Following a previous BEER editorial on responsible business engagement with sustainability and the United Nations' 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Jamali et al., 2022), in this editorial we intend to shed light on tackling sustainability problems via organizational openness.1 In general, sustainability problems (e.g., poverty, irresponsible production and consumption, planet harming) are broad in scope and have several interrelated facets (Gurca et al., 2023; Porter et al., 2020). For example, the broad problem of poverty in developing countries has various interdependent facets, such as lack of education opportunities, corruption, and social conflicts. This type of problem is unlikely to be solved by a single organization. This is because the broadness of sustainability problems all too often exceeds the knowledge and expertise of single organizations (e.g., Majchrzak & Malhotra, 2020), and the multifaceted character – or wickedness (Reinecke & Ansari, 2016) – of these problems brings to light the “constant danger that attention directed to a single facet of the web will spawn solutions that disregard vital consequences for the other facets” (Simon, 1978, p.13). Actually, and not surprisingly, manifold organizations tend to narrow the scope of sustainability problems down by neglecting some of their facets and focusing only on those that: (1) are more relevant for them or their key stakeholders; and, (2) they are able to address with their internal resources (e.g., knowledge and expertise) (see Baer et al., 2013). Whilst single organizations are unlikely to be able to identify all facets of broad sustainability problems and have all the internal resources needed for addressing such problems, the urgency to address them is significantly increasing as the pressures exerted on organizations by different stakeholders (e.g., government, consumers) are rapidly growing (e.g., Köhler et al., 2022; Markovic et al., 2022; Markovic, Sancha, & Lindgreen, 2021). However, despite this urgency, and even if they somehow manage to identify all the facets of a broad sustainability problem, organizations often also lack the time to develop the required resources to address the problem. That is why organizations are increasingly embracing openness (e.g., Bagherzadeh et al., 2021; Markovic & Bagherzadeh, 2018) and involving different types of external stakeholders in addressing broad sustainability problems (e.g., McGahan et al., 2021; see Iglesias et al., 2020). Opening up to external stakeholders can help organizations to better identify all the important facets of such problems (Baer et al., 2013; Majchrzak & Malhotra, 2020) and provide them with access to the relevant external resources (e.g., knowledge and expertise) that would complement their internal resources for tackling such problems (see Bagherzadeh et al., 2020). In addition, opening up to outsiders is likely to help organizations gain access to such external resources quickly, which is particularly important in urgency situations (see Gurca et al., 2023) like the current world's situation characterized by grand social challenges (Jamali et al., 2022). As openness seems beneficial, there are now several examples of organizations embracing it to address broad sustainability problems. For example, when Daimler Truck AG and Volvo, two leading companies in the commercial vehicle industry, decided to address the problem related to the sustainability of transportation, creating sustainable alternatives to diesel combustion engines in heavy-duty vehicles, they agreed to form a joint venture for fuel cell technology development.2 Another example is the Climate CoLab, where solutions for addressing global climate change are developed via crowdsourcing initiatives.3 Despite the above-discussed potential benefits, openness can also generate some challenges which may hinder problem solving success (e.g., Gurca et al., 2021; Markovic, Bagherzadeh, et al., 2021; Salter et al., 2014). For example, openness may generate a fear of knowledge leakage and, thus, cause a tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protecting (e.g., Bagherzadeh & Brunswicker, 2016; Majchrzak et al., 2015), which may obstruct the access to the relevant external resources needed for addressing broad sustainability problems. In addition, the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome, which entails the employees' negative stance toward knowledge coming from outside the organization (e.g., Salter et al., 2014), may also challenge the absorption of relevant external resources. Another important challenge potentially caused by openness, which is particularly critical in the case of broad problems, is the alignment between solutions for the different facets of the problem to ensure that these solutions do not conflict with each other (i.e., solution integration)4 (see Gurca et al., 2023). Going back to our example on poverty, this would imply that the solutions for developing education opportunities ought to be aligned with those developed for handling corruption and social conflicts as, otherwise, the solutions could conflict with each other, and subsequently not solve the broad problem of poverty. Finally, at the level of governance mechanisms, there can be a risk of marginalizing more radical perspectives on a given problem, as openness to collaboration tends to be more common among actors who share similar perspectives on the problem (e.g., Dzhengiz et al., 2021). However, in spite of these potential challenges, the literature generally shows that if openness is managed properly, it can represent a powerful, and even necessary, tool to tackle broad sustainability problems. So, how can organizations manage openness properly? The literature has emphasized the following factors that organizations need to consider for successful openness management: (1) openness level; (2) external stakeholder selection; (3) openness mechanism selection; (4) internal organizational practices (for a review see Bagherzadeh et al., 2021; Markovic, Bagherzadeh, et al., 2021). First, the organization should decide on the level of openness to external stakeholders. This may be contingent on factors such as the broadness of problems, the organization's size and culture, the sector in which the organization operates, and a given set of idiosyncratic contextual rules, regulations, and standards. Based on such factors, the organization should assess and determine the breadth and depth of its openness to external stakeholders.5 Second, the organization ought to decide which specific external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, competitors, universities, customers, governmental bodies) it intends to interact with (for a review see Bagherzadeh et al., 2022; Markovic, Jovanovic, et al., 2020). In so doing, the organization should first assess which external stakeholders can help them to better identify the different facets of sustainability problems. Then, the organization ought to evaluate which resources they are lacking to address such facets, and which external stakeholders have those resources and are willing to share them. Third, the organization should decide on the openness mechanism through which it is going to gain access to the relevant external resources. The most popular mechanisms include equity and non-equity partnerships (e.g., strategic alliances, joint ventures), crowdsourcing, licensing agreements, and co-creation (for a review see Bagherzadeh et al., 2021; Ind et al., 2017). Using more than one mechanism simultaneously can be beneficial, especially in complex or uncertain projects (Bagherzadeh et al., 2021) oriented toward tackling broad sustainability problems. Fourth, the organization should introduce a set of internal practices that support and foster openness to external stakeholders (for a review see Foss et al., 2011; Lakemond et al., 2016; Markovic, Bagherzadeh, et al., 2020; Moghaddam et al., 2023; Salter et al., 2014). Some of the most important internal practices are the establishment of formal and/or informal communication channels between employees, the introduction of an employee reward system for acquiring external resources and integrating them internally in an effective way, systematic employee training, and dedicated processes (e.g., HR, legal) to support employees. Based on the above-presented four factors for successful openness management, below we share some ideas for future research on considering these managerial factors when addressing broad sustainability problems. In addition to considering the above-presented ideas, future studies could also investigate how the four factors for successful openness management are interrelated. For example, the breadth and depth of openness may depend on the type of external stakeholders involved and the openness mechanisms used, given that each external stakeholder and mechanism have specific attributes. This would raise the question of whether there is a preferred level of openness for each type of external stakeholder and openness mechanism. Similarly, openness level can be influenced by certain internal organizational practices, such as formal and informal internal communication, raising the question of whether each level of openness breadth and depth calls for a specific formality level in internal communication. Moreover, research that explores the boundary conditions and limitations of openness in a sustainability context would be a promising avenue for future research. Research may also advance theory by examining how the above practices and processes work in developed versus developing countries, and how culture and context may alter the relationships investigated. Finally, we would be interested in receiving manuscripts that address the above-presented future research opportunities for consideration for publication in BEER. We believe that broadening the ways of analyzing and addressing important and urgent sustainability problems is not only of interest to the readers of BEER but to the broader academic community, practice and, at the end of the day, humanity at large. The Co-Editors-in-Chief would like to thank Mehdi Bagherzadeh for contributing to this Editorial.