This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

No abstract

This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

PurposeAlthough grounded theory (GT) was introduced in 1967, GT remains widely misunderstood as scholars incorporate a limited spectrum of the GT techniques and fail to integrate GT's full potential into academic research. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to discuss divergences between four GT strategies and by doing so to provide criteria for making an informed choice between one GT approach or another.Design/methodology/approachThe study offers a comparative analysis of four GT approaches by relying on a recently completed empirical work focused on the practice and perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in non-Western context conducted by the author.FindingsAs a result, the study outlines the main points of divergence between the four GT strategies and discusses how their differences impact the research outcomes, theoretical products and application of the proposed theories in organisational and management research.Research limitations/implicationsAs a result of the comparative analysis, the study will help researchers make an informed choice when selecting one GT approach or another.Originality/valueThe study demonstrates the potential of GT in organisational and management research by utilising a practical example of GT's implementation from a recently completed empirical study.

No abstract