Breaking With the Past: The Need for Innovation in the Governance of Nonprofit Social Enterprises

Bruneel, Johan; Clarysse, Bart; Weemaes, Stephan; Staessens, Matthias

doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0176

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A key component of bounded rationality rests upon the idea that decision-makers ultimately come to satisfactory decisions instead of optimal ones (March & Simon, 1958;Simon, 1957). This results from the limits of people's cognitive decision-making ability, which create difficulty in making rational decisions (Bruneel et al, 2020). One such limit is complexity (Bruneel et al, 2020).…”

Section: Bounded Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bounded rationality or bounded morality? The National Basketball Association response to COVID-19

Hindman

Walker

Agyemang

2021

European Sport Management Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research question: The COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis rife with complexity and ethical dilemmas for sport organizations. The purpose of this study is to examine the decision-making process of one such organization, the National Basketball Association (NBA), during the pandemic. Specifically, we draw from theories on decision-making and business ethics to understand how decisions were made. Research methods: We conducted an inductive qualitative content analysis on NBA media coverage between 21 January and 10 July 2020. A total of 152 articles were identified and included in an analysis from ESPN.com, the most prominent sports news outlet in the United States. Results and findings: Findings suggest that decision-making in the NBA was characterized by the cognitive limits of bounded rationality and the moral limits of bounded morality. The NBA's decision-making process swayed between caution and risk as priorities shifted, with the league, teams, and players focusing on various repercussions to health and safety, finances, and competitive advantage. Implications: This research expands understanding of how crises such as a pandemic impact decision-making in sport organizations. In addition, it highlights how bounded rationality and morality affect decision-making in situations that are complex, time-sensitive, and include moral conflicts, which sport organization leaders may frequently encounter.

show abstract

Section: Bounded Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This results from the limits of people's cognitive decision-making ability, which create difficulty in making rational decisions (Bruneel et al, 2020). One such limit is complexity (Bruneel et al, 2020). For instance, consider the complexity of making a decision on items that are traditionally tough to understand (e.g.…”

Section: Bounded Rationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Bounded rationality or bounded morality? The National Basketball Association response to COVID-19

Hindman

Walker

Agyemang

2021

European Sport Management Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, organizational paradox research has recognized the importance of environmental factors in providing the material conditions that lead to perplexing choices (Scherer et al, 2013). In the context of accelerated globalization (Slawinski et al, 2020), marketization and professionalization (Bruneel et al, 2020), environmental degradation (Daddi et al, 2019), and public health concerns (Iivonen, 2018), plurality, change, and scarcity emerging from complex environments enable sustainability paradoxes to occur, owing to competing economic, social, and environment goals (Soderstrom and Heinze, 2020). Specifically, plurality has been manifested in the pursuit of the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997), multiple institutional logics (Dahlmann and Grosvold, 2017), and multiple stakeholder demands (Smith et al, 2013).…”

Section: Environmental Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These kinds of tensions would directly reflect on firms' mission statements that combine economic pursuits and social or environmental visions. Some researchers show that the co-existence of social and economic/financial logics (Yan et al, 2019;Bruneel et al, 2020), market and community logics (Smets et al, 2015), or separate and integrated logics (Gümüsay et al, 2020) would provoke thorough tensions around the organization's structure and identity and change would ensue as institutional logics define the material practices, assumptions, values, and beliefs of organizations (Thornton et al, 2012). Other researchers, mainly from the perspective of stakeholder management, find that tensions would emerge as a consequence of heterogeneous opinions, confusion around roles, and diffused power or responsibility (Slade Shantz et al, 2020) when considering a wider range of stakeholders (both insiders and outsiders) in the sustainability context, of whom there are essentially inconsistent expectations (Iivonen, 2018).…”

Section: Environmental Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For integration, previous work highlights the role of linking mechanisms (Hahn et al, 2016). A structural design, such as a hybrid set of members of the board (Bruneel et al, 2020), could combine business and social logics, and formal processes that regulate crossfunction interaction (Battilana et al, 2015) could facilitate coordination and resource exchange. The authors observe that integration mechanisms are specifically addressed by some multinational enterprises.…”

Section: Proactive Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corporate Sustainability Paradox Management: A Systematic Review and Future Agenda

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing evidence suggests that corporate sustainability is paradoxical in nature, as corporates and managers have to achieve economic, social, and environmental goals, simultaneously. While a paradox perspective has been broadly incorporated into sustainability research for more than a decade, it has resulted in limited improvement in our understanding of corporate sustainability paradox management. In this study, the authors conduct a systematic review of the literature of corporate sustainability paradox management by adopting the Smith–Lewis three-stage model of dynamic equilibrium. The results reveal the following: (1) Both environmental and cognitive factors manifest tensions arising from the sustainability paradox. (2) While both proactive and defensive strategies are adopted to manage the tensions embedded in the corporate sustainability, the proactive strategy is more extensively studied in the current literature. (3) Management strategies of corporate sustainability paradox are characterized as multi-level, multi-stage, and dealing with multiple paradoxes. (4) Proactive strategies enable organizations to enjoy short-term and long-term sustainability benefits. The authors call for further research explicitly addressing the following areas: (1) the paradoxical nature of corporate sustainability management; (2) corporate sustainability paradox management of for-profit organizations; (3) the micro-foundations of corporate sustainability paradox management; (4) defensive strategies and new proactive strategies; and (5) a unified standard of sustainability outcomes. The practical implications of this review are then elaborated. In practice, the results imply that organizations would best manage the corporate sustainability paradox by understanding the paradox and its equilibrium stages. This review and proposed research agenda are expected to deepen interdisciplinary knowledge and set the stage for interested scholars to undertake in their future inquiries.

show abstract

Corporate social performance feedback and corporate social responsibility decoupling in China: The salience of legitimacy and/or efficiency

Xue,

Xu,

Chen

2024

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its detrimental effects, corporate social responsibility (CSR) decoupling has been underexamined in the literature. This research explores why and how companies engage in CSR decoupling from the perspective of behavioral theory of social performance. We contend that legitimacy threats drive firms with corporate social performance (CSP) below stakeholder expectations toward substantive CSR initiatives, which reduces CSR decoupling. In contrast, efficiency deficit drives firms with CSP above stakeholder expectations toward symbolic CSR initiatives, increasing CSR decoupling. Building upon literature on issue salience, these relationships are moderated by industry culpability and earnings pressure. A longitudinal analysis was conducted on Heckman two‐stage estimation using a sample of 5166 Chinese publicly listed firms from 2010 to 2019, which supports our hypotheses. Additionally, the findings remain robust after rigorous tests. This study contributes to the CSR literature by shedding light on the impact of CSP feedback on CSR decoupling and enriches the behavioral theory of social performance by incorporating the perspective on CSP feedback through issue salience.

show abstract

Breaking With the Past: The Need for Innovation in the Governance of Nonprofit Social Enterprises

Cited by 31 publications

References 89 publications

Bounded rationality or bounded morality? The National Basketball Association response to COVID-19

Bounded rationality or bounded morality? The National Basketball Association response to COVID-19

Corporate Sustainability Paradox Management: A Systematic Review and Future Agenda

Corporate social performance feedback and corporate social responsibility decoupling in China: The salience of legitimacy and/or efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About