Suchergebnisse

This paper investigates different modes of organizing for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on insights from organization theory, we theorize two ways to organize for CSR. "Complete" organization for CSR happens within businesses and depends on the availability of certain organizational elements (e.g., membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctioning). By contrast, "partial" organization for CSR happens when organizers do not have direct access to all these organizational elements. We discuss partial organization for CSR by analyzing how standards and cross-sector partnerships make selective use of organizational elements. We maintain that an important feature of the increasing institutionalization of CSR—not only within businesses but also among non-governmental, governmental, and professional actors—is the rise of partial forms of organization. We discuss the contributions to this Special Issue in the context of our theorization of complete/partial organization for CSR and outline avenues for further research.

The objective of this study is to contribute conceptually and empirically to the discussion about when firms attempt to align their political efforts with their social goals and how this alignment affects their financial performance, an area currently still under-explored. The empirical context for our analysis focuses on companies that have been singled out due to their efforts to emphasize "shared value" defined as integrating competitive and social policies. The specific research questions that we shed light on in this study include: What have been the types of political efforts that these firms singled out in the pursuit of their shared value goals? Or, stated slightly differently: What is the political capacity of firms who have embraced social goals as part of their competitive strategy? Relatedly, we ask whether shared-value firms are more likely to deploy their political efforts to promote their social values initiatives and whether political and social alignment boost a firm's net income.

Organizations need legitimacy to be able to operate effectively. Consequently, and just like their participants, multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) need to respond when faced with legitimacy challenges from external parties. We build on current theory to identify three organizational elements that can be made the subject of legitimacy critique - i.e., statutory procedures, objectives and mechanisms - and use these elements to structure our analysis of a conflict-ridden case concerning the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Whereas prior work suggests that organizations can respond to such conflicts in a fashion consistent with either moral entrapment or decoupling, we show that organizations can also respond by deflating their statutory procedures and objectives. A deflationary response can help organizations maintain their validity by diminishing the ability of external parties to advance propriety-legitimacy critiques against them. By examining this alternative response, we expand the scope and refine the analytic detail by which organizational legitimacy conflicts can be investigated.

Organizations need legitimacy to be able to operate effectively. Consequently, and just like their participants, multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) need to respond when faced with legitimacy challenges from external parties. We build on current theory to identify three organizational elements that can be made the subject of legitimacy critique – i.e., statutory procedures, objectives and mechanisms – and use these elements to structure our analysis of a conflict-ridden case concerning the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Whereas prior work suggests that organizations can respond to such conflicts in a fashion consistent with either moral entrapment or decoupling, we show that organizations can also respond by deflating their statutory procedures and objectives. A deflationary response can help organizations maintain their validity by diminishing the ability of external parties to advance propriety-legitimacy critiques against them. By examining this alternative response, we expand the scope and refine the analytic detail by which organizational legitimacy conflicts can be investigated.

PurposeActivist groups apply a range of tactics in order to improve labour conditions in the global sports and apparel industry. The accumulation of these tactics leads to the build‐up of pressure on firms within this industry (brands, retailers) to change their policies and activities on labour issues in their supply chains. The purpose of this paper is to explore how activist groups instigate change within an industry.Design/methodology/approachBy re‐examining a series of previously published accounts, eight conflict situations in the global sports and apparel industry, involving Nike, Reebok and Adidas, were analysed.FindingsThe paper demonstrates how an industry‐level approach is helpful in understanding how the sequential patterning of tactical choices evokes change in an industry. Studying activist groups' tactics from this approach provides a richer understanding.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the growing literature on activists' influence strategies in conflicts with firms and speaks to current attempts at bringing together social movement and organization theories.

AbstractIn this paper, we study conveners' work in establishing change towards sustainability through cross‐sector social partnerships (CSSPs). Applying a paradox lens, we offer a new perspective on tensions in CSSPs: These are not hurdles or challenges to overcome in order to reach success but endure throughout the entire CSSP process. This insight changes the role of the convener, who no longer has to overcome but has to navigate tension. We focus on two tensions related to the convener role: the convener as leader but without formal authority over CSSP‐partners and the convener as both stakeholder and (neutral) facilitator in the process. Through a case study on a CSSP in the Dutch timber sector, we explain how a convener (Forest Stewardship Council Netherlands) responded to these tensions over time. We add to literatures on CSSPs and convening by outlining the relevance of a paradox perspective in this domain.