This study examines the relationship between corporate irresponsibility, corporate social performance and changes in organizational reputation. By combining attribution theory with expectancy violations theory, we provide the first systematic analysis of how organizational reputations are influenced by attributions of corporate irresponsibility in the context of social expectations. Drawing on a comprehensive and unique corporate irresponsibility dataset, this study reveals that firms previously believed to be most socially responsible are penalized by evaluators when corporate culpability is verified by a court of law. Conversely, firms perceived as least socially responsible were more likely to suffer reputation penalties when accused of irresponsibility, without their culpability established through litigation. Overall, the results of our study suggest that organizational reputations are mostly stable in light of irresponsibility, in that evaluators only penalize certain firms, in certain circumstances.Specifically, reputation penalties occur when highly responsible firms are perceived hypocritical and least responsible firms were not found culpable by a court of law. Upon reflection of these findings, our study reveals that the mechanisms of social sanction previously assumed to regulate irresponsibility are weaker than currently understood.Theoretical and policy implications of this study are discussed, along with directions for future research on social evaluations. (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). In doing so, organizations may achieve enhanced corporate social performance (CSP) and be perceived favourably (Barnett and Salomon, 2012;Brammer and Millington, 2004). Yet these same organizations are often observed behaving irresponsibly.Corporate irresponsibility (CI hereafter) may generate substantial unwanted stakeholder attention on firms (Campbell, 2007;Deephouse and Heugens, 2009) because when revealed, CI -organizational behaviors which are perceived to be egregious by observers (Lange and Washburn, 2012) -can damage organizational reputations (Karpoff and Lott 1993;Mishina, Block and Mannor, 2012).Thus far, CI research lacks consensus vis-à-vis the effects of irresponsibility on organizational reputation, with one strand of research arguing that irresponsibility is generally detrimental to stakeholder evaluations of the firm (He,

We investigate foreign market re-entry commitment strategies, namely the changes in the modes of operation (commitment) undertaken by multinational enterprises (MNEs) as they return to foreign markets from which they had previously exited. We combine organisational learning theory with the institutional change literature to examine the antecedents of re-entry commitment strategies. From an analysis of 1,020 re-entry events between 1980 and 2016, we find that operation mode prior to exit is a strong predictor of subsequent re-entry mode. Contrary to the predictions of learning theory, we did not find support for the effect of experience accumulated during the initial market endeavour on the re-entry commitment strategies of MNEs. In turn, exit motives significantly impact on the re-entrants' decision to re-enter via a different mode of operation, by either increasing or decreasing their commitment to the market. We show that re-entrants do not replicate unsuccessful operation mode strategies if they had previously underperformed in the market. When favourable host institutional changes occur during the time-out period re-entrants tend to increase commitment in the host market irrespective of the degree of prior experience accumulated in the market.

International business (IB) scholars’ over-reliance on a select few theories leaves our understanding of firm internationalization incomplete. The behavioral theory of the firm (BTF) can offer new insights and can be used to model a broad range of firm actions. We focus on the three basic BTF components: problemistic search, learning by doing, and vicarious learning. These components help us understand why firm behaviors are more dynamic and heterogeneous than other theories allow. BTF, with its emphasis on how firms assess performance according to aspiration levels, selectively learn and update routines, and selectively incorporate the learning of others, is better suited to examine the diversity and change increasingly observed in internationalization decisions. We explain why scholars should move beyond “dynamizing” static theories and show BTF’s applicability to behaviors involving change such as multi-mode market entries and market re-entries. BTF also helps examine the decision to internationalize in the first place, nascent firm internationalization, location choices, international market adaptation, and headquarter–subsidiary relationships. We encourage IB scholars to use theories that can handle the complexity increasingly associated with modern firm growth, and propose BTF as a promising starting point.

Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it.