Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:16:24.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Color of Faults Depends on the Lens: MNCs’ Legitimacy Repair in Response to Framing by Local Governments in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2019

Xiao-xiao Liu Open the ORCID record for Xiao-xiao Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
Lai Si Tsui-Auch ,
Jun Jie Yang ,
Xueli Wang ,
Aihua Chen  and
Kai Wang
Xiao-xiao Liu
Affiliation:
Xiamen University, China
Lai Si Tsui-Auch
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Jun Jie Yang*
Affiliation:
Xiamen University, Malaysia
Xueli Wang
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, China
Aihua Chen
Affiliation:
Chongqing University, China
Kai Wang
Affiliation:
Capital University of Economics and Business, China
*
Corresponding author: Jun Jie Yang (junjie.yang@xmu.edu.my)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerns over food safety in China not only direct public attention to negative incidents, but also trigger the government's scrutiny of implicated firms, particularly MNCs. The question of how to repair legitimacy after media coverage of negative incidents has become a critical issue for MNCs. Although the factors for MNCs’ public crises have been identified, how local contexts and mechanisms shape repair approaches remain unclear. To address this research gap, we conducted a study of Walmart China's approaches associated with two negative incidents across two regions. We found that the negative incidents can be framed differently depending on the local environment's unfavorability for MNCs. Specifically, the negative framing gave rise to varying degrees of legitimacy loss and offered different leeway for MNCs to repair their legitimacy. We also identified the varied outcomes of different repair approaches. By revealing the linkages among local context, framing, legitimacy repair, and its outcomes, our study contributes to research on MNCs’ legitimacy management under institutional complexity and underscores the China context for legitimacy maintenance. We also offer insights that advance the institutional approach to legitimacy repair in this context. Last, we reflect on the techniques for conducting qualitative research in China.

摘要

对中国食品安全的担忧不仅引发公众对负面事件的广泛关注，也激起政府对涉事公司特别是跨国公司的审查。媒体报道负面事件后，如何开展合法性修复已成为跨国公司面临的重要议题。已有研究考察了引发跨国公司公共危机的因素，但本土情境及其塑造合法性修复的机制有待挖掘。本研究分析了沃尔玛中国在两个不同地区的负面事件及其应对策略，发现当地对跨国公司的偏好影响了对负面事件的界定。具体而言，负面框定导致了不同程度上的合法性损失，并塑造了跨国公司在修复合法性过程中可回旋的余地。此外，不同合法性修复策略也会引发不同效果。通过揭示当地情境、框定、合法性修复及其效果之间的关系，本研究有助于理解在制度复杂性下跨国公司的合法性管理，彰显了中国情境下合法性维护的特色，提升了对合法性修复中制度路径的理解。最后，我们对在中国开展质性研究的策略进行了反思。

Аннотация

Тревога за безопасность продуктов питания в Китае не только обращает внимание общественности на негативные инциденты, но и вызывает пристальное внимание со стороны правительства по отношению к виновным компаниям, особенно к МНК. Вопрос о том, как восстановить легитимность после освещения в СМИ негативных инцидентов, стал критически важным для МНК. Хотя причины общественного кризиса для МНК известны, то, каким образом местные условия и механизмы влияют на попытки восстановления репутации, остается неясным. Чтобы устранить этот пробел в научной литературе, мы исследовали методы работы Walmart в Китае, которые связаны с двумя негативными инцидентами в двух регионах. Мы обнаружили, что негативные инциденты могут быть представлены по-разному в зависимости от неблагоприятных местных условий для МНК. В частности, негативное обрамление приводило к различной степени потери легитимности и предполагало различные возможности для МНК восстановить свою легитимность. Мы также определили различные результаты в зависимости от разных способов восстановления легитимности. Изучая взаимосвязь между местным контекстом, когнитивным искажением, восстановлением легитимности и его результатами, наша работа вносит свой вклад в исследования по управлению легитимностью МНК в условиях институциональной сложности, уделяя при этом особое внимание китайскому контексту для поддержания легитимности. Мы также делаем выводы, которые поддерживают институциональный подход к восстановлению легитимности в этом контексте. Наконец, мы размышляем о тактике проведения качественных исследований в Китае.

Resumen

Las preocupaciones sobre la inocuidad de los alimentos en China no solo dirigen la atención pública a los incidentes negativos, sino que también detona el escrutinio del gobierno de las empresas implicadas, en particular de las multinacionales. La pregunta de cómo reparar la legitimidad después de la cobertura de incidentes negativos en los medios se ha convertido en un tema crítico para las empresas multinacionales. A pesar que se han identificado los factores de las crisis públicas de las empresas multinacionales, cómo los contextos y mecanismos locales dan forma a los enfoques de reparación aún no es claro. Para abordar esta brecha en la investigación, realizamos un estudio de los abordajes de Walmart China asociados con dos incidentes negativos en dos regiones. Encontramos que los incidentes negativos pueden encuadrarse de manera diferente dependiendo de la desfavorabilidad del entorno local para las empresas multinacionales. Específicamente, el encuadre negativo dio lugar a diversos grados de pérdida de legitimidad y permitió un margen de maniobra diferente para que las empresas multinacionales repararan su legitimidad. Identificamos también que los resultados variados de diferentes abordajes de reparación. Revelando los vínculos entre el contexto local, el marco, la reparación de la legitimidad y sus resultados, nuestro estudio contribuye a la investigación sobre la gestión de la legitimidad de las empresas multinacionales en la complejidad institucional y subraya el contexto de China para el mantenimiento de la legitimidad. También ofrecemos entendimientos que avanzan el enfoque institucional para la reparación de la legitimidad en este contexto. Por último, reflexionamos sobre las tácticas para realizar una investigación cualitativa en China.

Keywords

defianceframinginstitutional approachlegitimacy managementnegative incidents挑战框定制度路径合法性管理负面事件нарушениефреймингинституциональный подходуправление легитимностьюнегативные инцидентыdesafíoestructuraenfoque institucionalgestión de legitimidadincidentes negativos
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 2: Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets , June 2019 , pp. 429 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editor Tian Wei

References

REFERENCES

Ahmadjian, C. L. 2016. Comparative institutional analysis and institutional complexity. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1): 12–27.10.1111/joms.12178Google Scholar
Anteby, M. 2008. Moral gray zones: Side productions, identity, and regulation in an aeronautic plant. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, D., & Blake, D. L. 2016. Frame or get framed: The critical role of issue framing in nonmarket management. California Management Review, 58(3): 66–87.10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66Google Scholar
Barley, S. R. 2010. Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organizational studies. Organization Studies, 31(6): 777–805.10.1177/0170840610372572Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M.Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 573–581.Google Scholar
Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 151–179.Google Scholar
China Law and Practice. 2015. Walmart China interview: How to survive and stay ahead. Accessed on 28 July. Hong Kong: Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC.Google Scholar
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1): 103–126.Google Scholar
Chuang, M-L., Donegan, J. J., Ganon, M. W., & Wei, K. 2011. Walmart and Carrefour experiences in China: Resolving the structural paradox. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(4): 443–463.Google Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1024–39.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): 329–360.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.xGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, D. 2011. Reputation rules: Strategies to building your company's most valuable assets. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
Edman, J. 2016. Cultivating foreignness: How organizations maintain and leverage minority identities. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1): 55–88.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.10.5465/amr.1989.4308385Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4): 699–738.Google Scholar
Feng, M., Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. 2012. Framing the Chinese baby formula scandal: A comparative analysis of US and Chinese news coverage. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(3): 253–269.10.1080/01292986.2012.662517Google Scholar
Firstpost. 2017. Kerala to restrict use of groundwater by Pepsico; traders may stop sale of Pepsi, Coke. [Cited on 9 March 2017]. Available from URL: http://www.firstpost.com/business/kerala-to-restrict-use-of-groundwater-by-pepsico-traders-may-stop-sale-of-pepsi-coke-3323550.htmlGoogle Scholar
Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Pigman, G. A. 2006. First mover advantages in international business and firm–specific political resources. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4): 321–345.10.1002/smj.519Google Scholar
Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. 2015. Marks of distinction framing and audience appreciation in the context of investment advice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 333–367.10.1177/0001839215571125Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, K. 2003. Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. A. 2008. Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 252–266.10.5465/amr.2008.27752775Google Scholar
Jo, J. 2006. Coca-Cola and Pepsi ban extends across India. Financial Times. [Cited on 11 August, 2017]. Available from URL: https://www.ft.com/content/7b668026-28c7-11db-a2c1-0000779e2340Google Scholar
Jonsson, S., Greve, H. R., & Fujiwara-Greve, T. 2009. Undeserved loss: Legitimacy loss to innocent organizations in corporate deviance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2): 195–228.Google Scholar
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, T. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2002. Product diversification in international joint ventures: Performance implications in an emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 23(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. 1991. Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2) 281–285.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Bird, Y. 2018. The paradox of responsive authoritarianism: How civic activism spurs environmental penalties in China. Organization Science, 29(5): 948–968.10.1287/orsc.2018.1212Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63–93.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2016. Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1): 3–22.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): 853–86.10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.Google Scholar
Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. 2008. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 730–749.Google Scholar
Rao, H., Yue, L. Q., & Ingram, P. 2011. Laws of attraction: Regulatory arbitrage in the face of activism in right-to-work states. American Sociological Review, 76(3): 365–385.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. 2013. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 259–284.Google Scholar
Schneider, L. C., & Kozinets, R. 2011. Beyond enemy lines: Sociality in consumer activism. Advances in Consumer Research, 39: 398–403.Google Scholar
Shi, W., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2012. Advantages of foreignness: Benefits of creative institutional deviance. In Tihanyi, L., Pedersen, T., & Devinney, T. (Eds.), Advances in International Management: Institutional theory in international business and management (Vol. 25): 99–125. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Subnational institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1221–1245.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sense making-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1022–1040.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. E., Xie, E., & Peng, M. W. 2016. Toward a legitimacy-based view of political risk: The case of Google and Yahoo in China. Strategic Management Journal, 37(5): 945–963.10.1002/smj.2369Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Liu, G. S. 2011. Corporate governance failure and contingent political resources in transition economies: A longitudinal case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 853–879.Google Scholar
Tan, J., & Tan, A. E. 2012. Business under threat, technology under attack, ethics under fire: The experience of Google in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4): 469–479.Google Scholar
The Economist . 2015. More Kirk than Spock: 66.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K. 2014. Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4): 369–383.Google Scholar
Tsui-Auch, L., & Möllering, G. 2010. Wary managers: Unfavorable environments, perceived vulnerability, and the development of trust in foreign enterprises in china. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(6): 1016–1035.10.1057/jibs.2009.28Google Scholar
Tung, R. L. 2016. Opportunities and challenges ahead of China's ‘New Normal’. Long Range Planning, 49(5): 632–640.Google Scholar
Van Rooij, B. 2016. The campaign enforcement style: Chinese practice in context and comparison. In Bignami, F. & Zaring, D. (Eds.), Comparative law and regulation: Understanding the global regulatory process: 217–237. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Waller, R. L., & Conaway, R. N. 2011. Framing and counterframing the issue of corporate social responsibility: The communication strategies of Nikebiz.com. The Journal of Business Communication, 48(1): 83–106.Google Scholar
Wang, P. 2010. Restructuring to repair legitimacy: A contingency perspective. Corporate governance: An International Review, 18(1): 64–82.Google Scholar
Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. 2013. Asian business systems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory. Socio-Economic Review, 11(2): 265–300.Google Scholar
Xu, B. 2001. Chinese populist nationalism: Its intellectual politics and moral dilemma. Representations, 76(1): 120–140.Google Scholar
Yang, G. 2009. The power of the Internet in China: Citizen activism online. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Zerubavel, E. 1991. The fine line: Boundaries and distinctions in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, M. 2013. Beyond cops and robbers: The contextual challenge driving the multinational corporation public crisis in China and Russia. Business Horizons, 56(4): 491–501.Google Scholar
Zhao, M., Park, S. H., & Zhou, N. 2014a. MNC strategy and social adaptation in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7): 842–861.10.1057/jibs.2014.8Google Scholar
Zhao, M., Tan, J., & Park, S. 2014b. From voids to sophistication: Institutional environment and MNC CSR crisis in emerging markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4): 655–674.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414–431.Google Scholar