Pub Date : 2021-02-17DOI: 10.1177/1086026621994635
M. Eikelenboom, G. de Jong
Integrating circularity in business strategy is difficult to achieve for companies as it requires impactful changes in core business processes. While research has focused on identifying key barriers, little is known about the organizational attributes that can assist businesses in integrating circularity in their strategies. The purpose of this study is to investigate the implications of organizational managers and network interactions for the integration of circularity in business strategy. Through using survey data from 627 SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) in the Netherlands, this study shows that managers who interpret circularity as an opportunity can have a positive direct and indirect effect on the integration of circularity in a company’s strategy. The results furthermore highlight the importance of circular network interactions for the integration of circularity in business strategy. This article contributes to recent calls for more empirical research into the integration of circularity and offers relevant insights for companies aiming to integrate circularity.
{"title":"The Impact of Managers and Network Interactions on the Integration of Circularity in Business Strategy","authors":"M. Eikelenboom, G. de Jong","doi":"10.1177/1086026621994635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026621994635","url":null,"abstract":"Integrating circularity in business strategy is difficult to achieve for companies as it requires impactful changes in core business processes. While research has focused on identifying key barriers, little is known about the organizational attributes that can assist businesses in integrating circularity in their strategies. The purpose of this study is to investigate the implications of organizational managers and network interactions for the integration of circularity in business strategy. Through using survey data from 627 SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) in the Netherlands, this study shows that managers who interpret circularity as an opportunity can have a positive direct and indirect effect on the integration of circularity in a company’s strategy. The results furthermore highlight the importance of circular network interactions for the integration of circularity in business strategy. This article contributes to recent calls for more empirical research into the integration of circularity and offers relevant insights for companies aiming to integrate circularity.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"35 1","pages":"365 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026621994635","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48547414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-12DOI: 10.1177/1086026621993204
M. Hernández, P. Muñoz
Ecocentric management has grown in interest in business sustainability research, driven by recent debates on sustainability-as-flourishing and novel nature-based business approaches. While relevant and promising, examination and explanations remain anchored in conventional dualistic thinking and piecemeal logics. In this article, we seek to understand what conditions or combination of conditions enable the formation of ecocentrism in business management. Drawing on deep ecology and ecocentric philosophy, we develop a conceptual framework for ecocentric management, comprising ecological sensing, envisioning, and enacting. Leveraging this framework and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we map the responses of 160 small business owners and managers in Chile. Our analyses reveal three configurations of conditions, forming a typology of ecocentric management: Market Reformist, Legitimated Decouplist, and Self-Centered Activist. The article offers a new conceptual apparatus and systemic characterization of ecocentrism in business sustainability. It shows what matters and when for the formation of ecocentric thinking and decision-making in management.
{"title":"Reformists, Decouplists, and Activists: A Typology of Ecocentric Management","authors":"M. Hernández, P. Muñoz","doi":"10.1177/1086026621993204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026621993204","url":null,"abstract":"Ecocentric management has grown in interest in business sustainability research, driven by recent debates on sustainability-as-flourishing and novel nature-based business approaches. While relevant and promising, examination and explanations remain anchored in conventional dualistic thinking and piecemeal logics. In this article, we seek to understand what conditions or combination of conditions enable the formation of ecocentrism in business management. Drawing on deep ecology and ecocentric philosophy, we develop a conceptual framework for ecocentric management, comprising ecological sensing, envisioning, and enacting. Leveraging this framework and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we map the responses of 160 small business owners and managers in Chile. Our analyses reveal three configurations of conditions, forming a typology of ecocentric management: Market Reformist, Legitimated Decouplist, and Self-Centered Activist. The article offers a new conceptual apparatus and systemic characterization of ecocentrism in business sustainability. It shows what matters and when for the formation of ecocentric thinking and decision-making in management.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"35 1","pages":"282 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026621993204","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43896750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-11DOI: 10.1177/1086026621992147
Tobias Hahn, Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, Thomas P. Lyon, M. Russo, Judith L Walls
{"title":"Leadership Forum on Organizations and Sustainability: Taking Stock, Looking Forward","authors":"Tobias Hahn, Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, Thomas P. Lyon, M. Russo, Judith L Walls","doi":"10.1177/1086026621992147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026621992147","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"34 1","pages":"3 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026621992147","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48523477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-06DOI: 10.1177/1086026621990063
Pete Tashman, Svetlana Flankova, Marc van Essen, Valentina Marano
We meta-analyze research on why firms join voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) to assess the impact of program stringency, or the extent to which they have rigorous, enforceable standards on these decisions. Stringency creates trade-offs for firms by affecting programs’ effectiveness, legitimacy, and adoption costs. Most research considers singular programs and lacks cross program variation needed to analyze program stringency’s impact. Our meta-analysis addresses this by sampling 127 studies and 23 VEPs. We begin by identifying common institutional and resource-based drivers of participation in the literature, and then analyze how program stringency moderates their impacts. Our results suggest that strictly governed VEPs encourage participation among highly visible and profitable firms, and discourage it when informal institutional pressures are higher, and firms have prior experience with other VEPs or quality management standards. We demonstrate that VEP stringency has nuanced effects on firm participation based on the institutional and resource-based factors facing them.
{"title":"Why Do Firms Participate in Voluntary Environmental Programs? A Meta-Analysis of the Role of Institutions, Resources, and Program Stringency","authors":"Pete Tashman, Svetlana Flankova, Marc van Essen, Valentina Marano","doi":"10.1177/1086026621990063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026621990063","url":null,"abstract":"We meta-analyze research on why firms join voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) to assess the impact of program stringency, or the extent to which they have rigorous, enforceable standards on these decisions. Stringency creates trade-offs for firms by affecting programs’ effectiveness, legitimacy, and adoption costs. Most research considers singular programs and lacks cross program variation needed to analyze program stringency’s impact. Our meta-analysis addresses this by sampling 127 studies and 23 VEPs. We begin by identifying common institutional and resource-based drivers of participation in the literature, and then analyze how program stringency moderates their impacts. Our results suggest that strictly governed VEPs encourage participation among highly visible and profitable firms, and discourage it when informal institutional pressures are higher, and firms have prior experience with other VEPs or quality management standards. We demonstrate that VEP stringency has nuanced effects on firm participation based on the institutional and resource-based factors facing them.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"35 1","pages":"3 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026621990063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42299998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1086026619875436
D. Reimsbach, Frank Schiemann, Rüdiger Hahn, Eric Schmiedchen
Materiality is an ambiguous concept in sustainability reporting where potential users are more heterogeneous than in financial reporting. Building on decision usefulness and dual process theory, we scrutinize in an experimental setting how two important stakeholder groups react to manipulations of the topic of nonfinancial information while controlling for differences in nonfinancial performance. We find that potential employees consider nonfinancial information as generally more material compared with capital market participants. Furthermore, for capital market participants, the nonfinancial topic of energy is more material than the topic of biodiversity, while for potential employees, both topics are equally material. Capital market participants seem to follow a more analytic decision-making process than potential employees. Capital market participants also adjust their decisions in combination with quantitative performance differences, and their risk assessment of a company mediates their decisions. Our findings show that materiality of nonfinancial information lies in the eye of the beholder.
{"title":"In the Eyes of the Beholder: Experimental Evidence on the Contested Nature of Materiality in Sustainability Reporting","authors":"D. Reimsbach, Frank Schiemann, Rüdiger Hahn, Eric Schmiedchen","doi":"10.1177/1086026619875436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619875436","url":null,"abstract":"Materiality is an ambiguous concept in sustainability reporting where potential users are more heterogeneous than in financial reporting. Building on decision usefulness and dual process theory, we scrutinize in an experimental setting how two important stakeholder groups react to manipulations of the topic of nonfinancial information while controlling for differences in nonfinancial performance. We find that potential employees consider nonfinancial information as generally more material compared with capital market participants. Furthermore, for capital market participants, the nonfinancial topic of energy is more material than the topic of biodiversity, while for potential employees, both topics are equally material. Capital market participants seem to follow a more analytic decision-making process than potential employees. Capital market participants also adjust their decisions in combination with quantitative performance differences, and their risk assessment of a company mediates their decisions. Our findings show that materiality of nonfinancial information lies in the eye of the beholder.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"33 1","pages":"624 - 651"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026619875436","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48573307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1086026619860263
M. Pucheta‐Martínez, Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez
The influence of different national contexts, including the effects of cultural environments, on corporate environmental disclosure practices has yet to be properly addressed in the literature. The purpose of this research is, therefore, to analyse how cultural factors affect the environmental disclosure practices of companies in different countries. This research is supported by the diversity of cultures across countries. Given that a cultural framework prompts different organisational actions and strategies, the question to be answered through this research is as follows: How do cultural aspects affect corporate environmental disclosure? Cultural factors are precisely those that can explain similarities and differences between stakeholders’ actions and preferences. The sample used in this research comprises companies in 28 countries and 9 economic sectors for the period 2004 to 2015. Our main findings show that companies operating in countries with individualist, masculine and indulgent cultures are less likely to disclose environmental information. Contrary to our predictions, cultures with a long-term orientation also discourage the reporting of environmental information, while uncertainty avoidance contexts tend to promote more environmental reporting.
{"title":"Corporate Environmental Disclosure Practices in Different National Contexts: The Influence of Cultural Dimensions","authors":"M. Pucheta‐Martínez, Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez","doi":"10.1177/1086026619860263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619860263","url":null,"abstract":"The influence of different national contexts, including the effects of cultural environments, on corporate environmental disclosure practices has yet to be properly addressed in the literature. The purpose of this research is, therefore, to analyse how cultural factors affect the environmental disclosure practices of companies in different countries. This research is supported by the diversity of cultures across countries. Given that a cultural framework prompts different organisational actions and strategies, the question to be answered through this research is as follows: How do cultural aspects affect corporate environmental disclosure? Cultural factors are precisely those that can explain similarities and differences between stakeholders’ actions and preferences. The sample used in this research comprises companies in 28 countries and 9 economic sectors for the period 2004 to 2015. Our main findings show that companies operating in countries with individualist, masculine and indulgent cultures are less likely to disclose environmental information. Contrary to our predictions, cultures with a long-term orientation also discourage the reporting of environmental information, while uncertainty avoidance contexts tend to promote more environmental reporting.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"33 1","pages":"597 - 623"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026619860263","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47650421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-16DOI: 10.1177/1086026620953448
Viktorija Viciunaite
Firms can embed sustainability efforts in business model elements such as key resources, key activities, or key partners. To capitalize on their sustainability efforts, firms must present these efforts in a way that is meaningful to consumers that is—translate them. This study explores how sustainability efforts are translated to consumers on webpages, newsletters, and social media profiles of Norwegian yarn firms. Data analysis revealed that firms’ sustainability communications could be related to underlying business model elements. At the same time, to consumers they were framed as product attributes or consequences to consumers, society, or the environment. This shows that firms conveyed business model information, but not in business model terms, which supports the idea of business model translation. The findings also indicated variation in how sustainability efforts were framed based on the firm’s sustainability focus.
{"title":"Communicating Sustainable Business Models to Consumers: A Translation Theory Perspective","authors":"Viktorija Viciunaite","doi":"10.1177/1086026620953448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620953448","url":null,"abstract":"Firms can embed sustainability efforts in business model elements such as key resources, key activities, or key partners. To capitalize on their sustainability efforts, firms must present these efforts in a way that is meaningful to consumers that is—translate them. This study explores how sustainability efforts are translated to consumers on webpages, newsletters, and social media profiles of Norwegian yarn firms. Data analysis revealed that firms’ sustainability communications could be related to underlying business model elements. At the same time, to consumers they were framed as product attributes or consequences to consumers, society, or the environment. This shows that firms conveyed business model information, but not in business model terms, which supports the idea of business model translation. The findings also indicated variation in how sustainability efforts were framed based on the firm’s sustainability focus.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"35 1","pages":"233 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026620953448","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46674628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1177/1086026619850180
J. Meuer, Julian Koelbel, V. Hoffmann
Scholarly and managerial interest in corporate sustainability has increased significantly in the past two decades. However, the field is increasingly criticized for failing to effectively contribute to sustainable development and for its limited impact on managerial practice. We argue that this criticism arises due to a fundamental ambiguity around the nature of corporate sustainability. To address the lack of concept clarity, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 33 definitions of corporate sustainability. Adopting the Aristotelian perspective on definitions, one that promotes reducing concepts to their essential attributes, we discern four components of corporate sustainability. These components offer a conceptual space of inquiry that, while being parsimonious, offers nuanced understanding of the dimensions along which definitions of corporate sustainability differ. We discuss implications for research and practice and outline several recommendations for how advancements in construct clarity may lead to a better scholarly understanding of corporate sustainability.
{"title":"On the Nature of Corporate Sustainability","authors":"J. Meuer, Julian Koelbel, V. Hoffmann","doi":"10.1177/1086026619850180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619850180","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly and managerial interest in corporate sustainability has increased significantly in the past two decades. However, the field is increasingly criticized for failing to effectively contribute to sustainable development and for its limited impact on managerial practice. We argue that this criticism arises due to a fundamental ambiguity around the nature of corporate sustainability. To address the lack of concept clarity, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 33 definitions of corporate sustainability. Adopting the Aristotelian perspective on definitions, one that promotes reducing concepts to their essential attributes, we discern four components of corporate sustainability. These components offer a conceptual space of inquiry that, while being parsimonious, offers nuanced understanding of the dimensions along which definitions of corporate sustainability differ. We discuss implications for research and practice and outline several recommendations for how advancements in construct clarity may lead to a better scholarly understanding of corporate sustainability.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"33 1","pages":"319 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026619850180","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47187896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1177/1086026619842482
S. Waddock, Petra Kuenkel
This article argues that the capacity to create the large system change needed to deal with “grand challenges” like the Sustainable Development Goals, sustainability, or climate change can be enhanced by understanding and applying a core set of principles, drawn from multiple sources and levels of analysis that have explored the question of “what gives life.” These sources all—albeit in different ways—apply the question, what “gives life” to different types of systems, and how this relates to the (so far as we know) uniquely human capacity for reflection. We identify six principles that “give life” to systems—intentional generativity, permeable containment, emerging novelty, contextual interconnectedness and requisite diversity, mutually enhancing wholeness, and proprioceptive consciousness—then provide guidance for change agents and scholars, as well as an illustrative example of the principles in action. These six principles provide a foundation for thinking about how to create flourishing human systems in organizations, social change, and global sustainability transformation.
{"title":"What Gives Life to Large System Change?","authors":"S. Waddock, Petra Kuenkel","doi":"10.1177/1086026619842482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619842482","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the capacity to create the large system change needed to deal with “grand challenges” like the Sustainable Development Goals, sustainability, or climate change can be enhanced by understanding and applying a core set of principles, drawn from multiple sources and levels of analysis that have explored the question of “what gives life.” These sources all—albeit in different ways—apply the question, what “gives life” to different types of systems, and how this relates to the (so far as we know) uniquely human capacity for reflection. We identify six principles that “give life” to systems—intentional generativity, permeable containment, emerging novelty, contextual interconnectedness and requisite diversity, mutually enhancing wholeness, and proprioceptive consciousness—then provide guidance for change agents and scholars, as well as an illustrative example of the principles in action. These six principles provide a foundation for thinking about how to create flourishing human systems in organizations, social change, and global sustainability transformation.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"33 1","pages":"342 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026619842482","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45923053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1177/1086026619854217
S. Schneider, T. Clauss
Business models for sustainability (BMFS) explicitly consider, jointly, economic with social and/or ecological value contributions. Thus, managing BMFS requires that one should combine multiple institutional logics, consider different stakeholders, and integrate distinct value dimensions. While research into BMFS has proposed frameworks and tools to capture this complexity, the mechanisms that underlie the interaction of the economic with social and/or ecological value creation cycles in BMFS remain unknown. We use a longitudinal, multiple-case study approach to identify a framework of fundamental choices and consequences that lead to economic and social/ecological value creation. Our findings highlight the interdependence of a set of three fundamental choices (an ambition to cater for multiple purposes, behavioral consistency, and collaboration) that lead to a virtuous circle of reinforcing consequences and cascaded value creation. Furthermore, we show how acceptance of limitations and restrictions functions as a powerful coping mechanism to deal with paradox tensions.
{"title":"Business Models for Sustainability: Choices and Consequences","authors":"S. Schneider, T. Clauss","doi":"10.1177/1086026619854217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619854217","url":null,"abstract":"Business models for sustainability (BMFS) explicitly consider, jointly, economic with social and/or ecological value contributions. Thus, managing BMFS requires that one should combine multiple institutional logics, consider different stakeholders, and integrate distinct value dimensions. While research into BMFS has proposed frameworks and tools to capture this complexity, the mechanisms that underlie the interaction of the economic with social and/or ecological value creation cycles in BMFS remain unknown. We use a longitudinal, multiple-case study approach to identify a framework of fundamental choices and consequences that lead to economic and social/ecological value creation. Our findings highlight the interdependence of a set of three fundamental choices (an ambition to cater for multiple purposes, behavioral consistency, and collaboration) that lead to a virtuous circle of reinforcing consequences and cascaded value creation. Furthermore, we show how acceptance of limitations and restrictions functions as a powerful coping mechanism to deal with paradox tensions.","PeriodicalId":47984,"journal":{"name":"Organization & Environment","volume":"33 1","pages":"384 - 407"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1086026619854217","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44932685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：