Institutional Equivalence: How Industry and Community Peers Influence Corporate Philanthropy

References

• Almandoz J (2012) Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1381–1406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almandoz J (2014) Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(3):442–473.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almandoz J, Marquis C, Cheely M (2016) Drivers of community strength: An institutional logics perspective on geographical and affiliation based communities. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Renate M, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd ed. (Sage, New York). Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Freeman JH, Reynolds PD (2006) organizational foundings in community context: Instruments manufacturers and their interrelationship with other organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):381–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Dorado S (2010) building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1419–1440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckman CM, Haunschild PR (2002) Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):92–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertels S, Peloza J (2008) Running just to stand still? Managing CSR reputation in an era of ratcheting expectations. Corporate Reputation Rev. 11(1):56–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Smith WK (2014) Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Acad. Management Rev. 39(3):364–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Block P, Grund T (2014) Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks. Network Sci. 2(2):189–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brammer S, Millington A (2005) Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 61(1):29–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brammer S, Millington A (2006) Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Bus. Ethics: Eur. Rev. 15(1):6–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1983) Corporate philanthropy as a cooptive relation. Soc. Forces 62(2):419–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coady M (2008) Giving in Numbers: 2008 Edition (The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, New York).Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Davis GF (2010) Do theories of organizations progress? Organ. Res. Methods 13(4):690–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Greve HR (1997) Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. Amer. J. Sociol. 103(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Diekmann KA, Tinsley CH (1994) The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 59(4):547–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deephouse DL (1996) Does isomorphism legitimate? Acad. Management J. 39(4):1024–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Domhoff GW (2010) Who Rules America? Power and Politics, and Social Change (McGraw-Hill, Boston).Google Scholar
• Dunn MB, Jones C (2010) Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(1):114–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elkind P (2016) The man who sold Silicon Valley on giving. Fortune (August 24), http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/peter-hero-silicon-valley-giving/.Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick D (2006) As steel shaped Pittsburgh, banking defines Charlotte. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (June 27), http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/peter-hero-silicon-valley-giving/.Google Scholar
• Fligstein N (1985) Spread of the multidividional form among large firms, 1919–1979. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 50(3):377–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foundation Center, The (1981–2007) National Directory of Corporate Giving. The Foundation Center, New York.Google Scholar
• Freeman JH, Audia PG (2006) Community ecology and the sociology of organizations. Annual Rev. Sociol. 32(August):145–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedland R, Alford RR (1991) Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 232–262.Google Scholar
• Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (September 13), 33, 122–126.Google Scholar
• Gaba V, Terlaak A (2013) Decomposing uncertainty and its effects on imitation in firm exit decisions. Organ. Sci. 24(6):1847–1869.Link, Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz J (1985) Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: A Study of Business Philanthropy and Nonprofit Organizations (Academic Press, Orlando, FL).Google Scholar
• Galaskiewicz J (1997) An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–81, 1987–89. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(3):445–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gertner R, Powers E, Scharfstein D (2002) Learning about internal capital markets from corporate spin-offs. J. Finance 57(6):2479–2506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glynn MA, Abzug R (2002) Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Acad. Management J. 45(1):267–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Meyer RE (2008) Influencing ideas a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) J. Management Inquiry 17(4):258–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Suddaby R (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms. Acad. Management J. 49(1):27–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Raynard M, Kodeih F, Micelotta ER, Lounsbury M (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):317–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR (1998) Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of market positions: What you see is what you do. Strategic Management J. 19(10):967–988.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2000) Market niche entry decisions: Competition, learning, and strategy in Tokyo banking, 1894–1936. Acad. Management J. 43(5):816–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2005) Interorganizational learning and heterogeneous social structure. Organ. Stud. 26(7):1025–1047.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guillén MF (2002) Structural inertia, imitation, and foreign expansion: South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Acad. Management J. 45(3):509–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hankins M (2007) Bank vs. Bank. Charlotte Magazine (September 30), http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/September-2007/Bank-vs-Bank/.Google Scholar
• Haunschild PR, Miner AS (1997) Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(3):472–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haveman HA (1993) Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(4):593–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hemingway CA, Maclagan PW (2004) Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 50(1):33–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Delios A (2001) Uncertainty, imitation, and plant location: Japanese multinational corporations, 1990–1996. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(3):443–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King BG (2008) A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3):395–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S (2007) Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industry. Management Sci. 53(4):616–631.Link, Google Scholar
• Kono C, Palmer D, Friedland R, Zafonte M (1998) Lost in space: The geography of corporate interlocking directorates. Amer. J. Sociol. 103(4):863–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kostova T, Roth K (2002) Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Acad. Management J. 45(1):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz M, Block ES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Suddaby R, Sahlin-Andersson K, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage Publications, London), 243–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lant TK, Baum JAC (1995) Cognitive sources of socially constructed competitive groups: Examples from the Manhattan hotel industry. Scott WR, Christensen S, eds. The Institutional Construction of Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 15–38.Google Scholar
• Lev B, Petrovits C, Radhakrishnan S (2010) Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management J. 31(2):182–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M (2007) A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Acad. Management J. 50(2):289–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):268–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C (2003) The pressure of the past: Network imprinting in intercorporate communities. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(4):655–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Battilana J (2009) Acting globally but thinking locally? The influence of local communities on organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 29(December):283–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Lee M (2013) Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large U.S. firms. Strategic Management J. 34(4):483–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Davis GF, Glynn MA (2013) Golfing alone? Corporations, elites and nonprofit growth in 100 American communities. Organ. Sci. 24(1):39–57.Link, Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Glynn MA, Davis GF (2007) Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Acad. Management Rev. 32(July):925–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin JL (2003) What is field theory? Amer. J. Sociol. 109(1):1–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell MH, King B (2013) Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(3):387–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 26(1):117–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (1993) Cohesion, equivalence, and similarity of behavior: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Soc. Networks 15(3):275–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Stearns LB, Marquis C (2006) The conditional nature of embeddedness: A study of borrowing by large U.S. firms, 1973–1994. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 71(2):310–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moody J (2001) Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(3):679–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nijman T, Verbeek M (1992) Nonresponse in panel data: The impact on estimates of a life cycle consumption function. J. Appl. Econometrics 7(3):243–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1999) Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance on rules of CEO succession. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(4):384–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad. Management Rev. 16(1):145–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ. Sci. 15(1):5–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Pache AC, Santos F (2010) When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Management Rev. 35(3):455–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache AC, Santos F (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 56(4):972–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmer DA, Jennings PD, Zhou X (1993) Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: Institutional, political, and economic accounts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(1):100–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Kramer MR (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 80(12):56–68.Google Scholar
• Purdy JM, Gray B (2009) Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Acad. Management J. 52(2):355–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raffaelli R, Glynn MA (2014) Turnkey or tailored? Relational pluralism, institutional complexity, and the organizational adoption of more or less customized practices. Acad. Management J. 57(2):541–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raffaelli R, Glynn MA, Pedersen JS (2013) Towards a general theory of the institutional field. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Rao H, Kenney M (2008) New forms as settlements. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin-Andersson K, Suddaby R, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, London), 352–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao H, Greve HR, Davis GF (2001) Fool’s gold: Social proof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage by Wall Street analysts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(3):502–526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reay T, Hinings CR (2009) Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organ. Stud. 30(6):629–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romanelli E, Khessina OM (2005) Regional industrial identity: Cluster configurations and economic development. Organ. Sci. 16(4):344–358.Link, Google Scholar
• Rowan B (1982) Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Admin. Sci. Quart. 27(2):259–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saxenian AL (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Schneiberg M, Clemens ES (2006) The typical tools for the job: Research strategies in institutional analysis. Soc. Theory 24(3):195–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott WR (2001) Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Scott WR, Ruef M, Mendel PJ, Caronna CA (2000) Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Seo MG, Creed WD (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 27(2):222–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siegfried JJ, McElroy KM, Biemot-Fawkes D (1983) The management of corporate contributions. Preston LE, ed. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy: An Annual Compilation of Research (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 87–102.Google Scholar
• Smets MT, Morris I, Greenwood R (2012) From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Acad. Management J. 55(4):877–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strang D, Macy MW (2001) In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(1):147–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sull DN (1999) The dynamics of standing still: Firestone tire and rubber and the radial revolution. Bus. History Rev. 73(3):430–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W (1999) Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(3):801–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilcsik A (2010) From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1474–1498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilcsik A, Marquis C (2013) Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U.S. communities. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(1):111–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau (2010) About metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Online archives, Accessed December 9, 2016, http://www.census.gov/population/metro/.Google Scholar
• Useem M (1988) Market and institutional factors in corporate contributions. California Management Rev. 30(2):77–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M, Kutner SI (1986) Corporate contributions to culture and the arts: The organization of giving and the influence of the chief executive officer and of other firms on company contributions in Massachusetts. DiMaggio PJ, ed. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint (Oxford University Press, New York), 93–112.Google Scholar
• Verbeek M (2008) A Guide to Modern Econometrics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK).Google Scholar
• Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management J. 18(4):303–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warren RL (1967) The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 12(3):396–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1994) Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):367–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolch JR (1995) Corporate philanthropy, urban research, and public policy. America RF, ed. Philanthropy and Economic Development (Greenwood Press, Westport, CT), 16–37.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Wooten M, Hoffman AJ (2008) Organizational fields: Past, present and future. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin-Andersson K, Suddaby R, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, Los Angeles), 130–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wry T, Cobb JA, Aldrich HE (2013) More than a metaphor: Assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):441–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Marquis C, Qiao K (2016) Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organ. Sci. 27(5):1307–1324.Link, Google Scholar