We examine why organizations that obtain prominent certifications may at times elect not to publicize them. Drawing on the impression management literature, we argue and show that concerns about being perceived as hypocritical may cause organizations to strategically withhold their certification status. Using a longitudinal panel of corporations that were members of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, a prominent environmental certification, we show that in the face of reputational threats, organizations are less likely to publicize their certification status when the threat appears to directly contradict the claims implied by the certification. Our findings suggest that the threat of hypocrisy is amplified for firms with stronger reputations in the same domain as the certification and when audience members better understand and value the certification. Our findings delineate new boundary conditions under which firms will make prosocial claims and inspire reconsideration of long-held assumptions about the process of decoupling the implementation and communication of socially valued practices. This study also provides insights for scholars of nonmarket strategy on how corporations strategically communicate with external constituents about their sustainability initiatives.

This study examines how ventures can leverage relationships with heterogeneous government stakeholders to enhance survival in different institutional environments. We consider how the distinct resources provided from venture ties to military and political actors represent complementary strategic assets that differentially influence performance in varying political and economic environments as well as under conditions of violence and political conflict. Empirically, we examine the effect of these respective stakeholder relationships on new venture survival across 10 countries over a 65-year period. By distinguishing between the resources obtained through relationships with different types of government stakeholders and showing how the value of these resources varies in different contexts, this study contributes to nonmarket strategy and stakeholder management research and highlights the need for studies to take a pluralistic view of government stakeholders. The paper also presents managerial insights to firms seeking to address the prevalent challenges associated with political, economic, and physical security issues in developing and underdeveloped economies.

Research Summary Although scholarship has demonstrated that market categories offer important signals to entrepreneurs about which goods and services are valued, little research has considered how entrepreneurs make sense of and exploit opportunities when contestation over category meaning persists. Using the emergent U.S. biodiesel market as a context, we present a framework to explain how the salience of different stakeholder frames shapes entrepreneurs' perceptions of market opportunities and influences their market‐entry strategies. By showing how framing contests affect entrepreneurial outcomes, this study illuminates the underlying cognitive mechanisms that impact market meaning and offers important implications for the literatures on entrepreneurship, market‐category evolution, framing contests, and grand challenges. Managerial Summary Entrepreneurs entering new markets must consider how their products or services create value for customers. What customers value, however, is often shaped by competition between different stakeholders who seek to define problems and appropriate solutions. We argue and find that competing stakeholders influence what becomes valued in the market and shape the technologies and products developed by entrepreneurs. From the perspective of those promoting new markets, market growth requires a balancing act between maintaining control over market definitions and attracting new customers. In growing a new market, entrepreneurs and market pioneers may unintentionally attract other stakeholders who seek to alter or redefine market meanings, which can drive demand away from initial producers, foster the development and adoption of unforeseen technologies, and facilitate market entry of diverse organizations.

Research Abstract: Despite the proliferation of lists and rankings that recognize firms for superior performance, empirical studies have been limited in their ability to causally evaluate how inclusion for the marginal firm influences shareholder value. Using a regression discontinuity design, we address this limitation by examining how investors responded to firms that were just barely included or excluded from the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list. Contrary to prevailing theoretical expectations, our findings indicate that marginal firms that were included in the ranking experienced negative abnormal returns compared to marginal firms that were excluded. We discuss how these findings inspire future research on rankings and status and highlight implications for managers considering strategic decisions related to pursuing rankings.Managerial Abstract: Because being ranked is generally seen as an important strategic objective for companies, executives must carefully consider how much attention and resources to allocate towards this pursuit. Although existing research suggests that being ranked can be beneficial, we have a limited understanding about whether barely making a ranked list is worth the effort. We provide new insights for executives by showing that investors respond negatively to marginal inclusion on a ranking but also provide suggestions for how companies might counteract this effect. Specifically, our results suggest that making consistent, focused investments that are relevant to external stakeholders may buffer organizations from the potential negative effects of marginal inclusion on a ranking. These insights may also inspire executives to reconsider their firms' commitments to being ranked.

Social movements can disrupt existing industries and inspire the emergence of new markets by drawing attention to problems with the status quo and promoting alternatives. We examine how the influence of social movements on entrepreneurial activity evolves as the markets they foster mature. Theoretically, we argue that the success of social movements in furthering market expansion leads to three related outcomes. First, the movement-encouraged development of market infrastructure reduces the need for continued social movement support. Second, social movements' efforts on behalf of new markets increase the importance of resource availability for market entry. Third, market growth motivates countermovement that reduce the beneficial impact of initiator movements on entrepreneurial activity. We test these arguments by analyzing evolving social movement dynamics and entrepreneurial activity in the US wind