Beyond win–win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development

Martinez, Fabien; Peattie, Kenneth John; Vázquez‐Brust, Diego

doi:10.1002/bse.2292

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the ethical (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2015), political (Kourula & Delalieux, 2014; Wright & Nyberg, 2017), philosophical (Secchi, 2009) and spiritual (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004; Martinez et al., 2019) assumptions behind organizational sustainability frames have received limited attention. We highlighted that one element that makes organizational sustainability frames distinct is their normative positions and offered deontological (for dogmatic frames) , utilitarian (for instrumental frames) and virtue ethics (for paradoxical frames) positions to further explicate these frames.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This frame suggests that FPOs use various tactics to achieve competitive advantages by risk reduction, efficiency gains, brand building, corporate reputation, identification of new markets, operational improvement, accessing new sources of capital and enhancing human resource management (Anderson & Bateman, 2000; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Hahn et al., 2015; Hockerts, 2015a; Hoffman, 2004). For instance, companies in the food and beverage sector rely on water‐footprinting methodologies to increase water efficiency to enhance their risk management and operations (Martinez et al., 2019).…”

Section: Categorization Of Organizational Sustainability Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability

Dzhengiz

Hockerts

2022

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our purpose is to develop a comprehensive categorization of organizational sustainability frames. This is necessary because a unified approach that considers the organizational sustainability frames of different organizations (FPOs, NPOs and hybrids) is absent in the extant research. Towards this end, we undertake an integrative review of 158 articles and identify seven frames based on three objective functions: maximization of economic capital, maintaining natural capital and creating social impact. Of the seven, three are dogmatic, each accepting only one objective function as legitimate: economic, natural and social capital; three are instrumental, with one objective function as the ultimate goal and the others as necessary means; and the last one is paradoxical, where tensions between objective functions are accommodated simultaneously rather than eliminated.We contribute to the literature by introducing the 'dogmatic frame' category to the ongoing conversation on organizational sustainability frames. We also contribute by demonstrating that instrumental frames exist not only at for-profit organizations but also at non-profits and hybrid organizations. Consequently, we link the conversation in these areas with that of organizational sustainability frames. Finally, we problematize the growing attention on the paradoxical frame by discussing its suitability in different contexts and situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Categorization Of Organizational Sustainability Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability

Dzhengiz

Hockerts

2022

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The diversity of board based on gender has been reported as an antecedent for the effectiveness of corporate boards in terms of participation [30], efficiency [31], decisionmaking process [32,33], competitive advantage [34], monitoring and evaluation [30,35], risk management [36], regulatory compliance [37], ethical concerns, corporate reputation, environmental performance [38], discretionary social performance [39,40], governance performance [41] and financial performance [6].…”

Section: Corporate Social Performance and Board Gender Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance in Different Industry Groups: Evidence from China

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the heterogeneous links between board gender diversity and corporate social performance in different industries across China. OLS regression models are approximated using the data of Chinese industries from 2009 to 2015. Robustness test and two-stage least square (2SLS) methods are incorporated to cater for robustness and endogeneity. Board gender diversity (BGD) stimulates corporate social performance (CSP) of firms with environmental and social risk exposure regardless of critical mass and directors’ independence. It does so for firms with governance risk exposure while incorporating the critical mass effect and the director’s independence. Overall, the positive effect of BGD is prevalent in different industries at an aggregate level while considering firms with an overall ESG risk exposure. The findings imply that BGD can mitigate the ESG risk exposure in terms of enhancing the CSP and the advantage can be transpired with the inclusion of even one female director (independent or executive) to the board. The study also highlights that BGD enhances CSP in industries with more environmental and social risk exposure while doing so in industries with governance risk exposure after complementation by critical mass and independent director effects.

show abstract

“…For example, women are more sensitive to and practical about environmental issues, whereas men are more skeptical and concerned about trade‐offs (ecoAmerica & SRI‐BI, ; GfK, ) regarding the financial impact of environmental initiatives. Therefore, combining discussions on gender diversity and environmental performance could lead to initiatives that create shared value (Porter & Kramer, ) for both the corporation and the environment by blending various schools of thought (Martinez, Peattie, & Vazquez‐Brust, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Board gender diversity and environmental performance: An industries perspective

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates whether gender diversity on the board of directors in the United States is associated with firms' environmental performance. Under the theoretical framework of resource dependence theory, we argue that gender diversity brings a greater variety of skills to the board. Diversity allows for a healthy mix of knowledge and experience to improve the decision‐making process of the board. Using propensity score matching and controlling for endogeneity, this study uses a more rigorous statistical model than previous work. It also uses content analysis of directors' biographies to provide evidence of the role that gender diversity plays. We find gender diversity is positively associated with firms' environmental performance scores primarily in the more environmentally impacting industries. Therefore, our research provides valuable direction for those firms working to improve both their boards' gender diversity and their environmental performance. Our findings also offer insight into the mixed results of previous studies.

show abstract

Beyond win–win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development

Cited by 17 publications

References 81 publications

Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability

Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability

Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance in Different Industry Groups: Evidence from China

Board gender diversity and environmental performance: An industries perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About