The second chapter analyses the response to the climate grand challenge by institutions, governments, business practice and academia. Since the 1980s, climate science has alerted us, with data and evidence, to the serious effects that human intervention is having on the climate. This grand challenge constitutes a global problem that can be plausibly addressed through coordinated and collaborative efforts at a planetary scale, requiring the involvement of governments, supranational institutions, companies and, of course, management academics. From a historical perspective, we introduce the reader to how climate change was initially treated by multinational institutions and governments, and then we delve into the reaction of industry to this evidence, paying special attention to the fossil fuel industry because of its prominent role in the generation of greenhouse gases. Finally, we analyse the role of academia in addressing this challenge, in particular the role of organisations and the natural environment academics.

Witesman provides an institutional theory of the nonprofit. The chapter considers the argument developed by the author in a 2016 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly article. In it, she proposes an institutional theory of the nonprofit that defines its distinction from public and private institutions through (1) the voluntary (rather than coercive) assignment of roles and (2) the use of the good or service by non-payers. The voluntary and redistributive nature of such nonprofit-type institutions makes them primarily compatible with the distribution of goods that are non-subtractable and excludable (toll goods). This view is in contrast to legalistic or sector-based theories of the nonprofit.

We analyse the difficulties and opportunities of managing firm activities across national borders. Firms can enter foreign markets via six entry modes, where three are non-equity-based (exporting, licensing, franchising) and three are equity-based (greenfield investments, acquisitions, joint ventures). First, we discuss the advantages of and risks associated with each entry mode. We show how transaction costs theory, real options theory and institutional theory can help explain the optimal entry mode. Second, we include time and show how firms dynamically learn about markets to reduce their liability of foreignness. Third, we discuss the digital aspect, where we show that digital firms are different in various ways, but the arguments used to explain the entry mode still apply. Fourth, we discuss the challenge to balance pressure for global integration, cost effectiveness and standardisation with the pressure to make local adaptations. We evaluate four possible strategies, in particular for international HRM and marketing.

This chapter focuses on the critical corporate governance role of outsiders providing professional advisory services in promoting corporate social responsibility (CSR). It draws on insights from responsive regulation and institutional theories to make the case for including professional advisory services such as accounting and auditing firms, management consultancies, rating agencies, external company secretaries, and public relations, advertising and marketing firms in the CSR legal infrastructure. Proposing an inclusive and limited stakeholder approach, the chapter outlines creative ways for enabling the CSR responsibility, accountability and transparency of professional advisory services.

This chapter argues that ‘stakeholder needs’ and the ‘value system paradigm’ are alternative approaches to regulating corporate social responsibility (CSR). Drawing on Pound’s Theory of Social Interests and the institutional and stakeholder theories, it highlights the importance of contextualism in CSR and demonstrates that a values system paradigm may be a more suitable regulatory strategy, particularly in the developing and emerging markets. The chapter suggests that the stakeholder needs approach should be coupled with a values system paradigm for a more effective CSR when stakeholder responsiveness is desired.

Chapter 2 presents the book’s theory connecting differences in bureaucratic norms to variation in the implementation of primary schooling. I first define implementation and operationalize it for the primary education domain. I then present comparative education indicators, showcasing differences in performance across four Indian states. Next, I develop a theory anchored around the ideal types of legalistic and deliberative bureaucracy. I argue that deliberative bureaucracies, which promote flexibility and problem-solving, are more effective since they can adapt policies to local needs and activate participation from marginalized communities. By contrast, legalistic states, which adhere strictly to rules and procedures, implement policies unevenly and tend to benefit privileged groups in society, weakening the engagement of poor communities. I elucidate two mechanisms: collective understanding and behavior of state officials, and societal feedback, which together yield varied mentation patterns and outcomes. I explore the political origins behind the differences in bureaucratic norms. I scope conditions of my theory and contrast it with alternative political explanations for the implementation of public services.

The conclusion summarizes and discusses the principal findings of the book, highlighting the role of temporal coordination dilemmas and Temporal Focal Points in patterns of continuity and change in international institutions. After relating these findings to other theoretical approaches, the chapter discusses the theoretical implications of the analysis contained in this book for the study of change in international institutions. The chapter provides an extended discussion of policy implications, including how international actors can employ the logic of temporal coordination in modernizing global institutions in the current international setting. It concludes with an analysis of the current context in global environmental and sustainable development politics, analyzing progress in combatting global challenges, such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity, and implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It argues that the international community has incentives to realize institutional change and that a Temporal Focal Point could soon emerge.

The Conclusion begins by summarizing the extensive terrain surveyed in Chapters 2–5 on key concepts of sociality, temporality, (in)efficiency, and power, and aggregates findings on institutional origins, maintenance, and change. It then brings work under different conceptual headings into dialogue and identifies many opportunities for mutual enrichment across schools, traditions, and approaches. With respect to the endogeneity problem, our wide-ranging engagement with a number of literatures show it to present local problems, but not a general threat. Indeed, the four concepts together reveal institutional causal autonomy to be overdetermined across a huge number of conditions. Finally, the chapter holds no expectation of, nor does it advocate the pursuit of, a unified theory of institutions. Instead, it sees ample room for mutually intelligible work relying on a “fish-scale model of omniscience,” with unique specialties exhibiting just enough tangency with other work to sprawl continuously across the social sciences.

The human condition teems with institutions, yet scholarly attention ebbs and flows, and scientific progress proceeds unevenly. After almost half a century of “new institutionalisms,” the time has come to take stock of the vast literature, and to identify existing strengths and new opportunities. Building on dozens of conceptions of institutions from across the social sciences, Theories of Institutions defines them as “intertemporal social arrangements that shape human relations in support of particular values.” By definition, institutions endure and institutions are intersubjective. But they are also consequential, impacting aggregate human welfare and very often shaping distributional outcomes. Setting up key concepts of temporality, sociality, (in)efficiency, and power, on which the heart of the book focuses, the Introduction also articulates a set of common questions around institutional origins, maintenance, and change to be addressed throughout. Such analysis promises to shed new light on the dual nature of institutions as human constructs and human constraints, and to identify promising avenues for interdisciplinary dialogue.