**4. Analysis of frameworks of sustainable leadership: insights and pitfalls**

First, it is essential to clarify that this review involved six frameworks of sustainable leaders. Five frameworks and models of sustainable leadership were selected for this review because many scholars recognise them as seminal works and influential frameworks in the scholarship of sustainable leadership [41]. As seminal works are salient to trace the initial idea of great importance or influence on a particular matter, they also enrich conceptual clarity by revealing conceptual commonalities, gaps and insights. The five seminal frameworks selected for this review are by Casserley and Critchley [19], Avery and Bergsteiner [17], Hargreaves and Fink [29], Davies [20], and Lambert [21]. The sixth model by Šimanskienė and Župerkienė [40] was selected for analysis primarily because it presents a unique view and interconnected nature of sustainable leadership, which explicitly depict how an individual, organisation and society intersect when it comes to sustainability.

Second, it is crucial to highlight that frameworks in Refs. [17, 20, 21, 29] depict an organisational view of sustainable leadership predominantly while only [19] focused on an individual perspective. Self-awareness, psychological and physiological health and engagement with the organisational culture are critical for individual-level sustainability. Equally notable is how Gerard, McMillan and D'Annunzio-Green [41] have identified two broad themes of sustainable leadership: People and organisational processes. Within the people dimension, sustainable leadership entails inclusive learning and development opportunities for employees throughout the organisation and an ideology of building capacity and resourcefulness by all employees. Aligning the various components in the organisational architecture with long-term goals and
