Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Economics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Economics 3/2024

03.08.2023 | Original Paper

Clarifying ends in institutional decoupling theory: insights from social impact research

verfasst von: Sarah Margaretha Jastram, Johanna Foersterling

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Economics | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper addresses definitory vagueness regarding the term ‘ends’ in institutional decoupling theory, which can lead to validity problems, limited comparability of research results, and constrained theoretical findings. To clarify constructs, we inform the decoupling literature by integrating conceptual approaches from social impact research. On the basis of a systematic review of the social impact literature, we contribute two new conceptual models: an adjusted logic impact chain model and an integrated taxonomic model that differentiates two types of ‘ends’. By distinguishing between ‘ends as outcomes’ versus ‘ends as impacts’, we advance related discourses in institutional theory and build a more solid conceptual ground for empirical research and theory building in the field.
Vorheriger Artikel Preparing for the future of work: a novel data-driven approach for the identification of future skills
Nächster Artikel Market entry as a marketplace owner: when and why should you sell on your marketplace?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Journal of Business Economics

From January 2013, the Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) is published in English under the title Journal of Business Economics (JBE). The Journal of Business Economics (JBE) aims at encouraging theoretical and applied research in the field of business economics and business administration, promoting the exchange of ideas between science and practice.

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
Abbott WF, Monsen RJ (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Acad Manag J 22:501–515
Aguirre MS (2013) An integral approach to an economic perspective: the case of measuring impact. J Markets Moral 16(1):53–67
Albuquerque R, Koskinen Y, Zhang C (2019) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manage Sci 65(10):4451–4469
Ansari S, Munir K, Gregg T (2012) Impact at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’: the role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. J Manage Stud 49:813–842
Augier M, March JG (2008) A retrospective look at a behavioral theory of the firm. J Econ Behav Organ 66:1–6
Bamberger M, Rugh J, Church M, Fort L (2004) Shoestring evaluation: designing impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints. Am J Eval 25(1):5–37
Banerjee AV, Duflo E (2011) Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Public Affairs, New York
Bansal T, Song H-C (2017) Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Acad Manag Annals 11:105–149
Battilana J, Lee M (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing: insights from the study of social enterprises. Acad Manag Ann 8:397–441
Barnett ML, Henriques I, Husted BW (2020) Beyond good intentions: designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. J Manag 46(6):937–964
Briscoe F, Gupta A (2016) Social activism in and around organizations. Acad Manag Ann 10:1–57
Bromley P, Powell WW (2012) From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary world. Acad Manag Ann 6:483–530
Burdge RJ, Vanclay F (1996) Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess 14:59–86
Castañer X, Oliveira N (2020) Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. J Manag 46(6):965–1001
Cetindamar D, Ozkazanc-Pan B (2017) Assessing mission drift at venture capital impact investors. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 26:257–270
Clark C, Rosenzweig W, Long D, Olsen S (2004) Double bottom line project report: assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Working paper No. 13, University of California, Berkeley
Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 17(1):1–25
Cole WM (2012) Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981–2007. Am J Sociol 117:1131–1171
Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manage Stud 47:1154–1191
Cyert R, March J (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Blackwell, Cambridge
De Bakker FG, Groenewegen P, Den Hond F (2005) A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Bus Soc 443:283–317
Dick P (2015) From rational myth to self-fulfilling prophecy? Understanding the persistence of means-ends decoupling as a consequence of the latent functions of policy enactment. Organ Stud 36:897–924
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160
Dobbin F, Kim S, Kalev A (2011) You can’t always get what you need: organizational determinants of diversity programs. Am Sociol Rev 76:386–411
Dufour B (2019) Social impact measurement: what can impact investment practices and the policy evaluation paradigm learn from each other? Res Int Bus Financ 47:18–30
Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. Wiley, New Jersey
Ebrahim A (2003) Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev 31:813–829
Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2010) The limits of nonprofit impact: a contingency framework for measuring social performance. Working paper No. 10-099, Harvard Business School, Boston
Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2014) What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Calif Manage Rev 56(3):118–141
Edelman LB (1992) Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. Am J Sociol 97:1531–1576
Elsbach KD, Sutton RI (1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Acad Manag J 35(4):699–738
Epstein MJ, Yuthas K (2014) Measuring and improving social impacts: a guide for nonprofits, companies, and impact investors. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco
Epstein M, Gómez-Nava R, Casanueva A (2018) Measuring social impact: Ipade Business School conducted a social impact study to measure how well it was achieving its mission to create business leaders who would have a positive influence on the world. Strategic Finance 99(12):24–31
European Commission (2014) Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels
European Commission (2022) Directive 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels
Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390
Fink A (2019) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. Sage Publications, New York
Fiss PC, Zajac EJ (2006) The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Acad Manag J 49:1173–1193
Freudenburg WR (1986) Social impact assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 12:451–478
Ginsberg A, Venkatraman N (1985) Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Acad Manag Rev 10:421–434
Graafland J, Smid H (2019) Decoupling among CSR policies, programs, and impacts: an empirical study. Bus Soc 58:231–267
Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acad Manag Rev 21:1022–1054
Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R (2008) Introduction. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage, California, pp 1–46
Grieco C, Michelini L, Iasevoli G (2015) Measuring value creation in social enterprises: a cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 44:1173–1193
Haack P, Schoeneborn D (2015) Is decoupling becoming decoupled from institutional theory? A commentary on Wijen. Acad Manag Rev 40(2):307–310
Hafner-Burton EM, Tsutsui K (2005) Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises. Am J Sociol 110:1373–1411
Hagan J, Hewitt JD, Alwin DF (1979) Ceremonial justice: crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Soc Forces 58:506–527
Hallett T (2010) The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. Am Sociol Rev 75:52–74
Hansen EG, Schaltegger S (2016) The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures. J Bus Ethics 133:193–221
Haski-Leventhal D, Mehra A (2016) Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and India. Soc Enterp J 12:78–103
Husted BW, de Jesus Salazar J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance. J Manage Stud 43:75–91
Jastram SM, Klingenberg J (2018) Assessing the outcome effectiveness of multi-stakeholder initiatives in the field of corporate social responsibility: the example of the United Nations Global Compact. J Clean Prod 189:775–784
Kuruvilla S, Liu M, Li C, Chen W (2020a) Field opacity and practice-outcome. Decoupling: private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains. ILR Rev 73(4):841–872
Moore EM, Dau LA, Doh J (2020) Does monetary aid catalyse new business creation? Analysing the impact of global aid flows on formal and informal entrepreneurship. J Manage Stud 57:438–469
Mueckenberger U, Jastram S (2010) Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. J Bus Ethics 97:223–239
Kalkanci B, Plambeck EL (2020) Managing supplier social and environmental impacts with voluntary versus mandatory disclosure to investors. Manag Sci 66(8):3311–3328
Kelly L, Kilby P, Kasynathan N (2004) Impact measurement for NGOs: experiences from India and Sri Lanka. Dev Pract 14(5):696–702
Kolodinsky J, Stewart C, Bullard A (2006) Measuring economic and social impacts of membership in a community development financial institution. J Fam Econ Issues 27:27–47
Kroeger A, Weber C (2014) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad Manag Rev 39:513–540
Kuruvilla S, Liu M, Li C, Chen W (2020b) Field opacity and practice-outcome decoupling: private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains. ILR Rev 73(4):841–872
Latané B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36:343–356
Lee M, Huang L (2018) Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organ Sci 29(1):1–16
Lehman DW, O’Connor K, Kovács B, Newman GE (2019) Authenticity. Acad Manag Ann 13:1–42
Li J, Wu D (2020) Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact? Manage Sci 66(6):2564–2588
Liket K, Maas K (2016) Strategic philanthropy: corporate measurement of philanthropic impacts as a requirement for a “happy marriage” of business and society. Bus Soc 55:889–921
Lim A, Tsutsui K (2012) Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. Am Sociol Rev 77:69–98
Lyon TP, Maxwell JW (2011) Greenwash: corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. J Econ Manag Strategy 20:3–41
Maas K, Liket K (2011) Social impact measurement: classification of methods. In: Environmental management accounting and supply chain management: 171–202 Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE (1948) On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychol Rev 55:95–107
MacLean TL, Behnam M (2010) The dangers of decoupling: the relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Acad Manag J 53:1499–1520
March JG, Olsen JP (1979) Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway
Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organ Sci 25(1):127–148
McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127
Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363
Molecke G, Pinkse J (2017) Accountability for social impact: a bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises. J Bus Ventur 32:550–568
Okhuysen G, Bonardi JP (2011) The challenges of theory building through the combination of lenses. Acad Manag Rev 36:6–11
Olsen S, Galimidi B (2008) Catalog of approaches to impact measurement: assessing social impact in private ventures. The Rockfeller Foundation, New York
Olsen T, Rehbein K, Snelson-Powell A, Westermann-Behaylo M (2022) Human rights in the oil and gas industry: when are policies and practices enough to prevent abuse? Bus Soc 61:1512–1557
Palermo T, Power M, Ashby S (2017) Navigating institutional complexity: the production of risk culture in the financial sector. J Manage Stud 54:154–181
Patriotta G (2020a) Actors and actorhood in institutional theory. J Manage Stud 57:867–872
Polonsky M, Grau SL (2011) Assessing the social impact of charitable organizations: four alternative approaches. Int J Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Market 16:195–211
Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manage Stud 57:351–376
Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: further comments. Acad Manag Rev 26:57–66
Rawhouser H, Cummings M, Newbert SL (2019) Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrep Theory Pract 43:82–115
Roche CJ (1999) Impact assessment for development agencies: learning to value change. Oxfam, Oxford
Sauder M, Espeland WN (2009) The discipline of rankings: tight coupling and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 74:63–82
Selznick P (1948) Foundations of the theory of organization. Am Sociol Rev 13(1):25–35
Schnyder G (2018) Investigating new types of “decoupling: MSP in law and corporate practice. Acad Manag Proc 2018(1):16963
Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Adm Sci Q 32:493–511
Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests. Sage, California
Simonović SP (1999) Social criteria for evaluation of flood control measures: Winnipeg case study. Urban Water 2:167–175
SSCI–Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science) (2020) Social impact search. Online Library Hamburg University, first accessed July 2020
Stål HI, Corvellec H (2022) Organizing means-ends decoupling: core-compartment separations in fast fashion. Bus Soc 61:857–885
Stephan U, Patterson M, Kelly C, Mair J (2016) Organizations driving positive social change: a review and an integrative framework of change processes. J Manag 42:1250–1281
Suddaby R (2010) Construct clarity in theories of management and organization: editor’s comments. Acad Manag Rev 35:346–357
Suddaby R, Bitektine A, Haack P (2017a) Legitimacy. Acad Manag Ann 11:451–478
Suddaby R, Elsbach KD, Greenwood R, Meyer JW, Zilber TB (2017b) Organizations and their institutional environments—bringing meaning, values, and culture back. In: Introduction to the special research forum. Acad Manag J 53(6):1234–1240
Sutton R, Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Adm Sci Q 30:371–384
Temmes A (2019) Managing what matters: integrating impact measurement into corporate sustainability management. In: Martinuzzi A, Schönherr N (eds) Business and the sustainable development goals. Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Adm Sci Q 28:22–39
Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1996) The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: Clegg S, Hardy C, Nord W (eds) Handbook of organization studies. Sage, London, pp 175–190
Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4:356–367
Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15:404–428
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222
Underdal A (2004) Methodological challenges in the study of regime effectiveness. In: Underdal A, Young OR (eds) Regime consequences: methodological challenges and research strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 27–48
Vanclay F (2003) International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 21:5–12
Van Tulder R, Seitanidi MM, Crane A, Brammer S (2016) Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships. J Bus Ethics 135:1–17
Vellema S, Ton G, de Roo N, van Wijk J (2013) Value chains, partnerships and development: using case studies to refine programme theories. Evaluation 19:304–320
Voronov M, Weber K (2020) People, actors, and the humanizing of institutional theory. J Manage Stud 57:873–884
Wainwright S (2002) Measuring impact: a guide to resources. National Council for Voluntary Organizations, London
Weber M (2013) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge, New York
Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm Sci Q 21:1–19
Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1998) The symbolic management of stockholders: corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Adm Sci Q 43:127–153
Wettstein F (2020) The history of business and human rights and its relationship with corporate social responsibility. In: Deva S, Birchall D (eds) Research handbook on human rights and business. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Wijen F (2014) Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Acad Manag Rev 39:302–323
Wijen F (2015) Coupling, not decoupling, should be institutional theory's mantra: a rejoinder to Haack and Schoeneborn. Acad Manag Rev 40(2):310–313
Wolf KD (2010) Output, outcome, impact: focusing the analytical lens for evaluating the success of corporate contributions to peace-building and conflict prevention. Working paper No. 3, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Frankfurt
Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718
Wood DJ (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: a review. Int J Manag Rev 12:50–84
Yawar S, Seuring S (2017) Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. J Bus Ethics 141:621–643
Young OR (2004) The consequences of international regimes. In: Underdal A, Young OR (eds) Regime consequences: methodological challenges and research strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 3–23
Zamojska A, Próchniak J (2017) Measuring the social impact of infrastructure projects: the case of Gdańsk International Fair Co. J Entrepreneurship Manag Innovat 13(4):25–42
Zucker LG (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Am Sociol Rev 42:726–743
Metadaten
Titel
Clarifying ends in institutional decoupling theory: insights from social impact research
verfasst von
Sarah Margaretha Jastram
Johanna Foersterling
Publikationsdatum
03.08.2023
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Economics / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0044-2372
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-8928
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01170-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Journal of Business Economics 3/2024 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Direct and indirect emissions: a bi-objective model for hybrid vehicle routing problem

Original Paper

Preparing for the future of work: a novel data-driven approach for the identification of future skills

Original Paper

Market entry as a marketplace owner: when and why should you sell on your marketplace?

Original Paper

Forty years of context effect research in marketing: a bibliometric analysis

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise