Hegemony in asymmetric customer-supplier relationships

The institutional logic of the sustainable organisation: the case of a chocolate supply network

“…Similarly, stakeholder research that takes a focal firm perspective (Alvarez et al , 2010; Busse et al , 2017; Svensson et al , 2018), while illuminating various stakeholder issues, risk obscuring other power factors at play. Our findings support emerging research that identifies the criticality of network approaches to power (Hearnshaw and Wilson, 2013; Johnsen et al , 2020; Meehan and Bryde, 2015; Meqdadi et al , 2019). Clusters identified across the network provide interaction opportunities and the frequent communication within these groups leads to a convergence of ideas, opinions, behaviours and language.…”

“…The focus on institutional logics identifies the “paradigmatic core” of SSCM, which result from the evolution of organising principles across the network (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014, p. 772). From this vantage point, we show that powerful actors have hegemonic potential (Johnsen et al , 2020) through influencing sustainability values that are accepted as in the common interest, and the restrictive access simultaneously constrains the logics of particular stakeholders, often non-commercial parties. Through the use of SNT (Rowley, 1997, 2017) and social network analysis (Alinaghian et al , 2020; Kim et al , 2011; Wichmann and Kaufmann, 2016), we reveal how this is achieved by strategically positioning themselves in collaborative and concurrent inter-organisational relationships.…”

“…Power to influence a network's organising principles bring institutional logics to the fore as they play a key role in setting the rules, values, and success criteria within the system. Hegemonic stakeholders are able to use dominance, authority, and mastery to shape the legitimating ideas and norms within a network, whilst simultaneously limiting the articulation of alternative ideologies (Johnsen et al, 2020 (Kelling et al, 2020), although if these do not sufficiently accommodate the wellbeing of both human and environmental resources, progress is questionable (Silva & Figueiredo, 2017). In broader institutional contexts where there are misaligned social and commercial logics, relational mechanisms can contribute to managing tensions (Longoni et al, 2019) adding further weight to the importance of reconceptualising SSCM in the context of sustainable organisation by accounting for power beyond that which is embedded in dyadic commercial contracts.…”

“…Power to influence a network's organising principles brings institutional logics to the fore, as they play a key role in setting the rules, values and success criteria within the system. Hegemonic stakeholders are able to use dominance, authority and mastery to shape the legitimating ideas and norms within a network, whilst simultaneously limiting the articulation of alternative ideologies (Johnsen et al , 2020). Control over logics can become hegemonic if a dominant firm's strategic agenda is accepted in the common interest through a lack of attention on values (Ben-Porat, 2005).…”

“…The power discourse has evolved beyond transactional and dyadic relationships bounded by hierarchical organisation, to a more nuanced view of social organisation (Hearnshaw and Wilson, 2013). Networks are increasingly seen as the “foundational unit of analysis” to understand the global economy and supply chains (Dicken et al , 2001, p. 91), and research is moving the focus from dyadic to network power (Johnsen et al , 2020; Meqdadi et al , 2019). In networks, decentralised social mechanisms and institutionalising organising principles allow for broader concepts of benefit, with gains accruing beyond channel leaders (Hearnshaw and Wilson, 2013).…”