Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Case Study Approaches
- Chapter 14 Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Case-Based Research Approach to Business Ethics
- Chapter 15 Casuistry as a Case-Based Research Approach to Business Ethics
- Chapter 16 Building on Actor-Network Analysis to Study Corporate Social Responsibility
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Chapter 16 - Building on Actor-Network Analysis to Study Corporate Social Responsibility
Conceptual and Methodological Insights
from Case Study Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2017
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Case Study Approaches
- Chapter 14 Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Case-Based Research Approach to Business Ethics
- Chapter 15 Casuistry as a Case-Based Research Approach to Business Ethics
- Chapter 16 Building on Actor-Network Analysis to Study Corporate Social Responsibility
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility , pp. 232 - 246Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 932–968.Google Scholar
Ählström, J., & Egels-Zandén, N. (2008). The process of defining corporate social responsibility: A study of Swedish garment retailers’ responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17: 230–244.Google Scholar
Bansal, P., & Song, H-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate responsibility from sustainability. Academy of Management Annals. 11(1): 105–149.Google Scholar
Barter, N., & Bebbington, J. (2013). Actor-network theory: a briefing note and possibilities for social and environmental accounting research. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 33(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Bergström, O. & Diedrich, A. (2011). Exercising social responsibility in downsizing: Enrolling and mobilizing actors at a Swedish high-tech company. Organization Studies, 32(7): 897–919.Google Scholar
Bled, A. J. (2010). Technological choices in international environmental negotiations: an actor–network analysis. Business & Society, 49(4): 570–590.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L. (2013). The Foetal Condition: A Sociology of Engendering and Abortion. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(3): 237–269.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1995. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cabantous, L., & Gond, J. P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: explaining rationality’s éternel retour. Organization Science, 22(3): 573–586.Google Scholar
Callon, M., (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge: 196–223. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination: 132–161. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1998a). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In Callon, M. (ed.), The Laws of the Markets: 1–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1998b). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. In Callon, M. (ed.), The Laws of the markets: 244–269. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3): 535–548.Google Scholar
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologist help them to do so. In Knorr-Cetina, K. & Cicourel, A.V. (eds) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro Sociologies: 277–303. Boston, MA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caron, M. A., & Turcotte, M. F. B. (2009). Path dependence and path creation: Framing the extra-financial information market for a sustainable trajectory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(2): 272–297.Google Scholar
Déjean, F, Gond, J.-P. & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 741–764Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.Google Scholar
El Abboubi, M., & Nicolopoulou, K. (2012). International social-related accountability standards: Using ANT towards a multi-stakeholder analysis. M@n@gement, 4(15): 392–414.Google Scholar
Füssel, L., & Georg, S. (2000). The institutionalization of environmental concerns: Making the environment perform. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(3): 41–58.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P., & Boxenbaum, E. (2013). The glocalization of responsible investment: Contextualization work in France and Québec. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4): 707–721.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What do we mean by performativity in organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews. 18(4): 440–463.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P., Igalens, J., & Brès, L. (2013). Rendre compte du social. L’art du compromis performatif. Revue Française de Gestion, 237: 201–238.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P. & Nyberg, D. (2017). Materializing power to recover corporate social responsibility. Organization Studies. 38(8), 1127–1148.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 481–510.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, T., Sandström, J., & Helin, S. (2009). Corporate codes of ethics and the bending of moral space. Organization, 16(4), 529–545.Google Scholar
Larssaether, S., & Nijhof, A. (2009). Moral landscapes: Understanding agency in corporate responsibility initiatives. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16: 228–236.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The power of association. In Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? 264–280. Boston: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. Bijker, W. E., Law, J. (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change: 225–258. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaïa. Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. London: Polity Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1986). On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In Law, J. (ed), Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?: 234–263. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of actor-network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4): 379–393.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds) Actor Network Theory and After: 1–14. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ligonie, M. (2016). Management Control for Sustainability. A Practice-based Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility, PhD dissertation, ESSEC Business School.Google Scholar
Ligonie, M. (2017). The “forced performativity” of a strategy concept: Exploring how shared value shaped a gambling company’s strategy. Long Range Planning. Published online. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.04.001Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a market, performing a theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Review of Sociology, 109(1):107–145Google Scholar
Malsch, B. (2013). Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social responsibility. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2), 149–168.Google Scholar
Marti, E. & Gond, J.-P. 2017. When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity. Academy of Management Review. Published online. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2016.0071.Google Scholar
Pasquero, J. (1996). Stakeholder theory as a constructivist paradigm. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, 7: 1153–1164.Google Scholar
Schaefer, S. M., & Wickert, C. (2016). On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure. Human Relations, 69(2): 215–224.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (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(4), 899–931.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 273–298.Google Scholar
Van Grinsven, M., Heusinkveld, S. & Cornelissen, J. (2016). Translating management concepts: Towards a typology of alternative approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3): 271–289.Google Scholar
Wæraas, A. & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). Translation theory ‘translated’: Three perspectives on translation in organizational research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3): 236–270.Google Scholar
Whelan, G., & Gond, J. P. (2017). Meat your enemy: Animal rights, alignment and radical change. Journal of Management Inquiry. 26(2): 123–138.Google Scholar
Wright, C, & Nyberg, D. (2014). Creative self-destruction: corporate responses to climate change as political myths. Environmental Politics, 23: 205–223.Google Scholar