Abstract
Codes are an important part of the institutional framework that governs the operations of corporations and their boards of directors. This chapter provides a grounding in institutional theory, its emphasis on how structures determine outcomes, and how it can fail to take into account underlying issues of power. It discusses how institutional theorists have turned to two approaches—‘logics’ and ‘work’—to overcome the weakness and account for greater agency of social actors. It argues that a rhetorical view of logics and concern for discourse in work help explain contests over power in codes of conduct and the process of codification.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. London: George Allen & Unwin.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
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.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dowding, K. M. (1991). Rational choice and political power. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gendron, Y. (2002). On the role of the organization in auditors’ client-acceptance decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00017-X.
Green, S. E., Jr., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. (2009). Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461725.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285.
Kraatz, M. S. (2011). Two cheers for institutional work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 59–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387223.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of U.S. community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379621.
Morriss, P. (1995). Book review: Keith M. Dowding, Rational choice and political power, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 1991, pp. 208. Utilitas, 7(1), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800001977.
Nordberg, D. (2018). Edging toward ‘reasonably’ good corporate governance. Philosophy of Management, 17(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0083-9.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97.
Puxty, A. G., Willmott, H. C., Cooper, D. J., & Lowe, T. (1987). Modes of regulation in advanced capitalism: Locating accountancy in four countries. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90041-9.
Rahaman, A., Neu, D., & Everett, J. (2010). Accounting for social-purpose alliances: Confronting the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(4), 1093–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01040.x.
Rao, H., & Giorgi, S. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27007-2.
Spira, L. F., & Slinn, J. (2013). The Cadbury committee: A history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willmott, H. (2015). Why institutional theory cannot be critical. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614545306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nordberg, D. (2020). Institutions, Logics, and Power. In: The Cadbury Code and Recurrent Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55222-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55222-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55221-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55222-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)