International audienceDeviance from social norms has been extensively examined in recent strategy research, leaving the strategic implications of conformity largely unexplored. In this article, we argue that firms can elect to conform to a norm along two dimensions: compliance with the goal and level of commitment to the procedures. We then produce a typology of four norm-conforming behaviors, which allows us to isolate differentiated effects of conformity on firm reputation. We examine the corporate environmental disclosures of 90 U.S. firms and find that firms derive different reputational rewards depending on whether they conform to the goal or procedure dimension of the environmental transparency norm. In addition, the relationship between conformity and reputation is moderated by the firm's prior reputation and the stringency of the normative environment

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has repeatedly been described as an “essentially contested concept,” which means that its signification is subject to continuous struggle. We argue that the “CSR institution” (CSRI; i.e., the set of standards and rules regulating corporate conduct under the banner of CSR) is legitimized by narratives which “decontest” the underlying concept of CSR in a manner that safeguards the CSRI from calls for alternative institutional arrangements. Examining several such narratives from a structuralist perspective, we find them to be permeated with six recurrent ambiguities that we show to be reflective of three deep-set taboos: the taboo of the noncongruency between corporate profit objectives and societal needs, the taboo of multinational firms’ continued contribution to the emergence of global socioenvironmental issues, and the taboo of the CSRI’s moderate results in solving these problems. We contend that the perpetuation of these taboos contributes to inhibiting substantial change in the way of doing business, and we sketch out possibilities for initiating a “recontestation” of CSR’s meaning.

Alliances are inter-organizational relationships wherein partners agree to engage in joint action and share benefits and burdens. But when might an adverse event that strikes one partner become too burdensome for another partner? Extant theories of alliance instability provide incomplete answers, which is problematic: for stricken organizations, anticipating whether their non-stricken partners will remain in the alliance can be essential for survival. Integrating insights from alliance dynamics and organizational stigma literatures, we theorize how an organization-specific adverse event affects a non-stricken partner's decision to continue with or defect from an alliance by considering factors that shift the balance between cohesive and disruptive forces. We propose that high stigmatization risk will increase the probability of partner defection through two disruptive mechanisms: relational uncertainty and stigma anxiety. Building on the idea that the same factors contributing to alliance formation may also condition partner defection, we theorize about the roles of partner resource interdependencies, relational embeddedness, and perceived partner similarity in amplifying or attenuating disruptive mechanisms triggered by an adverse event. We extend the research on partner defection and alliance instability by advancing an event-based view of alliance instability and specifying the conditions under which an alliance partner might defect.

In this study, we reconsider the classical positive association between the level of market uncertainty and an organization's propensity to form ties with organizations of similar status. Although prior research argues that the greater the uncertainty, the higher the level of status homophily, we suggest that this relationship is contingent upon framing that affects positive or negative valence towards uncertainty. In an up market, organizations tend to frame uncertainty as upside risk, and thus will subsequently favour explorative uncertainty‐mitigation devices; whereas, in a down market, organizations primarily frame uncertainty as downward risk, and thus will rely on more conservative uncertainty‐mitigation mechanisms. We therefore predict that a greater number of status‐heterophilous ties will be formed in an up market than in a down market. We discuss the implications of our results for status theory and more broadly for research on strategic decision making under uncertainty.

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.