Opportunistic behaviors are considered ethically and strategically troublesome since they disrupt otherwise mutually beneficial relationships. Previous literature has shown that firms attempt to protect their investments from opportunism by generating a large amount of patented marginal innovations in domains central to their industry. However, this approach may generate some ethical dilemmas by preventing firms and societies from more radical, collaborative, and much-needed environmental progress. We extend the environmental innovation literature using strategic and ethical lenses to analyze the potential of an (...) alternative, divergent way to provide financial opportunities for a focal firm without aiming to prevent innovative opportunities for competitors. Our longitudinal analysis of 6768 environmental patents from 59 large companies worldwide in the electrical components and equipment industry shows that high levels of innovation intensity, environmental scope, bargaining power, and environmental expertise increase the incidence of patented environmental innovations related to domains in which industry competitors are less focused (i.e., technological divergence). We also show a positive relationship between this divergence and market-based firm performance. Our results suggest that pursuing innovative divergence to avoid opportunism may make ethical and market sense and we also identify the organizational factors that can support these efforts. (shrink)

More and more firms have a chief sustainability officer (CSO) to support the organizational focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Yet, there is much to learn about the boundary conditions that make the presence of CSOs particularly effective for firms’ CSR. Using an attention-based view lens, we investigate the relationship between having a CSO as attention carrier of CSR activities and examine the potential boundary conditions related to the three attention principles (attention selection, represented by board diversity; attention structures, represented (...) by a CSR committee; and situated attention, represented by country-level CSR standards). We test our hypotheses using a global sample of 3,470 firms across 54 countries. Our results show that the influence of the CSO on internal and external CSR is most important in the absence of attention principles that may act as alternative attention carriers of CSR. In other words, attention principles form boundaries to the CSO’s influence on internal and external CSR. Our study contributes to research on the attention-based view, CSOs, and CSR. (shrink)

The role of the Sustainability Manager (SM) is expanding. Whether SMs are turning into a new profession is under debate. Pointing to the need for a distinct professional logic to qualify as a profession, we identify what is contained within a professional logic of SMs. Through analyzing ambiguities present in the role of the SMs, we show that there is no specific distinct professional logic of SMs, but rather a meta-construct building on market, bureaucratic, and sustainability logics. In addition, we (...) point to the complex configurations of and relationships between these underlying logics. The complexities also explain why the SMs differ from traditional professions and why it is problematic to talk about a ‘SM profession’. Rather, SMs are ‘organizational professionals’. The article builds on 21 interviews with SMs working for Swedish companies. (shrink)

In the years 2009 to 2016, approximately 35% of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 firms had at least one director with a professional background in private, not-for-profit organizations (NGO director). Yet research provides little guidance on what kind of firms are more likely to have NGO directors on their boards, neither do we know these directors’ effects on firm strategic outcomes. Our study examines the above two questions in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), taking the lens of resource (...) dependence theory. Results from an analysis of all firms included in the S&P 500 index between 2010 and 2016 show that the number of NGO directors serving on a firm’s board in a certain year is positively related to the extent to which the firm displays poor CSR performance in the prior year. We also find that NGO directors on boards are not associated with immediate improvements in CSR performance; rather, their positive influence on CSR performance takes hold after 3 years. Our findings suggest that whereas NGO directors may potentially be appointed to a firm’s board for legitimization reasons, these directors are associated with enhanced CSR performance in the long term. (shrink)