Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T07:26:50.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Constructing the Content and Meaning of Law and Compliance

from Part I - Compliance Concepts and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

By
Shauhin A. Talesh
Edited by
Benjamin van Rooij  and
D. Daniel Sokol
Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Abstract: This chapter argues that organizational compliance is best illustrated not by a compliance versus noncompliance dichotomy but by a processual model in which organizations construct the meaning of both compliance and law. I argue that organizations must be understood as social actors that are influenced by widely institutionalized beliefs about legality, morality, politics, and rationality. I review the empirical research in this vein and show how institutionalized conceptions of law and compliance first become widely accepted within the business community and eventually come to be seen as rational and legitimate by public legal actors and institutions and thus influence the very meaning of law. Through two distinct waves of research, I offer a theoretical framework for understanding compliance as a process and by specifying the institutional and political mechanisms through which organizations shape the content and meaning of law. First wave studies laid out the initial framework for how to understand organizations as constructers of legal meaning while second wave studies refined and extended the theory in multiple ways. I suggest that the increasing complexity and ambiguity of legal rules provides legal intermediaries greater opportunities to influence what compliance means by filtering what law means through nonlegal logics. I conclude by discussing the implications of organizational construction of law and compliance for studies of law, business, and the state and suggest directions for a third wave of research.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 63 - 80
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K., Levi-Faur, D., and Snidal, D.. 2017. “Regulatory Intermediaries in the Age of Governance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 670:1–288.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine. 2005. “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Social Institutions: Competing Discourses and Social Change in Workplace Mobilization of Civil Rights.” Law & Society Review 39:11–50.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian, and Braithwaite, John. 2001. “Tripartism: Regulatory Capture and Empowerment.” Law & Social Inquiry 16:435–96.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb, and Burke, Thomas. 2006. “The Diffusion of Rights: From Law on the Books to Organizational Practices.” Law & Society Review 40(3):493–524.Google Scholar
Baron, James N., Dobbin, Frank R., and Jennings, P. Devereaux. 1986. “War and Peace: The Evolution of Modern Personnel Administration in U.S. Industry.” American Journal of Sociology 92(2):350–83.Google Scholar
Bastard, B., Cardia-Vonèche, L., and Gonik, V.. 2003. “Judiciarisation et déformalisation. Le ‘Groupe H’ et le traitement institutionnel du harcèlement psychologique.” Droit et société 53(1):185–208.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bereni, Laure. 2009. “‘Faire de la diversité une richesse pour l’entreprise’. La transformation d’une contrainte juridique en catégorie managériale.” Raisons Politiques 35:87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Marver H. 1955. Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borelle, Celine, and Pélisse, Jérôme. 2017. “Ca sent bizarre, ici’: la sécurité dans les laboratoires de nano-médecine (France-Etats-Unis).” Sociologie du travail [En ligne] 59(3): http://sdt.revues.org/934.Google Scholar
Bozanic, Zahn, Dirsmith, Mark W., and Huddart, Steven. 2012. “The Social Constitution of Regulation: The Endogenization of Insider Trading Laws.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 37(7):461–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, John. 2008. Regulatory Capitalism: How It Works, Ideas for Making It Work Better. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty, and Jenness, Valerie. 2015. Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Covaleski, Mark A., Dirsmith, Mark W., and Weiss, Jane M.. 2013. “The Social Construction, Challenge and Transformation of a Budgetary Regime: The Endogenization of Welfare Regulation by Institutional Entrepreneurs.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 38(5):333–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmas, Magali A., and Montes-Sancho, Maria J.. 2011. “An Institutional Perspective on the Diffusion of International Management System Standards.” Business Ethics Quarterly 21(1):103–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Powell, Walter. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48:147–60.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Frank, Sutton, John, Meyer, John, and Scott, Richard. 1993. “Equal Employment Opportunity Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets.” American Journal of Sociology 99:396–427.Google Scholar
Dunn, Mary B., and Jones, Candace. 2010. “Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation and Science Logics in Medical Education.” Administrative Science Quarterly 55(1):114–49.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 1990. “Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology 95:1401–40.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 1992. “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97:1531–76.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 2007. “Overlapping Fields and Constructed Legalities: The Endogeneity of Law.” In Private Equity, Corporate Governance and the Dynamics of Capital Market Regulation, edited by O’Brien, Justin, 55–90. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., and Cahill, Mia. 1998. “How Law Matters in Disputing and Dispute Processing (or the Contingency of Legal Matter in Informal Dispute Process).” In How Law Matters? edited by Garth, Bryant and Sarat, Austin, 15–44. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., and Peterson, Stephen. 1999. “Symbols and Substance in Organizational Response to Civil Rights Law.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 17:107–35.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., and Stryker, Robin. 2005. “A Sociological Approach to Law and the Economy.” In The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by Smelser, Neil and Swedberg, Richard, 527–51. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., and Suchman, Mark. 1999. “When the ‘Haves’ Hold Court: Speculations on the Organizational Internalization of Law.” Law & Society Review 33:941–91.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., and Talesh, Shauhin. 2011. “To Comply or Not to Comply – That Isn’t the Question: How Organizations Construct the Meaning of Compliance.” In Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation, edited by Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann, 103–22. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Erlanger, Howard, and Lande, John. 1993. “Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace.” Law & Society Review 27:497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger, Howard. 1999. “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 105:406–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Fuller, Sally Riggs, and Mara-Drita, Iona. 2001. “Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law.” American Journal of Sociology 106:1589–641.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Krieger, Linda, Eliason, Scott, Albiston, Catherine, and Mellema, Virgina. 2011. “When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures.” American Journal of Sociology 117(3):888–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm, and Rubin, Edward L.. 1999. Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frazer, Andrew. 2014. “Labour Law, Institutionalist Regulation and the Employing Organisation.” International Employment Relations Review 20(1):4–26.Google Scholar
Funk, Russell J., and Hirschman, Daniel. 2014. “Derivatives and Deregulation Financial Innovation and the Demise of Glass-Steagall.” Administrative Science Quarterly 59(4):669–704.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9:95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilad, Sharon. 2014. “Beyond Endogeneity: How Firms and Regulators Construct the Meaning of Regulation.” Law & Policy 36(2):134–64.Google Scholar
Guetzkow, Joshua, and Schoon, Eric W.. 2015. “If You Build It, They Will Fill It: The Consequences of Prison Overcrowding Litigation.” Law & Society Review 49(2):401–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, Fiona. 1997. Corporate Regulation: Beyond “Punish or Persuade.” New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heimer, Carol. 1999. “Competing Institutions: Law, Medicine, and Family in Neonatal Intensive Care.” Law & Society Review 33:17–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holder-Webb, Lori, and Cohen, Jeffrey. 2012. “The Cut and Paste Society: Isomorphism in Codes of Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 107(4):485–509.Google Scholar
Huising, R., and Silbey, Susan. 2011. “Governing the Gap: Forging Safe Science through Relational Regulation.” Regulation & Governance 5:14–42.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Sandford. 1985. Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry 1900–45. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jenness, Valerie, and Smyth, Michael. 2011. “The Passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act: Legal Endogeneity and the Uncertain Road from Symbolic Law to Instrumental Effects.” Stanford Law & Policy Review 22(2):489–518.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A., Gunningham, Neil, and Thornton, Dorothy. 2003. “Explaining Corporate Environmental Performance: How Does Regulation Matter” Law & Society Review 37:51–90.Google Scholar
Kelly, Erin L. 2003. “The Strange History of Employer-Sponsored Child Care: Interested Actors, Uncertainty, and the Transformation of Law in Organizational Fields.” American Journal of Sociology 109(3):606–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. 2003. “Cosmetic Compliance and the Failure of Negotiated Governance.” Washington University Law Quarterly 81(2):487–544.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. 2005. “Organizational Misconduct: Beyond the Principal-Agent Model.” Florida State University Law Review 32(2):571–616.Google Scholar
Lageson, Sarah Esther, Vuolo, Mike, and Uggen, Christopher. 2014. “Legal Ambiguity in Managerial Assessments of Criminal Records.” Law & Social Inquiry 40(1):175–204.Google Scholar
Lehman, David W., Kovács, Balázs, and Carroll, Glenn R.. 2014. “Conflicting Social Codes and Organizations: Hygiene and the Authenticity in Consumer Evaluations of Restaurants.” Management Science 60(10):2602–17.Google Scholar
Marshall, Anna-Maria. 2005. “Idle Rights: Employees’ Rights Consciousness and the Construction of Sexual Harassment Policies.” Law & Society Review 39:83–124.Google Scholar
Meyer, John, and Rowan, Brian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83:340–63.Google Scholar
Mezias, Stephen J., and Boyle, Elizabeth. 2005. “Blind Trust: Market Control, Legal Environments, and the Dynamics of Competitive Intensity in the Early American Film Industry, 1893–1920.” Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1):1–34.Google Scholar
Mulligan, Emer and Oats, Lynne M.. 2005. “Movers and Shakers: The Secret Lives of In-House Tax Professionals.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference (July).Google Scholar
Nierobisz, Annette. 2010. “Wrestling with the New Economy: Judicial Rhetoric in Canadian Wrongful Dismissal Claims.” Law & Social Inquiry 35(2):403–49.Google Scholar
Pandy, Susan M. 2013. “An Examination of the Privacy Impact Assessment as a Vehicle for Privacy Policy Implementation in U.S. Federal Agencies.” PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine, and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2011. Explaining Business Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Pedriana, Nicholas, and Stryker, Robin. 1997. “Political Culture Wars, 1960s Style: Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Law and the Philadelphia Plan.” American Journal of Sociology 103:633–91.Google Scholar
Pedriana, Nicholas, and Stryker, Robin. 2004. “The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–1971.” American Journal of Sociology 110:709–60.Google Scholar
Pélisse, Jérôme. 2014. “Le travail du droit. Trois essais sur la légalité ordinaire, mémoire d’Habilitation à diriger les recherches.” Sciences Po Paris:244.Google Scholar
Pélisse, Jérôme. 2016. “Legal Intermediaries as Moral Actors.” Communication at the SASE’s Meeting, Berkeley:24.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and Organizations: Foundations for Organizations Science. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Schneiberg, Marc. 2005. “Combining New Institutionalisms: Explaining Institutional Change in American Property Insurance.” Sociological Forum 2(1):93–137.Google Scholar
Schneiberg, Marc, and Soule, Sara A.. 2005. “Institutionalization as a Contested, Multilevel Process: The Case of Rate Regulation in American Fire Insurance.” In Social Movements and Organization Theory, edited by Davis, Gerald F. et al., 122–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, Heather. 2010. “Mass Incarceration and the Paradox of Prison Conditions Litigation.” Law & Society Review 44(3–4):1750–843.Google Scholar
Short, Jodi L. 2006. “Creating Peer Sexual Harassment: Mobilizing Schools to Throw the Book at Themselves.” Law and Policy 28(1):31–59.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan. 2017. “Governing Green Laboratories: How Scientific Authority and Expertise Mediate Institutional Pressures for Organizational Change.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan., and Agrawal, T.. 2011. “The Illusion of Accountability: Information Management and Organizational Culture.” Droit et société 77(1):69–86.Google Scholar
Simpson, Sally S. 1992. “Corporate-Crime Deterrence and Corporate-Control Policies: Views from the Inside.” In White-Collar Crime Reconsidered, edited by Schlegel, Kip and Weisburd, David, 289–308. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Sally S. 1998. Why Corporations Obey the Law, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, Goerge J. 1971. “The Theory of Economic Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2(1):3–21.Google Scholar
Stryker, R., Docka-Filipek, D., and Wald, P.. 2012. “Employment Discrimination Law and Industrial Psychology: Social Science as Social Authority and the Co-production of Law and Science.” Law & Social Inquiry 37:777–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, John, Dobbin, Frank, Meyer, John, and Scott, Richard. 1994. “The Legalization of the Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology 99:944–71.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2009. “The Privatization of Public Legal Rights: How Manufacturers Construct the Meaning of Consumer Law.” Law & Society Review 43:527–62.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2012. “How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters: An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws.” Law & Society Review 46(3):463–9.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2013. “How the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead in the Twenty-First Century.” DePaul Law Review 62: 519–54.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2014. “Institutional and Political Sources of Legislative Change: Explaining How Private Organizations Influence the Form and Content of Consumer Protection Legislation.” Law & Soc. Inquiry 39(4):973–1005.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2015a. “Legal Intermediaries: How Insurance Companies Construct the Meaning of Compliance with Antidiscrimination Law.” Law & Policy 37(3):209–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2015b. “A New Institutional Theory of Insurance.” UC Irvine Law Review 5(3):617–50.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2015c. “Rule-Intermediaries in Action: How State and Business Stakeholders Influence the Meaning of Consumer Rights in Regulatory Governance Arrangements.” Law & Policy 37(1–2):1–31.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2018. “Data Breach, Privacy, and Cyber Insurance: How Insurance Companies Act as ‘Compliance Managers’ for Businesses.” Law and Social Inquiry 43(2):417–40.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin, and Alter, Peter. 2020. “The Devil Is in the Details: How Arbitration System Design and Training Facilitate and Inhibit Repeat Player Advantages in Private and State-Run Arbitration Hearings.” Law & Policy 42: 315–43.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin, and Pélisse, Jérôme. 2019. “How Legal Intermediaries Facilitate or Inhibit Social Change.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 79:111–45.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1998. “Rational Choice, Situated Action, and the Social Control of Organizations.” Law & Society Review 32(1):23–61.Google Scholar
Verma, Anjuli. 2015. “The Law-Before: Legacies and Gaps in Penal Reform.” Law & Society Review 49(4):847–82.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×