Аңдатпа
Purpose Knowledge governance has prioritised coordination efficiency over its distributive consequences – a blind spot this study terms the efficiency–equity gap. Drawing on Common Prosperity Theory, Organisational Justice Theory and Social Exchange Theory, this study aims to develop and test a framework operationalising common prosperity through distributive justice and perceived investment in employee development, tracing effects through knowledge governance mechanisms and transactive memory systems to innovative work behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Data from 287 employees in knowledge-intensive Chinese organisations were analysed using covariance-based structural equation modelling and 5,000-resample bootstrapping. A marker variable test confirmed negligible common method bias. Findings A total of 7 out of 10 hypotheses were supported. Distributive justice (β = 0.130, p = 0.007) and perceived investment in employee development (β = 0.348, p < 0.001) predicted knowledge governance mechanisms, transactive memory systems (β = 0.683, p < 0.001) and innovative work behaviour (β = 0.236, p < 0.001). Distributive justice had no direct innovation effect (p = 0.862) but a significant indirect effect via governance (β = 0.024, p = 0.022), resolving the innovation paradox. The model explained 53.7% of the variance in innovative work behaviour. Practical implications Governance systems need equity audits, inclusive credit allocation and expertise transparency across all levels. Originality/value This study is the first to embed Common Prosperity Theory in knowledge governance as a design principle – introducing the efficiency–equity gap, resolving the innovation paradox and establishing knowledge governance mechanisms as a dominant antecedent of transactive memory system formation.