Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidering the Legitimacy and Efficiency of Corporate Strategies: A Case for Organizational Democracy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Change

Part of the book series: Ethical Economy ((SEEP,volume 57))

Abstract

In this article, we argue that in the contemporary globalized economy business firms face two interrelated challenges that result from the growing complexity and dynamics of corporate environments increasing threats to corporate legitimacy and growing efficiency problems. As a result, corporate legitimacy and efficiency are potentially weakened. We specifically explore the communicative requirements for tackling both the problems of organizational legitimacy and of efficiency. On this basis, we suggest to make business firms subject to democratic processes based on stakeholder participation and open communication. The partial democratization of business firms can serve as a corrective to the dominant economic logic underlying corporate structures and processes by simultaneously addressing economic and moral considerations and by enhancing both efficiency and legitimacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transnational new governance. Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 501–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, F. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, I. (1984). Implanting strategic management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2006). Responsible competitiveness at the ‘micro’ level of the firm. Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance, 6, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, J., & Lawler, J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 502–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34, 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R. (2007). Corporations, democracy, and the public good. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2004). De-materialising and re-materialising: Digital technologies and the environment. Futures, 36, 903–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the twenty-first century. Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1996). Wealth creation and wealth sharing: A colloquium on corporate governance and investment in human capital. Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (2003). Shareholder value, corporate governance, and corporate performance. A post- Enron reassessment of the conventional wisdom. In P. K. Cornelius & B. Kogut, (Eds.), Corporate governance and capital flows in a global economy (pp. 53–82). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1993). A political and economic case for the democratic enterprise. Economics and Philosophy, 9, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F., Kuhn, T. R., Cornelissen, J. P., & Timothy, C. (2011). Communication, organizing, and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M. (1993). Will a new logic of management emerge? In J. Child (Ed.), Societal change between market and organization (pp. 19–29). Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. (2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz. S. (2009). O surgimento da governança corporativa e o redesenho da comunicação (trans. in English: The rise of stakeholder governance models and the redesign of communication necessary for them). In M. Kunsch (Ed.), Revista Organicom 7: A comunicação na gestão para sustentabilidade das organizações (pp. 85–105). São Paulo: Difusão.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, C., & Thompson, G. (2002). Corporate governance and democracy: The stakeholder debate revisited. Journal of Management and Governance, 6, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity. The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 4(2), 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2015). EU R&D Scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, J. W. (1983). Strategic process research: Questions and recommendations. Academy of Management Review, 8, 565–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1977). Organization design. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. (1995). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micoletta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). The new conservatism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998). Three normative models of democracy. In J. Habermas (Ed.), The Inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory (pp. 239–252). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. (2001). Adaptive costs: A new institutional paradigm of rules for the competitive game. Current Sociology, 49, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M. G., & Riches, R. G. (2001). Global supply chain management. The selection of globally competent managers. Journal of International Management, 7, 105–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, D., McGrew, A. G., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations. Politics, economics, and culture. Standford: Standford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30, 837–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, F. M., Heng, C. T., & Quazi, H. A. (2003). Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management Journal, 13, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., & Rindova, V. P. (2001). Stakeholders’ expectations of board roles: The case of subsidiary boards. Journal of Management and Governance, 5, 153–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. J. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (2006). Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy. Organization, 13(2), 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. (2009). Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29, 1227–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leblebici, H., & Salancik, G. R. (1981). Effects of environmental uncertainty on information and decision processes in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 578–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Miller, D. (1999). People matter: Commitment to employees, strategy, and performance in Korean firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 579–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship. Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, R., Pini, B., & McDonald, B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and the parameters of dialogue with vulnerable others. Organization, 20, 840–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 36(6), 1175–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configuration. Academy of Management Review, 12, 686–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24, 934–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1993). The pitfalls of strategic planning. California Management Review, 36(1), 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski, P. T. (2001). Human rights and multinationals: Is there a problem? International Affairs, 77(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. V. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: A thick description. Academy of Management Review, 12, 523–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Shareholders should welcome knowledge workers as directors. Journal of Management and Governance, 10, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., Frey, B. S., & Frost, J. (2001). Managing motivation, organization, and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3–4), 231–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, F. (2004). Choice, consent, and the legitimacy of market transactions. Economics and Philosophy, 20(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Turnbull, S. (2011). Corporate governance, risk management, and the financial crisis: An information processing view. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. J. (1996). The role of ‘good conversation’ in strategic control. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 953–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization, 10, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A. G. L. (1999). Domination, self-domination, and circular organizing. Organization Studies, 20(5), 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A. G. L. (2006). Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organization Science, 17(2), 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 61–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. (2003). Multinationale unternehmen und globalisierung. Zur neuorientierung der theorie der multinationalen unternehmung. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Baumann-Pauly, D., & Schneider, A. (2013a). Democratizing corporate governance. Compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship. Business and Society, 52, 473–514.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013b). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Smid, M. (2000). The downwards spiral and the U.S. model business principles. Why MNEs should take responsibility for the improvement of world-wide social and environmental conditions? Management International Review, 40(4), 351–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Scherer, A. G. (2015). Corporate governance in a risk society. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., Wickert, C., & Marti, E. (2017). Reducing complexity by creating complexity: A systems theory perspective on how organizations respond to their environments. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 182–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic discursive-perspective. Organization Studies, 28, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D., & Becker, K. H. (2006). Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Organization, 13, 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10, 724–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spar, D., & LaMure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45, 78–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzeck, H., & Hansen, E. G. (2010). Stakeholder governance: How do stakeholders influence corporate decision-making? Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 10(4), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., Maznevsky, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (2001). Corporate governance. Econometrica, 69(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, S. (1994). Stakeholder democracy: Redesigning the governance of firms and bureaucracies. Journal of Socio-Economics, 23(3), 321–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(4), 180–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zingales, L. (2000). In search for new foundations. Journal of Finance, 55(4), 1623–1653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyglidopoulos, S., & Fleming, P. (2011). Corporate accountability and the politics of visibility in late modernity. Organization, 18(5), 691–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Business School, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anselm Schneider

  2. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Andreas Georg Scherer

Authors
  1. Anselm Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Georg Scherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anselm Schneider .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Arnaud Sales

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schneider, A., Scherer, A.G. (2019). Reconsidering the Legitimacy and Efficiency of Corporate Strategies: A Case for Organizational Democracy. In: Sales, A. (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Change. Ethical Economy, vol 57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15407-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation