The direct and indirect strategic responses of international companies can be affected by various stakeholders, both internal and external to the country experiencing violent conflict. The response of international corporations to violent conflict can vary significantly depending on the type of conflict and the quality of state governance. For example, European corporations were more likely to close subsidiaries in cases of terrorist attacks and man-made catastrophes compared to natural disasters. However, such reactions were weaker when high-quality state governance was present (Oetzel and Getz, 2012). A large number of assets may deter multinational corporations from exiting a country’s market even if it is at war, as this is associated with high exit costs and a possible re-entry after the end of the military conflict (Dai et al., 2017), experience of operating in conflict-affected countries (Dai et al., 2023), or possible benefits from political instability (Frynas and Mellahi, 2003).

Moreover, the location of a business has a significant impact on the risks faced by companies, as conducting operations in a close proximity of a combat zone, in western regions of Ukraine, or abroad, requires the implementation of different adaptation strategies (Uvarova and Saprykina, 2023). The distance to affected areas also influences international business decisions to exit a conflict-affected country, alongside other factors such as the risk of losing valuable resources and the capacity to withstand the crisis (Dai et al., 2017).

While the risks of physical destruction of assets create a dilemma regarding exit from the Ukrainian market, economic sanctions (Meyer et al., 2023; European Commission, 2024) constitute another major geopolitical challenge for international business. These sanctions generate risks of market and reputation losses, as well as disruptions to supply chains (Sheth and Uslay, 2023) and logistics networks (Sielker and Dannenberg, 2025) due to firms’ exit decisions from sanctioned territories. In response to the war in Ukraine, international companies are reorienting their supply chains “unhooking” them from conflict zones (Carnovale et al., 2025; Srai et al., 2023). They are diversifying suppliers and routes, and creating alternative logistics channels to ensure continuity of operations and minimize risks associated with the war.

The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine has not only attracted widespread attention to the region but has also intensified research on the war’s impact on management practice and theory. This unique and turbulent context provides an excellent laboratory for exploring diverse and dynamic ways in which the war reshapes management and organizational behavior across different sectors (Havrylyshyn et al., 2024; Maśloch, 2023; Opatska et al., 2024).

Local businesses operating in Ukraine are under stronger pressure due to the double risks of economic and physical damages in comparison to foreign companies which do not directly operate in the Ukrainian territory. Accordingly, a vital area of research pertains to the adaptation strategies of Ukrainian businesses to war-related challenges. Drawing on crisis management theory (Frandsen and Johansen, 2020), researchers distinguish the responses of companies at the beginning of the military conflict, as well as the restoration of business activity after the initial shock is overcome, followed by adaptation to new conditions and the transformation of business models (Opatska et al., 2024). The research results indicate a shift in the focus of managerial decision-making from reactive, mainly operational responses at the beginning of the war to strategic decisions aimed at adapting and strengthening business resilience after the war enters a protracted phase (Obłój and Voronovska, 2024). Since the effectiveness of a company’s ability to overcome a crisis depends on its level of preparedness and its potential for resistance to the destructive impact of the crisis (Duchek, 2020), the literature highlights the importance of proactive planning and early risk assessment (Kantaruk Pierre et al., 2025).

The scale and systemic nature of the devastating impact of war on business reaches beyond an organization’s crisis management responses related to supply chains (Browning et al., 2023), whose disruptions were among the first challenges that companies encountered at the beginning of the war (Srai et al., 2023). Company closures, contract terminations, the shutdown of seaports and airspace, as well as the destruction of critical infrastructure, created an urgent need to reroute logistics flows and adjust to increased transportation costs and extended delivery times. The shift to road transport for raw materials and products forced companies to confront challenges such as vehicle and driver shortages and the servicing of regions at high risk due to intense shelling. To rapidly restore operations and ensure continuity, companies implemented adaptation measures and operational solutions, including hybrid work arrangements, extended schedules, the creation of reserve stocks, and the redistribution of workloads and resources across divisions (Liga, 2024).

The war has a significant impact on the activation of corporate social responsibility of both Ukrainian and foreign companies, expanding the focus of stakeholders and the scope of support (Uvarova and Saprykina, 2023). The specific challenges of war require special attention from the management of organizations to the economic and psychological support of their employees, the creation of safe working conditions through evacuation to safer regions, the equipment of shelters, the introduction of training, consultations, special assistance programs (PwC in Ukraine, 2023). In this context, effective leadership in crisis conditions is a critical factor in uniting employees and consolidating efforts to accomplish the assigned tasks (Weick, 1993; Srai et al., 2023; Opatska et al., 2024).

