SpringerLink
Log in

How Competing Institutional Logics Affect Corporate Social Responsibility Benefits: the Mediating Role of Paradox Mindset and Multi-Stakeholders

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizations differ in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) orientation, the effects of which manifest themselves in organizational outcomes. Drawing on the institutional logics perspective, the current study explains the underlying dynamics of these differences. The current study aims at revealing how organizations can achieve combined CSR benefits for both society and business by exploring the ways of how social and commercial logic function differently in the context of CSR and shape organizations’ CSR together with some mediators. Based on the developed typology by the current study for CSR, a research model is created for the analysis. A survey was conducted with 192 companies operating in various sectors. The findings confirm the dichotomy, which is theoretically proposed by the developed typology of the current study between institutional logics and perceived CSR benefits: commercial logic mostly increases CSR benefits for business while social logic increases CSR benefits for society. Furthermore, the current study finds out that it is possible for commercial logic to provide CSR benefits for society and social logic to provide CSR benefits for business, thanks to some organizational capabilities that allow overcoming the complexity arising from the different organizational prescriptions of competing institutional logics. Thus, paradox mindset and multi-stakeholders can enable combined CSR benefits by mediating between incompatible structures of multiple logics. Given the importance of approaching strategically in today’s turbulent business environment, both academics and practitioners can use this model to achieve CSR benefits simultaneously for both business and society by managing multiple goals.

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
EUR 32.99 /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 includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airike, P. E., Rotter, J. P., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2016). Corporate motives for multi-stakeholder collaboration–corporate social responsibility in the electronics supply chains. Journal of cleaner production, 131, 639–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, E., & Craig, J. B. (2016). Selling issues with solutions: Igniting social intrapreneurship in for-profit organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 794–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Mapelli, F. (2018). What drives the evolution of corporate social responsibility strategies? An institutional logics perspective. Journal of cleaner production, 171, 345–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Mapelli, F. (2019). Corporate social responsibility strategies in the utilities sector: A comparative study. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., Saveanu, T., & Hatos, R. (2018). The relationship between firm size and age, and its social responsibility actions—Focus on a develo** country (Romania). Sustainability, 10(3), 805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2005). An inductive typology for corporate social responsibility. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. C1–C6). Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 2, 133–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann-Pauly, D., Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Managing institutional complexity: A longitudinal study of legitimacy strategies at a sportswear brand company. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, N., Holtbrügge, D., Egri, C. P., Furrer, O., Sinding, K., & Dögl, C. (2018). Stakeholder pressures, CSR practices, and business outcomes in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. European Journal of International Management, 12(4), 472–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple ınstitutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and ımplicatıons. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin, Z., & Dashuai, R. (2020). Are tensions beneficial or detrimental for the enterprise’s mainstream and new stream innovation? A paradox perspective. Human Systems Management, 39(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2011). Exploring the relationship between CSR and innovation: A comparison between small and largesized French companies. Revue Sciences de Gestion, 80, 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmine, S., & De Marchi, V. (2022). Reviewing paradox theory in corporate sustainability toward a systems perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05112-2

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2019). Effect of stretch goals on work–family conflict: Role of resource scarcity and employee paradox mindset. Chinese Management Studies, 14(3), 737–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., & Zhe, Z. (2019). Effect of stretch goals on work–family conflict: Role of resource scarcity and paradox mindset. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1, p. 11852). Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, L. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Strange brew: Bridging logics via institutional bricolage and the reconstitution of organizational identity. In Institutional logics in action, part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, A. H., & del Bosque, I. R. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 369–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G., & Spyridonidis, D. (2016). Interpretation of multiple institutional logics on the ground: Actors’ position, their agency and situational constraints in professionalized contexts. Organization studies, 37(1), 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diab, A., & Metwally, A. B. M. (2020). Institutional complexity and CSR practices: Evidence from a develo** country. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), 655–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev., 48(2), 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dincer, C., & Dincer, B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Future prospects in the Turkish context. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(3), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How information technology matters In Societal Change: An Affordance-Based Institutional Logics Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1359–1390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, S., & Micelotta, E. R. (2013). Beyond the family firm: Reasserting the influence of the family institutional logic across organizations. In Institutional logics in action, part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., & Khan, I. (2014). Multi-item stakeholder based scale to measure CSR in the banking industry. International Strategic Management Review, 2(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 232–266). University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of marketing research, 25(2), 186–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of management studies, 42(5), 1031–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A., & Raffaelli, R. (2013). Logic pluralism, organizational design, and practice adoption: The structural embeddedness of CSR programs. In Institutional Logics in Action, Part B. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, Ó. (2006). The role of stakeholder pressure and managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices. International Journal of Production Research, 44(7), 1353–1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J., der Duijn, M.-V., & Schouten, C. (2012). Motives for corporate social responsibility. De Economist, 160(4), 377–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J., & Van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization science, 21(2), 521–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2020). “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis, Seventh Edition. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long range planning, 45(5-6), 320–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

  • Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Høvring, C. M. (2017). Caught in a communicative catch-22? Translating the notion of CSR as shared value creation in a Danish CSR frontrunner. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(4), 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Høvring, C. M., Andersen, S. E., & Nielsen, A. E. (2018). Discursive tensions in CSR multi-stakeholder dialogue: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 627–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huoy, C. S., Rahim, S. A., Rahman, N. A. A., Nawi, M. N. M., & Ahmi, A. (2018). Determination the key success factor for the success implementation and long-term sustainability of vendor managed inventory (VMI). International Journal of Supply Chain Management., 7(2), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Carroll, A. (2017). Capturing advances in CSR: Developed versus develo** country perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26, 321–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2016). CSR in developed versus develo** countries: A comparative glimpse. In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Research handbook on corporate social responsibility in context. Cheltenham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Karam, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in develo** countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 32–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Karam, C., Yin, J., & Soundararajan, V. (2017). Csr logics in develo** countries: Translation, adaptation and stalled development. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 343–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P., & Jeppesen, S. (2017). SMEs and CSR in develo** countries. Business & Society, 56(1), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in develo** countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 599–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of business Ethics, 87(3), 355–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammulamadaka, N. (2020). Reading institutional logics of CSR in India from a post-colonial location. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(3), 599–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2013). Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Part B: Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 39b, pp. 37–61). Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2017). A cross-cultural and feminist perspective on CSR in develo** countries: Uncovering latent power dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 461–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. (2017). Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 539–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2019). Ethical awareness, ethical judgment, and whistleblowing: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Campbell, T. T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility practices in develo** and transitional countries: Botswana and Malawi. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Xu, S. (2019). Paradox mindset and ınnovative work behavior: Based on self-determination theory. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1, p. 17495). Academy of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, I., & Schulz-Knappe, C. (2019). Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 2–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looser, S. U. (2019). Intrinsic and extrinsic corporate social responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2013). Institutional logics in action. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 39(A, pp. 3–22). Emerald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., Steele, C., Wang, M., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J. (2012). A study on the models for corporate social responsibility of small and medium enterprises. Physics Procedia, 25, 435–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Swaen, V., & De Roeck, K. (2021). Coporate branding and corporate social responsibility: Toward a multi-stakeholder interpretive perspective. Journal of Business Research, 126, 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, M., Gomez-Mejia, L., Firfiray, S., Berrone, P., & Villena, V. H. (2016). Leader beliefs and CSR for employees: the case of telework provision. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 609–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol., 83(2), 340–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Perrini, F. (2009). CSR in SMEs: do SMEs matter for the CSR agenda? Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations, 72(12), 1920–1947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousa, M., Abdelgaffar, H. A., Chaouali, W., & Aboramadan, M. (2020). Organizational learning, organizational resilience and the mediating role of multi-stakeholder networks: A study of Egyptian academics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(3), 161–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, D., Czischke, D., & van Bortel, G. (2012). Exploring the meaning of hybridity and social enterprise in housing organisations. Housing Studies, 27(4), 405–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Hel** researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngoye, B., Sierra, V., & Ysa, T. (2019). Different shades of gray: A priming experimental study on how institutional logics influence organizational actor judgment. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 256–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7-8), 833–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Murphy, P. E., & Gruber, V. (2014). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W., & Radoynovska, N. (2016). Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 287–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panwar, R., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Does the business case matter? The effect of a perceived business case on small firms’ social engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(3), 597–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permatasari, W. Y., & Suhariadi, F. (2019). Leader-member exchange affects work engagement: The role of psychological well-being mediation. Psikohumaniora. Journal Penelitian Psikologi, 4(1), 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of business ethics, 67(3), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension–performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettab, B., Brik, A. B., & Mellahi, K. (2009). A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: The case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 371–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A., Vyas, V., & Jain, P. (2013). SMEs motivation: Corporate social responsibility. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 10(1), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of business ethics, 111(3), 335–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998–4010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2017). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: legitimacy-or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business strategy and the environment, 20(4), 222–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, S., & Rasche, A. (2022). Inter-organizational paradox management: How national business systems affect responses to paradox along a global value chain. Organization studies, 43(4), 547–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. L., Plateau, C. R., & Haycraft, E. (2020). Teammate influences, psychological well-being, and athletes’ eating and exercise psychopathology: A moderated mediation analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(4), 564–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Moses, A. C., Borah, S. B., & Adhikary, A. (2020). Investigating the impact of workforce racial diversity on the organizational corporate social responsibility performance: An institutional logics perspective. Journal of Business Research, 107, 138–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y., Sung, S. Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2015). Top management ethical leadership and firm performance: Mediating role of ethical and procedural justice climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnayder, L., & Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2018). How expected outcomes, stakeholders, and institutions influence corporate social responsibility at different levels of large basic needs firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1689–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Yamin, M. (2014). The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid–implications for MNEs? International Business Review, 23(4), 692–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, P., & Burke, G. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 407–442.

    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 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparr, J. L. (2018). Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 162–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, G. Y. W., & Komaran, R. V. (2006). Perceptions of corporate social responsibility: An empirical study in Singapore; Strategic management policy. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual International Conference on Advances in Management, 26 June, Singapore. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3845&context=lkcsb_research

  • Thornton, L. M., Autry, C. W., Gligor, D. M., & Brik, A. B. (2013). Does socially responsible supplier selection pay off for customer firms? A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(3), 66–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Education Publishing. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. Am. J. Sociol., 105(3), 801–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism,100-129. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2012). Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. Journal of business ethics, 109(4), 483–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Türker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of business ethics, 85(4), 411–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upadhaya, B., Munir, R., Blount, Y., & Su, S. (2018). Does organizational culture mediate the CSR–strategy relationship? Evidence from a develo** country. Nepal. Journal of Business Research, 91, 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Kailer, N., & Baldwin, B. (2019). Responsible entrepreneurship: Outlining the contingencies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 538–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, A. M. P., Zietsma, C., Greenwood, R., & Langley, A. (2016). Strategic responses to institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 277–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, W. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in Develo** Countries. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 473–503). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A., & Campbell, K. (2013). Work readiness of graduate nurses and the impact on job satisfaction, work engagement and intention to remain. Nurse Education Today, 33(12), 1490–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermann-Behaylo, M., Berman, S. L., Van Buren, I. I. I., & H. J. (2014). The influence of institutional logics on corporate responsibility toward employees. Business & Society, 53(5), 714–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijethilake, C., & Lama, T. (2019). Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woldesenbet Beta, K., & Storey, J. (2019). Navigating competing institutional logics in a develo** economy. Africa Journal of Management, 5(1), 24–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J. (2014). The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2021). Collide or collaborate: The interplay of competing logics and institutional work in cross-sector social partnerships. J Bus Ethics, 169, 673–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and application, Design and Methods (6th ed.). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, Y., & Choi, Y. (2016). Stakeholder pressure and CSR adoption: The mediating role of organizational culture for Chinese companies. The social science journal, 53(2), 226–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. (2017). How institutional logics matter: A bottom-up exploration. In How Institutions Matter! Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 48A, 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is derived from a doctoral dissertation, which has been conducted in consultation with Prof. Dr. Duygu TÜRKER.

The author wishes to express her deepest gratitude to her thesis adviser, the Department of Business Administration-Yasar University, for her guidance during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business, Yasar University, Universite Caddesi No.37-39 Bornova, 35100, Izmir, Turkey

    Gizem ARAS BEGER

Authors
  1. Gizem ARAS BEGER
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gizem ARAS BEGER.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

ESM 1:

Supplementary materials

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

ARAS BEGER, G. How Competing Institutional Logics Affect Corporate Social Responsibility Benefits: the Mediating Role of Paradox Mindset and Multi-Stakeholders. J Knowl Econ 15, 1913–1951 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01131-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01131-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation