Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data collected through semi-structured open-ended interviews and archival material, we examined the transience of stakeholders’ salience in the organisational field going through institutional change process. We found strong support for the dominant institutional logic-stakeholder salience relationship. More importantly, the results of our study reveal that changes in stakeholders’ salience are directly related to changes in stakeholders’ attributes. Moreover, we uncover mutual associations among various types of salience attributes and show that the degree of mutual association of various types of attributes depends upon the stage the organisation has reached during the process of institutional change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Int. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

  2. Int. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17.

  3. Int. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33.

  4. Int. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33.

  5. Int. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32.

  6. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33.

Abbreviations

AKRSP:

Agha Khan Rural Support Program

DAMEN:

Development Action for Mobilisation and Emancipation

FMFB:

First Microfinance Bank

MF:

Microfinance

MFB:

Microfinance Bank

MFI:

Microfinance Institution

MNC:

Multinational Corporation

NGO:

Non-Governmental Organisation

RCDS:

Rural Community Development Society

SAP-PK:

South Asia Partnership Pakistan

SBP:

State Bank of Pakistan

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asian Development Bank. (2009). Overview of Civil Society Organizations: Pakistan. Retrieved Jan 03, 2013 from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2009/CSB-PAK.pdf.

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellet, M., Kirat, T., & Largeon, C. (1998). Multiple approaches to the proximity. Paris: Hermes Science Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2009). An investigation of stakeholder prioritization and engagement: who or what really counts. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 5, 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerina, F. (2009). Marshall’s Ceteris Paribus in a dynamic framework. Metroeconomica, 60(1), 24–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaves, R. A., & Gonzalez-Vega, C. (1996). The design of successful rural financial intermediaries: Evidence from Indonesia. World Development, 24(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioural Science, 2, 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, T. (1999). ‘Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in microfinance: past, present and future, an essay’, Sustainable Banking with the poor (World Bank) Case Studies in Microfinance, December.

  • Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyestone, R. (1978). From social issue to public policy. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E. J. (2010). Effective shareholder engagement: The factors that contribute to stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past: Or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graebner, M. E. (2009). Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 435–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B., & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: A study of U.K. electricity and water utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Finance Corporation. (2013). IFC and Microfinance Factsheet. Retrieved Feb 02, 2014 from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/0cf7a70042429b19845aac0dc33b630b/Fact+Sheet+Microfinance+_October+2013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

  • Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeurissen, R. (2004). Institutional conditions of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, D., & Dacin, M. T. (2013). Bankers at the gate: Microfinance and the high cost of borrowed logics. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 759–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khavul, S., Chavez, H., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). When institutional change outruns the change agent: The contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirat, T., & Lung, Y. (1999). Innovation and proximity. Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, P., & Bhambri, A. (1988). Influence and information in organization-stakeholder relationships (pp. 319–323). Anaheim, CA: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (2000). Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4), 484–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magness, V. (2008). Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2010). Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaborations in multi-business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 265–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. (1997). Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Finance Pakistan. (2013). Economic survey 2012–2013. Retrieved Dec 31, 2013 from http://finance.gov.pk/survey_1213.html.

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Chrisman, J. J., & Spense, L. J. (2011). Towards a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitewell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining and refueling and underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1261–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Population Reference Bureau. (2013). World Population Data Sheet. Retrieved Dec 31, 2013 from http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2013/2013-world-population-data-sheet.aspx.

  • Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosengard, J. K. (2004). Banking on social entrepreneurship: the commercialization of microfinance. Mondes en Developpement, 32(126), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., & Scott, M. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santana, A. (2012). Three elements of stakeholder legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahnaz, A. R., & Tahir, M. (2009). Growth and performance of microfinance in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 47(1), 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist, Intelligence Unit. (2013). Global microscope on the microfinance business environment 2013. Retrieved Dec 31, 2013 from http://www.citigroup.com/citi/citizen/community/data/EIU_Microfinance_2013_Proof_08.pdf.

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (2013). Human Development Report 2013—The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Retrieved Dec 31, 2013 from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf.

  • Van Dijk, S., Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Romme, A. G. L., & Weggeman, M. (2011). Micro-institutional affordances and strategies of radical innovation. Organization Studies, 32(11), 1485–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. M. (1994). Toward a substantive definition of the corporate issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business and Society, 33, 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2010). The role of dynamics in stakeholder thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. I. (2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Business and Society, 40(2), 133–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. I., & Keller, L. R. (2001). A modeling methodology for multiobjective multistakeholder decisions: Implications for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10, 166–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2007). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RITM Research Center, Paris Sud University, Orsay, France

    Shahzad Khurram & Sandra Charreire Petit

Authors
  1. Shahzad Khurram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Charreire Petit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Charreire Petit.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Interview Guides

Interview Guide—Microfinance Institutions

  1. 1.

    As of today which are the stakeholders that you consider are important to your firm?

    Please list down in order of importance?

  2. 2.

    How do you see contribution of these stakeholders towards your organisation?

    Is this contribution increasing with the passage of time? Or is it increasing with the growth of MF?

  3. 3.

    Before the launch of MF operations, which stakeholders were important for your firm? Please list down in order of importance?

  4. 4.

    What were the contributions of these stakeholders before launch of Microfinance?

  5. 5.

    What kind of issues arose with these stakeholders in Pre-MF era?

    With which stakeholders you faced issues? How frequently these issues were raised? Which issues were tackled first?

    Did these issues arise due to the lack of trust or reliability?

    Who you had smoothest relation out of these stakeholders?

  6. 6.

    What kind of issues arose in Post-MF era?

    With which stakeholders you had issues?

    How frequently these issues were raised? Which issues were tackled first?

    Who you had smoothest relations in post-MF era?

    With the growth of MF, which issues are rising?

  7. 7.

    How you see image of your organisation after the launch of MF?

    Which stakeholders have an effect on your organisation’s image? Why?

    Association with which stakeholders have improved the image of your firm?

    Is the image of your organisation improving now?

  8. 8.

    How you see image of your organisation when there was no MF?

    Which stakeholders had an effect on your organisation’s image? Who controlled media?

    Association with which of these stakeholders had improved the image of your firm?

  9. 9.

    Now when you have launched MF, which stakeholders are a part of a strong network, coalition, consortium etc.? Please list them in order of importance?

    Are these stakeholders getting stronger in networks with the passage of time?

    Before starting of MF which of your stakeholders had stronger networks?

  10. 10.

    How your stakeholders contribute more to societal welfare? Who contributes more?

    Is this contribution rising with the passage of time?

    How your firm’s and stakeholders’ contribution to societal welfare were different in pre-MF era from those of today?

  11. 11.

    In pre-MF era which stakeholders were better equipped to make self-corrections?

    Who had better early warning systems?

    In Post-MF era which stakeholders are better equipped to make self-corrections?

    Are these stakeholders improving on their early warning systems?

  12. 12.

    Which of these stakeholders enjoy better image? Is it due to the prestigious Board members or employees?

    Where such prestigious people do you find more?

  13. 13.

    Before launching of MF, who had given more valuable inputs to your organisation?

    Presently, which organisation would you consult in designing social strategies and execution of plans?

    Which stakeholders give valuable inputs in your welfare initiatives?

  14. 14.

    Which stakeholders are so important that you can’t survive without them?

    Which stakeholders were inevitably important in Pre-MF era?

  15. 15.

    Interactions with which stakeholders have increased after the launch of MF?

    Which stakeholders are more acceptable to you after MF?

    Who shares more norms with your stakeholders?

    In pre-MF era, which stakeholders were closest and had high interaction with your firm?

Interview Guide—Stakeholders

  1. 1.

    What factors led to the decision to work with a focal firm (NGO/MFI/MFB)?

    Why did your organisation affiliate itself with the focal firm?

    How was this partnership related to your needs? How it had served the needs of focal firm?

  2. 2.

    How you see the level of contribution of your organisation towards the focal firm?

  3. 3.

    How relationships with the focal firm were managed?

    Who managed the relationship?

  4. 4.

    What issues/problems developed over the course of the partnership?

    How did you behave (tactics used) for this issue?

    What was the issue’s impact on the organisation?

    How did you ensure that your needs were met?

    How were the issues/problems resolved?

    Were there times when you thought that your needs were pushed aside in favour of another individual/organisation?

  5. 5.

    Has image of your organisation improved after working with the focal firm?

    How are the working relations between the two organisations?

    Did the media have an impact on your relationship?

    Who else had more impact on the mutual relationship between the two organisations?

  6. 6.

    Is your organisation part of alliances, coalitions, networks or consortium?

    Have the size and number of these coalitions and networks increased?

    How these consortiums, coalitions helped the focal firm?

  7. 7.

    What were your expectations from this partnership in terms of societal welfare?

    Did these expectations change? Were they met?

    What deficiencies remained?

  8. 8.

    Were there some un-wanted/sudden problems that you faced in partnership with the focal firm?

    How did your early warning system detect them?

    When such problems were more?

    How you dealt with them?

  9. 9.

    What was your initial perception of focal firm? How did the focal firm see you? Has this image changed?

    Is it due to the prestigious Board members or employees joining your organisation?

  10. 10.

    Has your organisation given valuable inputs in designing and implementing the social strategy of the focal firm?

    Have such inputs given by your organisation increased?

  11. 11.

    How much acceptability your organisation enjoys at focal firm?

    Has this acceptability increased?

    Is focal firm acceptable at your organisation? Is this acceptability increasing?

  12. 12.

    How is your level of interaction with focal firm?

    Has this interaction improved over the period?

    What values you share with the focal firm?

Interview Guide—Independent Analysts

  1. 1.

    How you see the conversion of NGOs to MFIs and then to MFBs? What motivates it?

    How different are the stakeholders of MFIs and MFBs from when they were NGOs?

  2. 2.

    Who NGOs depend most on for their functioning?

    Who MFIs and MFBs try to affiliate with?

    How does this dependency on various stakeholders change with change in institutional form?

  3. 3.

    What major challenges/problems did NGOs face before conversion to MFI?

    Were these challenges because of trust and reliability?

    What are the major challenges for MFBs?

    Which are more frequent and critical challenges in three phases?

    Which issues are rising?

    How do you see any change in the role of Govt. before and after change in institutional form?

  4. 4.

    Which organisations have a bigger impact on the image of NGOs? And now on MFIs?

    Association with which stakeholders brings better reputation to MFBs?

    Which stakeholders have a better association with the media?

    Which are more influential than media?

  5. 5.

    In your opinion which stakeholders of NGOs are part of consortiums, coalitions and networks? And what about MFIs and MFBs?

    Which stakeholders tend to build networks and coalitions?

    Who grants more contacts to these two institutional forms?

  6. 6.

    How do you see the outcomes of operations of various stakeholders? NGOs and MFIs?

    Do they add to the societal welfare?

    How about MFBs?

    How can these stakeholders improve their working to add to societal welfare?

  7. 7.

    Which stakeholders dealing with NGOs are better equipped, have sophisticated systems and early warning systems?

    Which stakeholders of MFIs and MFBs are better equipped?

  8. 8.

    Where we would find prestigious people in banks, Govt., donors, networks etc.? And why?

    Who gives inputs to NGOs while they design their policies?

  9. 9.

    Who MFIs and MFBs would consult while they design their policies?

    Whose contribution in this connection is rising?

  10. 10.

    Who is inevitable for survival of NGOs and MFIs?

    Who is inevitable for survival of MFBs?

  11. 11.

    While working in donor driven paradigm where from the norms and values pour into NGOs?

    Who NGOs share their values, norms and belief systems with?

    Now when working in Commercial paradigm where from the norms, values and belief systems get into MFIs?

Appendix 2

See Table 7.

Table 7 Interview distribution
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khurram, S., Charreire Petit, S. Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?. J Bus Ethics 143, 485–515 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2768-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2768-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation