Ups and Downs: The Role of Legitimacy Judgment Cues in Practice Implementation

Jacqueminet, Anne; Durand, Rodolphe

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3484775

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these actions also require that functional units perceive this legitimacy and implement actions (MacLean & Behnam, 2010). Organizations themselves can be sources of legitimacy for functional units, who can decide to pursue initiatives such as reducing emissions because they meet pragmatic criteria such as cost reduction or organizational emissions goals (Hengst et al, 2020; Jacqueminet & Durand, 2020). Furthermore, successful sustainability efforts in organizations require that sustainability be legitimized at an organizational or “macro” level as well as the “micro” level of the firm among multiple functional units at the lower and middle levels (Demers & Gond, 2020; Soderstrom & Weber, 2020).…”

Section: Proposition Development and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A legitimacy theory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions

Ellram

Tate

Saunders

2022

J of Business Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freight transportation emissions reduction is on the environmental sustainability agenda for the logistics and transportation function in many organizations.Transportation is the fastest growing form of emissions in developing countries and is second only to electricity emissions generation globally. However, freight transportation is not a priority on the overall organizational sustainability agenda for many companies. This research uses in-depth interviews with 12 organizations to provide insight into the Transportation functional and the organizational level action and commitment to freight transportation emissions reduction as part of the overall corporate sustainability agenda. The context of this research takes the perspective of shippers to understand the benefits perceived by shippers in joining a green network/partnership focused on the reduction of freight emissions, fuel consumption, and the associated costs. In most organizations, reducing freight emissions is managed within the Transportation function and there is a lack of organizational focus on outsourced freight transportation emissions reduction. Given the increasing saliency of emissions reductions in many organizations, this represents a gap that needs to be addressed. The research suggests methods for creating more concern and visibility of freight transportation emissions.

show abstract

Section: Proposition Development and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A legitimacy theory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions

Ellram

Tate

Saunders

2022

J of Business Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…QCA has been broadly used in recent management research (Jacqueminet and Durand, 2020; Jin et al , 2020; Park and Mithas, 2020; Snelson-Powell et al , 2020). QCA is suitable for this paper for two reasons.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the boundary decision of digital platform enterprises

Lou

Wang

Xia

2021

IMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBoundary decision is an important but underexplored theme in digital platform research. The boundary decision of digital platform enterprises (DPEs) differs from traditional organizations because of cross-side network effects (CNEs). This study intends to investigate whether transaction cost economics (TCE) and resource-based view (RBV), as classical organization boundary mechanisms, are still applicable for DPEs.Design/methodology/approachTo unfold the research problem, this study conducts a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on the samples of 21 platform business units.FindingsThe results show that the classical boundary decision theory still applies in the context of DPEs, but the cross-side network effects will affect boundary decision of DPEs.Originality/valueThis study provides a new framework – integrates TCE, RBV and CNEs – to analyze boundary decision of DPEs. This paper also contributes to research on both organization boundary decision and platform governance.

show abstract

“…Therefore, these practices have absolute fit and correspondence with the institutional profile of an organization. Institutional theory had already explained the logic of diffusion and proliferation of these institutional standards (Jacqueminet and Durand, 2020 [3]. It makes no point to analyze these practices since there will be no conflict between internal inertial forces and external institutionalized practice.…”

Section: Institutional Explanations Of Practice Diffusion Adoption Pe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional inertia and practice variation

Aksom

2022

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeInstitutional theory had been developed for the purpose of explaining widespread diffusion, mimetic adoption and institutionalization of organizational practices. However, further extensions of institutional theory are needed to explain a range of different institutional trajectories and organizational responses since institutionalized standards constitute a minority of all diffusing practices. The study presents a theoretical framework which offers guidelines for explaining and predicting various adoption, variation and post-adoption scenarios.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is primarily conceptual in nature, and the arguments are developed based on previous institutional theory and organizational change literature.FindingsThe notion of institutional inertia is proposed in order to provide a more detailed explanation of when and why organizations ignore, adopt, modify, maintain and abandon practices and the way intra-organizational institutional pressures shape, direct and constrain these processes. It is specified whether institutional inertia will be temporarily eclipsed or whether it will actively manifest itself during adoption, adaptation and maintaining attempts. The study distinguishes between four institutional profiles of organizational practices – institutionalized, institutionally friendly, neutral and contested practices – which can vary along three dimensions: accuracy, extensiveness and meaning. The variation and post-adoption outcomes for each of them can be completely characterized and predicted by only three parameters: the rate of institutional inertia, institutional profile of these practices and whether they are interpretatively flexible. In turn, an extent of intraorganizational institutional resistance to new practices is determined by their institutional profile and flexibility.Practical implicationsIt is expected that proposed theoretical explanations in this paper can offer insights into these empirical puzzles and supply a broader view of organizational and management changes. The study’s theoretical propositions help to understand what happens to organizational practices after they are handled by organizations, thus moving beyond the adoption/rejection dichotomy.Originality/valueThe paper explores and clarifies the nature of institutional inertia and offers an explanation of its manifestation in organizations over time and how it shapes organizational practices in the short and long run. It challenges a popular assumption in organizational literature that fast and revolutionary transition is a prerequisite for successful change. More broadly, the typology offered in this paper helps to explain whether and how organizations can successfully handle and complete their change and how far they can depart from institutional norms.

show abstract

Ups and Downs: The Role of Legitimacy Judgment Cues in Practice Implementation

Cited by 4 publications

References 82 publications

A legitimacy theory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions

A legitimacy theory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions

Understanding the boundary decision of digital platform enterprises

Institutional inertia and practice variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About