{"title":"冲突与互补的制度逻辑在可持续发展实践中的相互作用。","authors":"Ivana Milosevic, A Erin Bass, Ben Schulte","doi":"10.1007/s11575-023-00503-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The impact of institutional environments on sustainability is well documented in the international business literature. However, how multiple and occasionally conflicting institutional logics shape sustainability as it is practiced by individuals across countries remains undertheorized. Our study contributes to this line of research by examining how multiple institutional logics inform the comprehension of sustainability practices in two high-hazard organizations in the Republic of Serbia and Canada. In doing so, our findings explicate three multi-level mechanisms - pulling down (1st level), relating (2nd level), and aligning (2nd level) - through which individuals in these organizations across two countries construct a localized understanding of sustainability. In both countries, individuals <i>pull down</i> elements of the state and organizational logics to construct meso-level logics they use to comprehend sustainability practices, albeit differently. In Serbia, due to the conflict between the current state logic and dominant high-hazard organizational logic, individuals pull down elements of the high-hazard organizational logic and the enduring legacy state logic to construct a community logic and <i>align</i> sustainability practices with it. In Canada, the state logic complements the high-hazard organizational logic, resulting in individuals pulling down elements of both logics to construct the professional logic and <i>aligning</i> their practice with it. In both countries, due to the dominance of the high-hazard organizational logic, individuals <i>relate</i> their practices to the well-being of others. Based on our comparative case analysis, we create a general model and a country-specific model depicting how individuals embed multiple institutional logics into their sustainability practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":51434,"journal":{"name":"Management International Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9987400/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Interplay of Conflicting and Complementing Institutional Logics in Sustainability Practices.\",\"authors\":\"Ivana Milosevic, A Erin Bass, Ben Schulte\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11575-023-00503-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The impact of institutional environments on sustainability is well documented in the international business literature. However, how multiple and occasionally conflicting institutional logics shape sustainability as it is practiced by individuals across countries remains undertheorized. Our study contributes to this line of research by examining how multiple institutional logics inform the comprehension of sustainability practices in two high-hazard organizations in the Republic of Serbia and Canada. In doing so, our findings explicate three multi-level mechanisms - pulling down (1st level), relating (2nd level), and aligning (2nd level) - through which individuals in these organizations across two countries construct a localized understanding of sustainability. In both countries, individuals <i>pull down</i> elements of the state and organizational logics to construct meso-level logics they use to comprehend sustainability practices, albeit differently. In Serbia, due to the conflict between the current state logic and dominant high-hazard organizational logic, individuals pull down elements of the high-hazard organizational logic and the enduring legacy state logic to construct a community logic and <i>align</i> sustainability practices with it. In Canada, the state logic complements the high-hazard organizational logic, resulting in individuals pulling down elements of both logics to construct the professional logic and <i>aligning</i> their practice with it. In both countries, due to the dominance of the high-hazard organizational logic, individuals <i>relate</i> their practices to the well-being of others. Based on our comparative case analysis, we create a general model and a country-specific model depicting how individuals embed multiple institutional logics into their sustainability practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management International Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9987400/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management International Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-023-00503-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-023-00503-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Interplay of Conflicting and Complementing Institutional Logics in Sustainability Practices.
The impact of institutional environments on sustainability is well documented in the international business literature. However, how multiple and occasionally conflicting institutional logics shape sustainability as it is practiced by individuals across countries remains undertheorized. Our study contributes to this line of research by examining how multiple institutional logics inform the comprehension of sustainability practices in two high-hazard organizations in the Republic of Serbia and Canada. In doing so, our findings explicate three multi-level mechanisms - pulling down (1st level), relating (2nd level), and aligning (2nd level) - through which individuals in these organizations across two countries construct a localized understanding of sustainability. In both countries, individuals pull down elements of the state and organizational logics to construct meso-level logics they use to comprehend sustainability practices, albeit differently. In Serbia, due to the conflict between the current state logic and dominant high-hazard organizational logic, individuals pull down elements of the high-hazard organizational logic and the enduring legacy state logic to construct a community logic and align sustainability practices with it. In Canada, the state logic complements the high-hazard organizational logic, resulting in individuals pulling down elements of both logics to construct the professional logic and aligning their practice with it. In both countries, due to the dominance of the high-hazard organizational logic, individuals relate their practices to the well-being of others. Based on our comparative case analysis, we create a general model and a country-specific model depicting how individuals embed multiple institutional logics into their sustainability practices.
期刊介绍:
Management International Review publishes research-based articles that reflect significant advances in the key areas of International Management. Its target audience consists of scholars in International Business Administration.
Management International Review is a double-blind refereed journal that aims at the advancement and dissemination of research in the fields of International Management. The scope of the journal comprises International Business, Cross-Cultural Management, and Comparative Management. The journal publishes research that builds or extends International Management theory so that it can contribute to International Management practice.
Management International Review welcomes both theoretical and empirical work. Original papers are invited that are based on a solid theoretical basis and a rigorous methodology. In the area of empirical studies, the journal publishes both quantitative and qualitative research. To be published in
Management International Review, a paper must make strong contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the field of International Management. The editors are especially interested in manuscripts that break new ground rather than papers that make only incremental contributions.
Management International Review publishes articles and research notes. Every year, six issues are published. On average, two of these issues are Focused Issues, which concentrate on a specific subfield of International Management.