Involving,Countering,and Overlooking Stakeholder Networks in Soft Regulation: Case Study of a Small-to-Medium-Sized Enterprise’s Implementation of SA8000
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2022
Involving,Countering,and Overlooking Stakeholder Networks in Soft Regulation: Case Study of a Small-to-Medium-Sized Enterprise’s Implementation of SA8000
To achieve effective stakeholder governance in the context of international social accountability certification (SA8000) requires constructing a network of agreement. In a case study of a small-to-medium-sized enterprise (SME), we examine managers’ attempts at enrolling participants in the supply chain to investigate how they strive to engage these stakeholders. We adopt actor-network theory (ANT) and sensemaking theory to develop a novel approach to understanding social accountability (SA) standards’ certification in stakeholder networks. We argue that the design and operation of any SA standard across a network requires not only attempts at enrolling other participants in the supply chain but management contextualizing and problematizing the terms of their involvement.
AguinisH. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In ZedeckS. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 855–879). American Psychological Association.
2.
AguinisH.GlavasA. (2019). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management, 45, 1057–1086.
3.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (2006). Organizing the world. In DjelicM.-L.Sahlin-AnderssonK. (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation (pp. 74–94). Cambridge University Press.
4.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18, 83–104.
5.
AkrichM. (1992). Beyond social construction of technology: The shaping of people and things in the innovation process. In DierkesM.HoffmannU. (Eds.), New technology at the outset (pp. 173–190). Campus; Westview.
6.
AkrichM.CallonM.LatourB. (2006) Collection Sciences Sociales: Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. Presses de l’École des Mines de Paris [Social Sciences Collection: Sociology of translation. Founding texts. Presses des Mines].
7.
AkrichM.LatourB. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In BijkerW. E.LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, studies in technological change (pp. 259–264). MIT Press.
8.
AlbaredaL.WaddockS. (2018). Networked CSR governance: A whole network approach to meta-governance. Business & Society, 57, 636–675.
9.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265–1281.
10.
AnderssonP.AspenbergK.KjellbergH. (2008). The configuration of actors in market practice. Marketing Theory, 8, 67–90.
11.
AvetisyanE.FerraryM. (2013). Dynamics of stakeholders’ implications in the institutionalization of the CSR field in France and in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 115–133.
12.
BalzarovaM.CastkaP. (2012). Stakeholders’ influence and contribution to social standards development: The case of multiple stakeholder approach to ISO 26000 development. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 265–279.
13.
BasuK.PalazzoG. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33, 122–136.
14.
Baumann-PaulyD.WickertC.SpenceL. J.SchererA. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 693–705.
15.
BearC.EdenS. (2008). Making space for fish: The regional, network and fluid spaces of fisheries certification. Social & Cultural Geography, 9, 487–504.
16.
BelalA.RobertsR. (2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 311–324.
17.
BergströmO.DiedrichA. (2011). Exercising social responsibility in downsizing: Enrolling and mobilizing actors at a Swedish high-tech company. Organization Studies, 32, 897–919.
18.
BermanS. L.Johnson-CramerM. E. (2017). Stakeholder theory: Seeing the field through the forest. Business & Society, 58, 1358–1375.
19.
BernsteinS.CashoreB. (2007). Can non-state governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1, 347–371.
20.
BledA. J. (2010). Technological choices in international environmental negotiations: An actor-network analysis. Business & Society, 49, 570–590.
21.
BoiralO. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational myth?Organization Science, 18, 127–146.
22.
BrammerS.HoejmoseS.MarchantK. (2012). Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 423–434.
23.
CallonM. (1974–1975). L’opération de traduction comme relation symbolique, Incidence des rapports sociaux sur les développements scientifiques et techniques [The symbolic translation operation: Impact of social relations on scientific and technical development]. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
24.
CallonM. (1986a). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action & belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–229). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
25.
CallonM. (1986b). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In CallonM.LawJ.RipA. (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19–34). Macmillan Press.
26.
CallonM. (2007). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In AsdalK.BrennaB.MoserI. (Eds.), Technoscience: The politics of interventions (pp. 57–78). University of Oslo.
27.
CallonM.LatourB. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In CetinaK. D. K.CicourelA. V. (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277–303). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
28.
CastkaP.CorbettC. J. (2016). Governance of eco-labels: Expert opinion and media coverage. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 309–326.
29.
ChristmannP.TaylorG. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.
30.
CleggS. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. SAGE.
31.
CleggS. R.CourpassonD.PhillipsN. (2006). Power and organizations. SAGE.
32.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th edn.). SAGE.
33.
CornetA.WarlandP. (2013). Gérer la diversité au quotidien Cas pratiques de GRH. Atelier des Presses.
34.
CraneA.MattenD. (2004). Business ethics—A European perspective: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
35.
CraneA.RuebottomT. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 77–87.
36.
De SilvaM.Al-TabbaaO.KahnZ. (2021). Business model innovation by international social purpose organizations: The role of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 125, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.030
37.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
38.
El AbboubiM.NicolopoulouK. (2012). CSR accountability standards: Using an ANT approach. M@n@gement, 15, 391–414.
39.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
40.
FlickU. (2019). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE.
41.
FransenL. W. (2011). Why do private governance organizations not converge? A political-institutional analysis of transnational labor standards regulation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24, 359–387.
42.
FransenL. W.KolkA. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14, 667–684.
43.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholders’ approach. Pitman.
44.
GilbertD. U.RascheA. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability—The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 187–216.
45.
GilbertD. U.RascheA. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.
46.
GilbertD. U.RascheA.WaddockS. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 23–44.
47.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 443–448.
48.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.
49.
GirardC.SobczakA. (2010). Pour une cartographie des parties prenantes fondée sur leur engagement: Une application aux sociétaires d’une banque mutualiste Française. Management & Avenir, 3, 157–174.
50.
GirardC.SobczakA. (2012). Towards a model of corporate and social stakeholder engagement: Analyzing the relations between a French mutual bank and its members. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 215–225.
51.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. AldineTransaction. (Original work published 1967)
52.
HaackP.SchoenebornD.WickertC. (2012). Talking the talk, moral entrapment, creeping commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardization. Organization Studies, 33, 815–845.
53.
HahnR.WeidtmannC. (2016). Transnational governance, deliberative democracy, and the legitimacy of ISO 26000: Analyzing the case of a global multistakeholder process. Business & Society, 55, 90–121.
54.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, 463–487.
55.
HammannE.HabischA.PechlanerH. (2009). Values that create value: Socially responsible business practices in SMEs—Empirical evidence from German companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18, 37–51.
56.
HansenA. (2011). Relating performative and ostensive management accounting research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8, 108–138.
57.
HansenA.MouritsenJ. (1999). Managerial technology and netted networks. “Competitiveness” in action: The work of translating performance in a high-tech firm. Organization, 6, 451–471.
58.
HardyC.PhillipsN.CleggS. R. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of the production of the research “subject.”Human Relations, 54, 531–560.
59.
HeikkurinenP.BonnedahlK. J. (2013). Corporate responsibility for sustainable development: A review and conceptual comparison of market- and stakeholder-oriented strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43, 191–198.
60.
HeikkurinenP.BonnedahlK. J. (Eds.). (2019). Strongly sustainable societies: Organising human activities on a hot and full earth. Routledge.
61.
HeikkurinenP.RinkinenJ.JärvensivuT.WilénK.RuuskaT. (2016). Organising in the anthropocene: An ontological outline for ecocentric theorising. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 705–714.
62.
HellerF. A. (1969). Group feedback analysis: A method of field research. Psychological Bulletin, 72(2), 108–117.
63.
HiggsM. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 273–284.
64.
HoffmanW. M. (1991). Business and environmental ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 169–184.
65.
HoogendoornB.GuerraD.van der ZwanP. (2015). What drives environmental practices of SMEs?Small Business Economics, 44, 759–781.
66.
HuxhamC.VangenS. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1159–1175.
67.
JørgensenA.KnudsenJ. S. (2006). Sustainable competitiveness in global value chains: How do small Danish firms behave?Corporate Governance, the International Journal of Business in Society, 6, 449–462.
68.
JamaliD. (2010). MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 617–640.
69.
JastramS.PrescherJ. (2014). Legitimizing corporate social responsibility governance. In IdowuS. O.FrederisksenC. S.MermodA. Y.NielsenM. E. J. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and governance: Theory and practice (pp. 39–62). Springer.
70.
