In pursuit of impact: how HRM research drives meaningful changes in policies and practices

Academics are increasingly expected to provide evidence of the impact and relevance of their research to knowledge users and funding agencies. As HRM academics, we often struggle to identify tangible benefits of our research to organizations and industry. Perhaps this is because we are not focused on impact when we design our studies, or that we do not identify and capture the tangible benefits of our research, or perhaps we struggle to articulate and disseminate these benefits. Recent developments in the HRM field further reinforce the importance of grounding research in real-world challenges. As Ng et al. (2025a) wrote, HRM is being reshaped by global forces, including AI-driven transformation, demographic shifts, intensifying skill shortages, sustainability pressures and the politicisation of DEI, which together heighten the urgency for research that demonstrates practical and societal impact. In this respect, we want to demonstrate the impact of our work through transformative change derived from HRM research. To be impactful research must go beyond outputs (e.g. number of publications) and outcomes (e.g. policies developed). Our research must also demonstrate relevance, improvements and enhancements to users of HRM research. The key question for HRM scholars is how we can demonstrate the benefits of our research through relevance and impact. As a journal of people, work and organisation, Personnel Review curated a Special Issue on “HRM in Action” Impact Case Studies to demonstrate research relevance and impact.

In this editorial, we want to contribute to the discussion on impact through the practical implications of HRM research. First, we ask what is impact and why is it important to explore? Second, we focus on problem, phenomena, practice focused research and explore how these different approaches can help us understand impact in HRM research. Third, we outline how we developed this Special Issue, the questions we asked our contributors to address and why we asked them, followed by a brief introduction to the seven cases curated for this Special Issue. Finally, we identify key issues and challenges emerging from the cases and outline areas for further development and future research.

Reed et al. (2021, p. 2) define research impact as “demonstrable and/or perceptible benefits to individuals, groups, organisations and society (including human and non-human entities in the present and future) that are causally linked (necessarily or sufficiently) to research.” The authors argue that increasingly the funders of research demand evidence that their investments lead to tangible benefits. However, they also identify that a key challenge is how impact can be measured, over what time frame and using which mechanism? As Greenhalgh et al. (2016a, b) point out the mechanisms of impact measurement are complex, they identify six different approaches including the payback framework, the Australian Research Impact Framework, the Canadian Academy of Science Approach which builds on the payback framework, monetarisation models, societal impact assessment and the UK Research Excellence Framework. They argue that one size does not fit all and that these different approaches are often for different purposes, and they also note that there are challenges over cost and feasibility and dangers of a short-term focus rather than impact over time. These debates occur at a moment when HRM itself is in flux. Ng et al. (2025b) highlight how megatrends such as AI adoption, sustainability imperatives and workforce restructuring reshape HRM practice and challenge traditional assumptions. This shifting landscape makes understanding and evidencing research impact not only desirable but essential for HRM’s continued relevance.

Reed et al. (2021) identify an even wider range of research evaluation methods noting the challenge of choosing the most appropriate method and recognising the subjective nature of impact, and that impact can be perceived differently by different groups. Williams (2020, p. 191) goes further arguing that the measurement of impact is highly contested and that it is often thought of as a “technical or pragmatic activity designed to capture objective elements of the research process that can be incentivised or rewarded by science policymakers.” In this way she argues that research impact is part of an “audit culture” based on performance management practices. To counteract this approach Williams (2020) highlights the importance of field theory where actors in a particular field or discipline share their conceptions and resources to affect change in policy and practice. Recent evidence reinforces this concern. A review of 4,026 OBHRM articles found that only 1.5% offered any implications for policy, suggesting that the field risks becoming societally irrelevant unless scholars more deliberately embed impact considerations into research design and dissemination (Aguinis et al., 2022). This aligns with our argument that HRM research must move beyond outputs to demonstrate tangible societal value.

In the management discipline, there has been less emphasis on technical mechanisms of research impact evaluation; however, there is a danger in this lack of engagement, as Hamdali et al. (2024) point out, if we do not reclaim agency in the debate, it will be defined for us. Furthermore, business school research is often criticised for failing to deliver impactful research (Wickert et al., 2021), or are considered by some practitioners to be “two or three cycles behind” (Beech et al., 2010, p. 1347). Wickert et al. (2021) counteract these claims by identifying the opportunities that management research has in making a difference to “grand societal challenges.” They identify five key areas in which management research can have an impact. These are scholarly, practical, societal, policy and educational and they define impactful research as “that which influences through multifaceted forms and channels how organisations and individuals think, behave or perform” (p 298). Rather than focusing on mechanisms and techniques, the authors suggest that management academics need to focus on problems and phenomena through engagement with stakeholders, partners and practitioners. MacIntosh et al. (2017) suggested a useful framework in understanding what is impactful research, such that impactful research is likely to intersect in four distinct but related realms of changing practice, influencing others, changing self and changing ideas. In the next section, we explore what these approaches mean for HRM scholars in demonstrating impact for their research.

Too often HRM scholars identify the reason for their study is that they have identified a “gap in the literature”, which often translates as – no one has explored this particular variable in this framework before. The scholars then seek out a research site or data source to test their hypotheses. A key problem with this approach is the often abstract nature of findings and the inability to identify practical implications because this was never a focus of the study and impact considerations were not included at the design phase, leading to a disconnect between research and practice (Aguinis et al., 2022). Researchers also often only think of impact as an “add on” after research is conducted (Cunliffe and Scaratti, 2017). Practice or phenomena focused research commences with a research “problem”. This might be a problem for organisations or for wider society. Practice focused scholars involve key stakeholders, partners and practitioners in the identification of the problem – they listen to their voices, they seek to understand contextual and policy differences and these partners might even be involved in collecting data (Wickert et al., 2021). Academics often lack deep and tacit knowledge of local practices (Hamdali et al., 2024), yet through this process of knowledge co-creation, production and sharing (Wickert et al., 2021; Hamdali et al., 2024) they can begin to bridge the gap between HRM research and practice and address the challenges of knowledge transfer and production (Paauwe and Van De Voorde, 2025). These concerns reflect longstanding critiques that HRM has become increasingly “psychologised,” narrowing its attention to micro-level variables while overlooking structural employment relations, institutional forces and power dynamics (Godard, 2014). Such narrowing limits the field’s ability to address real-world problems and engage with partners beyond the organisation. Moreover, as Wickert et al. (2021, p. 299) argue, social scientists have an obligation to “widen the circle of stakeholders we seek to engage and influence.” These can go beyond a focus on organisations which is traditional in HRM research, to government agencies, trade unions and broader societal phenomena such as migration or climate change and even social movements such as Black Lives Matter, and MeToo.

A dialogue with practitioners which commences at the design stage of the study and includes their voices in decision making can lead to novel ways of thinking and helps capture impact from a number of perspectives. Both visible and invisible practices can be identified at all stages of the study and practical implications and potential impacts are embedded from the start, not thought of at the end. Hamadi et al. (2024) argue that this duality of practicing impact and impacting practice can only occur through building trusting relationships between academics and practitioners, co-designing interventions and bringing humility to the collaboration. Similarly, Cunliffe and Scaratti (2017) highlight the importance of embedding impact into research from the onset and having both practitioners and academics engaged throughout in producing knowledge.

In this respect, research co-design and knowledge co-creation are helpful approaches for generating meaningful impact in HRM research, particularly through case study methodologies. Co-design refers to the collaborative development of research questions, methods and interventions with practitioners, organisational leaders and affected communities, ensuring that the research is grounded in real-world challenges and organizational contexts (Grindell et al., 2022). Knowledge co-creation goes further by positioning non-academic collaborators as equal partners in the research process, fostering mutual learning, shared ownership and trust (Keeling and Marshall, 2022; Ng and Bates, n.d). These approaches help bridge the persistent gap between academic theory and HRM practice, enabling scholars to produce insights that are not only theoretically robust but also practically relevant and implementable. Grindell et al. (2022) highlight the fact that co-approaches such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, mobilize knowledge by valuing diverse forms of expertise, encouraging iterative problem-solving and promoting co-ownership of outcomes. Their review found that these approaches foster shared understanding and confidence among participants, making interventions more useable and generating higher likelihood for research recommendations to be adopted. Similarly, Greenhalgh et al. (2016a, b) argue that co-creation reflects a “Mode 2” model of knowledge production, where research is generated collaboratively with partners rather than translated from academia to practice. They emphasize that successful co-creation requires a systems perspective, creative engagement and attention to governance and relational dynamics.

In HRM case studies, these principles translate into designing interventions that are context-sensitive, ethically grounded and responsive to organizational needs. For example, co-design can capture both visible and tacit practices, embed practical implications from the outset and adapt to evolving organizational realities. By embracing co-design and co-creation, HRM scholars not only enhance the credibility and relevance of their work but also contribute to sustainable, transformative change in workplaces.

Our introduction of the “HRM in Action” Impact Case Study responds to recent calls for formats that explicitly connect HRM research to policy and practice. As Aguinis et al. (2022) note, the field has underutilized opportunities to develop research that yields actionable guidance for organisations, communities and policymakers. The structured case study framework seeks to close this gap. We created the “HRM in Action” Impact Case Study as a new article format designed to showcase how HRM research can address and solve complex organizational and societal challenges through purposeful, field-based research applications and interventions. These case studies emphasize problematization, the identification of pressing organizational and societal issues and the application of HRM theories and concepts to develop and implement policies and practices that lead to transformational change. By documenting these changes, the case studies demonstrate the relevance and impact of HRM research in real-world settings, moving beyond traditional academic outputs to highlight practical contributions (Hamdali et al., 2024). To this end, we asked members of our Editorial Advisory Board to identify research teams engaged in research that they believed met these goals. Over 20 teams were suggested, and we invited these teams to submit an Expression of Interest for contributions to a curated Special Issue. We provided the following information to them to help in their decision making.

1. An Impact Case Study is designed to facilitate the demonstration of addressing or solving complex organizational or societal issues through a purposeful HRM intervention. The emphasis is on problematization, application of HRM theories and concepts, adoption or implementation of HRM policies and practices and documenting transformational change, to demonstrate relevance and impact.

2. This new kind of article aims to celebrate and make explicit the application of HRM theory and research in real-world settings. As such, it complements existing types of articles that might be published on the research itself.

3. In offering this new type of article, we also encourage co-authorship with non-academic authors, specifically industry and organizational partners to capture the perspectives of stakeholders who are the beneficiaries of HRM research.

4. We aim to introduce “HRM in Action” Impact Case Studies through a Special Issue or a series of papers to create a Community of Practice of scholars interested in developing the value and benefit of HRM to address real world problems.

5. The research must be based on actual field studies in organizational or societal settings, and not based on laboratory or experimental studies.

6. The Impact Case Studies will provide value and guidance to other HRM scholars in demonstrating the relevance and impact of their own research.

In total, we received eight Expressions of Interest. We worked with the teams to develop their papers and also through a process of blind peer review followed by a Symposium at the AoM in Copenhagen. We provided the following information to guide them in the development of their papers.

To guide authors and readers in understanding the structure and purpose of HRM impact case studies, articles should be organized around five core structured dimensions.

1. Problematization – what was the organisational/societal challenge or problem?

2. Theory – what HRM theories or concepts are relevant or at play?

3. Approach – what HRM interventions or practices were implemented?

4. Impact – what changes were observed and how were these changes measured or captured?

5. Contributions – what new learnings and contributions were made to HRM theories and practice as a result of the approaches taken? How will this knowledge change HRM theorising?

Each section of an HRM impact case study plays a distinct and essential role in demonstrating the relevance and transformative potential of research in organizational settings. The problematization identifies the organisational or societal challenge or issue that prompted the research, ensuring that the study is grounded in a real-world concern rather than a purely theoretical gap. Next, the theory section outlines the HRM concepts or frameworks that inform the solution, connecting practice to scholarly foundations. Third, the approach describes the HRM interventions or practices implemented, detailing how the research was conducted and how change was facilitated. Fourth, the impact section captures the outcomes of the intervention, both intended and unintended, and explains how these changes were measured or observed. Finally, the contributions section reflects on the new insights generated for HRM theory and practice, highlighting how the study advances understanding and offers implications for future research and organisational application. Together, these five dimensions provide a comprehensive and coherent structure for demonstrating the relevance, rigor and transformative potential of HRM research in action. These five dimensions also present unique, distinctive perspectives that differ from traditional academic articles, focusing on identifying pressing issues and practical solutions for organisations and societies where HRM theories and frameworks are employed as tools in this endeavour. This paradigm shift renders these cases to unpack and deliver impact in a direct and tangible manner.

