Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 137, Issue 1, pp 31–51 | Cite as

Managing Institutional Complexity: A Longitudinal Study of Legitimacy Strategies at a Sportswear Brand Company

  • Dorothee Baumann-Pauly
  • Andreas Georg Scherer
  • Guido Palazzo
Article

Abstract

Multinational corporations are operating in complex business environments. They are confronted with contradictory institutional demands that often represent mutually incompatible expectations of various audiences. Managing these demands poses new organizational challenges for the corporation. Conducting an empirical case study at the sportswear manufacturer Puma, we explore how multinational corporations respond to institutional complexity and what legitimacy strategies they employ to maintain their license to operate. We draw on the literature on institutional theory, contingency theory, and organizational paradoxes. The results of our qualitative longitudinal study show that managing corporate legitimacy is a dynamic process in which corporations adapt organizational capacities, structures, and procedures.

Keywords

Globalization Legitimacy Institutional complexity Paradox Corporate social responsibility 

References

  1. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann, D. (2003). The role of the multinational corporation in global governance. Master thesis, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  4. Bednarek, R. S. (2011). Strategizing for legitimacy in pluralistic contexts: New Zealand’s science sector. PhD thesis, Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar
  5. Belova, O., King, I., & Sliwa, M. (2008). Introduction: Polyphony and organization studies. Mikhail Bakhtin and beyond. Organization Studies, 29, 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise its the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  7. Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharjee, A., & Merk, J. (2011). Route map to an Asia floor wage. 10 steps brands and retailers can take toward implementing a minimum living wage. Retrieved from http://www.cleanclothes.org. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
  9. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, A. D., & Mazlish, B. (Eds.). (2005). Leviathans: Multinational corporations and the new global history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2011). How organizations engage with external complexity: A political action perspective. Organization Studies, 32, 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1027–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
  19. Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21, 1092–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new instittuonalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21, 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acadeamy of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micoletta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational response. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hargadon, D., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When inventions meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harreld, B. J., O’Reilly, C. A, I. I. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49(4), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hasse, R., & Krücken, G. (2008). Systems theory, societal contexts, and organizational heterogeneity. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 539–559). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoffmann, M. (2011). Managing corporate legitimacy. A case study of Puma. Master thesis, University of Lausanne.Google Scholar
  32. Hoffrage, U., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Hindsight bias: A by-product of knowledge updating? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 566–581.Google Scholar
  33. Kaul, I., Conceição, P., le Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. U. (Eds.). (2003). Providing global public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kobrin, S. J. (2001). Sovereignty@bay: Globalization, multinational enterprise, and the international political system. In A. M. Rugman & T. L. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 181–205). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. (2001). Multinationality and corporate ethics: Codes of conduct in the sporting goods industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kornberger, M., Clegg, S. R., & Carter, C. (2006). Rethinking polyphonic organization: Managing as discursive practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multi-national enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 64–81.Google Scholar
  38. Kraatz, M., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S. (2012). Wall street vs. main street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–30.Google Scholar
  41. Levy, D. L. (2005). Offshoring in the new global political economy. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 685–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lim, S.-J., & Phillips, J. (2008). Embedding CSR values: The global footware industry’s evolving governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Locke, R. (2002). The promise and perils of globalization. The case of Nike. MIT working paper IPC 02-007.Google Scholar
  44. Locke, R. M., Amengual, M., & Mangla, A. (2009). Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment, and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains. Politics & Society, 37, 319–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Locke, R. M., Qin, F., & Brause, A. (2007). Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marketingmagazine. (2010). Puma chief aims to spread social awareness to consumers. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1027765/Puma-chief-aims-spread-social-awareness-consumers/.
  47. Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22, 869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, D., & Williams, P. (2009). What price a living wage? Implementation issues in the quest for decent wages in the global apparel sector. Global Social Policy, 9, 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Reilly, C. A, I. I. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.Google Scholar
  51. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oliver, C. (1996). The institutional embeddedness of economic activity. Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 163–186.Google Scholar
  53. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide. The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  56. Pflitsch, G. (2009). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Stakeholderdialogen im Bereich Corporate Social Responsibility untersucht am Beispiel der “Banzer Gespräche” der PUMA AG. MA thesis, University of Münster.Google Scholar
  57. Phillips, N., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Taking social construction seriously: Extending the discursive approach in institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 702–720). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roloff, J. (2008). A life cycle model of multi-stakeholder networks. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexiblity, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scherer, A. G., & 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. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21, 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., & Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in the U.K. television industry. Organization Science, 11, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Mangement Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  72. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Company.Google Scholar
  73. Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1984). Occupational cummunities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 287–365). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  75. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research-design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(December), 125–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothee Baumann-Pauly
    • 1
  • Andreas Georg Scherer
    • 2
  • Guido Palazzo
    • 3
  1. 1.NYU Stern School of BusinessNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.University of ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC Lausanne)University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations