2007
DOI: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275683
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Community isomorphism and corporate social action

Abstract: We present a model of how institutional pressures at the community level shape corporate social action-behaviors and practices that extend beyond immediate profit maximization goals and are intended to increase social benefits or mitigate social problems for constituencies external to the firm-within the metropolitan area where firms are headquartered. We propose that community isomorphism influences the nature and level of corporate social action within communities and conclude with theoretical implications e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

19
718
0
7

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 801 publications
(744 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
19
718
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Marquis, Glynn and Davis (2007) suggest that social dynamics, such as community-level normative pressures, are more likely instigators of corporate social actions (for more evidence about community pressures to adopt CSR practices see Galaskiewicz 1991;1997).…”
Section: Two Competing Views Of Corporate Social Responsibility and Rmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marquis, Glynn and Davis (2007) suggest that social dynamics, such as community-level normative pressures, are more likely instigators of corporate social actions (for more evidence about community pressures to adopt CSR practices see Galaskiewicz 1991;1997).…”
Section: Two Competing Views Of Corporate Social Responsibility and Rmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite being valuable, these research studies still reveal little about why any particular firm would give to any specific cause as opposed to others. In contrast, another stream of research emphasizes the role of the organization's geographic proximity to the social need in question (Crampton and Patten 2008;Galaskiewicz 1997;Marquis et al 2007;Tilscik and Marquis 2013), but does not explain why or under which circumstances organizations give to causes farther away from 'home.' In addition, extant research typically approaches corporate philanthropy at a high level of aggregation by exploring variance in overall annual donation amounts.…”
Section: An Attention-based Framework Of Corporate Philanthropymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extant research typically explains corporate philanthropy as a function of societal expectations (Adams and Hardwick 1998;Brammer and Millington 2004;Crampton and Patten 2008;Galaskiewicz and Burt 1991;Marquis et al 2007) or in terms of reputation and financial management strategies (Brammer and Millington 2005;Lev et al 2010;Saiia et al 2003;Su and He 2010). Most research emphasizes structural institutional factors that explain variance in firms' overall levels of annual giving.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a contribution can help a manager attain a higher social status while simultaneously enhancing the firm's reputation among consumers. The various overlapping institutional pressures that corporate managers face with respect to giving decisions are discussed in Galaskiewicz (1997) and Marquis, Glynn, and Davis (2007 Figure 1. Anecdotal evidence, as well as the prior empirical and theoretical research discussed below, lay the groundwork for investigating this link between philanthropy and revenues.…”
Section: Corporate Philanthropy and Revenuesmentioning
confidence: 99%