Towards a deeper understanding of strategic management factors in international non-governmental organizations

Zhang, Xue; Saadé, Raafat George Article Towards a deeper understanding of strategic management factors in international non-governmental organizations Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Zhang, Xue; Saadé, Raafat George (2025) : Towards a deeper understanding of strategic management factors in international non-governmental organizations, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 1-36, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020034 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321179 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 18 October 2024 Revised: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 20 January 2025 Published: 23 January 2025 Citation: Zhang, X., & Saadé, R. G. (2025). Towards a Deeper Understanding of Strategic Management Factors in International Non‑Governmental Organizations. Administrative Sciences,15(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15020034 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Towards a Deeper Understanding of Strategic Management Factors in International Non‑Governmental Organizations Xue Zhang * and Raafat George Saadé * School of Global Governance, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China *Correspondence: [email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (R.G.S.) Abstract: International activities by all NGOs have become ubiquitous. Therefore, interna‑ tional non‑governmental organizations (INGOs) are significantly and gradually increasing their international influence shaping a new paradigm for global affairs ranging from hu‑ man aid to digital governance. In this study, we delve into the literature and connect with professionals to get a deeper understanding of how strategic management is addressed and perceived in INGOs. The paper is composed of two parts, namely a comprehensive literature review followed by a pilot survey‑based empirical study, to assess and validate relevant constructs/factors in the context of INGOs. The survey methodology approach was used to assess factors using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Outcomes from the lit‑ erature review were cross‑examined against the EFA to guide the categorization of factors vis‑à‑vis new findings. Twelve validated questions relevant to our context were adapted and composed in the survey. EFA resulted in the significant regrouping of items into three factors. We therefore reformulated the constructs in the INGO context. These constructs are strategic structures, human capital, and change management. Strategic constructs rep‑ resent the traditional strategic management theory. Change management was shown to be a strong factor for the adequate setup and management of strategic structures, and human capital represents a new factor specific to INGOs. Keywords: strategic planning; strategic formulation; systematic literature review; empir‑ ical; international non‑governmental organizations; human capital; strategic structures; change management 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed a substantial increase in international activities by non‑governmental organizations (NGOs) globally (Dörfler & Heinzel,2023). International non‑governmental organizations (INGOs) today, have become a significant and neces‑ sary paradigm impacting global affairs, due to recent turbulent challenges ranging from wars, geopolitical tensions, and the rapid progress of innovations (Santoro et al.,2018). In general, strategic management (such as establishing a vision, mission plan and over‑ all decision‑making) in INGOs is complex and challenging (Beagles,2022). This is due to how strategy and development are perceived by various stakeholders. Achieving objec‑ tives is met with competing ideas in terms of how they can be attained, while at the same time, the notion of demonstrating success to stakeholders is fluid such that many differ‑ ent ways can be used to achieve that (Lewis et al.,2021;Berghmans et al.,2017;Stoddard, 2010). Superimposing this natural environment of INGOs onto today’s fast‑paced world, and increasing global challenges, makes the management of INGOs more complex as it becomes more difficult to meet moving targets (goals). Transcending all borders with the Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020034 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 2 of 36 aim to engage in the solution and management of a wide range of issues, such as, socio‑ economic, and political, we find that at the core, INGOs can be defined by their voluntary, non‑profit nature, engaging in activities across a broad spectrum of sectors. At the heart of the INGOs dialogue, we find their distinctive nature and operational essence, contrary to for‑profit organizations, committed to advancing public, social, and global benefits. Any surplus is reinvested into the organization for continuous improvement (Anheier,2015). Yet, the boundaries between INGOs, non‑governmental organizations (NGOs), and other similar institutions are becoming blurrier, as their definitions and roles are increasingly overlapping, and are therefore worthwhile elaborating on, even though it is outside the scope of this study. Organizations can be either for‑profit or not‑for‑profit (NFP). The term not‑for‑profit organizations has been used synonymously with non‑governmental organizations. There is, however, a large variety of NGOs, which makes it difficult to provide a fitting definition. Abiddin et al. (2022) provide a comprehensive analysis of NGOs, while Ott and Valero (2018) do the same for NGOs; they expand their analysis to INGOs, where they explore different types of NGOs followed by a description of the distinctive features of INGOs. It seems that the concept of NGOs (and by extension, INGOs) is overlapping and interrelated withothertypesoforganizationssuchas civil society organizations (SCO) (Smith & Hamel, 2023;Toepler et al.,2020) and NPOs (Ackerman,2023;Bortnowska & Seiler,2021). In their analysis (that is based on the John Hopkins Global Society Index), Ott and Valero (2018) discuss six major criteria which make an organization a civil society organi‑ zation. Based on criteria identified through that analysis, the organization may be formal or informal, with staff that are working on a voluntary basis or paid, operates within a flexible financial structure of fees, and charges for products and/or services, aligns with philanthropy and private donations, is context‑sensitive influenced by factors such as le‑ gal environment and population support, may perform various types of functions, and can assume local (country or regional) legal form. According to Frumkin (2002) and Grønbjerg (2016), non‑profit organizations exhibit eight characteristics, namely participation that is non‑coercive and primarily voluntary, does not have an ownership structure with access to equity, is not profit‑oriented which is distributed to stakeholders, may operate under private or public auspices, and includes a vision that seeks to make the world a better place by changing people, views, values, behavior, and knowledge. SCOs and NFPs have the concepts of volunteerism, operational mechanisms, and philanthropy or making the world a better place, in common. We share the same observation with (Ott & Valero,2018), that today, there are very small differences between SCOs, NPOs, and NGOs. Yet, the way NGOs are perceived differsacross countries and regions (Abiddin et al.,2022). Forexample, in theUnitedStates (US), an NGO is viewedas an organization that operates internationally. NGOs can play in anysphereincludingbut notlimited tothe environment, socialissues, advocacy, orpolitics. They may also focus and be influential locally (targeting specific country activities such as the promotion of political change) or internationally (i.e., to improve communities around the world). Therefore, NGOs (from a US perspective) are in essence very similar to NPOs and SCOs, but they operate internationally. With the onset of globalization, and with organized groups not directly under the influence of government, the potential for international activities arose, paving the way for INGOs. INGOs differ from other organizations such as NGOs and NFPs in that they can use resources from developed countries to help less developed countries across the entire range of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. Due to their international setup, developed countries have utilized INGOs as intermediaries for their international devel‑ opment programs. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 3 of 36 The role of INGOs in international development and aid is critical, primarily due to the fact that domestic organizations are deficient and as such, INGOs attempt to respond to global emergencies more effectively, such that their globalization is motivated by the pursuit of new donors, expansion of resource pools, and enhancement of competitiveness, beyond national borders (Galkina & Yang,2020; D. Han et al.,2020). Research around INGOs is not adequate. A substantial number of studies can be found related to business internationalization. However, the unique pathways through which INGOs expand their global footprint have garnered limited attention (Porto & da Rocha,2021;Teegen et al.,2004). Yet, considering their contributions to addressing critical global issues, such as climate change, access to education and healthcare, poverty, and human rights, relevant studies related to issues such as their political influence, operations, and global impact (Galkina & Yang,2020) are relatively few. Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of INGOs, the development of a strategy, effective management, and change proves to be quite challenging. INGOs may be the only sector where decision‑making based on data is less practiced, and made based on political conditions, the identity of the organization, stakeholders, and other environmental condi‑ tions. From an organizational perspective, INGOs seem to prioritize “doing no harm” over achieving measurable goals (Barber & Bowie,2008;Brilliant & Young,2004). This makes the study of strategic management in INGOs very important. The notion of strategy (originating from “strategos” which means general in Greek) finds roots in the military field. Over time, this notion found its way into the business world (Fuertes et al.,2020). Seeking a unique definition or understanding of strategy is outside the scope of this work. However, we briefly elaborate on the concept with the aim of transitioning into the concept of “strategic management”. According to Chandler (1962), “Strategy is the determination of the basic long‑term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the alloca‑ tion of resources necessary for carrying out these goals”. Strategy entered the management literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitor’s moves (Steiner, 2010). Mintzberg (1994) explains that people use ‘strategy’ in several different ways. The most common are as follows: strategy is a plan; strategy is a pattern of actions over time; strategy is position; and strategy is perspective, that is, vision and direction. Fundamentally, all types of NGOs (including INGOs) have a vision and a mission, establish clear objectives, and are strategy‑centric. Therefore, it is important to articulate the distinction between these concepts as we refer to them throughout the paper, with the hope of providing better clarity of intended use and meaning. Mission, vision, and objec‑ tives are distinct concepts that are time‑related and interconnected with the organization’s strategy. Vision is a look into the future of the organization representing its long‑term (5, or more years) desired future state, and outlining its purpose for an achievable positive change (Aslan,2023;Asogwa et al.,2021). The vision is brought by management, and ide‑ ally with the representation and engagement of all stakeholders. The mission of an INGO, which is a statement, is more specific and may identify its target beneficiaries while defin‑ ing its core purpose as a means to achieve its vision (Asfaw et al.,2017). Objectives are measurable outcomes that serve to operationalize the mission (Asogwa,2023). Evidently, the vision‑mission‑objectives linkages are hierarchical and depend on each other (Ahmad, 2023). Strategy and strategic planning are the integration of these three concepts (verti‑ cal integration) and their effective alignment to ensure accountability, transparency, focus, and coherence (Gallo et al.,2018). As a system, today INGOs implement performance management initiatives to realize this alignment. Consequently, a performance manage‑ ment system/platform (also discussed in the conclusion section on practical implications) becomes the digital manager of the organization’s strategic direction. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 4 of 36 When it comes to the concept of strategic management, we find many approaches associated with that concept, such as strategic planning, strategic formulation, strategic learning, and strategic vision (J. Bryson & George,2020), which have long been used as tools for revitalizing privately owned corporations and government‑owned public agen‑ cies with the aim of improving the achievement of established goals and value creation. Adapting from J. Bryson and George (2020), we provide a comprehensive view of strategic management: “Strategic management is an approach to the building of a strategy by INGOs via their integration of its formulation, development, planning, implementation, and learning”. Historically strategic planning has been the primary activity associated with strategicmanagement. However, as we see fromthe definition, strategic management is more encompassing, holistic, and integrated. Strategy management “involves a commitment of significant amounts of organiza‑ tional resources for the fulfillment of organizational goals and purposes through appropri‑ ate means…[and]……have an impact on many aspects and functions of the organization, and influenceits direction, administration, andstructureinfundamentalways”(Dess et al., 1997;Shrivastava & Grant,1985;Grant,2001). Performing a quick literature review using the Web of Science core collection using the keywords “strategic” AND “management” in the title, then filtering the results in three consequent steps by keywords “international” then “organization” then “governmental”, yields eleven results, only two of which are relevant. This represents a quick view of the body of knowledge, which suggests that research in strategic management for INGOs is lacking. To that effect, we perform in Section 3a comprehensive literature review (CLR) to provide more details related to our study herein. Searching for recent CLRs on strate‑ gic management and INGOs shows that very few were performed (Susanto et al.,2023: Strategic Management Concepts; Rêgo et al.,2021; and Saade,2020: Digital Transforma‑ tion and Strategic Management; Borges et al.,2021: Strategic Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Era; Keding,2021: Artificial Intelligence and Strategic Management; Cosenz & Noto,2016: Modeling to Strategic Management; Engert et al.,2016: Corporate Sustain‑ ability into Strategic Management; Keupp et al.,2012, Strategic Management and Innova‑ tion; J. M. Bryson et al.,2010: Public Strategic Management), and none was found to be related to INGOs. Based on the above, and with a focus on INGOs, in this study we draw on the in‑ tegrated approach to strategic management, to better understand strategic factors in the context of INGOs (Wan et al.,2022). We use Bailey et al. (2000) multi‑dimensional frame‑ work, which captures major research evidence factors of their interdependence in decision‑ making. Their work implies continuity in how strategies are developed and managed, indicating patterns of perceived organizational decision‑making for sustainable strategic management. Comprehensively, strategic management, in general and depending on whom you reference, entails mission, vision, strategy, goals, formulation, analysis, governance and policies, stakeholder management, external and internal environments, external and insti‑ tutional pressures, organizational culture, leadership, digital transformation, sustainabil‑ ity, system integration, social responsibility, and performance management. However, in this study, we focus on six INGO‑relevant discrete dimensions of strategic management (S. L. Hart,1992;Bailey et al.,2000;Wan et al.,2022): command, planning, incrementalism, po‑ litical, cultural, and enforced choice. These dimensions were identified to reflect the nature of strategic management and would provide guidance to our study context which includes INGOs. The models they used were applied to organizations in general (and mostly used for the private for‑profit sector), but not specifically to INGOs. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 5 of 36 For the purpose of completeness, these dimensions can be briefly described as follows: The Command Dimension relates to the degree of control exercised by senior management, who have the responsibility for shaping the organizational culture. Planning theory pro‑ vides conflicting advice, suggesting, on the one hand, that formal strategic planning is pos‑ itively associated with performance in dynamic environments (Vrontis et al.,2017; S. Hart & Banbury,1994; C. C. Miller & Cardinal,1994; D. Miller & Friesen,1983) and on the other that it is more suited to stable environments which implicitly assume predictability and that an incrementalist approach is more appropriate for dynamic and discontinuous envi‑ ronments (Fredrickson & Iaquinto,1989;Mintzberg,1973). Incrementalism focuses more on aspects of formulating strategies in manageable increments (Barney,1997;Grant,2001; Menon et al.,1999;Nutt,1993) and recognizing that strategic goals and objectives of the organization are not likely to be precise but general in nature (Bailey et al.,2000). This ap‑ proach suggests planning flexibility, or freedom to change strategic plans which Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) found, promotes entrepreneurial intensity. Political Power relates to the level of negotiation between different powerful groups and the formation of coalitions to pursue their shared objectives. The cultural dimension represents the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizational functioning (Covin & Slevin,1993). A strong cultural commitment may increase organizational members ‘buy‑ in’ to strategies and should increase the level of consensus (Menon et al.,1999) and allow managers to focus on the substance of their decision (Iaquinto & Fredrickson,1997). En‑ forced Choice entails factors in the environment that would encourage the adoption of organizational choice structures and activities, and which would not encompass coercion, competitiveness, or economic and normative pressures (Meyer et al.,1993). Based on the above, and considering the major themes of our study purpose, namely strategic management and INGOs, we posit the following research questions: RQ1:What is the current state‑of‑the‑art in strategic management and INGOs? This is addressed by performing a comprehensive literature review, allowing us to explore the body of literature on strategic management as it relates to international non‑ governmental organizations. The outcome of RQ1 entails adopting a set of relevant pub‑ lications that we utilize to better understand emerging themes and research gaps. The outcomes from the first research question will lead us to the second research question: RQ2:What are the practical strategic management factors in the INGO context? Research question 2 specifies ‘practical’, implying that to identify these factors, we approach specialists and experts in the area and engage them to answer this question. We perform this via a small questionnaire which is analyzed to better understand strategic management in INGO practice and to extract those factors. Based on the outcomes of the previous two research questions, we then integrate our findings to answer the following third research question: RQ3:What are the emerging themes and factors for practical INGO strategic management? We aim to identify a conceptual model to show the INGO factors and their relation‑ ships. The conceptual model provides researchers with a new line of inquiry and practi‑ tioners with an overarching view of what needs to be considered for managing their per‑ formance. 2. Materials and Methods Our paper analyzes strategic management factors of INGOs in two parts namely via a comprehensive and objective literature review, and a survey‑based empirical study. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 6 of 36 2.1. Systematic Literature Review The review of the body of knowledge relevant to this study is based on the outputs of searches and data collected from Web of Science (WoS), cross‑examined against Google Scholar. The output results were based on articles, and conference proceedings alone. The literature review search results were analyzed according to keywords in the title of the articles. The approach we followed for our literature review is similar to the reported systematic literature reviews utilized by Ryley et al. (2020), Linnenluecke et al. (2020), and Saade et al. (2023) despite our initial exploratory findings that the field of our current study of interest is narrow and very limited in the area of INGOs. We adapted our literature review from the SLR approaches in other studies in the field (Abou Jaoude & Saade,2019;Saade & Nijher,2016), with small changes adapted to our con‑ text, and as such we will not repeat the details herein but summarize them in Table 1. We identify six steps in our literature review process, namely, concept coding, scoping, con‑ cept search plan, inclusion/exclusion criteria, refinement, and analysis of a final retained set of articles (more details are available in (Wong et al.,2015). Table 1. Steps of the SLR. Steps Description Purpose Concept Coding Broad search Identification of key terms Scoping Identifying the boundaries of key terms Delimiting key words Concept Search Plan Developing strategy for searching Specifying search steps Inclusion/Exclusion Establishing and applying set of criteria to apply search results Filtering search results Refinement Reading articles in full and further consideration to retain or not Selecting final set of articles Analysis Processing retained set of articles for insight and building on the work of previous researchers Bibliometric analysis The aim of concept coding is to make a broad search to identify all possible key terms of interest giving us a map of the concept structures and relationships. Our aim is to for‑ mulate a coding of key terms representing the concepts to be utilized in the detailed search. The word “management” for example, added to “strategy” would result in many articles not related to INGOs with most of the articles found in the areas of organizational theory, which is usually focused on the private sector. In terms of delimiting the boundaries of our keywords’ scope, “strategy”, and “man‑ agement” alone resulted in many articles. In our SLR strategy, we utilized the WoS (cross‑ examined and confirmed with Google Scholar and Scopus) to conduct the in‑depth and more specific search namely, on the keywords “strategic management”, then added to the term “INGO” spelled out and as an acronym. We further replaced the INGO term with “UN” (also spelled out and as an acronym) with the logical parameter ‘AND’. We also replaced “UN” with “public administration” to ensure that we capture all publications around our interest. Subsequently, our next step was primarily focused on article reduction (by applying different filters sequentially), and final cleanup, thereby leaving only the articles suitable for analysis. We limited our initial search results to articles published in peer‑reviewed journals and conferences. We then excluded any articles that were in the areas of computer science, and engineering, and we kept articles that dealt with strategic management as Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 7 of 36 applied to INGOs. The final set of articles for synthesis and analysis was read completely to see if it was deemed fit for our research goals. Itisworthwhile notingthatour comprehensiveliterature reviewisin line withtheSys‑ tematic Literature Review methodology studied by Xiao and Watson (2019) and Nightin‑ gale (2009) who provide guidance on what constitutes an SLR and how to conduct it, and Kraus et al. (2020) who elaborate on the art of crafting an SLR in entrepreneurship re‑ search. Moreover, our literature review process includes most of the PRISMA protocol elaborated by Page et al. (2021) which entails the following: the proper formulation of research questions (RQ1 and RQ3), identification of eligibility criteria, search strategy de‑ velopment, study selection, data extraction, synthesis of results and report writing. 2.2. Pilot Study For the pilot study, we followed a survey methodology where validated questions (which were developed for the context of the private sector) based on prior research were adapted and administered to professionals in the INGO/NGO sector. The questions listed in Table 2below were programmed into an online questionnaire builder tool and were used to survey INGO professionals. The questionnaire builder uti‑ lized in this study is Wenjuanxing (问卷星) which is popular in China as an online platform that businesses, researchers, and educators can use to create and distribute online surveys, exams, and assessments. Considering the Chinese information technology infrastructure, this tool is particularly interesting due to its ability to integrate seamlessly into WeChat (China’s leading social media platform) thereby providing great advantages to broaden the reach of participants and their engagement with the questionnaire. The questionnaire builder included features that allowed us to configure the process for confidentiality and timely distribution to participants which was conducted via a link and manage the com‑ pletion of the surveys optimally. Professionals (primarily leaders and senior managers) from different international non‑governmental organizations mostly in China were contacted by email or WeChat and were invited to complete the survey by clicking on the link. All potential participants were also asked to forward the email to other INGO colleagues whom they felt were suitable to provide insightful feedback. Contacting potential participants, one by one, was conducted over a period of eight months. INGO leaders and senior managers are very busy and, in most cases, hesitant to engage in such surveys, but with follow‑ups, reminders, and further elaboration on the survey protocol, thirty‑eight participated. As a first step to administering the survey/questionnaire, participants were provided with a consent form that included information about the research setup, the purpose of the experiment, and other information such as the survey process, confidentiality, and ethics, their rights to ask any questions of concern, and their freedom to withdraw at any time during the survey. We also offered participants the opportunity to leave an email address so we could communicate the results to them. The context of our study entailed important organizational sensitivities that needed to be considered. These sensitivities consisted of issues such as the risk to the participants’ or their employers’ reputation. Moreover, the survey included a question on whether we could publish their organization’s name in our articles, and only 10 percent agreed. Those who agreed to share their organization’s name included the Technology and Higher Edu‑ cation Institute of Hong Kong, and the Chinese Society for Aeronautics and Astronautics. None of the respondents from Europe agreed to publish their organization’s name. As such, the survey was conducted anonymously. After data cleaning, a sample of 38 usable records was retained for analysis. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 8 of 36 Table 2. Items/questions used in the pilot study. Item Code Question 1 SO1 We have definite and precise strategic objective 我们的组织有明确、精确的战略目标 2 SO2 We have precise procedures for achieving strategic objectives 我们有实现战略目标的精确程序 3 SP Our strategy is made explicit in the form of precise plans 我们的战略目标有精确计划，因此十分明确 4 SDM We make strategic decisions based on a systematic analysis of our business environment 我们在系统分析业务环境的基础上做出战略决策 5 SSCS To keep in line with our business environment, we make continual small‑scale changes to strategy 为与业务环境保持一致，我们会对战略做出小规模改变 6 SC1 Our strategies emerge gradually as we respond to the need to change 我们的战略是随着对改变需求的响应而逐步形成的 7 SC2 Our strategy develops through a process of ongoing adjustment 我们的战略在不断调整的过程中不断发展 8SCOMMIT (SCO) We keep the early commitment to a strategy tentative 我们对战略目标的早期承诺是暂时性的 9SCULTURE (SSOL) Our organization’s history directs our search for solutions to strategic issues 我们的历史经验能够指导我们寻求战略问题的解决方案 10 SVISION (SVI) The strategy we follow is directed by a vision of the future associated with the chief executive (or another senior figure) 我们的战略是由主要执行领导（或其他高层人物）对未来的愿景指导的 11 ORGC Effective organizational change requires certain significant and dramatic steps or leaps’ rather than moderate incremental ones 有效的组织变革需要重大的、戏剧性的步骤或飞跃，而不是温和的渐进性的 12 INTL Our organization has international influence 我所在的组织具有国际影响力 Items in this study (presented in Table 2) were adapted from previous literature (Wan et al.,2022;Bailey et al.,2000). Specific questions were selected to represent critical issues related to strategic management in INGOs with the goal of having the least number of questions considering that officials in INGOs have no time to spend on a lengthy survey. This decision was made after talking to a few of INGOs’ senior management and other experts in the field. A 5‑point Likert scale of 1 = ‘Strongly Agree’, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, and 5 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ was utilized for all items. Twelve questions (see Table 2) were included in this study, which are related to strategy, change, commitment, culture, and internationalization. 3. Literature Review (RQ1) 3.1. Bibliometric Analysis To demonstrate the scope of the body of knowledge in INGO strategic management, we followed a funnel approach very close to the PRISMA framework where we first con‑ ducted a broad search for publications in the area of INGO strategic management, using the terms ‘strategy’, ‘management’, ‘non‑governmental’, and ‘organization’, to identify the number of records in the database relevant to our area of interest (PRISMA Phase 1: Iden‑ tification and search strategy SS 1 to 13—See Table 3). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 15 of 36 Table 6. Cont. Article Title Purpose Findings C. Han & Gao, 2020 A chai multiple mediation model linking strategic, management, and technological innovations to firm competitiveness To build an integrated framework to discuss the influence of three types of innovations, i.e., strategic, management, and technological innovations, on form competitiveness. Although strategic, management, and technological innovations, on form competitiveness were carried out at different organizational levels, they formulated a holistic framework to jointly improve firm competitiveness. Strategic innovation strengthened firm competitiveness through three parallel routes: management innovation, technological innovation, and serial mediating mechanisms of management and technological innovations. The mediation effect of management innovation is significantly stronger than that of technological innovation. Wan et al.,2020 Deriving significant factors for managing change in UN To identify key factors for managing change in the UN Three significant factors, communication, temporal sensitivity, and knowledge were found to represent a shared common theoretical proposition from Kotter’s, Lewin’s, and ADKAR models. Extracted factor explains the proposed UN model. J. Bryson & Edwards,2017 Strategic planning in the Public Sector To identify and elaborate on the research agenda regarding public‑sector strategic planning using a more open approach. Important questions arising from the literature were included to provide further insights. (1) Dimensions of internal and external contexts made a difference. (2) Differences across organization types, functions, sub‑units, or places were identified. (3) Dependence of strategic planning on policy fields was observed. (4) Resources required for effective strategic planning. (5) There are effects of difference between strategic artifacts on strategic planning. (6) Connections between strategic planning and other elements of strategic management were presented. Johnson,2016 Cooperation, co‑optation, competition, conflict: international bureaucracies and non‑governmental organizations in an interdependent world To develop a 4Cs taxonomy of when cooperative, co‑optative, competitive, or conflictual relations arise between NGOs and international bureaucracies and examine it with the example of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The 4Cs taxonomy suggested that: shared values and distinct resource bases led to cooperation; Shared values and same resource led to co‑optation; not shared values and no distinct resource bases led to competition; No shared values and different resources led to conflict. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 16 of 36 Table 6. Cont. Article Title Purpose Findings Johnsen,2015 Strategic management thinking and practices in the public sector: strategic planning for all seasons? To explore how strategic management thinking manifests itself in strategic management practice in the public sector. Strategic management in the public sector extensively used strategic planning, bundled with certain other schools of thought. (1) The study supported the notion that strategic planning was dominant in strategic thinking. (2) Both the cognitive and entrepreneurial schools were relatively unimportant in strategic thinking in the public sector. Castellini,2014 Stakeholder theory and strategic management in third sector: an analysis on Italian cooperative associations To identify how the cooperative associations in Italy implement their strategic objectives. Most important steps and tools for planning and controlling cycle were identified; a definition of the State of the Art was formulated in relation to cooperative associations activities; opportunities for control tools and their applications were identified. Cuganesan et al.,2012 Strategic management accounting and strategy practices within a public sector agency To examine the role of management accounting in organizational practices that enact strategy. It expanded the existing knowledge of the specific roles of strategic management accounting in strategizing. Management accounting created shared understanding by objectifying, mobilizing, and connecting strategic concerns across strategic practices and practitioners. It mediated diverse strategic interests and recast strategic practices. It actively reconstitutes strategic practices and engenders new forms of management accounting, creating both change and continuity for strategizing. Young et al., 2012 Is strategy being implemented through projects? Contrary evidence from a leader in New Public Management To report on the effectiveness of the project management and investment frameworks in the State of Victoria. (1) The Victorian project management and investment practices were comparable with and sometimes better than the best practices. (2) The projects generally may fail to contribute to organization strategic outcomes. (3) Even deemed successful projects provided no assurance for supporting the organizational strategy. Boyne & Walker,2010 Strategic management and public service performance: the way ahead To review arguments and evidence on the most effective strategies that organizations adopted to pursue their objectives and set out an agenda for research toward better performance. The review of evidence indicated that some small steps have been taken on a long journey, but that further steps should be taken by clearly theorizing the relationship between strategy and publicness, and by being cognizant of national context. Poister,2010 The future of strategic planning in the public sector: linking strategic management and performance To look at the mid‑term future of strategic planning in the public sector from a managerial perspective over the next decade to the year 2020. Moving from planning strategy and measuring the performance of ongoing programs on the one hand, to implementing strategy and using performance information to improve performance, on the other, will be essential for public agencies to significantly increase their capacity to meet new and unforeseen challenges and create public value in the next 10 years. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 17 of 36 Table 6. Cont. Article Title Purpose Findings Nag et al.,2007 What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. To answer the question of why strategic management enjoyed great success, it was commonly asserted that the study on it was fragmented and lacked a coherent identity. To define strategic management and then supplement it with an examination. The findings suggested that strategic management’s success as a field emerged from an underlying consensus that enabled it to attract multiple perspectives, while still maintaining its coherent distinctiveness. Farjoun,2002 Toward an organic perspective on strategy To propose an organic perspective that combines the insights and coherence of the mechanistic perspective with the more relevant organic ideas. It is found that the organic perspective offered a coherent view of core strategy issues. Three pillars for an organic perspective offered distinctive view: (1) the organic concept of strategy stressed action, coordination, and adaptation. (2) The OESP (organization‑environment‑strategy‑ performance) showed how different lower‑level models stemmed from a more integrated and dynamic overview of the field’s main constructs and relationships. (3) The organic model of strategic management highlighted the recurrent and integrated aspects of the process and suggested a more holistic view of strategy itself. C. Oliver,1997 Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource‑based views To propose a process model of firm heterogeneity that combines the insights of resource‑based view with the institutional perspective of the organization theory. Both resource capital and institutional capital are indispensable to sustainable competitive advantage. A. J. Olivier & Schwella,2018 Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector To develop a conceptual model in the public sector in response to the significant gap between strategy planning and execution. There were nine elements key to closing the strategy execution gap: leadership, strategic planning, project management, alignment, performance management (MERIL), drive, engagement, risk management, and stakeholder management. A conceptual model was derived by integrating the above nine components. UN Strategic planning guide for managers To provide practical techniques based on global management best practices for all UN officers, departments, and missions. ‑‑‑ Based on the literature review above, we are able to extract common themes and ar‑ eas of interest. However, we notice that the traditional themes of strategic management, especially those that have roots in the resource‑based view of the firm, continue to domi‑ Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 18 of 36 nate the literature. These traditional themes remain the central focus of most studies and include planning, formulation, execution, and monitoring and control. However, based on our initial observations and more detailed analysis of the content reported in the following section, we will select strategic management areas that are more representative of INGOs: Strategy Structures (SS—blue), Human Capital (HC—Green), and Change Management (CM—Red). These represent the evolution of the INGO driven by strategic implementation. Table 7provides a mapping of the interpreted survey items against the constructs of the three new themes. Table 7. Mapping of questions’ concepts to retained articles. SS SS SS HC CM CM CM HC HC SS SS SS # SO1 SO2 SP SDM SSCS SC1 SC2 SCO SSOL SVI ORGC INTL 1✓✓✓✓✓ 2✓✓✓ 3✓✓✓ 4✓ 5✓ ✓ 6✓✓✓ 7✓ 8✓ 9✓ 10 ✓ 11 ✓ ✓ 12 ✓ 13 ✓ 14 15 ✓ ✓ 16 ✓ 17 ✓ 18 19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 20 ✓ ✓ 21 ✓ ✓ SS: Strategic Factors; HC: Human Capital; CM: Change Management. 