CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONSother locales. In addition, the very size of many
multinationals restricts the pressure that either
the home or the host country can impose.
Through various actions corporations demon-
strate that they are attentive to the societies they
inhabit. Corporate leaders serve on the boards of
social service agencies; corporate foundations pro-
vide funds for community programs; employees
donate their time to local causes. The agenda of
corporations long have included these and similar
activities. Increasingly, the agenda organize such
actions around the idea of corporate social respon-
sibility. Acting responsibly means taking steps to
promote the commonweal (Steckmest 1982).
Some corporations strive more consistently to
advance social ends than do others. Differences in
norms and values apparently explain the contrast.
Norms, or maxims for behavior, indicate the cul-
ture of the organization (Deal and Kennedy 1982).
The culture of some settings gives the highest
priority to actions that protect the health, safety,
and welfare of citizens and their heirs. Elsewhere,
those are not what the culture emphasizes (Clinard
1983; Victor and Cullen 1988).
The large corporation had become such a
dominant force by the 1980s that no one envi-
sioned a return to an era of small, diffuse organiza-
tions. Yet, during that decade some sectors had
started to move from growth to contraction. At
times, the shift resulted from legislative action.
When the Bell Telephone System divided in 1984,
by order of the courts, the change marked a sharp
reversal. For more than a century the system had
glided toward integration and standardization
(Barnett and Carroll 1987; Barnett 1990).
Whether through fiat or choice, corporations
contract (Whetten 1987; Hambrick and D’Aveni
1988). Two perspectives associate the rise and fall
in the fortunes of corporations to changes in the
social context. The first perspective, resource de-
pendence, centers on the idea that organizations
must secure their resources from their environs
(McCarthy and Zald 1977; Jenkins 1983). When
those environs contain a wealth of resources—
personnel in the numbers and with the qualifica-
tions the organization requires, funds to finance
operations—the corporation can thrive. When hard
times plague the environs, the corporation es-
capes that fate only with great difficulty.
The perspective known as population ecology
likewise connects the destiny of organizations to
conditions in their surroundings. Population ecolo-
gists think of organizations as members of a popu-
lation. Changing social conditions can enrich or
impoverish a population. Individual units within it
can do little to offset the tide of events that threat-
ens to envelop the entire population. (Hannan
and Freeman 1988; Wholey and Brittain 1989; for
a critique of the approach see Young 1988).Neither resource dependency theory nor popu-
lation ecology theory focuses explicity on the cor-
porate form. But just as analyses of corporations
inform the discussions sociologists have undertak-
en on formal organizations, models drawn from
studies of organizations have proved useful as
scholars have tracked the progress of corporations.The corporation clearly constitutes a power to
be reckoned with. As with its precursors, the mod-
ern corporation serves needs that collectivities
develop. In fact, the corporation rests on an as-
sumption that is fundamental in sociology: A col-
lectivity has an identity of its own. But the corpora-
tion of the twentieth century touches more than
those persons who own its assets or produce its
goods. This social instrument of the Middle Ages is
now a social fixture.(SEE ALSO: Capitalism; Organizational Effectiveness;
Organizational Structure; Transnational Corporations)REFERENCES
Antai, Ariane-Berthoin 1992 Corporate Social Perform-
ance: Rediscovering Actors in Their Organizational Con-
texts. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Barnett, William P. 1990 ‘‘The Organizational Ecology
of a Technological System.’’ Administrative Science
Quarterly 35:31–60.
Barnett, William P., and Glenn Carroll 1987 ‘‘Competi-
tion and Mutualism Among Early Telephone Com-
panies.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 32:400–421.
Berg, Ivar, and Mayer N. Zald 1978 ‘‘Business and
Society.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 4:115–143.
Berle, Adolph A., and Gardiner C. Means 1932 The
Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York:
Macmillan.
Braverman, Harry 1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital: The
Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New
York: Monthly Review.