Unsustainability of Sustainability: Cognitive Frames and Tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid Projects

Original Paper

Abstract

Existing research posits that decision makers use specific cognitive frames to manage tensions in sustainability. However, we know less about how the cognitive frames of individuals at different levels in organization interact and what these interactions imply for managing sustainability tensions, such as in Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) projects. To address this omission, we ask do organizational and project leaders differ in their understanding of tensions in a BOP project, and if so, how? We answer this question by drawing on a 5-year study of a BOP project of a global pharmaceutical company in India. In line with the existing research, we found three kinds of frames—paradoxical, business case, and business—held differently across organizational levels and over time. We also found that the shift in frames of both project and organizational leaders was mediated by the decision-making horizon. The initial divergence across organizational levels, seen in paradoxical and business frames, was mediated by long-term decision-making horizon. However, there was an eventual convergence toward business frames associated with the shift from long- to shorter-term decision-making horizons and one that led to the project’s closure. We contribute by proposing a dynamic model of cognitive frames in sustainability, where the research has either alluded to top-down or bottom-up understanding.

Keywords

Bottom of Pyramid Paradox Sustainability Decision-making horizons 

References

  1. Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: a new research lens. The Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. J. J., Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Grant, A. M., Marquis, C., et al. (2006). Understanding mechanisms in organizational research: Reflections from a collective journey. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of a commercial microfinance organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besharov, M. L. (2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1485–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2001). When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing changes in work organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 566.Google Scholar
  10. Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyce, G. (2000). Public discourse and decision making: Exploring possibilities for financial, social, and environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 13(1), 27–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, R. (1995). Time in organizations: Its experience, explanations and effects. Organization Studies, 16(6), 925–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CII-PWC. (2010). India Pharma Inc.: Capitalising on India’s Growth Potential. Confederation of Indian Industries- PricewaterhouseCoopers. http://www.pwc.com/en_IN/in/assets/pdfs/publications-2011/PwC_CII_pharma_Summit_Report_22Nov.pdf.
  16. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson, K. (2009). Ethical concerns at the bottom of the pyramid: Where CSR meets BOP. Journal of International Business Ethics, 2(1), 22.Google Scholar
  18. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (2006). The relational foundation of research: An underappreciated dimension of interesting research. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Government of India. (2001). Census of India 2001. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/rural.aspx.
  22. Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1009–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunther, M. (2014). The base of the pyramid: Will selling to the poor pay off? The Guardian. May 22.Google Scholar
  24. Hahn, R. (2009). The ethical rational of business for the poor – integrating the concepts bottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harjula, L. (2007). Tensions between venture capitalists’ and business-social entrepreneurs’ goals: Will bottom-of-the-pyramid strategies offer a solution? Greener Management International, 51, 79–88.Google Scholar
  29. Hart, S. L., & London, T. (2005). Developing native capability. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(2), 28–33.Google Scholar
  30. Hedstrom, P., & Swedburg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howard-Grenville, J. A., Hoffman, A. J., & Wirtenberg, J. (2003). The importance of cultural framing to the success of social initiatives in business. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaiswal, A. K. (2008). The fortune at the bottom or the middle of the pyramid? Innovations, 3(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaiswal, A. K., & Gupta, S. (2015). The influence of marketing on consumption behavior at the bottom of the pyramid. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karnani, A. (2007). The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karnani, A. (2008). Help, don’t romanticize, the poor. Business Strategy Review, 19(2), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim, A., Bansal, P., & Haugh, H. (2015). Tea time: Temporal coordination for sustainable development. Academy of Management Proceedings. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.12382abstract.Google Scholar
  41. Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufín, C. (2014). Reviewing a decade of research on the “base/bottom of the pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53(3), 338–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 825–860.Google Scholar
  43. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760.Google Scholar
  44. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 684–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paull, M., Boudville, I., & Sitlington, H. (2013). Using sensemaking as a diagnostic tool in the analysis of qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 18(27), 1.Google Scholar
  50. Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 1–14.Google Scholar
  51. Reficco, E., & Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Organizational Ambidexterity and the Elusive Quest for Successful Implementation of BoP Ventures. Organization & Environment. doi: 10.1177/1086026616643136.Google Scholar
  52. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When Times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial-social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simanis, E., & Duke, D. (2014). Profits at the bottom of the pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 2014, 94–105.Google Scholar
  57. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1537–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slawinski, N., Pinkse, J., Busch, T., & Banerjee, S. B. (2015). The role of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance in organizational inaction on climate change a multi-level framework. Business and Society. doi: 10.1177/0007650315576136.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  62. Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1158–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Staudenmayer, N., Tyre, M., & Perlow, L. (2002). Time to change: Temporal shifts as enablers of organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor, S. J., DeVault, M., & Bogdan, R. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 500–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2001). The effect of individual perceptions of deadlines on team performance. The Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 586.Google Scholar
  70. Waller, M. J., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1046–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting past the gatekeepers: Differences between access and cooperation in public school research. Field Methods, 20(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weber, K. (2006). From nuts and bolts to toolkits: Theorizing with mechanisms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zietsma, C., & Vertinsky, I. (2002). Shades of green: Cognitive framing and the dynamics of corporate environmental response. Journal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis, 27, 261–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anderson School of ManagementUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Indian Institute of ManagementVastrapur, AhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations