Search results

University reforms have been pervasive in European higher education over decades. Analyses of these reforms are still incomplete, however. To find a more comprehensive approach in explaining the relentless transformation of public universities, this paper suggests a novel, interactionist point of view. Drawing on ideational aspects of universities as institutions, the paper first explores the differentiation of basic, influential ideas of change. A recently developed typology is then used to further elaborate upon the composition and relation of these ideas. Finally, evidence is provided that supports a non-linear dynamic consisting of reciprocal influences, which overall indicates a recursive contingency between institutional context and coexistent frames of change.

The purpose of this paper is to propose Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory, developed by the Durkheimian institutional theory, as developed by anthropologist Mary Douglas, as a suitable theory base for undertaking cross-cultural accounting research. The social theory provides a structure for examining within-country and cross-country actions and behaviours of different groups and communities. It avoids associating nations and cultures, instead contending any nation will comprise four different solidarities engaging in constant dialogues. Further, it is a dynamic theory able to take account of cultural change.

The paper establishes a case for using neo-Durkheimian institutional theory in cross-cultural accounting research by specifying the key components of the theory and addressing common criticisms. To illustrate how the theory might be utilised in the domain of accounting and finance research, a comparative interpretation of the different experiences of financialization in Germany and the UK is provided drawing on Douglas’s grid-group schema.

Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory is deemed sufficiently capable of interpreting the behaviours of different social groups and is not open to the same criticisms as Hofstede’s work. Differences in Douglasian cultural dialogues in the post-1945 history of Germany and the UK provide an explanation of the variations in the comparative experiences of financialization.

Neo-Durkheimian institutional theory has been used in a wide range of contexts; however, it has been little used in the context of accounting research. The adoption of the theory in future accounting research can redress a Hofstedian-bias in accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the disastrous DaimlerChrysler AG takeover episode from 1998 to 2007 in order to arrive at a more comprehensive explanation of this and other merger and takeover failures based on institutional theory.

The case study is based on various secondary sources of information and on the insights that one of the authors gained from working for 14 years in various positions for Daimler-Benz and DaimlerChrysler.

DaimlerChrysler failed because top management made mistakes in trying to globalize the company. They were unable to realize possible synergies between the two companies, which brought complementary resources into the merger. Furthermore, they did not account for the institutional embeddedness of strategies when they adopted lean production globally, diffused the production system developed in Germany to other parts of the world and tried to implement a global stock enlisted in New York and Frankfurt. The underlying theoretical framework is relevant for other merger and acquisition cases. It features institutional embeddedness, path dependency and institutional arbitrage.

The paper develops an institutional perspective on DaimlerChrysler and on cross-border merger and acquisition failure more generally. The perspective is organized around the varieties-of-capitalism approach. This contribution is important because there is increasing dissatisfaction with the dominant explanation of cross-border merger and acquisition failure, which is based on the allegedly failed management of culture “clashes.”

Starting from the question whether the globalisation process leads to a social “race to the bottom”, this paper aims to highlight the international transfer of socially responsible, employee‐oriented practices by multinational small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) as a possible way to counter such a trend.

Based on a literature review, an exploratory framework – building on three perspectives – is proposed about the conditions in which employee‐oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR) affects long‐term firm performance positively. First, the stakeholder view on CSR entails that employees can be considered as legitimate stakeholders of the firm justifying introduction of employee‐oriented CSR. Second, the human resource management perspective matters as employee‐oriented CSR materialises in human resource management policies and practices that increase employee commitment. Finally, as regulative, normative and cognitive institutions differ across countries, the institutionalist perspective is relevant to understand diverging demands on content and form of employee‐oriented CSR practices.

It is argued that owner‐managers of (multinational) SMEs, who view their employees as legitimate stakeholders of the firm, will introduce employee‐oriented CSR out of their sense of moral responsibility towards their employees. This sense of moral responsibility is conditional on achieving sustainable mutual value creation as a result of employee‐oriented CSR. Finally, transfer of employee‐oriented CSR to foreign subsidiaries is positively mediated by the level of owner‐managers' institutional entrepreneurship.

This is one of the few studies addressing the position of employees as internal stakeholders of small and medium‐sized enterprises in an international context. It signals the relevance of institutional differences across countries to entrepreneurs who wish to improve long‐term firm performance through employee‐oriented CSR.