KjellbergH.HelgessonC.-F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 839–865.
71.
KjellbergH.HelgessonC.-F. (2007). On the nature of markets and their practices. Marketing Theory, 7, 137–162.
72.
KokA. M.de BakkerF. G. A.GroenewegenP. (2019). Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business & Society, 58, 1496–1532.
73.
KusykS. M.LozanoJ. M. (2007). SME social performance: A four-cell typology of key drivers and barriers on social issues and their implications for stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 7, 502–515.
74.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.
75.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
76.
LatourB. (1997, July). On recalling ANT [Paper presentation]. “Actor Network and After” Workshop, Keele University, Newcastle, England.
77.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
78.
LaveJ. (1986). The values of quantification [Sociological Review Monograph, 32]. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 88–111). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
79.
LawJ.HassardJ. (1999). Blackwell and sociological review: Actor network theory and after. Blackwell.
80.
LogsdonM.LewellynP. (2000). Expanding accountability to stakeholders: Trends and predictions. Business and Society Review, 105, 419–435.
81.
LoweA. (2004). Postsocial relations: Toward a performative view of accounting knowledge. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17, 604–628.
82.
Luoma-ahoV.PaloviitaA. (2010). Actor-networking stakeholder theory for corporate communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15, 49–67.
83.
LuscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240.
84.
MacleanM.HarveyC. (2016). “Give it back, George”: Network dynamics in the philanthropic field. Organization Studies, 37, 399–423.
85.
MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49.
86.
MaitlisS.LawrenceT. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 57–84.
87.
MaitlisS.SonensheinS. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 551–580.
88.
MasonR. O.MitroffI. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. John Wiley & Sons.
89.
MattenD.CraneA. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179.
90.
MenaS.PalazzoG. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 527–556.
91.
MilesM. P.MunillaL. S. (2004). The potential impact of social accountability certification on marketing: A short note. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, Article 111.
92.
MitchellR.AgleB.WoodD. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
93.
MitroffI.LinstoneH. (1993). The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. Oxford University Press.
94.
MückenbergerU.JastramS. (2010). Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal for Business Ethics, 97, 223–239.
95.
NewtonT. (1996). Agency and discourse: Recruiting consultants in a life insurance company. Sociology, 30, 717–739.
96.
NicolopoulouK.Karatas-OzkanM. (2009). CSR and social entrepreneurship: Future global opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 3, 173–187.
97.
NielsenA. E.ThomsenC. (2009). Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: A case study among Danish middle managers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18, 83–93.
98.
OlcottG.OliverN. (2014). Social capital, sense-making and recovery from disaster: Japanese companies and the March 2011 earthquake. California Management Review, 56, 5–22.
99.
OliverN.CalvardT.PotočnikK. (2019). Safe limits, mindful organizing and loss of control in commercial aviation. Safety Science, 120, 772–780.
100.
O’RourkeD. (2006). Multi-stakeholder regulation: Privatizing or socializing global labor standards?World Development, 34, 899–918.
101.
ParentM. M.DeephouseD. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.
102.
ParkerA.HalginD. S.BorgattiS. P. (2016). Dynamics of social capital: Effects of performance feedback on network change. Organization Studies, 37, 375–397.
103.
PedersenE. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practices. Business and Society Review, 111, 137–163.
104.
Perez-BatresL. A.DohJ. P.MillerV. V.PisaniM. J. (2012). Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 157–172.
105.
PhillipsR. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler.
106.
PhillipsR.FreemanR. E.WicksA. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 479–502.
107.
PitsisT.CleggS. R.MarosszekyM.Rura-PolleyT. (2003). Constructing the Olympic dream: Managing innovation through the future perfect. Organization Science, 14, 574–590.
108.
PowerM. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
109.
PradoA. M.WoodsideA. G. (2015). Deepening understanding of certification adoption and non-adoption of international-supplier ethical standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 105–125.
110.
PrakashA.PotoskiM. (2006). The voluntary environmentalists: Green clubs, ISO 14001, and voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge University Press.
111.
PrebleJ. F. (2005). Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Business & Society Review, 110, 407–431.
112.
QureshiI.KistruckG. M.BhattB. (2016). The enabling and constraining effects of social ties in the process of institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 37, 425–447.
RascheA. (2009). Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards—The case of the UN global compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 192–205.
