Valentine BROGNION
Guilhem BASCLE
Summary
Innovation has been widely-considered as the cornerstone of organizational success. However, contemporary innovation research has witnessed a recent shift, advocating an expansive conceptualization of innovation. Organizations are invited to adopt a wider spatiotemporal vision in their innovation process (Bansal & Grewatsch, 2020). Social interactions are highlighted as innovation enhancers to further explore. In response, we develop a conceptual model by pinning the concept of interstitial spaces arising from institutional research. Interstitial spaces are defined as places and times where “individuals from different fields interact occasionally and informally around common activities to which they devote limited time” (Furnari, 2014, p. 439). Across this conceptual study with vignettes, we present interstitial spaces as innovation catalyst, i.e. places and times providing a breach and a breath for heightening innovation through substantial and social effects. We depict interstitial spaces as nexus points where occasional and informal interactions among individuals from disparate fields can yield substantial and social dividends, thereby fostering an environment conducive to heightened receptivity to new ideas and an enhanced ability to implement these ideas effectively.
Keywords: Innovation, interstitial spaces, place, space, knowledge spillovers
G. Beril Kimilli, Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations
Corentin Hericher, Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations
Flore Bridoux, Erasmus University
Summary
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is often seen as a protective mechanism that reduces reputational damage during negative events, yet the evidence for this so-called "CSR insurance effect" is mixed. This research investigates whether and how CSR mitigates adverse stakeholder reactions to three types of negative events: accidents (outside the company’s control), competence-based failures (stemming from lack of ability), and integrity-based failures (violations of moral standards). Across three studies—two vignette-based experiments and one recall-based experiment—we examine whether CSR reduces blame (by offering organizations the benefit of the doubt) or buffers the reputational and behavioral consequences of blame (a shielding effect). Our findings show that competence- and integrity-based failures trigger stronger attributions of irresponsibility than accidents, as these failures are perceived as preventable and intentional. However, CSR did not reduce blame for failure-based events, offering no evidence for the benefit-of-the-doubt mechanism. While limited evidence of a shielding effect was observed, this protective influence was primarily seen in accidents, where blame was weaker to begin with. Overall, these findings suggest that CSR’s protective value depends on the type of negative event and how stakeholders interpret corporate responsibility. This study contributes to ongoing debates about the effectiveness of CSR and underscores the importance of aligning CSR initiatives with stakeholder expectations and perceptions.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, Insurance Effect, Negative Events