4. Empirical Analysis—Pilot Study (RQ2) A survey approach was followed utilizing the items/questions that were adapted to our context and presented in Table 2. Our analytical goals are to examine the responses from INGO professionals to gain a better understanding of the field from practice. More‑ over, through our analytical approach, we would examine the possible extraction of fac‑ tors with the aim of developing a measurement instrument for future use in research and practice. All survey respondents worked in an INGO, past or present, and hold a medium (14) or senior (17) management position, totaling 87% of responses being from upper manage‑ ment. Twenty‑three of the respondents were male, thereby giving a male‑to‑female ratio Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 19 of 36 of 2 to 1. Around one‑third of the respondents have a Ph.D. degree, and just over half (53%) have a Master’s degree. Most of the respondents were from China (some were from Finland and Canada) had a Western education with good to excellent English language skills, and have over 10 years of national and international experience. As such, the analytical strategy applied to the responses entails two steps: (1) De‑ scriptive statistics, (2) plotting of histograms of the responses to observe any discrepancies, outliers, patterns, and other possible anomalies of the actual data, (3) identifying any rela‑ tionships between the items/questions, and (4) performing an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to extract factors relevant to our INGO context. 4.1. Descriptive Table 8shows the results of the descriptive statistics presenting the mean, mode, stan‑ dard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Moreover, in the last column on the right, we provide a summarized interpretation of the data. Table 8. Descriptive analysis of survey responses. Variable Mean SD SKW KRT Interpretation Summary SO1 1.35 0.54 1.2 0.53 Strong agreement on strategic objectives, with low variability and positive skew towards agreement. Responses are concentrated around ‘Strongly Agree’. SO2 1.62 0.72 1.19 1.87 High agreement with strategic objectives, but more dispersed than SO1. Responses are still positively skewed towards agreement, with most concentrated around ‘Agree’. SP 1.76 0.8 0.83 0.21 General agreement with strategic planning. Some respondents are neutral, and the distribution is more balanced, showing a moderate positive skew. SDM 1.76 0.76 0.45 −1.1 Agreement with strategic decision‑making, with more evenly distributed responses. Skewness is low, and kurtosis indicates a flatter distribution. SSCS 1.7 0.62 0.28 −0.54 Most respondents agree with small‑scale strategy changes, with little skewness and a flatter distribution. Neutrality is less common but present. SC1 2 0.7 0.5 −0.45 Agreement with strategic change, but responses are more balanced between agree and neutral, with moderate positive skew. SC2 2.02 0.72 0.55 −0.35 Like SC1, there is general agreement, but more neutrality is observed, with moderate variability and positive skew. SCOMMIT 2.15 0.91 0.95 0.55 Agreement on strategic commitment, though responses are more variable with some neutral and disagreeable responses. Higher skewness suggests more respondents lean toward positive agreement. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 20 of 36 Table 8. Cont. Variable Mean SD SKW KRT Interpretation Summary SSOL 2.12 0.81 1.18 1.65 General agreement on strategic culture, but with noticeable variability and a skew towards agreement. Responses are clustered around agree, but neutrality and higher scores appear more often. SVISION 2 0.77 0.45 −0.8 Agreement with strategic vision, with moderate spread of responses and a more balanced skew. The kurtosis suggests a flatter distribution, meaning more varied responses. OrgC 2.2 1.08 0.6 −1.07 Neutral‑to‑agree responses on organizational change. Some of the respondents expressed neutrality or disagreement, resulting in a more balanced distribution. INTL 2.25 0.91 0.95 0.55 Mixed responses on international influence. While there is agreement, a notable proportion of respondents are neutral or disagree, and the positive skew reflects more agreement overall. SD: Standard Deviation; SKW: Skewness; KRT: Kurtosis. The survey data reveal that respondents generally “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with most strategic themes, with the mean values for most variables below 2.00. The most fre‑ quent response (mode) is 1 (“Strongly Agree”) for key categories like strategic objectives (SO1 and SO2), strategic planning (SP), and strategic decision‑making (SDM), suggesting strong overall support for these areas. The low standard deviation values across most vari‑ ables indicate that respondents answered consistently, with little variation in their level of agreement. However, variables like strategic culture (SCULTURE) and organizational change (OrgC) exhibit higher variability, reflecting more diverse opinions. The skewness for most variables is positive, meaning responses are skewed towards agreement, though some respondents selected more neutral or disagreeing options. This is particularly evident in categories like strategic change (SC1, SC2) and strategic commit‑ ment (SCOMMIT), where the skew is less pronounced, reflecting a more balanced set of opinions. For these variables, the responses range more widely between “Agree”, “Neu‑ tral”, and even “Disagree”, withkurtosis indicatingdistributions thatare eitherpeaked(for concentrated agreement, such as SO2) or flatter (for a more even spread, such as SDM). The most important findings show that while strategic objectives and strategic plan‑ ning receive strong support, areas involving strategic change, commitment, and organi‑ zational change see more mixed responses. The data suggest that respondents are less certain or divided on these change‑related aspects, with some showing neutrality or even disagreement. For instance, international influence (INTL) has a mean of 2.25 and a pos‑ itive skew, reflecting that while there is agreement, a significant number of participants expressed neutral or disagreeing opinions. Similarly, the kurtosis values across the board reveal that some areas (such as SO2) have a high concentration of similar responses, while others (such as SDM and SSCS) show a flatter distribution, suggesting less consensus. 4.2. Plotting of Histograms Figure 1depicts the histograms of the responses for all twelve questions. On the one hand, for most responses the general tendency centered around Strongly Agree and Agree indicating overall agreement with the questions, suggesting an overall positive sentiment towards organizational strategic imperatives. This is especially prominent for SO1 (Strate‑ gic Objectives 1), SO2 (Strategic Objectives 2), SP (Strategic Planning), and SDM (Strategic Decision‑Making). These results suggest that participants positively view in the context of Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 21 of 36 INGOs, strategic objectives, planning, and decision‑making processes indicating a level of confidence in the organization’s strategic structures. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 37 Figure 1. Histograms of survey responses. On the other hand, Strategic Commitment (SCOMMIT), Strategic Culture (SCULTURE), and Organizational Change (OrgC) have a wider distribution curve for the responses, with more participants being neutral to the related questions and with some participants indicating that they disagree and even strongly disagree with the questions. This distribution curve is indicative of a cautious perception of issues related to organizational change, commitment to strategy, and the influence of culture on strategy, which seems to be a concern in the INGO context. In other words, there is less consensus, and some individuals might feel less favorably about how INGOs implement strategic structures. From this, we may suggest that this may also be indicative of the importance of human capital in the context of INGO transformation and change. Looking further into the clustering of responses in the lower values, we focus on the potential challenges driven by resistance to strategic change and culture. Small-Scale Changes to Strategy (SSCS) and Strategic Change (SC1, SC2) show strong agreement but Figure 1. Histograms of survey responses. On the other hand, Strategic Commitment (SCOMMIT), Strategic Culture (SCUL‑ TURE), and Organizational Change (OrgC) have a wider distribution curve for the re‑ sponses, with more participants being neutral to the related questions and with some par‑ ticipants indicating that they disagree and even strongly disagree with the questions. This distribution curve is indicative of a cautious perception of issues related to organizational change, commitment to strategy, and the influence of culture on strategy, which seems to be a concern in the INGO context. In other words, there is less consensus, and some indi‑ viduals might feel less favorably about how INGOs implement strategic structures. From this, we may suggest that this may also be indicative of the importance of human capital in the context of INGO transformation and change. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 22 of 36 Looking further into the clustering of responses in the lower values, we focus on the potential challenges driven by resistance to strategic change and culture. Small‑Scale Changes to Strategy (SSCS) and Strategic Change (SC1, SC2) show strong agreement but with a noticeable proportion of neutral responses. This indicates that while there is gen‑ eral support for SC, some respondents indicated that they are certain about the necessity of change on a broader scale. Moreover, the INTL variable has a more spread‑out distribution, with responses rang‑ ing from agreement to neutral and even some disagreement. This suggests that respon‑ dents may have varied opinions on the influence of international factors on strategy, with some feeling less certain about the organization’s international positioning or influence. The resultsindicate thatINGOs have strong supportfor theirstrategic objectives, plan‑ ning, and decision‑making processes, with many respondents expressing high confidence in these areas. Areas related to strategic change, organizational culture, and commitment show more mixed reactions, signaling potential areas for further clarification, engagement, or adjustment to gain broader buy‑in. Organizational change and international influence are areas where neutral and disagreeing responses are more prevalent, indicating a need for more communication or reassurance regarding these aspects of the organization’s strat‑ egy. Overall, while the sentiment towards strategy is largely positive, there are areas re‑ lated to change and external influence that could benefit from further attention to ensure more unified support from participants. 4.3. Correlation Analysis Figure 2presents two heat map graphs of the correlations between the items, namely the Pearson correlation coefficient (top graph) and its associated level of significance (p‑ values) (bottom graph). The heatmap of the Pearson correlation coefficients show the strength of linear relationships between the different variables. A strong positive cor‑ relation of 0.76 is observed between SO2 (Strategic Objectives) and SP (Strategic Plan‑ ning). With regards to strategic change, a strong correlation is observed between SC1 and SC2 (0.75), and SC1 and SSCS (Small‑Scale Change) (0.69). Negative correlations are weaker and less prevalent, but SVISION has negative correlations with SO2 (−0.37) and SP (−0.28), indicating strategic vision might be perceived differently from strategic objectives and planning. Considering the heatmap of p‑values indicating statistical significance, a p‑value of less than 0.05 indicates a significant correlation. Significant correlations include SO1 with SO2 (p= 0.0003), SO1 with SP (p= 0.0038), and SO2 with SP (p= 0.0000). SC1 with SC2 (p = 0.0004) and SC1 with SSCS (p= 0.0028) are also significant correlations. Higher p‑values (darker areas in the heatmap) suggest correlations that are not statistically significant, like SO1 with INTL (p= 0.96) and SDM with INTL (p= 0.97), meaning there is little evidence that these variables are related. Strong strategic alignment is indicated by the high correlations between strategic ob‑ jectives, planning, and decision‑making. This suggests that respondents who agree with one strategic dimension tend to agree with the others. Strategic change variables (SC1, SC2, SSCS) are also strongly related, which may indicate that participants view change as a cohesive concept. Strategic vision (SVISION) shows some negative correlations with strategic planning and objectives, suggesting some divergence in how respondents per‑ ceive strategic vision compared to other strategic elements. International influence (INTL) does not have significant correlations with most variables, indicating it might be viewed as an external or independent factor by respondents. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 23 of 36 Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 37 Figure 2. Correlation analysis heat map—Pearson coefficient (top) and corresponding significance p-values (bottom). 4.4. Principal Component Analysis Using the statistical technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) we are able to identify the factors associated with INGO strategic management and reduce the dimensionality of a dataset (responses from survey participants) while retaining as much variance as possible. Using the PCA technique, the original variables are grouped into factors/components that measure the same construct. These factors are analyzed based on the assumption of linearity and are ranked by assessing the variance they explain. Variance is analyzed such that the first factor explains the largest portion of the variance, followed by other factors (represented as correlated groups of items/questions) explaining the next amount of variance, presented in variance explained in descending order. The social sciences discipline has accepted the PCA as a standard analytical tool, and researchers in the area utilize it to manipulate and interpret complex datasets into simpler interpretations, by uncovering underlying structures and mechanisms, and reducing redundancy in correlated variables while at the same time dealing with multi-collinearities found in the relationships among the variables of interest (Jolliffe, 2002). In the PCA of the exploratory factor analysis, we performed a varimax rotation (particularly suitable in areas where the goal is to identify latent variables or underlying Figure 2. Correlation analysis heat map—Pearson coefficient (top) and corresponding significance p‑values (bottom). 4.4. Principal Component Analysis Using the statistical technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) we are able to identify the factors associated with INGO strategic management and reduce the dimen‑ sionality of a dataset (responses from survey participants) while retaining as much vari‑ ance as possible. Using the PCA technique, the original variables are grouped into fac‑ tors/components that measure the same construct. These factors are analyzed based on the assumption of linearity and are ranked by assessing the variance they explain. Vari‑ ance is analyzed such that the first factor explains the largest portion of the variance, fol‑ lowed by other factors (represented as correlated groups of items/questions) explaining the next amount of variance, presented in variance explained in descending order. The so‑ cial sciences discipline has accepted the PCA as a standard analytical tool, and researchers in the area utilize it to manipulate and interpret complex datasets into simpler interpreta‑ tions, by uncovering underlying structures and mechanisms, and reducing redundancy in correlated variables while at the same time dealing with multi‑collinearities found in the relationships among the variables of interest (Jolliffe,2002). In the PCA of the exploratory factor analysis, we performed a varimax rotation (par‑ ticularly suitable in areas where the goal is to identify latent variables or underlying Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 24 of 36 constructs—i.e., survey‑based research) as an orthogonal rotation method. This is a com‑ mon practice in social science research to improve the interpretability of the components. Without rotation, we find variables that cross‑load, meaning that they load on many vari‑ ables simultaneously, or in other words, their loadings on more than one variable are very close. To mitigate this problem, the varimax rotation in the PCA allows for the maximiza‑ tion of the variance of squared loadings on each variable. In other words, it results in the distancing of the loadings from each other thereby making the factors more distinct and tending to load the items better on only one factor. With that outcome, the factors become easier to understand and interpret within the context they are being studied (Kaiser,1958). It is worthwhile noting that the varimax rotation assumes that uncorrelated factors are studied (Fabrigar et al.,1999). Table 9shows the factor loadings after performing PCA with varimax rotation for three factors, including all the original variables. The loadings indicate the strength and direction of each variable’s association with the factors. A high positive or negative load‑ ing (above 0.4 or below −0.4) indicates a strong relationship between the variable and the factor. Table 9. Three‑factor solution. Factor 1 Strategic Change Factor 2 Strategic Formulation Factor 3 Strategic Alignment INTL 0.03 **0.36** 0.21 OrgC 0.15 0.28 0.3 SC1 **0.58** 0.1 0.08 SC2 **0.53** 0.18 0.1 SCOMMIT 0.27 **0.37** 0.21 SSOL 0.07 0.13 **0.52** SDM 0.07 0.04 **0.56** SO1 0 0.15 **0.42** SO2 0.16 **0.47** 0.06 SP 0.07 **0.43** 0.18 SSCS **0.50** 0.15 0.07 SVISION 0.01 **0.38** 0.05 ** highlights acceptable loadings. We can analyze Table 9with two observations. First, we observe that the loadings are generally low with the highest value of 0.56 in factor 3 and the lowest 0.36 in factor 2. Therefore, the loadings on the factors are within a narrow range. This is a supportive result as it may indicate discrimination between the factors. Notably, there are no cross‑ loadings and all factor loadings between the minimum of 0.36 and maximum of 0.58 are well discriminated. Second, and consequently due to the loading characteristics, we did not have to perform any factor reduction analysis since the three factors are distinct and exhibit acceptable discrimination. Factor 1 loads on three variables, factor 2 loads on five variables, and factor 3 loads on three variables. All loadings are significant to less than 0.005 significance factor and are shown with a double star on each side beside their values in the table. Factors 1 and 3 have overall strong loadings while factor 2 loads to a lesser extent. Factor 1 loads on SC1 (Strategic Change 1): 0.58 (strong positive loading); SC2 (Strategic Change 2): 0.53 (strong positive loading) and SSCS (Small‑Scale Changes to Strategy): 0.50. Factor 1 primarily represents strategic change, as all SC1, SC2, and SSCS load strongly on this factor. These results suggest that this factor explains the relationship of strategy with response to incremental change and ongoing adjustment. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 31 of 36 2. The China One Belt One Road (OBOR) or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): The ongo‑ ing global development strategy (created in 2013) representing the ancient economic trade Silk Road, connects China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. This entails all trade and economic dimensions such as development, market expansion, geopolitical influence, connectivity, and financial integration. With over 150 coun‑ tries and international organizations collaborating under this initiative, international activities are being reshaped. 3. Other globalevents: geopolitical tensions andconflicts inareas suchas Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen; trade barriers and tariffs leading organizations to shift their man‑ ufacturing bases; global governance of artificial intelligence; accelerated growth in emerging markets; extreme weather events due to climate change; and technological advancements, digital transformation, and cybersecurity. These global events are impacting the world and by extension INGO’s international strategy and activities across economic and political spheres. The research presented in this article can help INGO senior managers and leaders in establishing a more adaptive strategy to face the challenges of today’s global dynamics. Our findings suggest that three strategicfactorsshouldbeconsidered: strategicresponseandincrementaldynamic change with ongoing adjustment (Factor 1 in Table 9); strategic commitment towards international influence and development (Factor 2 in Table 9); and strategic alignment across strategic objectives, decision‑making, and solutions. The three factors identified above constitute a strategic framework that INGO leaders can use to create or adjust their strategic plan. These three factors, although derived from private sector resource‑based‑view theory, were adapted to represent more accurately the context of INGOs. If we consider factor 2, followed by factor 3, then factor 1, we can for‑ mulate a set of interconnected recommendations for practitioners. First, INGO leaders should make it very clear in their strategic plan that they are com‑ mitted to focusing on establishing international influence via various means. This may in‑ clude areas of legitimacy, performance, credibility, political position (i.e., neutrality), and image. For example, NGOs and INGOs are being pressured today by their stakeholders to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of their work outcomes. This has put pressure on all these organizations to develop performance management frameworks that demon‑ strate how the organization is meeting its strategic goals. As such, INGO leaders need to leverage information technologies to develop a performance management system, which may be part of the INGO’s digital transformation. Withthis in place, INGOleaders, through theirperformance management system, can align their vision (strategic level), to their programs (tactical level—initiatives), and their projects (operational level—activities). This alignment allows the organization to trace the outputs from the projects, the outcomes from the programs, to the impacts identified in their vision/mission. Many have started this performance management framework imple‑ mentation in the last decade. This internal program allows for the INGO to build capacity, adapt to a frequently changing ecosystem, and meet stakeholders’ expectations. Finally, with a clear international commitment to a strategy, and a performance man‑ agement system to operationalize it, the INGO is ready for the nurturing of a tolerant change culture effective in responding strategically to an incrementally changing organi‑ zational environment that is continuously adjusting to the external environment (interna‑ tional challenges). Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Z.; Methodology, X.Z. and R.G.S.; Software, X.Z.; Val‑ idation, R.G.S.; Formal analysis, X.Z.; Investigation, X.Z. and R.G.S.; Data curation, X.Z. and R.G.S.; Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 32 of 36 Writing—original draft, X.Z.; Writing—review & editing, X.Z. and R.G.S.; Visualization, R.G.S. Su‑ pervision, R.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the study being anonymous and voluntary with no risk involved, and included a consent form. Informed Consent Statement: Informedconsentwasobtainedfromallsubjectsinvolved inthe study. Data Availability Statement: Due to privacy and confidentiality concerns, data are available upon request from the authors. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Abiddin, N. Z., Ibrahim, I., & Abdul Aziz, S. A. (2022). Non‑governmental organisations (NGOs) and their part towards sustainable community development. Sustainability,14(8), 4386. [CrossRef] Abou Jaoude, J., & Saade, R. G. (2019). Blockchain applications–usage in different domains. IEEE Access,7, 45360–45381. [CrossRef] Ackerman, L. S.(2023). Development, transition, or transformation: The questionofchangeinorganizations. Organization Development Review,55(1), 60. Ahmad, M. (2023). Promising prospects: Jordan’s healthcare achievements of the past decade. Joj Sciences,3(4). [CrossRef] Anheier, H. K. (2015). Towards a monitoring framework. In 2005 convention global report, re/shaping cultural policies. a decade promoting the diversity of cultural expression for development (pp. 31–42). UNESCO. Asfaw, T., Botes, V., & Mengesha, L. (2017). The role of ngos in corporate environmental responsibility practice: Evidence from ethiopia. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility,2(1), 1–9. [CrossRef] Aslan, H. (2023). Advancing and sustaining volunteerism: Investigating the multifaceted challenges and obstacles to volunteer en‑ gagement. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,23(3), 724–751. [CrossRef] Asogwa, I. (2023). Accounting for stakeholder engagement in developing countries: Proposing an engagement system to respond to sustainability demands. Meditari Accountancy Research,32(3), 888–922. [CrossRef] Asogwa, I., Varua, M., Humphreys, P., & Datt, R. (2021). Understanding sustainability reporting in non‑governmental organisations: A systematicreview ofreportingpractices, drivers, barriersandpaths forfutureresearch. Sustainability,13(18), 10184. [CrossRef] Azarian, M., Yu, H., Shiferaw, A. T., & Stevik, T. K. (2023). Do we perform systematic literature review right? A scientific mapping and methodological assessment. Logistics,7(4), 89. [CrossRef] Bailey, A., Johnson, G., & Daniels, K. (2000). Validation of a multi‑dimensional measure of strategy development processes. British Journal of Management,11(2), 151–162. [CrossRef] Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H. G. (2021). Mapping the research landscape of strategic human resource management in nonprofit organi‑ zations: A systematic review and avenues for future research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,50(3), 598–625. [CrossRef] Barber, M., & Bowie, C. (2008). How international NGOs could do less harm and more good. Development in Practice,18(6), 748–754. [CrossRef] Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,20(5), 421–444. [CrossRef] Beagles, J. E. (2022). Institutional logic and the multiorganizational governance arrangements of humanitarian INGOs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,33(1), 131–155. [CrossRef] Berghmans, M., Simons, M., & Vandenabeele, J. (2017). What is negotiated in negotiated accountability? The case of INGOs. VOLUN‑ TAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,28, 1529–1561. [CrossRef] Bond. (2016). An introduction to social innovation for NGOs. Bond. Borges, A. F., Laurindo, F. J., Spínola, M. M., Gonçalves, R. F., & Mattos, C. A. (2021). The strategic use of artificial intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Information Management,57, 102225. [CrossRef] Bortnowska, H., & Seiler, B. (2021). “The loneliness” of the nonprofit leader: Comparison with for‑profit and public organizations. Zeszyty Naukowe Małopolskiej Wyższej Szkoły Ekonomicznej w Tarnowie,49(1), 89–98. Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2010). Strategic management and public service performance: The way ahead. Public Administration Review,70, s185–s192. [CrossRef] Brilliant, E., & Young, D. R. (2004). The changing identity of federated community service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 28(3–4), 23–46. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 33 of 36 Bryson, J., & Edwards, L. H. (2017). Strategic planning in the public sector. In Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford Research Encyclopedia. Bryson, J., & George, B. (2020). Strategic management in public administration. In Oxford research encyclopedia: Politics (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press. Bryson, J. M., Berry, F. S., & Yang, K. (2010). The state of public strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. The American Review of Public Administration,40(5), 495–521. [CrossRef] Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies,48, 1045–1064. [CrossRef] Castellini, M. (2014). Stakeholder theory and strategic management in third sector: An analysis on Italian cooperative associations. Procedia‑Social and Behavioral Sciences,116, 4498–4504. [CrossRef] Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial empire. Cambridge Mass,5(1), 12–48. Chetty, S., & Campbell‑Hunt, C. (2003). Paths to internationalization among small‑to medium‑sized firms: A global versus regional approach. European Journal of Marketing,37(5/6), 796–820. [CrossRef] Cosenz, F., & Noto, G. (2016). Applying system dynamics modelling to strategic management: A literature review. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,33(6), 703–741. [CrossRef] Coviello, N. E. (2006). The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 713–731. [CrossRef] Coviello, N. E. (2015). Re‑thinking research on born globals. Journal of International Business Studies,46, 17–26. [CrossRef] Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). A response to Zahra’s “Critique and extension” of the Covin‑Slevin entrepreneurship model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,17(4), 23–28. [CrossRef] Cuganesan, S., Dunford, R., & Palmer, I. (2012). Strategic management accounting and strategy practices within a public sector agency. Management Accounting Research,23(4), 245–260. [CrossRef] Davis, J. M., Henson, S., & Swiss, L. (2020). In INGOs we trust? How individual determinants and the framing of INGOs influences public trust. Development in Practice,30(6), 809–824. [CrossRef] Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal,18(9), 677–695. [CrossRef] Dörfler, T., & Heinzel, M. (2023). Greening global governance: INGO secretariats and environmental mainstreaming of IOs, 1950 to 2017. The Review of International Organizations,18(1), 117–143. [CrossRef] Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 2833–2850. [CrossRef] Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychological Methods,4(3), 272–299. [CrossRef] Farid, M., & Li, H. (2021). International NGOs as intermediaries in China’s ‘going out’ strategy. International Affairs,97(6), 1945–1962. [CrossRef] Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal,23(7), 561–594. [CrossRef] Fredrickson, J. W., & Iaquinto, A. L. (1989). Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes. Academy of Management Journal,32(3), 516–542. [CrossRef] Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press. Fuertes, G., Alfaro, M., Vargas, M., Gutierrez, S., Ternero, R., & Sabattin, J.(2020). Conceptual frameworkforthe strategicmanagement: A literature review—Descriptive. Journal of Engineering,2020(1), 6253013. [CrossRef] Galkina, T., & Yang, M. (2020). Bringing Nordic Slush to Asia: Entrepreneurial internationalization of an NGO as a social movement. International Business Review,29(6), 101749. [CrossRef] Gallo, C., Sandeberg, A., & Svensson, K. (2018). Victim support, the state, and fellow human beings. International Review of Victimology, 25(1), 91–106. [CrossRef] Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum. Grant, R. M. (2001). Knowledge and organization. In Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization (pp. 145–169). Sage. Grønbjerg, K. A. (2016). Foreword. In J. S. Ott, & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (3rd ed.). Westview. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson. Han, C., & Gao, S. (2020). A chain multiple mediation model linking strategic, management, and technological innovations to firm competitiveness. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios,21, 879–905. [CrossRef] Han, D., Bae, Y. H., Kim, T. Y., Jung, J., Lee, C., & Kim, H. S. (2020). Classification of environmental industry and technology compet‑ itiveness evaluation. Journal of Wetlands Research,22(4), 245–256. Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy‑making processes. Academy of Management Review,17(2), 327–351. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 34 of 36 Hart, S., & Banbury, C. (1994). How strategy‑making processes can make a difference. Strategic Management Journal,15(4), 251–269. [CrossRef] Höglund, L., Mårtensson, M., & Thomson, K. (2021). Strategic management, management control practices and public value creation: The strategic triangle in the Swedish public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,34(7), 1608–1634. Iaquinto, A. L., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1997). Top management team agreement about the strategic decision process: A test of some of its determinants and consequences. Strategic Management Journal,18(1), 63–75. [CrossRef] Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1993). Management of internationalization (pp. 43–78). Springer Netherlands. Johnsen, Å. (2015). Strategic management thinking and practice in the public sector: A strategic planning for all seasons? Financial Accountability & Management,31(3), 243–268. Johnson, T. (2016). Cooperation, co‑optation, competition, conflict: International bureaucracies and non‑governmental organizations in an interdependent world. Review of International Political Economy,23(5), 737–767. [CrossRef] Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd ed.). Springer. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor Analysis. Psychometrika,23(3), 187–200. [CrossRef] Keding, C. (2021). Understanding the interplay of artificial intelligence and strategic management: Four decades of research in review. Management Review Quarterly,71(1), 91–134. [CrossRef] Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews,14(4), 367–390. [CrossRef] Khanin, D., Turel, O., Bart, C., McDowell, W. C., & Hock‑Döpgen, M. (2021). The possible pitfalls of boards’ engagement in the strategic management process. Review of Managerial Science,15, 1071–1093. [CrossRef] Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge. Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí‑Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,16, 1023–1042. [CrossRef] Lewis, D., Kanji, N., & Themudo, N. S. (2021). Non‑governmental organizations and development (2nd ed.). Routledge. Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aus‑ tralian Journal of Management,45(2), 175–194. [CrossRef] MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample Size in Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods,4(1), 84–99. [CrossRef] Mauri, P. (2013). Process analysis and collective behavior in organizations: A practitioner experience. In On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2013 workshops: Confederated International workshops: OTM academy, OTM industry case studies program, ACM, EI2N, ISDE, META4eS, ORM, SeDeS, SINCOM, SMS, and SOMOCO 2013, Graz, Austria, September 9–13, 2013 Proceedings (pp. 124–133). Springer. Megersa, K. (2022). Strengths and weaknesses of INGOs in delivering development outcomes. Institute of Development Studies. Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: A model and a test. Journal of Marketing,63(2), 18–40. [CrossRef] Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Ex‑tension and test of a three‑ component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(4), 538. [CrossRef] Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy‑making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal,4(3), 221–235. [CrossRef] Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal,37(6), 1649–1665. [CrossRef] Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy‑making in three modes. California Management Review,16(2), 44–53. [CrossRef] Mintzberg, H. (1994). Rethinking strategic planning part I: Pitfalls and fallacies. Long Range Planning,27(3), 12–21. [CrossRef] Moore, S. M. (1995). Girls’ understanding and social constructions of menarche. Journal of Adolescence,18(1), 87–104. [CrossRef] Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal,28(9), 935–955. [CrossRef] Nightingale, A. (2009). A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surgery,27(9), 381–384. [CrossRef] Nutt, P. C. (1993). The formulation processes and tactics used in organizational decision making. Organization Science,4(2), 226–251. [CrossRef] Oliver, C.(1997). Sustainable competitiveadvantage: Combininginstitutional andresource‑basedviews. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. [CrossRef] Olivier, A. J., & Schwella, E. (2018). Closing the strategy execution gap in the public sector. International Journal of Public Leadership, 14(1), 6–32. [CrossRef] Ott, J. S., & Valero, J. N. (2018). Nongovernmental organizations and international nongovernmental organizations. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 35 of 36 Page, M.J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S. E., & Chou, R. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ,372, n71. [CrossRef] Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review,70, s246–s254. [CrossRef] Porto, P., & da Rocha, A. (2021). The resource‑seeking internationalization process of a nongovernmental organization. BAR‑Brazilian Administration Review,18, e190138. [CrossRef] Rêgo, B. S., Jayantilal, S., Ferreira, J. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2021). Digital transformation and strategic management: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,13, 3195–3222. [CrossRef] Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Caputo, A., & Mayah, K. A. (2020). Achieving strategic flexibility in the era of big data: The importance of knowledge management and ambidexterity. Management Decision,58(8), 1585–1600. [CrossRef] Ribau, C. P., Moreira, A. C., & Raposo, M. (2015). Internationalization of the firm theories: A schematic synthesis. International Journal of Business and Globalization,15(4), 528–554. [CrossRef] Ryley, T., Baumeister, S., & Coulter, L. (2020). Climate change influences on aviation: A literature review. Transport Policy,92, 55–64. [CrossRef] Saade, R. G. (2020). Digital Innovation & Transformation Opportunities for Researchers & Practitioners—A Structured Literature Review & Proposed Model. Journal of Digital Innovation for Humanity,1, 22–74. Saade, R. G., & Nijher, H. (2016). Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning implementation: A review of case studies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,29(1), 72–96. [CrossRef] Saade, R. G., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Liu, H., & Guan, H. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in the internet of intelligence of things in higher education—Towards bridging theory and practice. IoT,4(3), 430–465. [CrossRef] Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The Internet of Things: Building a knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,136, 347–354. [CrossRef] Scott, E. K. (2015). To adapt, innovate, or stop short? INGO Pathways to Humanitarian. Shrivastava, P., & Grant, J. H. (1985). Empirically derived models of strategic decision‑making processes. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 97–113. [CrossRef] Sinkovics, N., Choksy, U. S., Sinkovics, R. R., & Mudambi, R. (2019). Knowledge connectivity in an adverse context: Global value chains and Pakistani offshore service providers. Management Inter‑National Review,59(1), 131–170. [CrossRef] Smith, E. C., & Hamel, Z. (2023). Global civil society. In The palgrave encyclopedia of global security studies (pp. 616–618). Springer International Publishing. Steiner, G. A. (2010). Strategic planning. Simon and Schuster. Stoddard, A. (2010). International Humanitarian Cooperation: Aiding war’s victims in a shifting strategic environment’. In B. D. Jones, S. Forman, & R. Gowan. (Eds.), Cooperating for peace and security: Evolving institutions and arrangements in a context of changing US security policy (pp. 247–268). Cambridge University Press. Susanto, P. C., Ali, H., Sawitri, N. N., & Widyastuti, T. (2023). Strategic Management: Concept, Implementation, and Indicators of Success (Literature Review). Siber Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary,1(2), 44–54. [CrossRef] Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies,35, 463–483. [CrossRef] Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C., & Obuch, K. (2020). The changing space for NGOs: Civil society in authoritarian and hybrid regimes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,31, 649–662. [CrossRef] Tucker, L. R., & MacCallum, R. C. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis. Sage Publications. University of Geneve. (2021). Mapping the humanitarian transformation: Spotlight on innovation in international NGOs. Geneva Innovation Movement. Vahlne, J. E., & Johanson, J. (2020). The Uppsala model: Networks and micro‑foundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 4–10. [CrossRef] Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge‑intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42, 374–388. [CrossRef] Wan, J., Saade, R., & Wang, L. (2020). Deriving significant factors for managing change in UN. Journal of Organizational Change Man‑ agement,33(1), 114–126. [CrossRef] Wan, J., Wang, L., Saade, R., Guan, H., & Liu, H. (2022). Empirical analysis of strategic management in Inter‑Governmental Organiza‑ tion. Administrative Sciences,12(3), 83. [CrossRef] Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., & Schultz, T. R. (2015). Evidence‑based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,45, 1951–1966. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 34 36 of 36 Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research,39(1), 93–112. [CrossRef] Young, R., Young, M., Jordan, E., & O’Connor, P. (2012). Is strategy being implemented through projects? Contrary evidence from a leader in New Public Management. International Journal of Project Management,30(8), 887–900. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au‑ thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.