The Promises and Perils of Corporate Purpose

References

• Aguilera RV, Rupp DE, Williams CA, Ganapathi J (2007) Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):836–863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62(5):777–795.Google Scholar
• Ansell CK, Bartenberger M (2016) Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Econom. 130:64–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aragón-Correa JA, Marcus A, Hurtado-Torres N (2016) The natural environmental strategies of international firms: Old controversies and new evidence on performance and disclosure. Acad. Management Perspect. 30(1):24–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bacq S, Aguilera RV (2022) Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: A theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. J. Management Stud. 59(1):29–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bakan J (2020) The New Corporation: How “Good” Corporations Are Bad for Democracy (Vintage, New York).Google Scholar
• Baldassari D, Kaplan S, Dhir A (2022) Hiding in plain sight: Firm strategic responses to diversity disclosure requirements. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
• Barney JB (2018) Why resource‐based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management J. 39(13):3305–3325.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
• Bebchuk LA, Kastiel K, Tallarita R (2021) For whom corporate leaders bargain (August 19, 2020). Southern Calif. Law Rev. 93:1467–1560.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Kastiel K, Tallarita R (2023a) Stakeholder capitalism in the time of COVID. Yale J. Regulation 40:60–126.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Kastiel K, Toniolo A (2023b) How Twitter Pushed its Stakeholders under the (Musk) bus. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. Accessed November 14, 2022, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/11/14/how-twitter-pushed-its-stakeholders-under-the-musk-bus/.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Tallarita R (2022) Will corporations deliver value to all stakeholders? Vanderbilt Law Rev. 75:1031–1091.Google Scholar
• Berry H, Kaul A, Lee N (2021) Follow the smoke: The pollution haven effect on global sourcing. Strategic Management J. 42(13):2420–2450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov M, Mitzinneck B (2023) The multiple facets of corporate purpose: An analytical typology. Strategy Sci. 8(2):233–244.Google Scholar
• Bettinazzi ELM, Feldman ER (2021) Stakeholder orientation and divestiture activity. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1078–1096.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum HJ, Apfelbaum EP, Waytz A (2018) When the business case backfires: Competitive advantage standards jeopardize lasting support for diversity. Working paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Bode C, Singh J, Rogan M (2015) Corporate social initiatives and employee retention. Organ. Sci. 26(6):1702–1720.Link, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2014) Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management J. 35(1):107–125.Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2016) Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Acad. Management Rev. 41(2):229–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briscoe FS, Gupta A, Anner MS (2015) Social activism and practice diffusion: How activist tactics affect non-targeted organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(2):300–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bundy J, Shropshire C, Buchholtz AK (2013) Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Acad. Management Rev. 38(3):352–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabral S, Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Potoski M (2019) Value creation and value appropriation in public and nonprofit organizations. Strategic Management J. 40(4):465–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cassar L, Meier S (2021) Intentions for doing good matter for doing well: The negative effects of prosocial incentives. Econom. J. 131(637):1988–2017.Google Scholar
• Cheffins BR (2020) Stop blaming Milton Friedman! Washington Univ. Law Rev. 98(6):1607.Google Scholar
• Cheng B, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management J. 35(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cherry TL, Kallbekken S, Kroll S, McEvoy DM (2013) Cooperation in and out of markets: An experimental comparison of public good games and markets with externalities. Econom. Lett. 120:93–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen G (2020) Indigenous perspectives on corporate governance. Univ. Pennsylvania J. Bus. Law 23:902–954.Google Scholar
• Crilly D, Hansen M, Zollo M (2016) The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Acad. Management J. 59(2):705–729.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crilly D, Zollo M, Hansen MT (2012) Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1429–1448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management J. 29(10):1027–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desai VM (2014) Does disclosure matter? Integrating organizational learning and impression management theories to examine the impact of public disclosure following failures. Strategic Organ. 12(2):85–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Marti E, Durand R (2021) Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social responsibility. Acad. Management J. 64:851–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dharmapal D, Khanna V (2016) The impact of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from India’s Companies Act of 2013. University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 601, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Distelhorst G, McGahan A (2022) Socially irresponsible employment in emerging-market manufacturers. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2135–2158.Link, Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A, Battilana J, Mair J (2014) The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 34:81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Sci. 60(11):2835–2857.Link, Google Scholar
