Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations

Abstract

We develop an institutionally oriented theory of how and why local communities continue to matter for organizations in a global age. Since globalization has taken center stage in both practitioner and academic circles, research has shifted away from understanding effects of local factors. Our approach runs counter to the idea that globalization is a homogeneity-producing process, and to the view that society is moving from particularism to universalism. We argue that with globalization, not only has the local remained important, but in many ways local particularities have become more visible and salient. We unpack the market, regulative, social, and cultural mechanisms that result in this enduring community influence while reviewing classic and contemporary research from organizational theory, sociology, and economics that have focused on geographic influences on organizations. In this paper, our aim is to redirect theoretical and empirical attention back to understanding the determinants and importance of local influences. We suggest that because organizations are simultaneously embedded in geographic communities and organizational fields, by accounting for both of these areas, researchers will better understand isomorphism and change dynamics. #

Do Political Connections Buffer Firms from or Bind Firms to the Government? A Study of Corporate Charitable Donations of Chinese Firms

“…While prior research has postulated important institutional effects stemming either from industry (e.g., DiMaggio and Powell 1983) or region (e.g., Marquis and Battilana 2009), there are few studies contrasting the two. Analyzing and comparing these two institutions is thus both theoretically and practically important since virtually all firms simultaneously face institutional pressures from both industry and region.…”

Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach

“…Local opinion leaders and resource-rich actors can leverage power over the legitimacy of organizations by aligning the key discourses and norms of the community with their own interests (Marquis & Battilana, 2009). Local governments and public funding bodies represent the most powerful authorities facing social entrepreneurship, because they shape local evaluations of and structure the opportunity context for new social enterprises (Nicholls, 2010).…”

“…The literature also associates more formalized institutions that shape entrepreneurial processes with the institutional support in labor recruitment and training (Marquis & Battilana (2009) and the availability of financial advice and services (Lim et al 2010). Katre and Salipante (2012) suggest that successful social entrepreneurs are able to seek competent workers that commit to and can bring in key resources for meeting the social ventureÕs aims.…”

Golfing Alone? Corporations, Elites, and Nonprofit Growth in 100 American Communities

“…Yet even as globalization processes have come to govern practitioner and academic discourse, the effects of local environments endure (Marquis and Battilana 2009). For example, in their study of bank foundings, Marquis and Lounsbury et al (2007) found that community actors were motivated to maintain localness as a reaction against more global pressures.…”