Across the contributions, wartime management emerges as fundamentally shaped by persistent and often competing demands. Managers and organizational leaders are required to pursue continuity while fostering change, to balance efficiency with care for employees, and to reconcile short-term survival with long-term strategic positioning. Such tensions are not anomalies but enduring features of organizing under extreme conditions. From this perspective, the paradox theory and the concept of paradoxical leadership provide a useful lens for interpreting the findings presented in this Special Issue (Lewis and Smith, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014). Rather than resolving tensions by privileging one pole over another, wartime leadership frequently involves sustaining and navigating contradictions over time. The studies included here illustrate how organizations cope with and act through these paradoxes, offering insights into strategic agility, sensemaking, and leadership under conditions of prolonged uncertainty.

Against this conceptual background, the Special Issue brings together a set of contributions that address the impact of war on management and organization from complementary perspectives. While the final structure of the issue reflects different empirical contexts and analytical levels, all contributions share a common focus on how organizations and leaders respond to extreme, prolonged disruption. Together, they offer insights into managerial decision-making, organizational adaptation, and leadership under conditions of sustained uncertainty.

The special issue is divided into three parts with focus on specific aspects of war-time management practices. The first part examines the controversial responses of international companies to economic sanctions, ranging from non-compliance to over-conscientious enforcement. In this regard, Brunel, Godek-Brunel and Pündrich in their paper titled “Cross-border effects of war: Crisis management pitfalls for a boycotted French multinational in Poland” analyse the drivers and dynamics of consumer boycotts triggered by a firm’s decision to remain in the aggressor country, including patterns of customer exit and subsequent return. Their analysis provides insights into effective corporate policies for managing boycott pressures. In a similar vein, Stępień and Truskolaski’s article “Why do companies overcomply with sanctions? The case of the Russian–Ukrainian war” identifies internal organizational factors leading firms to enforce sanctions excessively and examine the strategic and operational management decisions adopted to offset the resulting efficiency losses.

The second part of the special issue focuses on the adaptation strategies of Ukrainian businesses in wartime, examining both the processes of strategy development and implementation, as well as the drivers of organizational resilience, including insights from the resource-based view. Reshetniak et al., in the paper “Strategic Process of Ukrainian Companies’ Adaptation to War Conditions,” theorize about the strategic management processes of Ukrainian firms by identifying key mechanisms underlying the development and execution of adaptive responses to wartime disruption. Drawing on case studies of two large Ukrainian agricultural companies, Hilger, Moore, and Sroka in the article “Wartime Supply Chain Resilience: Crisis Management Capabilities of Ukrainian Agribusinesses” explore resilience-oriented strategies shaped by sector-specific characteristics and the constraints imposed by martial law. Finally, Kostynets et al., in their article “Human Resources (HR) Marketing and Management during COVID-19 and Wartimes: Ukrainian Experience,” address labour shortages challenge facing businesses during wartime resulting from population mobilization and migration and analyse human resource strategies aimed at mitigating these constraints.

The final part highlights the challenges faced by educational institutions and the changes in their activities triggered by wartime conditions. Banit et al., in the paper “Self-Efficacy of Education Leaders in Wartime Conditions,” examine the relationships between educational leaders’ personal characteristics and their readiness to introduce innovations under conditions of war. In turn, Kary et al., in the article “Digital Transformation of Marketing in Higher Education Institutions: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine in the Shadow of War,” analyse the digital transformation of higher education institutions during the crisis, with particular attention to the Ukrainian University adaptation to the realities of war.

This special issue addresses pressing questions by exploring organizational resilience, adaptability, strategic responses, and innovation in times of war. Given that war constitutes a systemic crisis characterized by unpredictable and rapidly evolving disruptions that require time and information to fully assess their implications, this special issue cannot provide an exhaustive account of all the challenges organizations face under wartime conditions. Accordingly, further research is needed to examine both the external drivers shaping strategic responses and the internal organizational capabilities that enable firms and institutions to cope with the challenges of war.

TD, TSob and TSte conceptualized the research study. PT, TD and TSob performed the research. TSob wrote the original draft. All authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript. PT carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and performed final proofreading. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Not applicable.

This research received no external funding.

TSte is serving as Editor-in-Chief; TSte, TD, PT and TSob as guest editors, PT as Editorial Board Members of this journal. We declare that TSob, TD, PT and TSte had no involvement in the peer review of this article and have had no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to TV.