115.
RascheA.EsserD. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability—Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.
116.
RascheA.WaddockS. (2017). Standards for CSR: Legitimacy, impact and critique. In RascheA.MorsingM.MoonJ. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Strategy, communication, governance (pp. 163–186). Cambridge University Press.
117.
RowleyT. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.
118.
RuggieJ. G. (2007). Business and human rights: Mapping international standards of responsibility and accountability for corporate acts (Report A/HRC/4/035). United Nations Human Rights Council.
119.
RussoA.PerriniF. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 207–221.
120.
RyanL. V.SchneiderM. (2003). Institutional investor power and heterogeneity: Implications for agency and stakeholder theories. Business and Society, 42, 398–429.
121.
SandbergJ.TsoukasH. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, S6–S32.
122.
SandbergJ.TsoukasH. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1, 1–34.
123.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.
124.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG.BaumannD. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 506–532.
125.
SeidlD. (2007). Standard setting and following in corporate governance: An observation-theoretical study of the effectiveness of governance codes. Organization, 14, 705–727.
126.
SelskyJ. W.ParkerB. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873.
127.
SenS.CowleyJ. (2012). The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 413–427.
128.
SheehyB. (2017). Private and public corporate regulatory systems: Does CSR provide a systemic alternative to public law. UC Davis Business Law Journal, 17, 1–53.
129.
SkålénP.QuistJ.EdvardssonB.EnquistB. (2005). The contextualization of human resource and quality management: A sensemaking perspective on everybody’s involvement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 736–751.
130.
SobczakA.GirardC. (2006, December). Des parties prenantes aux parties prenantes engagées. Pour une nouvelles lecture de la théorie des stakeholders [From stakeholders to engaged parties: For a new reading of stakeholder theory] [Conference session]. Proceeding of 1st congrès du RIODD. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/haljournl/hal-00757948.htm
SorensenE. (2007). The time of materiality. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 8, 1–19.
134.
SpenceL. J. (2005). European business ethics: Still playing defence?Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 723–732.
135.
SpenceL. J. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy context: The five “C”s of CSR and small business research agenda. Business and Society Review, 112, 532–552.
136.
SpenceL. J.JewissenR.RutherfoordR. (2000). Small business and the environment in the UK and the Netherlands: Toward stakeholder cooperation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 945–965.
137.
SpenceL. J.LozanoJ. F. (2000). Communicating about ethics with small firms: Experiences from the U.K. and Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 43–53.
138.
SpenceL. J.SchmidpeterR.HabischA. (2003). Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 17–29.
139.
StiglianiI.ElsbachK. D. (2018). Identity co-formation in an emerging industry: Forging organizational distinctiveness and industry coherence through sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1323–1355.
140.
SuddabyR. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642.
141.
ThijssensT.BollenL.HassinkH. (2015). Secondary stakeholder influence on CSR disclosure: An application of stakeholder salience theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 873–891.
142.
TorugsaN. A.O’DonohueW.HeckerR. (2012). Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 483–500.
143.
TorugsaN. A.O’DonohueW.HeckerR. (2013). Proactive CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmental dimensions on the association between capabilities and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 383–402.
144.
UttingP. (2002). Regulating business via multistakeholder initiatives: A preliminary assessment [Prepared for the UNRISD project on Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development Under the Programme area Technology, Business and Society. Published in: Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource Guide]. UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) and UNRISD.
145.
van der DuimR.van MarwijkR. (2006). The implementation of an environmental management system for Dutch tour operators: An actor-network perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 449–472.
146.
van WijkJ.ZietsmaC.DoradoS.de BakkerF. G. A.MartiI. (2019). Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society, 58, 887–918.
147.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.
148.
WhittleA.MuellerF. (2011). Strategy, enrolment and accounting: The politics of strategic ideas. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23, 626–646.
149.
WickertC. (2016). “Political” corporate social responsibility in small- and medium-sized enterprises: A conceptual framework. Business & Society, 55, 792–824.
150.
WickertC.SchererA. G.SpenceL. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1169–1196.
151.
YangA.LiuW. (2020). CSR communication and environmental issue networks in virtual space: A cross-national study. Business & Society, 59, 1079–1109.
152.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
153.
ZietsmaC.GroenewegenP.LogueD. M.HiningsC. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 391–450.