• Edmans A (2020) What stakeholder capitalism can learn from Milton Friedman. Zingales L, Kasperkevic J, Schechter A, eds. Milton Friedman 50 Years Later, 11–15.Google Scholar
• Fabrizio KR, Kim E-H (2019) Reluctant disclosure and transparency: Evidence from environmental disclosures. Organ. Sci. 30(6):1207–1231.Link, Google Scholar
• Ferraro F, Beunza D, Ground CC (2018) A communicative action model of dialogue in shareholder engagement. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1187–1207.Link, Google Scholar
• Fink L (2019) Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEO’s: Profit and purpose. Accessed May 12, 2022, https://www.blackrock.com/americas-offshore/2019-larry-fink-ceo-letter.Google Scholar
• Fisch JE, Solomon SD (2020) Should corporations have a purpose? Texas Law Rev. 99:1309–1346.Google Scholar
• Flammer C (2015) Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Sci. 61(11):2549–2568.Link, Google Scholar
• Flammer C, Luo J (2017) Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment. Strategic Management J. 38(2):163–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A, Giarratana MS, Roca E (2015) Walking a slippery line: Investments in social values and product longevity. Strategic Management J. 36(11):1750–1760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RE, Reed DL (1983) Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. Calif. Management Rev. 25(3):88–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fremeth AR, Shaver JM (2014) Strategic rationale for responding to extra‐jurisdictional regulation: Evidence from firm adoption of renewable power in the US. Strategic Management J. 35(5):629–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (September 13), Accessed May 12, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C (2023) The contingent relationship between purpose and profits. Strategy Sci. 8(2):256–269.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C, Zenger T (2022) The firm as a subsociety: Purpose, justice, and the theory of the firm. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print December 19, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1650.Google Scholar
• Gatignon A, Capron L (2023) The firm as an architect of polycentric governance: Building open institutional infrastructure in emerging markets. Strategic Management J. 44(1):48–85.Google Scholar
• George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJ, Tracey P (2021) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Management, ePub ahead of print April 15, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321100645.Google Scholar
• Giridharadas A (2019) Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World (Alfred A. Knopf, New York).Google Scholar
• Goodman J, Mäkinen J (2023) Democracy in political corporate social responsibility: A dynamic, multilevel account. Bus. Soc. 62(2):250–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood M, Mir R (2019) Critical management studies and stakeholder theory: Possibilities for a critical stakeholder theory. Harrison JS, Barney JB, Freeman RE, Phillips RA, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory, 35–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2022) Deep Purpose: The Heart and Soul of High-Performance Companies (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F (2023) Can purpose foster stakeholder trust in corporations? Strategy Sci. 8(2):270–287.Google Scholar
• Hafenbrädl S, Waeger D (2017) Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for CSR and how this affects their CSR engagements. Acad. Management J. 60:1582–1606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hafenbrädl S, Waeger D (2021) The business case for CSR: A trump card against hypocrisy? J. Bus. Res. 129:838–848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad. Management Rev. 39(4):463–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hawn O, Chatterji AK, Mitchell W (2018) Do investors actually value sustainability? New evidence from investor reactions to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Strategic Management J. 39:949–976.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He W, Li CK (2018) The effects of comply-or-explain dividend regulation in China. J. Corporate Finance 52:53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R (2020) Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire (Penguin, New York).Google Scholar
• Henderson R (2021) Innovation in the 21st century: Architectural change, purpose, and the challenges of our time. Management Sci. 67(9):5479–5488.Link, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Serafeim G (2020) Tackling climate change requires organizational purpose. AEA Papers Proc. 110:177–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Van den Steen E (2015) Why do firms have “purpose?” The firm’s role as a carrier of identity and reputation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):326–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hengst I-A, Jarzabkowski P, Hoegl M, Muethel M (2020) Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Acad. Management J. 63:246–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2023) The value of organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):159–169.Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Dorobantu S, Nartey LJ (2014) Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management J. 35(12):1727–1748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingram P, Yue LQ, Rao H (2010) Trouble in store: Probes, protests, and store openings by Wal-Mart, 1998–2007. Amer. J. Sociol. 116(1):53–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2015) The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management J. 36:1053–1081.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jourdan J, Kivleniece I, McGahan AM (2021) Toward a stakeholder-oriented framework on value creation and allocation. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2019) The 360° Corporation: From Stakeholder Trade-offs to Transformation (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2020) Beyond the business case for social responsibility. Acad. Management Discoveries 6(1):1–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim E-H, Lyon TP (2011) Strategic environmental disclosure: Evidence from the DOE’s voluntary greenhouse gas registry. J. Environ. Econom. Management 61(3):311–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim E-H, Lyon TP (2015) Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organ. Sci. 26(3):705–723.Link, Google Scholar
• Kimsey M, Gerardts T, Battilana J (2023) Walking the purpose-talk: Sustainable product development as an instance of divergent change. Strategy Sci. 8(2):311–321.Link, 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
• Klein PG, Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2012) Who is in charge? A property rights perspective on stakeholder governance. Strategic Organ. 10:304–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein PG, Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2013) Capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship in public organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 7(1):70–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klotz AC, Bolino MC (2013) Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Acad. Management Rev. 38(2):292–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kochan TA, Rubinstein SA (2000) Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organ. Sci. 11(4):367–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG (2022) The Right Privatization: Why Private Firms in Public Initiative Need Capable Governments (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Bansal P, Mascena Barbosa A (2023) Seeing beyond the here and now: How corporate purpose combats corporate myopia. Strategy Sci. 8(2):302–310.Google Scholar
• Liberman V, Samuels S, Ross L (2004) The name of the game: Predictive power of reputation vs. situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 30:1175–1185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo J, Kaul A (2019) Private action in public interest: The comparative governance of social issues. Strategic Management J. 40(4):476–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo J, Kaul A, Seo H (2018) Winning us with trifles: Adverse selection in the use of philanthropy as insurance. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2591–2617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo Y, Salterio SE (2014) Governance quality in a “comply or explain” governance disclosure regime. Corporate Governance 22(6):460–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT (2023) Corporate personhood and fiduciary duties as critical constructs in developing stakeholder management theory and corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):212–220.Google Scholar
• Mair J, Seelos C (2021) Organizations, social problems, and system change: Invigorating the third mandate of organizational research. Organ. Theory 2(4):1–22.Google Scholar
• Marquis C (2020) Better Business: How the B Corp Movement Is Remaking Capitalism (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organ. Sci. 25(1):127–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Mazzucato M (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Press, London).Google Scholar
• Mazzucato M (2021) Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Mazzucato M (2022) Larry Fink’s capitalist shell game. Project Syndicate (February 11), Accessed May 14, 2022, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stakeholder-capitalism-lip-service-fink-2022-letter-by-mariana-mazzucato-2022-02.Google Scholar
• McDonnell MH, King BG, Soule SA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(3):654–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell MH, Odziemkowska K, Pontikes E (2021) Bad company: Shifts in social activists’ tactics and resources after industry crises. Organ. Sci. 32(4):1033–1055.Link, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2020) Where does an organization’s responsibility end?: Identifying the boundaries on stakeholder claims. Acad. Management Discoveries 6(1):8–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2021) Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into the new stakeholder theory. J. Management 47(7):1734–1756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2023) The new stakeholder theory on organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):245–255.Google Scholar
• McGahan AM, Pongeluppe L (2023) There is no planet B: Stakeholder governance that aligns incentives to preserve the Amazon rainforest. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
• Mika JP, Colbourne R, Almeida S (2020) Responsible management: An Indigenous perspective. Laasch O, Suddaby R, Freeman RE, Jamali D, eds. Research Handbook of Responsible Management, 260–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell RK, Weaver GR, Agle BR, Bailey AD, Carlson J (2016) Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Acad. Management Rev. 41(2):252–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nerantzidis M (2015) Measuring the quality of the “comply or explain” approach: Evidence from the implementation of the Greek Corporate Governance Code. Managerial Auditing J. 30(4/5):373–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odziemkowska K (2022) Frenemies: Overcoming audiences’ ideological opposition to firm–activist collaborations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(2):469–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ortiz-de-Mandojana N, Bansal P (2016) The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management J. 37:1615–1631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache A-C, Santos F (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 56:972–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pamphile VD (2022) Paradox peers: A relational approach to navigating a business-society paradox. Acad. Management J. 65:1274–1302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polman P (2021) Former Unilever CEO Paul Polman says aiming for sustainability isn’t good enough—the goal is much higher. Harvard Bus. Rev. (November 19), Accessed May 14, 2022, https://hbr.org/2021/11/former-unilever-ceo-paul-polman-says-aiming-for-sustainability-isnt-good-enough-the-goal-is-much-higher.Google Scholar
• Polman P, Winston A (2021) Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take (Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Bus. Rev. (December), Accessed May 14, 2022, https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility.Google Scholar
• Porter M, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Bus. Rev. 89(1/2):62–77.Google Scholar
• Raghunandan A, Rajgopal S (2022) Do socially responsible firms walk the talk? Preprint, submitted December 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609056.Google Scholar
• Reich RB (2020) The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It (Alfred A. Knopf, New York).Google Scholar
• Rhodes C, Fleming P (2020) Forget political corporate social responsibility. Organization 27(6):943–951.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Martins LL (2023) Moral imagination, the collective desirable, and strategic purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):170–181.Google Scholar
• Rooney P, Kaplan S, Tilcsik A (2022) Money, morals, and mandates: The effectiveness of economic, ethical, and legal justifications for promoting diversity in personnel decisions. Working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
• Rosile GA, Boje DM, Claw CM (2018) Ensemble leadership theory: Collectivist, relational, and heterarchical roots from indigenous contexts. Leadership 14(3):307–328.Google Scholar
• Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance. Levi-Faur D, ed. Oxford Handbook of Governance (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 2–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneiberg M (2013) Movements as political conditions for diffusion: Anti-corporate movements and the spread of cooperative forms in American capitalism. Organ. Stud. 34:653–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneiberg M (2021) Organizational infrastructures for economic resilience: Alternatives to shareholder value-oriented corporations and unemployment trajectories in the U.S. during the Great Recession. Chen K, Chen VT, eds. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Emerald Press, Bingley, UK), 187–228.Google Scholar
• Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Besharov ML (2019) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spence LJ (2016) The obfuscation of gender and feminism in CSR research and the academic community: An essay. Grosser K, McCarthy L, Kilgour MA, eds. Gender Equality and Responsible Business (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
• Stoelhorst JW, Vishwanathan P (2022) Beyond primacy: A stakeholder theory of corporate governance. Acad. Management Rev., ePub ahead of print October 11, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0268.Google Scholar
• Strine LE (2017) Corporate power is corporate purpose I: Evidence from my hometown. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 33(2):176–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strine LE (2020) Toward a fair and sustainable capitalism. Working paper. Roosevelt Institute, New York. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/toward-fair-and-sustainable-capitalism/.Google Scholar
• Tashman P, Marano V, Kostova T (2019) Walking the walk or talking the talk? Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging market multinationals. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 50(2):153–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Peterson RS, Lerner JS (1996) Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. Seligman C, Olson JM, Zanna MP, eds. The Psychology of Values, Ontario Symposium, vol. 8 (L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 25–51Google Scholar
• van der Vegt GS, Essens P, Wahlström M, George G (2015) Managing risk and resilience. Acad. Management J. 58(4):971–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weaver GR, Trevino LK, Cochran PL (1999) Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Acad. Management J. 42(5):539–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Werhane PH (1999) Moral Imagination and Management Decision-Making (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Westphal JD (2023) Systemic symbolic management, corporate social responsibility, and corporate purpose: A cautionary tale. Strategy Sci. 8(2):221–232.Google Scholar
• Whiteman G, Cooper WH (2000) Ecological embeddedness. Acad. Management J. 43(6):1265–1282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whiteman G, Cooper WH (2016) Decoupling rape. Acad. Management Discoveries 2(2):115–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whiteman G, Walker B, Perego P (2013) Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. J. Management Stud. 50:307–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wicks A, Gilbert D, Freeman RE (1994) A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Bus. Ethics Quart. 4(4):475–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zietsma C, Lawrence TB (2010) Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(2):189–221.Crossref, Google Scholar