themes in previous empirical findings, we hope that our framework can provide practical guidelines for conflict resolution. Future research could examine our proposed model in a specific setting to explore the contextual variations. Another limitation of our study is that we only analyzed peer-reviewed academic articles to ensure the high quality and substantial impact of the results, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2005). However, multistakeholder conflicts over sustainability issues involving Indigenous peoples may be documented in other reports, such as working papers, proceedings and NGO reports. Such sources may provide practical views. Future studies can expand our analysis by including non-journal sources to obtain richer insights.

Furthermore, exploring or testing our model using a qualitative or quantitative approach in various settings would help provide new insights for advancing the wisdom, sustainability and conflict management literature, as well as its implications for benefiting both Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. However, it is essential to note that the impact of colonialism has led Indigenous peoples to consider research as a subjugation strategy because external parties define or conceptualize their knowledge and experiences as if they could not do it themselves (Smith, 2021). To address this issue, researchers should adopt relational and participatory approach as the key ethical principles to conduct research with Indigenous peoples (Mbah et al., 2024). Relationality implies the interconnectedness of people and nonhuman living forms, and not considering one type of knowledge to be hierarchically superior to another. A participatory approach involves Indigenous communities co-creating research questions and design, collecting data, writing reports, implementing actions for change and reflecting on and evaluating the processes together. By applying these principles, Indigenous communities can strengthen their confidence in their own ways of being, knowing, organizing, and relating when interacting with non-Indigenous academics.

*indicates articles in the review.