Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement

References

• Austin JL (1962) How to Do Things with Words (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Ball J (2003a) Activists treat Ford, GM differently. Wall Street Journal (May 8), B6.Google Scholar
• Ball J (2003b) Ford holders pull resolution on greenhouse-gas emissions. Dow Jones Business News. (May 8). (Accessed via Factiva on June 28 2018).Google Scholar
• Barsalou LW, Hale CR (1993) Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. Van Mechelen I, Hampton J, Michalski R, Theuns P, eds. Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis (Academic Press, San Diego), 97–144.Google Scholar
• Bartley T (2007) Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. Am. J. Sociol. 113(2):297–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer R, Moers F, Viehs M (2015) Who withdraws shareholder proposals and does it matter? An analysis of sponsor identity and pay practices. Corporate Governance Internat. Rev. 23(6):472–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer R, Derwall J, Guenster N, Koedijk K (2005) The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts J. 61(2):51–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bazerman MH, Magliozzi T, Neale MA (1985) Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 35(3):294–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky B (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312–330.Link, Google Scholar
• Becht M, Franks J, Mayer C, Rossi S (2008) Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(8):3093–3129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benford RD (1997) An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociol. Inquiry 67(4):409–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry L (2015) Religious investors and responsible investment. Hebb T, Hawley JP, Hoepner AGF, Neher AL, Wood D, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Responsible Investment (Routledge, London), 474–485.Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Partnoy F, Thomas R (2008) Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. J. Finance 63(4):1729–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Gupta A (2016) Social activism in and around organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):1–80.Google Scholar
• Bryant A, Charmaz K (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell CJ, Gillan SL, Niden CM (1999) Current perspectives on shareholder proposals: Lessons from the 1997 proxy season. Financial Management 28(1):89–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carleton WT, Nelson JM, Weisbach MS (1998) The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF. J. Finance 53(4):1335–1362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Chriss JJ (1995) Habermas, Goffman, and communicative action: Implications for professional practice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 60(4):545–565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christie LS, Luce RD, Macy J (1952) Communication and learning in task-oriented groups. Technical Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Clark H (1996) Using Language (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Collins R (1987) Habermas and the search for reason. Semiotica 64(1–2):157–169.Google Scholar
• Cornelissen JP, Werner MD (2014) Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):181–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cornelissen JP, Durand R, Fiss PC, Lammers JC, Vaara E (2015) Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Acad. Management Rev. 40(1):210–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12(3):346–371.Link, Google Scholar
• David P, Bloom M, Hillman AJ (2007) Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management J. 28(1):91–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Bakker FG, den Hond F, King B, Weber K (2013) Social movements, civil society and corporations: Taking stock and looking ahead. Organ. Stud. 34(5–6):573–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewey J (1922) Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology (Henry Holt and Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Diesing P (1971) Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences (Aldine-Atherton, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Dimson E, Karakas O, Li X (2015) Active ownership. Rev. Financial Stud. 28(12):3225–3268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edward P, Willmott H (2008) Corporate citizenship: Rise or demise of a myth? Acad. Management Rev. 33(3):771–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eesley C, De Celles KA, Lenox M (2016) Through the mud or in the boardroom: Examining activist types and their strategies in targeting firms for social change. Strategic Management J. 37(12):2425–2440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehrnström-Fuentes M (2016) Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political CSR. J. Management Stud. 53(3):433–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farjoun M, Ansell C, Boin A (2015) PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organ. Sci. 26(6):1787–1804.Link, Google Scholar
• Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organ. Stud. 36(3):363–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishkin JS (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Fiss PC, Hirsch PM (2005) The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 70(1):29–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frynas JG, Stephens S (2015) Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. Internat. J. Management Rev. 17(4):483–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM (1996) The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organ. Sci. 7(3):255–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1229–1249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organ. Res. Methods 16(1):15–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry (Aldine, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL).Google Scholar
• Goodman J, Arenas D (2015) Engaging ethically: A discourse ethics perspective on social shareholder engagement. Bus. Ethics Quart. 25(2):163–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman J, Louche C, van Cranenburgh KC, Arenas D (2014) Social shareholder engagement: The dynamics of voice and exit. J. Bus. Ethics 125(2):193–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, vol. I (Beacon Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Habermas J (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, vol. II (Beacon Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Habermas J (1993) Remarks on Discourse Ethics: Justification and Applications (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 19–111.Google Scholar
• Habermas J (1996) Between Facts and Norms (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Habermas J (2003) Truth and Justification (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Haldis P (2009) ExxonMobil, Chevron, GM among companies on climate watch list. Global Refin. Fuels Rep. 13(4):9.Google Scholar
• ICR Archive, Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) Records, 1966–2011.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2008) Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organ. Sci. 19(5):729–752.Link, Google Scholar
• King B (2008) A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3):395–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):691–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LeBreton JM, Senter JL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods 11(4):815–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein J, Ocasio W, Jones C (2012) Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):41–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lofland LH, Lofland J (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Logsdon JM, Van Buren HJ (2009) Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder activists and corporations. J. Bus. Ethics 87(S1):353–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard M (2007) E.P.A. denies California emission’s waiver. New York Times (December 19), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
• McAdam D (1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• McCarthy T (1996) Legitimacy and diversity: Dialectical reflections on analytical distinctions. Cardozo Law Rev. 17:1083–1125.Google Scholar
• McDonnell MH, King B, Soule SA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(3):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mena S, Palazzo G (2012) Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Bus. Ethics Quart. 22(3):527–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohr LB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Moon J, Crane A, Matten D (2005) Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Bus. Ethics Quart. 15(3):429–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA (2009) Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 3(1):463–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palazzo G, Scherer AG (2006) Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 66(1):71–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peirce CS (1903) The Essential Pierce: Selected Philosophical Writings (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN).Google Scholar
• Pollack R (2001) Is GE mightier than the Hudson? The Nation. Accessed June 27, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/ge-mightier-hudson/.Google Scholar
• Proffitt WT, Spicer A (2006) Shaping the shareholder activism agenda: Institutional investors and global social issues. Strategic Organ. 4(2):165–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rasche A, Esser DE (2006) From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability: Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. J. Bus. Ethics 65(3):251–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rasche A, Scherer A (2014) Jurgen Habermas and organization studies: Contributions and future prospects. Adler P, du Gay P, Morgan G, Reed M, eds. Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 158–181.Google Scholar
• Reichertz J (2007) Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Bryant A, Charmaz K, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Sage Publications, London), 214–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinecke J, Ansari S (2015) What is a “fair” price? Ethics as sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 26(3):867–888.Link, Google Scholar
• Reinecke J, Ansari S (2016) Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. J. Management Stud. 53(3):299–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roloff J (2008) Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. J. Bus. Ethics 82(1):233–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowley TJ, Moldoveanu M (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):204–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer AG (2015) Can hypernorms be justified? Insights from a discourse–ethical perspective. Bus. Ethics Quart. 25(4):489–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer AG (2017) Theory assessment and agenda setting in political CSR: A critical theory perspective. Internat. J. Management Rev. 20(2):387–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1096–1120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. J. Management Stud. 48(4):899–931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer AG, Rasche A, Palazzo G, Spicer A (2016) Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. J. Management Stud. 53(3):1–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seawright J, Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Res. Quart. 61(2):294–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silvestri L, Gulati R (2015) From periphery to core: A process model for embracing sustainability. Henderson R, Gulat R, Tushman M, eds. Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 81–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slater D (2007) Resolved: Public corporations shall take us seriously. New York Times Magazine (August 12), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12exxon-t.html?_r=1.Google Scholar
• Spradley JP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, FL).Google Scholar
• Strauss AL, Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Strübing J (2007) Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing. Bryant A, Charmaz K, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (SAGE Publications, London), 580–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suddaby R (2006) From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Acad. Management J. 49(4):633–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilly C (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Ulrich L (2015) Hydrogen fuel cell cars return for another run. New York Times (April 16), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/automobiles/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-return-for-another-run.html?_r=2.Google Scholar
• Unerman J, Bennett M (2004) Increased stakeholder dialogue and the Internet: Toward greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organ. Soc. 29(7):685–707.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Buren HJ (2007) Speaking truth to power: Religious institutions as both dissident organizational stakeholders and organizational partners. Bus. Soc. Rev. 112(1):55–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vasi IB, King B (2012) Social movements, risk perceptions, and economic outcomes: The effect of primary and secondary stakeholder activism on firms’ perceived environmental risk. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 77(4):573–596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waddock S (2008) Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Acad. Management. Perspect. 22(3):87–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(4):628–652.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wray R (2007) God and mammon on her side. The Guardian (February 5), http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/05/5.Google Scholar