Search

In recent years, greater attention has been given to developing metrics that measure more than a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Similarly, greater consideration has been given to more than just the financial performance of commercial enterprises; corporations are now expected to conduct business in ways that are responsible and sustainable, giving attention to a triple bottom line where the planet and people are prioritized along with profits. Taking French government policy and the performance of French multinational corporations as a case in point, this article explores the ways in which emerging indicators and instruments on business and human rights are relevant to the impact of business on well-being. This article examines which reporting frameworks and ranking systems best capture human rights and sustainability risks that could compromise well-being. Specifically, the article analyzes the frameworks and indicators used to measure human rights performance and the impact of rights rankings on business management. It also reviews responses by corporations to rights rankings as indicia of how measurements might be perceived as likely to result in changes in investor and consumer behavior or place brand reputation at risk.

How can non-profit organizations improve their governance to increase their social impact? This study examines the effectiveness of a bundle of governance mechanisms (consisting of pro-social incentives and auditing) in the context of a randomized governance program conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo's healthcare sector. Within the program, a set of health centers were randomly assigned to a governance treatment while others were not. We find that the governance treatment leads to i) higher operating efficiency and ii) improvements in social performance (measured by a reduction in the occurrence of stillbirths and neonatal deaths). Furthermore, we find that funding is not a substitute for governance—health centers that only receive funding increase their scale, but do not show improvements in operating efficiency nor social performance. Overall, our results suggest that corporate governance plays an important role in achieving the non-profits' objectives and increasing the social impact of the funds invested.

We explore the way validity and propriety cues contribute to legitimacy judgments about a practice and explain whether the subunit of a large firm increases or decreases the implementation of this practice. Empirically, we examine the extent to which 65 subsidiaries of a multinational enterprise implemented three corporate social responsibility practices. Adopting a set-theoretic approach, we find that both validity and propriety cues are extremely relevant to the understanding of subunits’ implementation of practices over time. The endorsement of a practice in a subunit’s environment plays a particularly crucial role in the extent to which it is implemented, relative to authorization by the parent firm. Furthermore, subunits strongly rely on the active evaluation of the practice’s propriety, such that the consonance between the two propriety dimensions (strategic importance and value compatibility) is central to implementation increase, while dissonance between them can favor implementation decrease. By advancing our understanding of legitimacy judgment formation and practice implementation patterns, our study enriches explanations of organizational conformity and decoupling, and contributes to our understanding of how firms respond to multiple institutional demands.

Research Summary In this study, we replicate and expand Hawn et al.’s study (Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39, 949–976) that used Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI) events to measure variations in firms' Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)‐activism and examined their effect on a firm's stock price. We use DJSI events to capture variations in firms' CSR visibility, holding CSR activism constant by restricting our analyses to CSR‐equivalent firms. First, we find similar results on stock price (i.e., no impact) and on trading volumes. Second, because professional market participants pay more attention to CSR‐oriented firms and use visible cues such as DJSI events, we study and find that additions to DJSI lead to more analysts following a firm, and that continuations on the DJSI lead to an increase in equity being held by long‐term investors. Managerial Summary We replicate and complement a recent study that showed that the events of a firm's addition, continuation, or deletion in a major sustainability index (DJSI) had little impact on stock market reactions (Hawn et al. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39, 949–976). We redefine the comparison set that was previously used and compare across observationally equivalent firms in terms of CSR orientation in order to isolate the visibility effect of DJSI events. We find that these events do not significantly impact stock price and trading volumes. However, we expand the analysis and find that sustainability events attract more attention from financial analysts and lead to an increase in the percentage of shares held by long‐term investors indicative of a trend that professional investors pay more attention to CSR‐visible firms over time.

This article focuses on changes in leadership’s discourse about the “triple bottom line” in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream from its founding days through to its acquisition by and integration into Unilever. For this study, we analyzed CEO claims about “who we are” from their letters in annual reports (what we label projected identity). A sample of employees (both long-service and relative newcomers) were interviewed about their perceptions of Ben & Jerry’s over the 30 years covered. Findings reveal that successive CEOs stressed different “logics” about the business and what would make it successful over the years with the founders emphasizing a strong linkage between the economic, product, and social components of the company’s triple bottom line and their next three successors decoupling these components and pushing, each in different ways, for stronger financial returns. As a result, organization members were “whipsawed” between their CEOs’ different logics and identity claims. The CEO letters exhibit a progression over time from a more normative to utilitarian tone familiar in the organizational identity literature. The messaging shifts, however, when a fifth CEO takes charge and reintegrates the firm’s triple bottom line. Thus, the firm’s projected identity evolved in a U pattern starting with an integrated triple bottom line logic, shifting to a more linear logic where the economic mission dominates, and then reintegration where multiple bottom lines are embraced once again. Here, we explore both the strategic (external) and personal (internal) challenges informing the different CEOs’ messages over years, the whipsaw effect on staff, and the longer term evolution of projected identity in the company and reemergence of its integrated triple bottom line. This study contributes to the corporate social responsibility and organization identity literatures by documenting how CEOs (and their company) must struggle with maintaining an integrated triple bottom line in the context of commercial challenges and major changes involved in mergers and acquisitions. It also speaks to the practical matters of keeping normative traditions alive amid competing pressures for change.