2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding strategic responses to institutional pressures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
86
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
4
86
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the gains and losses linked to compliance or noncompliance with societal expectations probably do not apply equally to all organizations. Scholarly research on corporate disclosure and corporate social responsibility has previously suggested that these effects depend on the visibility of the firm (e.g., Clemens and Douglas 2005;Julian et al 2008) and its exposure to the various institutions assessing the legitimacy of organizational structures. This proposition finds support among institutional theory scholars (e.g., Tolbert and Zucker 1983).…”
Section: The Cause Of Institutional Pressurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the gains and losses linked to compliance or noncompliance with societal expectations probably do not apply equally to all organizations. Scholarly research on corporate disclosure and corporate social responsibility has previously suggested that these effects depend on the visibility of the firm (e.g., Clemens and Douglas 2005;Julian et al 2008) and its exposure to the various institutions assessing the legitimacy of organizational structures. This proposition finds support among institutional theory scholars (e.g., Tolbert and Zucker 1983).…”
Section: The Cause Of Institutional Pressurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A manipulation check (n = 70), using items adapted from Clemens and Douglas (2005), showed that consumers' perception of each response strategy differed significantly: moving with (F = 30.88, p \ .01, partial g 2 = .58), moving toward (F = 18.03, p \ .01, partial g 2 = .45), moving against (F = 4.31, p = .01, partial g 2 = .20), and moving away (F = 3.98, p = .01, partial g 2 = .15). All manipulations passed Levene's test for homogeneity (p \ .1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The firm's response is one of the four strategies described above (Clemens and Douglas 2005;Conlon and Murray 1996;Oliver 1991), which we label moving with (i.e., compliance), moving toward (e.g., entering into a discussion), moving against (e.g., counterattack), and moving away (i.e., ignoring the protest). In order to test these effects, a one-factor between-subjects experimental design was used.…”
Section: Experimental Study Design and Samplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The industry is highly interconnected (Howard 2009), a characteristic that increases the likelihood professional associations, rather than individual organizations, will respond to institutional (Clemens & Douglas, 2005;Goodstein, 1994;Hamel, Doz, & Prahalad, 1989;Meyer & Scott, 1983;Oliver, 1991). Moreover, the organic food industry features a strong moral undercurrent (Ingram & Ingram, 2005), which makes it well-suited to analyzing legitimacy loss.…”
Section: Empirical Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%