In following the lead of European Journal of Marketing (Keeling and Marshall, 2022) and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (Ng and Bates, n.d), we believe that this new format complements conventional research articles by celebrating the application of HRM theory in practice. Rather than focusing solely on conceptual development or empirical testing, impact case studies foreground the lived experiences of organisations and practitioners and the tangible outcomes of HRM research and interventions. For example, studies in this Special Issue explore redesigning work in the Australian aged care sector (Kho et al., 2026), evaluating leadership development in rural health services through insider–outsider action research (Dahanayake et al., 2026), facilitating working mothers’ return to work transition in Japan (Wu et al., 2026) and the implementation of living wage policies in the UK care sector (Herman and Johnson, 2026). These cases illustrate how HRM research can be mobilised to address societal challenges, improve organisational effectiveness and promote equity and inclusion (Wickert et al., 2021).

As we suggest earlier, central to the impact case study format is the principle of co-design and knowledge co-creation. These approaches involve engaging organisational partners, practitioners and community members from the outset of the research process, not merely as subjects, but as collaborators. Co-design ensures that research questions and interventions are shaped by those who experience the problems firsthand, while co-creation recognises the value of diverse forms of expertise in generating solutions. While co-design has been drawn upon in a range of disciplines (Grindell et al., 2022), as a methodology it is less common in HRM research. However, Hewett and Shantz (2021) draw on the concept of HR co creation which they describe as a continuous process of HR practitioners and stakeholders creating value together through problem solving and innovation. They argue that co creation brings together co design and its collaborative use by all stakeholders. Applying these concepts to HRM empirical research means building trusting relationships, jointly articulating problems and developing solutions and embedding practical implications from the start (Greenhalgh et al., 2016a, b; Hamdali et al., 2024).

The case studies in this Special Issue exemplify these principles. The leadership development program evaluated through insider–outsider action research involved practitioners as co-authors and co-researchers, ensuring that the intervention was contextually grounded and ethically responsive (Dahanayake et al., 2026). Similarly, the work-family balance training for returning mothers was designed with input from beneficiaries, capturing social impact from multiple perspectives (Wu et al., 2026). These examples demonstrate that co-design and co-creation not only enhance the relevance of HRM research but also foster sustainable change by aligning academic inquiry with organisational and societal needs (Fitzsimmons et al., 2024; Muhr and Storm, 2024).

Our Special Issue comprises seven papers as one team had to withdraw due to changes in the leadership team of their industry partner. This is not uncommon in case study research. We have ordered the papers starting from those based on one organisation, moving to organisational networks and broader social policies.

Kho et al. (2025) discussed the impacts of a work redesign intervention that was carried out at a large Australian residential aged care organisation. Their project was designed to address the need of eliminating psychosocial hazards, which is an increasingly highlighted focus in Work Health and Safety (WHS) policies and regulations in Australia and internationally. The authors proposed an approach to address psychosocial hazards at their root cause, through designing and implementing a participatory approach to redesign work, particularly aimed at reducing job demands, and they tested this model at two facilities of a large aged care organisation. The participatory approach meant that employees were involved in the work redesign process throughout, so that they could use their expertise in diagnosing problems and identifying solutions. Through this process, the two facilities each identified the key areas they needed to address, with one focusing on redesigning onboarding process to minimise the workload of existing staff in correcting new staff’s work, and the other focusing on improving handover meetings and information resources for agency workers who had to fill in casually so that they can work more independently. The authors then holistically reflected on the impact of their project for multiple stakeholders. These impacts include: (1) improved working conditions and wellbeing for frontline workers, (2) improved work processes and practices as well as enhanced capability development for the aged care organisation, (3) better evidence, data and insights provided to the WHS regulator to enable better policy making and finally (4) developing stronger academia-practice partnerships and capability building of early career researchers in the academic community. The authors also reflected on how macro-level disruptions – in their case, COVID-19 as well as internal leadership turnovers at the organisation – impacted research activities and highlighted the importance to adopt a holistic, adaptive and system-level approach to HRM interventions.

Dahanayake et al. (2026) presented the evaluation of a co-designed pilot leadership capability development program in a rural health service in Victoria, Australia. They highlighted the problems that rural health organisations often struggle with – acute shortages of qualified staff and significant resource constrains to do more with less. At the same time, leadership development programs in healthcare organisations often fail due to poor understanding of the unique context healthcare leaders and managers are situated within. Taking on these challenges, they adopted a genuinely co-designed method in designing the evaluation of a tailor-made leadership program at the targeted rural health organisation. The co-design was participated by both insiders and outsiders, including multiple partners from the rural health organisation, academic staff, as well as a “pracademic” who is both an academic and a practitioner – being a board member of the organisation. As the project was still ongoing at the time of the write-up, the authors provided deep reflections from each participant involved in the co-design process to showcase how such an approach enabled genuine, objective and effective co-creation of meaningful solutions. Throughout this case study, the authors demonstrated how co-design can used effectively to build authentic academic/practitioner partnerships and bridge the research–practice gap in HRM literature. In this paper impact was largely focused on the evaluation team themselves.

Zhang et al. (2026) presented a case study from the company Hireguide to illustrate how artificial intelligence (AI) can be integrated into structured interviews to improve personnel selection decisions. The authors pointed to the persistent problem in personnel selection, where companies use unstructured, inconsistent and subjective approaches in hiring, which are against best practices that have already been established from years of research. To address this problem, the authors paid their attention to technology-driven interventions in selection practices, suggesting that the rise of AI provides the opportunity to transform structured interviewing process. They showed how Hireguide, a company founded in 2021 in the U.S., has drawn on research evidence to develop a system of structured, competency-based interview and decision-making processes powered by AI. They also discussed how Hireguide works with clients to enhance their adoption of this tool based on the Technology Acceptance Model. In discussing the impact of the tool, the authors drew on various sources of data including company documentation, interviews with stakeholders as well as user feedback. For instance, they discussed how the improvement on (1) hiring efficiency with a fast-tracked process of submitting evaluations, (2) reliability, where clients reported increased consistency in decision making and (3) equity, where peer influence and conformity bias is reduced. The authors also reflected on the academic-practice nexus, highlighting the tool’s feature of translating research into practice and researchers’ role of carrying out objective, independent evaluations in assessing the tool against established academic literature, as some of the key ingredients for success. The authors also commented on the dual role of one of the researchers who is also a practitioner and the insight that she brought.

Meacham et al.’s (2026) study focusses on context, in particular a VUCA environment (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity). They explore how the Covid-19 pandemic impacted on the human resource management practices of an Australian distillery company. The paper explores the drivers of change, and through this framework, reflects and analyses how an emerging small to medium sized enterprise has not only survived but enhanced its market position post-pandemic with strategies underpinned by developing its workforce knowledge, skills and ability. The authors ask the research question: how do organisations use their human resources (employees) to ensure survival in turbulent times? They argue that a significant aspect of the organisation’s success was the leadership’s focus on maintaining the workforce in full employment, which required the distillery to explore new market opportunities. This began the drive to a more agile organisational agenda to explore alternate strategies in a highly turbulent market environment. The outcomes resulted in the organisation’s ability to retain all employees, enhancing their skill and knowledge base and diversifying their product lines, leading to sustained competitive advantage for the organisation post-pandemic. Impact included identifying practical strategies to reinforce processes and develop new practices. Furthermore, the relationship between the researchers and the company directors and the use of a dynamic capabilities framework provided a valuable lens to inform and develop the human resource management practices of the company.

Wu et al.’s (2026) impact case concerns a training program that facilitates female employees to transit back to work after taking maternity leave – a very important social issue globally in general but especially prominent in their study context Japan. They proposed that family-friendly policies alone are not sufficient, as working mothers face unique challenges transiting back to work that require additional support and personal development. Adopting social learning theory, the authors designed a training program that aims at enhancing working mothers’ self-efficacy in achieving work-family balance. Following a successful pilot that started as early as 2014, the team then formalized the training and delivered it to 100 women from 16 companies who attended the training during their maternity leave over 2018–2019. Data collected during the program showed that participants increased their self-efficacy over the course of the program, and follow-up interviews with participants 5 years on showed that this program enabled them to develop (1) “mastery experience” in feeling more confident in expressing own needs and concerns, (2) “vicarious experience” in learning from each other to broaden their repertoire in coping with challenges, (3) “verbal persuasion” in recognizing the positive aspects of their circumstances and (4) “change of emotional states” in feeling less anxious about balancing work-family. Serving as a useful resource to support working mothers, this program has the potential to motivate and retain female talent and enhance labour force participation for countries facing significant talent shortages. In this sense this program had impact for working mothers, their employers and wider society.

Findley et al. (2026) discussed a large-scale workplace innovation research program in Scotland. They highlighted that productivity performance has been a grand challenge for Scotland since the 2008 global financial crisis and that improving productivity together with improving workers’ experience has been a core agenda for OECD countries. With these goals, this program was developed around a large collaborative network of academics, policy makers and practitioners, in the form of a Consortium, to enable real changes in policy and practice. The authors adapted the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) theory and mutual gains theory to understand how management practices can motivate employees to engage in discretionary extra-role and innovative behaviours. Key stakeholders including governments and public bodies, unions and over 40 businesses joined the consortium to co-design research, pilot research instruments, participate in data collection and analysis and co–lead wide dissemination of findings. The shared purpose of the stakeholders led to the identification of key people and partnerships resulting in a collaborative relationship. A key output of this research was the development of a survey instrument which uncovers how performance and innovative behaviours can either be facilitated or constrained, alongside 11 dimensions and each business received detailed feedback on their performance against these dimensions for developing further strategies and actions. In addition to this immediate impact to the participating organisations, the authors shared the broader impact of this program on 500+ additional businesses which participated in various training and events, and on policymakers such as shaping the creation of a dedicated Workplace Innovation Service in Scotland. This project demonstrates a truly collaborative and innovative approach where research and meaningful social impact can be developed and achieved at the same time.

Herman and Johnson (2026) explore whether employer adoption of high-road HRM strategies such as the real living wage (RLW) could simultaneously reduce staff shortages and turnover, as well as tackle in-work poverty among employees. This research was co-produced with key local stakeholders across the care economy in Greater Manchester (GM) UK It draws on two longitudinal case studies over a three-year period to open up the “black box” of HRM implementation within organisations. Working collaboratively, a group of policy officers, trade unions and researchers investigated the specific barriers that employers faced in relation to adopting the RLW and what could be done to both improve take-up and address staffing shortages across the city region. The transparency of the case study organisations reflected the long-standing and trusting relationship with the researchers and commitment to research that was “useful” rather than “extractive”. Regular feedback to the organisations also contributed to a degree of reflection among senior management. The paper captures the research and policy development process and highlights the importance of having well-defined HRM objectives as well as building long-term and open dialogue with actors outside of academia. The paper captures impact for workers both material and symbolic, impact for their organisations and raises questions of longer term sustainability and impact on the wider community and other stakeholders. The authors argue that even if the anticipated impacts do not necessarily materialize, the relationships between researchers, campaigners, unionists, policy actors and organisations can survive and adapt, leading to new experimentations. Fundamentally, the relationships of trust with unionists, employers and policymakers built up over a number of years enabled the access of research participants, but in return, the researchers had to adhere strictly to the principles of conducting ethical, non-extractive and useful research that could be utilized by organisations and policymakers.

Our reflections echo broader debates about the trajectory of HRM scholarship. Godard (2014) cautions that the increasing psychologization of HRM risks disconnecting the field from employment relations, policy pressures and societal concerns. Complementing this critique, Aguinis et al. (2022) demonstrate empirically that OBHRM research rarely produces implications for policy or society. In this Special Issue we set out to challenge this premise and utilise these seven cases to identify value and provide guidance to scholars who are grappling with the concept of impact in their research. Our cases demonstrate that impact took place for the actors – that is the researchers and practitioners actively involved, the organisations, that is employers and their employees as well as wider society and community. However, in practice it differed from case to case. Through working with diverse author teams for this Special Issue, we identified several key issues in further understanding, developing and expanding the impact of HRM research. The first centres on the importance of context which requires researchers and practitioners to take a macro-level view in understanding the drivers of change. Often these drivers are beyond the control of the organisations or the practitioners involved, which sometimes force them to take action for survival purpose and to act in line with the macro-level context. Apprehension of these policy and environmental factors also enables researchers and practitioners to carry out organisational change in a meaningful way, and also to understand why in some circumstances change was not taking place or the change was not sustainable.

The second point concerns the relationships between researchers and practitioners. As editors we had a debate as to appropriate terminology that best reflects the critical roles played by practitioners. While “stakeholders” as a term is widely used in the literature, we are aware of the limitation of this term, for instance, in North America this language can be triggering for Indigenous peoples as white settlers laid stakes to claim the land on which they occupy. We also feel that the term “stakeholders” does not necessarily capture the equal engagement necessary for success. We prefer the term partners and as many of our papers demonstrate critical engagement and partnerships over the long term, based on genuine co-design and collaborative approaches that are essential in building and sustaining relationships. We also appreciate Lau et al.’s (2025) typology of impact-driven scholar, reflective practitioner and pracademic, which offers the needed nuance to better understand roles played by each party in pursuing an impact journey. We feel that reconceptualizing these roles can bridge the research-practice gap in HRM and better capture the practical impact of our research.

Our third point speaks to how we practice collaborative research that is relational, trust-building and that is useful rather than extractive. We suggest that HRM scholars could be more innovative in research design, so that practitioners and partners are involved much earlier in the research process rather than being added on as end users after research is already completed. This could involve an enhanced use of co-design, action research and insider/outsider approaches. In this way, we can capture a plurality of perspectives and turn knowledge sharing into knowledge production. All of these cases involved elements of co-design or HR co-creation even if the authors did not express it using these terms. Indeed, it was often the depth of this collaboration that led to success. Several papers in this Special Issue also involved practitioners as co-authors, which enabled them to be co-creators of academic knowledge. In our own work as academics and “pracademics”, we have seen an increasing number of practitioners from both governments and industries who are keen to partner with academics and engage in co-creating new evidence, hence we expect to see more future research undertaken together with practitioners and more innovative ways towards building successful and long-term partnerships.

Our fourth point relates to the role of HRM theory and how these impact cases shift paradigms in HRM research. In the review process there was a concern that some of the papers appeared rather descriptive in their initial submission, and reviewers made crucial and constructive comments regarding the importance of theory to enable critical reflection. This is a common issue in practical case study research that commences with a problem- or phenomenon-driven approach, unlike traditional quantitative approaches which commence with hypotheses and analytical frameworks. For qualitative research in general and action research in particular analytical frameworks tend to emerge from the data through a grounded theory approach. The iterative approach of this kind of applied research needs a theoretical foundation less to guide the research but more to understand and explain the phenomena under investigation. Moreover, impact itself can be iterative and fluid rather than linear. Impact is not just something that happens at the end. Impact can take place at different levels at different times and can shape and reshape the research process.

There are some limitations in the cases that we have brought together in this Special Issue. First, this curation has been dominated by three Western countries (i.e. Australia, Canada and the UK), and there is only one study from an Asian context which, like other three countries, is also an OECD country (i.e. Japan). This means that our collection only reflects the organisational and social challenges that are present in economically developed societies. We need perspectives from a much broader range of societies, especially from non-OECD countries, to better understand the phenomena in other economic, cultural and social contexts and how HRM research can be adopted to address challenges unique to those societies. Second, as we reflect on the key HRM practices being featured in this collection, we noted a substantial focus on training and evaluation/capacity building, and to a less extent, employment relations, recruitment and selection and work design, yet there could other elements of HRM that can be subject to practically meaningful interventions and applications, such as performance management practices and compensation and benefits. Furthermore, how HRM practices adapt and shift in the age of technological development and AI deserves further attention, with only one of our cases tapped into this application. HRM scholars must further confront intensifying global pressures, including DEI backlash, AI-enabled HRM, corporate restructuring and complex global mobility patterns. Together, these perspectives reinforce the need for HRM scholars to build deeper partnerships, engage more explicitly with policy and institutional context and design research for impact from the outset. Overall, we would welcome a much bigger arena where HRM research can make tangible impacts.

Responding to concerns that HRM research has become both psychologized (Godard, 2014) and insufficiently connected to policy and societal impact (Aguinis et al., 2022), we hope that this collection of Impact Case Studies demonstrates how HRM scholarship can reassert its relevance through collaborative, contextually grounded and problem-focused research. Through this Special Issue, we aimed to foster a Community of Practice among HRM scholars committed to demonstrating the value and benefit of their research in addressing real-world problems. We encouraged submissions that were based on actual field studies in organisational and practitioner settings, not laboratory or experimental studies, and that included co-authorship with non-academic contributors. By doing so, we hope to cultivate a scholarly ecosystem that values collaboration, ethical engagement and practical impact (Keeling and Marshall, 2022; Ng and Bates, n.d).

Impact case studies offer valuable guidance to HRM scholars seeking to make their research more actionable and socially meaningful. They provide models for how to engage with partners, design research and interventions and measure change. More importantly, they challenge us to rethink the role of HRM research – not just as a tool for understanding organisations, but as a catalyst for improving them. By explicitly addressing problematisation, theory, approach, impact and contributions, these studies offer a structured pathway for scholars to demonstrate the transformative potential of HRM research. HRM’s future depends on its ability to address global disruptions while preserving its human-centred core. Impact case studies offer a powerful mechanism for doing so by demonstrating how HRM research can support organisations navigating technological change, demographic shifts, sustainability pressures and political contestation.