Walking the Purpose-Talk Inside a Large Company: Sustainable Product Development as an Instance of Divergent Change

References

• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Ansari S, Munir K, Gregg T (2012) Impact at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. J. Management Stud. 49(4):813–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management J. 26(3):197–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal P, Grewatsch S (2020) The unsustainable truth about the stage-gate new product innovation process. Innovation Organ. Management 22(3):217–227.Google Scholar
• Battilana J (2006) Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organ. 13(5):653–676.Google Scholar
• Battilana J (2011) The enabling role of social position in diverging from the institutional status quo: Evidence from the UK National Health Service. Organ. Sci. 22(4):817–834.Link, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Casciaro T (2012) Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Acad. Management J. 55(2):381–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Casciaro T (2021) Power, for All (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Besharov M, Mitzinneck B (2017) On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer RE, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), 128–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Krol L, Sheppard-Jones K, Ubalijoro A (2023) Beyond a niche approach: Could social business become the norm? Krlev G, Wruk D, Pasi G, Bernhard M, eds. Social Economy Science: Transforming the Economy and Making Society More Resilient (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Obloj T, Pache AC, Sengul M (2022) Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social trade-offs in dual-purpose companies. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):237–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown W (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (Zone Books, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (1983) A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Acad. Management Rev. 8(1):61–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA (1984) Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. Calif. Management Rev. 26(3):154–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Business Roundtable (2019) Our commitment. Accessed September 3, 2019, https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/.Google Scholar
• Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management J. 17(3):197–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• D’Aunno T, Succi M, Alexander JA (2000) The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(4):679–703.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
• Douglas M (1986) How Institutions Think (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY).Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):532–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ergene S, Banerjee SB, Hoffman AJ (2021) (Un)sustainability and organization studies: Toward a radical engagement. Organ. Stud. 42(8):1319–1335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferraro F, Pfeffer J, Sutton RI (2005) Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Acad. Management Rev. 30(1):8–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fink L (2019) Larry Fink’s letter to CEOs. Accessed April 22, 2019, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter.Google Scholar
• Gehman J, Glaser VL, Eisenhardt KM, Gioia D, Langley A, Corley KG (2018) Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. J. Management Inquiry 27(3):284–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George G, Howard-Grenville J, Joshi A, Tihanyi L (2016) Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Acad. Management J. 59(6):1880–1895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Acad. Management Rev. 21(4):1022–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2022) Deep Purpose: The Heart and Soul of High-Performance Companies (Harper Business, New York).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
• Halme M, Lindeman S, Linna P (2012) Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. J. Management Stud. 49(4):743–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart SL, Dowell G (2011) A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. J. Management 37(5):1464–1479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R (2020) Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire (Public-Affairs, New York).Google Scholar
• Hollensbe E, Wookey C, Hickey L, George G, Nichols CV (2014) Organizations with purpose. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1227–1234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville J, Golden-Biddle K, Irwin J, Mao J (2011) Liminality as cultural process for cultural change. Organ. Sci. 22(2):522–539.Link, Google Scholar
• Jansen JJ, Tempelaar MP, Van den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20(4):797–811.Link, Google Scholar
• Kanter R (1985) Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. J. Bus. Venturing 1(1):47–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2019) The 360° Corporation: From Stakeholder Trade-Offs to Transformation (Stanford Business Books, 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
• Kaplan S (2023) The promises and perils of corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):288–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Mair J, Martí I, Ventresca MJ (2012) Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Acad. Management J. 55(4):819–850.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Marginson D, McAulay L (2008) Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management J. 29(3):273–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olsen M, Boxenbaum E (2009) Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. Calif. Management Rev. 51(4):100–125.Crossref, 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
• Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3):267–292.Link, Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Bus. Rev. 89(1/2):62–77.Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Tushman ML (2016) Growing new corporate businesses: From initiation to graduation. Organ. Sci. 27(5):1237–1257.Link, Google Scholar
• Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organizations (SAGE Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Serafeim G (2022) Purpose and Profit: How Business Can Lift up the World (HarperCollins Leadership, Nashville, TN).Google Scholar
• Shrivastava P (1995) Ecocentric management for a risk society. Acad. Management Rev. 20(1):118–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16(5):522–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Thunberg G (2019) No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference (Penguin Books, London).Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Management Rev. 38(4):8–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Sci. 32(5):590–607.Link, Google Scholar
• Van der Byl CA, Slawinski N (2015) Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organ. Environ. 28(1):54–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb JW, Kistruck GM, Ireland RD, Ketchen DJ (2010) The entrepreneurship process in base of the pyramid markets: The case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 34(3):555–581.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD (2023) Systemic symbolic management, corporate social responsibility, and corporate purpose: A cautionary tale. Strategy Sci. 8(2):221–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Wright C, Nyberg D (2017) An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Management J. 60(5):1633–1661.Crossref, Google Scholar