Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The name of the company, project and project leader have been disguised to protect the confidentiality.

  2. Swasthya, a pseudonym, is a Hindi word that translates as ‘health’.

  3. We have paraphrased the quote and have not added the details of the secondary source (media article) to maintain confidentiality.

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (1995). Time in organizations: Its experience, explanations and effects. Organization Studies, 16(6), 925–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2001). Census of India 2001. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/rural.aspx.

  • Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1009–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, M. (2014). The base of the pyramid: Will selling to the poor pay off? The Guardian. May 22.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hart, S. L., & London, T. (2005). Developing native capability. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(2), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedstrom, P., & Swedburg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal, A. K. (2008). The fortune at the bottom or the middle of the pyramid? Innovations, 3(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, A. (2008). Help, don’t romanticize, the poor. Business Strategy Review, 19(2), 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 684–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 1–14.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial-social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simanis, E., & Duke, D. (2014). Profits at the bottom of the pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 2014, 94–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1537–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2006). Crafting social issues at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1158–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudenmayer, N., Tyre, M., & Perlow, L. (2002). Time to change: Temporal shifts as enablers of organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. J., DeVault, M., & Bogdan, R. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanat, C. L. (2008). Getting past the gatekeepers: Differences between access and cooperation in public school research. Field Methods, 20(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. (2006). From nuts and bolts to toolkits: Theorizing with mechanisms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 119–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico, 1924 Las Lomas NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA

    Garima Sharma

  2. Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, 380015, India

    Anand Kumar Jaiswal

Authors
  1. Garima Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anand Kumar Jaiswal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garima Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, G., Jaiswal, A.K. Unsustainability of Sustainability: Cognitive Frames and Tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid Projects. J Bus Ethics 148, 291–307 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3584-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3584-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation