No abstract

PurposeThis case study highlights state-logic influence on hybrid organizations and institutionally complex environments through acts of regulation (and deregulation).Design/methodology/approachThis study presents a 30-year narrative case focused on the significant social achievements of the Bonneville Power Administration within the Northwest United States. It combines the analysis of historical documentation, annual reports issued by the organization and interviews with firm management to observe the wax and wane of regulatory influence through time.FindingsThe presented case suggests two ways regulation projects state-logic influence onto hybrid organizations. First, it imposes a “floor” level of baseline social activity that must be met despite pressure from market logic stakeholders. Second, it imposes formal administrative procedures that require interaction with, and often approval from, key social stakeholders. Administrative procedures provide a series of public forums used to promote additional social resource allocation in excess of baseline regulatory mandates.Research limitations/implicationsA narrative case covering a 30-year period will by necessity have to prioritize breadth of analysis over depth. This is a limitation of the analysis presented, but it also provides an opportunity to observe the oscillating impact of state and market-logic influence through time.Originality/valueThe study findings have several implications for the growing accounting literature on institutional complexity and hybrid organization. First, the authors highlight the ways regulation shapes institutionally complex spaces and, as a result, the hybrid organizations formed within those environments. Second, the exogenous nature of regulatory mandates indicate hybrid firms could emerge as both a voluntary and an involuntary adaptation to institutionally complex environments. Finally, this study highlights opportunities to further one’s understanding how state logics influence hybrid organizations through the study of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Successful standard-setting outcomes require some level of acceptance by diverse stakeholder groups. This study examines the evolution of FASB due process institutions since Enron, which have the potential to engender stakeholder acceptance. The prior literature on accounting standard-setting outcomes often focuses on the effects of individuals, organizations, or established due process institutions. Our study highlights the critical role played by recent due process institutions such as enhanced advisory groups, transition resource groups, field tests, and post-implementation reviews in contemporary standard-setting activity. Advisory groups, in particular, shift the balance of power within standard-setting to give a stronger voice to specific stakeholders (e.g., investors, not-for-profits, and private companies) and sometimes provide a recruiting network for future FASB members. We synthesize the growing importance these due process institutions have for effective standard-setting outcomes with the academic literature to identify areas for future research.

No abstract