Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clarifying ends in institutional decoupling theory: insights from social impact research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses definitory vagueness regarding the term ‘ends’ in institutional decoupling theory, which can lead to validity problems, limited comparability of research results, and constrained theoretical findings. To clarify constructs, we inform the decoupling literature by integrating conceptual approaches from social impact research. On the basis of a systematic review of the social impact literature, we contribute two new conceptual models: an adjusted logic impact chain model and an integrated taxonomic model that differentiates two types of ‘ends’. By distinguishing between ‘ends as outcomes’ versus ‘ends as impacts’, we advance related discourses in institutional theory and build a more solid conceptual ground for empirical research and theory building in the field.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  • Abbott WF, Monsen RJ (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Acad Manag J 22:501–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre MS (2013) An integral approach to an economic perspective: the case of measuring impact. J Markets Moral 16(1):53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque R, Koskinen Y, Zhang C (2019) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manage Sci 65(10):4451–4469

    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 Manage Stud 49:813–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Augier M, March JG (2008) A retrospective look at a behavioral theory of the firm. J Econ Behav Organ 66:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger M, Rugh J, Church M, Fort L (2004) Shoestring evaluation: designing impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints. Am J Eval 25(1):5–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee AV, Duflo E (2011) Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Public Affairs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal T, Song H-C (2017) Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Acad Manag Annals 11:105–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana J, Lee M (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing: insights from the study of social enterprises. Acad Manag Ann 8:397–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett ML, Henriques I, Husted BW (2020) Beyond good intentions: designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. J Manag 46(6):937–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsmann Foundation (2020) Die iooi-Methode. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/unsere-projekte/abgeschlossene-projekte/cri-corporate-responsibility-index/projektthemen/die-iooi-methode, first accessed Apr 2020

  • Briscoe F, Gupta A (2016) Social activism in and around organizations. Acad Manag Ann 10:1–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley P, Powell WW (2012) From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary world. Acad Manag Ann 6:483–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdge RJ, Vanclay F (1996) Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess 14:59–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2020) Human rights impact assessments. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles/implementation-tools-examples/implementation-by-companies/type-of-step-taken/human-rights-impact-assessments, first accessed July 2020

  • Castañer X, Oliveira N (2020) Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. J Manag 46(6):965–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetindamar D, Ozkazanc-Pan B (2017) Assessing mission drift at venture capital impact investors. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 26:257–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark C, Rosenzweig W, Long D, Olsen S (2004) Double bottom line project report: assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. Working paper No. 13, University of California, Berkeley

  • Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 17(1):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole WM (2012) Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981–2007. Am J Sociol 117:1131–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manage Stud 47:1154–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert R, March J (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Blackwell, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bakker FG, Groenewegen P, Den Hond F (2005) A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Bus Soc 443:283–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte (2019) 2019 Global Impact Report. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/global-report-home.html, first accessed June 2020

  • Dick P (2015) From rational myth to self-fulfilling prophecy? Understanding the persistence of means-ends decoupling as a consequence of the latent functions of policy enactment. Organ Stud 36:897–924

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin F, Kim S, Kalev A (2011) You can’t always get what you need: organizational determinants of diversity programs. Am Sociol Rev 76:386–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufour B (2019) Social impact measurement: what can impact investment practices and the policy evaluation paradigm learn from each other? Res Int Bus Financ 47:18–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim A (2003) Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Dev 31:813–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2010) The limits of nonprofit impact: a contingency framework for measuring social performance. Working paper No. 10-099, Harvard Business School, Boston

  • Ebrahim A, Rangan VK (2014) What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Calif Manage Rev 56(3):118–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman LB (1992) Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. Am J Sociol 97:1531–1576

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach KD, Sutton RI (1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Acad Manag J 35(4):699–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein MJ, Yuthas K (2014) Measuring and improving social impacts: a guide for nonprofits, companies, and impact investors. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein M, Gómez-Nava R, Casanueva A (2018) Measuring social impact: Ipade Business School conducted a social impact study to measure how well it was achieving its mission to create business leaders who would have a positive influence on the world. Strategic Finance 99(12):24–31

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels

  • European Commission (2022) Directive 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels

  • Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink A (2019) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. Sage Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss PC, Zajac EJ (2006) The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Acad Manag J 49:1173–1193

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg WR (1986) Social impact assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 12:451–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg A, Venkatraman N (1985) Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Acad Manag Rev 10:421–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland J, Smid H (2019) Decoupling among CSR policies, programs, and impacts: an empirical study. Bus Soc 58:231–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace (2019) Crashing the climate. How the car industry is driving the climate crisis. https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/publications/gp_cleanairnow_carindustryreport_full_v5_0919_72ppi_0.pdf, first accessed July 2020

  • Greenwood R, Hinings CR (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acad Manag Rev 21:1022–1054

