In this introduction, we redefine cultural marginalization from a deeply human-centric understanding of culture, offering the possibility for a more nuanced understanding of the structure of societies and organizations. Grounded in this human ethos, we aim to build a theoretical foundation for scholarly debate in management and organizational studies; one that not only supports the cultural survival and autonomy of marginalized communities but also explores how such a developmental process can pave the way toward societies and organizations where individuals can pursue hope, freedom, and peace. Building on this foundation, we propose a research agenda to overcome cultural marginalization through three key avenues: productive dialogue and boundary spanning, institutional forgiveness, and human reflexivity.

In this article, we explore how actors' intentionality emerges, develops, and co‐evolves with institutional change. Although intentions are essential in shaping institutional change agents' motivations and actions, our understanding of their dynamics is limited and biased by the assumption that intentions are usually identifiable prior to institutional change. Building on the works of philosophers, in particular Husserl's life exploration of consciousness and intentions, we argue that a more effective way to conceptualize intentionality in institutional change is to consider attentionality, that is, how actors direct their mental focus toward specific elements of their social reality. Empirically, we draw upon a phenomenon‐driven study of the Algerian agricultural transformation from 2000 to 2019, with a focus on the contributions of Benamor, a leading agri‐food business. We theorize a process model that differentiates between passive and active intentions. Passive intentions are virtual mental possibilities upon which active intentions are built to instigate change. Our findings highlight attentional conversion as a crucial mechanism that drives the transition from passive to active intentions. These findings have important implications for our understanding of institutional change theories.

While public infrastructure projects face frequent challenges related to social acceptability, the relationship between these projects’ governance and social acceptability has been overlooked. Yet, governance plays a crucial role in generating practices and policies that facilitate the development of social acceptability. This article elaborates on a conceptual framework of the processual governance dynamics of public infrastructure projects, which bridges project governance and social acceptability literatures in the context of public infrastructure projects. An organizational learning framework is introduced, which portrays strategies that encourage stakeholder engagement and ensure alignment with sustainable development principles. Building on this, the article offers two contributions to the literature. First, it theoretically grounds the interrelations among governance, social acceptability, and organizational learning. Second, it develops a practical analytical tool that can serve as a roadmap for organizations that aim to improve their socially responsible project management practices.

•We need a more integrative framework for understanding what organizational antecedents help foster a social license.•This paper presents a framework delineating three organizational levels for the cultivation of a social license.•A social license relies on strategy at the organizational level, operational functionality, and individual action.

The recent rise in extremism, authoritarianism, displacement and isolationism signals troubled times for the most marginalized groups in societies. In this article, our primary emphasis is on a specific aspect of marginalization within organizational theory – referred to as cultural marginalization. We argue that the existing literature lacks an adequate theoretical understanding to address this phenomenon. To theorize cultural marginalization and uncover how marginalized groups may cope with such circumstances, we build on and problematize the culture-as-toolkit perspective. We integrate this perspective with other cultural theories that consider power structures more prominently. Drawing on this theoretical base, we develop a typology of four dynamics of cultural marginalization and conceptualize the specific cultural survival and cultural autonomy processes marginalized groups may undertake to safeguard their culture. In doing so, we contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding the toolkit perspective by providing novel insights into how marginalized groups utilize their socio-culturally constrained cultural resources in distinct ways, compared with more resourceful actors and groups. Our theoretical contributions pave the way for new avenues of research to deepen our understanding of the general process of cultural marginalization and to direct further inquiry into the survival strategies of marginalized groups and how they might (re)gain autonomy.

Issues of social acceptance around development projects are widespread in our societies. Whether for exploiting natural resources, constructing an airport, or building a waste treatment plant, public controversies clearly reflect the importance of social acceptance for civil society, public authorities, and project proponents. Several articles have presented frameworks, indices, scales, analytical models, and measurements to synthesise these issues to assess various projects' social acceptance levels. Although helpful, our main contention is that these frameworks and scales have not paid enough attention to the context (social, political, and institutional) in which social acceptance issues emerge and develop. Our article calls for greater contextualization of models to understand the social acceptability of projects. To illustrate our argument, we analyze the socio-historical foundations of social acceptance over half a century in Que & PRIME;bec, Canada, which allows us to develop a contextualized analysis framework that considers the specific Que & PRIME;bec context. We have developed an analysis grid with three pillars (issues, context, and discourse), seven related categories and 33 social phenomena to observe. Our intention is to help decision-makers at the local and regional levels in places such as Quebec understand controversies in their communities early in developing a project.

This chapter adopts an inductive qualitative approach to examine the case of Algerian entrepreneurs and their experience with corruption. In contexts marked by unstable institutions, corruption is often considered necessary for survival. We explore and expand on this line of reasoning through a discursive legitimation approach, relying on the work of Vaara et al. (2006) and Van Leeuwen (2007). We show that Algerian entrepreneurs adopt five legitimation strategies to justify engaging in corruption: moralization (value systems), rationalization (cognitive validity), normalization (common behaviors), authorization (authority of persons), and mythopoesis (use of narratives and stories). Thus, our chapter elucidates the mindset behind why entrepreneurs engage in corruption. We contribute to the understanding of corruption in three ways. First, we show that when corruption is embedded in an institutional environment, the decision to engage in corruption is beyond a black-and-white issue. Second, our study reveals the multifaceted interpretations of corruption by tracing the various justification discourses mobilized by entrepreneurs. Third, our chapter suggests that the multiple discursive justifications call for a broader approach to fighting corruption than what has conventionally been used.

Policy overreaction is a common phenomenon, especially in complex and emergency situations where politicians are led to make decisions fast. In these emergency decisions, emotions run generally high and cognitive processes are often impaired. The conditions of policy overreaction are in place as emotions overwhelm decision makers' rational processes. Drawing on the response patterns of three countries to the COVID-19 pandemic, we develop a process model of policy overreaction which describes the effects of negative emotions and institutional isomorphism on policy decision-making. Our model highlights four critical stages: negative emotions buildup, propagation of fear, isomorphic decision-making, and leading to an intractable crisis. This article shows precisely how the cascading effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, is contagious and spreads to generate crowd effects, which bend considerably policy makers' ability to make rational decisions. Our theory provides a better understanding of the process by which policy overreaction takes place.

Scholars have greatly improved our understanding of legitimacy and legitimation processes in recent years. Focusing mainly on organizations and institutional fields, mainstream organizational legitimacy theories assume that organizations are permanent. In so doing, projects—viewed as temporary organizations—like those involving natural resources and infrastructure development projects have been overlooked. In this article, our initial argument posits that a significant temporal distinction underpins the contrast in legitimacy between stable and established organizations and projects. We then develop and discuss two spectra that differentiate the legitimacy of a project from the legitimacy of the organization endorsing the project. Building on these spectra, we then theorize four interplay processes between the legitimacy of projects and the legitimacy of organizations: project reinforcement/degradation and organizational reinforcement/degradation. Our findings pave the way for new and unexplored research avenues on the legitimacy of projects.

This chapter elucidates the links between governance frameworks for public infrastructure projects and their social acceptability. Building on recent literature on project studies, sustainability, and public policy, we uncover the relationships and blind spots between governance and social acceptability. More specifically, integrated impact assessments are explored as essential decision-making tools covering key factors of projects, i.e., environmental, societal, and governance. Specific institutional infrastructures of Quebec (Canada) exemplify the role of conducting such assessments for improved participative governance on public infrastructure projects and enhanced value of the constructed assets. This chapter’s discussion brings forward the benefits of governance frameworks aiming proactively at social acceptability with a win-win approach for the main stakeholders, such as the government (project owner), the local community, and civil society. Finally, important research avenues in this area are suggested in conclusion.

The literature generically addresses controversies related to the lack of social acceptance of projects, generally overlooking their specificities. We argue instead that each trajectory of social acceptance (or lack thereof) is unique. This article demonstrates this through a qualitative analysis of three controversial projects: Matoush uranium mining (2006-2020), Facebook’s cryptocurrency (2017-2021), and Covid-19 vaccination (2020-2021). We develop an analytical framework that conceptualizes social acceptance as a dynamic trajectory of legitimation and justification revolving around three pillars: eco-traditional, symbolic, and technical. This article enriches our understanding of social acceptance issues and offers research perspectives at the interface of social acceptance, legitimation, and institutional logics.

The book was inadvertently published with incorrect first name and last name of the chapter author Shoeb Mohammad. The correct name of the author has been updated in the chapter.

Le gouvernement canadien s’est engagé à investir au moins 180 milliards de dollars dans les grands projets entre 2016 et 2028 1 , que ce soit dans les transports publics, dans les infrastructures aéroportuaires ou dans les réseaux de télécommunications et les systèmes énergétiques. Plus de 77 000 projets ont déjà été réalisés ou sont en cours dans le cadre de ce programme d’investissement. Or, comment assurer l’acceptabilité sociale de tous ces projets pour qu’ils soient couronnés de succès ?