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R (2008) Introduction. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage, California, pp 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieco C, Michelini L, Iasevoli G (2015) Measuring value creation in social enterprises: a cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 44:1173–1193

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack P, Schoeneborn D (2015) Is decoupling becoming decoupled from institutional theory? A commentary on Wijen. Acad Manag Rev 40(2):307–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton EM, Tsutsui K (2005) Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises. Am J Sociol 110:1373–1411

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan J, Hewitt JD, Alwin DF (1979) Ceremonial justice: crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Soc Forces 58:506–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallett T (2010) The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. Am Sociol Rev 75:52–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen EG, Schaltegger S (2016) The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures. J Bus Ethics 133:193–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Haski-Leventhal D, Mehra A (2016) Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and India. Soc Enterp J 12:78–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted BW, de Jesus Salazar J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance. J Manage Stud 43:75–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Jastram SM, Berberyan Z (2023) Democratic stakeholder representativeness. J Public Admin Res Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jastram SM, Klingenberg J (2018) Assessing the outcome effectiveness of multi-stakeholder initiatives in the field of corporate social responsibility: the example of the United Nations Global Compact. J Clean Prod 189:775–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Jastram SM, Otto AH, Minulla T (2022) Diverse organizational adoption of institutions in the field of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05085-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuruvilla S, Liu M, Li C, Chen W (2020a) Field opacity and practice-outcome. Decoupling: private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains. ILR Rev 73(4):841–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore EM, Dau LA, Doh J (2020) Does monetary aid catalyse new business creation? Analysing the impact of global aid flows on formal and informal entrepreneurship. J Manage Stud 57:438–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueckenberger U, Jastram S (2010) Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. J Bus Ethics 97:223–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalkanci B, Plambeck EL (2020) Managing supplier social and environmental impacts with voluntary versus mandatory disclosure to investors. Manag Sci 66(8):3311–3328

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly L, Kilby P, Kasynathan N (2004) Impact measurement for NGOs: experiences from India and Sri Lanka. Dev Pract 14(5):696–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodinsky J, Stewart C, Bullard A (2006) Measuring economic and social impacts of membership in a community development financial institution. J Fam Econ Issues 27:27–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger A, Weber C (2014) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad Manag Rev 39:513–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuruvilla S, Liu M, Li C, Chen W (2020b) Field opacity and practice-outcome decoupling: private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains. ILR Rev 73(4):841–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Latané B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36:343–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee M, Huang L (2018) Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organ Sci 29(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman DW, O’Connor K, Kovács B, Newman GE (2019) Authenticity. Acad Manag Ann 13:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Wu D (2020) Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact? Manage Sci 66(6):2564–2588

    Google Scholar 

  • Liket K, Maas K (2016) Strategic philanthropy: corporate measurement of philanthropic impacts as a requirement for a “happy marriage” of business and society. Bus Soc 55:889–921

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim A, Tsutsui K (2012) Globalization and commitment in corporate social responsibility: cross-national analyses of institutional and political-economy effects. Am Sociol Rev 77:69–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon TP, Maxwell JW (2011) Greenwash: corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. J Econ Manag Strategy 20:3–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas K, Liket K (2011) Social impact measurement: classification of methods. In: Environmental management accounting and supply chain management: 171–202 Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer

  • MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE (1948) On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychol Rev 55:95–107

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean TL, Behnam M (2010) The dangers of decoupling: the relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct. Acad Manag J 53:1499–1520

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Olsen JP (1979) Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organ Sci 25(1):127–148

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83:340–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Molecke G, Pinkse J (2017) Accountability for social impact: a bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises. J Bus Ventur 32:550–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Nike (2019) Purpose moves us: FY19 NIKE, Inc. Impact Report. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/purpose-cms-preprod01/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/10225416/FY19-Nike-Inc.-Impact-Report.pdf, first accessed July 2020

  • OECD (2020) Regulatory impact assessment. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-impact-assessment_7a9638cb-en;jsessionid=7pxfpQhgRt2qUg_pnni78lZ-.ip-10–240–5–78, first accessed July 2020

  • Okhuysen G, Bonardi JP (2011) The challenges of theory building through the combination of lenses. Acad Manag Rev 36:6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen S, Galimidi B (2008) Catalog of approaches to impact measurement: assessing social impact in private ventures. The Rockfeller Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen T, Rehbein K, Snelson-Powell A, Westermann-Behaylo M (2022) Human rights in the oil and gas industry: when are policies and practices enough to prevent abuse? Bus Soc 61:1512–1557

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo T, Power M, Ashby S (2017) Navigating institutional complexity: the production of risk culture in the financial sector. J Manage Stud 54:154–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta G (2020a) Actors and actorhood in institutional theory. J Manage Stud 57:867–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta G (2020b) Writing impactful review articles. J Manage Stud. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky M, Grau SL (2011) Assessing the social impact of charitable organizations: four alternative approaches. Int J Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Market 16:195–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manage Stud 57:351–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: further comments. Acad Manag Rev 26:57–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawhouser H, Cummings M, Newbert SL (2019) Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrep Theory Pract 43:82–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche CJ (1999) Impact assessment for development agencies: learning to value change. Oxfam, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauder M, Espeland WN (2009) The discipline of rankings: tight coupling and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 74:63–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick P (1948) Foundations of the theory of organization. Am Sociol Rev 13(1):25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnyder G (2018) Investigating new types of “decoupling: MSP in law and corporate practice. Acad Manag Proc 2018(1):16963

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Adm Sci Q 32:493–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests. Sage, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonović SP (1999) Social criteria for evaluation of flood control measures: Winnipeg case study. Urban Water 2:167–175

    Google Scholar 

  • SSCI–Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science) (2020) Social impact search. Online Library Hamburg University, first accessed July 2020

  • Stål HI, Corvellec H (2022) Organizing means-ends decoupling: core-compartment separations in fast fashion. Bus Soc 61:857–885

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan U, Patterson M, Kelly C, Mair J (2016) Organizations driving positive social change: a review and an integrative framework of change processes. J Manag 42:1250–1281

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby R (2010) Construct clarity in theories of management and organization: editor’s comments. Acad Manag Rev 35:346–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby R, Bitektine A, Haack P (2017a) Legitimacy. Acad Manag Ann 11:451–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby R, Elsbach KD, Greenwood R, Meyer JW, Zilber TB (2017b) Organizations and their institutional environments—bringing meaning, values, and culture back. In: Introduction to the special research forum. Acad Manag J 53(6):1234–1240

  • Sutton R, Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Adm Sci Q 30:371–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Temmes A (2019) Managing what matters: integrating impact measurement into corporate sustainability management. In: Martinuzzi A, Schönherr N (eds) Business and the sustainable development goals. Palgrave Pivot, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesla (2019) Impact report 2019. https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2019-tesla-impact-report.pdf, first accessed July 2020

  • Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Adm Sci Q 28:22–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1996) The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: Clegg S, Hardy C, Nord W (eds) Handbook of organization studies. Sage, London, pp 175–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4:356–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15:404–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Underdal A (2004) Methodological challenges in the study of regime effectiveness. In: Underdal A, Young OR (eds) Regime consequences: methodological challenges and research strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 27–48

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2012) A framework for advancing environmental and social sustainability in the United Nations System, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2738sustainabilityfinalweb-.pdf, first accessed July 2020.

  • Vanclay F (2003) International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 21:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Tulder R, Seitanidi MM, Crane A, Brammer S (2016) Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships. J Bus Ethics 135:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellema S, Ton G, de Roo N, van Wijk J (2013) Value chains, partnerships and development: using case studies to refine programme theories. Evaluation 19:304–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Voronov M, Weber K (2020) People, actors, and the humanizing of institutional theory. J Manage Stud 57:873–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright S (2002) Measuring impact: a guide to resources. National Council for Voluntary Organizations, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2013) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm Sci Q 21:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (1998) The symbolic management of stockholders: corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Adm Sci Q 43:127–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein F (2020) The history of business and human rights and its relationship with corporate social responsibility. In: Deva S, Birchall D (eds) Research handbook on human rights and business. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijen F (2014) Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Acad Manag Rev 39:302–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijen F (2015) Coupling, not decoupling, should be institutional theory's mantra: a rejoinder to Haack and Schoeneborn. Acad Manag Rev 40(2):310–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf KD (2010) Output, outcome, impact: focusing the analytical lens for evaluating the success of corporate contributions to peace-building and conflict prevention. Working paper No. 3, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Frankfurt

  • Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: a review. Int J Manag Rev 12:50–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Yawar S, Seuring S (2017) Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes. J Bus Ethics 141:621–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (2004) The consequences of international regimes. In: Underdal A, Young OR (eds) Regime consequences: methodological challenges and research strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamojska A, Próchniak J (2017) Measuring the social impact of infrastructure projects: the case of Gdańsk International Fair Co. J Entrepreneurship Manag Innovat 13(4):25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Am Sociol Rev 42:726–743

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Strategy and Leadership, Hamburg School of Business Administration, Willy-Brandt-Straße 75, 20459, Hamburg, Germany

    Sarah Margaretha Jastram & Johanna Foersterling

Authors
  1. Sarah Margaretha Jastram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Foersterling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Margaretha Jastram.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jastram, S.M., Foersterling, J. Clarifying ends in institutional decoupling theory: insights from social impact research. J Bus Econ 94, 501–523 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01170-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01170-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation