Organization Studies

Special Issue Call for Papers

Platform Organizations and Societal Change

Guest Editors
Cristina Alaimo, ESSEC Business School
Annabelle Gawer, University of Surrey
Stefan Haefliger, Stockholm School of Economics & City, University of London
Evelyn Micelotta, University of Vermont
Georg Reischauer, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business & Johannes Kepler
University Linz

Submission Deadline
February 28, 2025

Motivation
Platforms are digital infrastructures that connect users in a flexible way, thereby
intermediating between (at least) two user sides who can be individual and/or collective
actors. Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are popular examples of platform
organizations – organizations that operate one or more platforms. More and more
management scholars consider platform organizations as a distinct and novel form of
organizing (Gawer, 2014, 2022; Kretschmer, Leiponen, Schilling, & Vasudeva, 2022;
McIntyre, Srinivasan, Afuah, Gawer, & Kretschmer, 2021). They specified the distinctiveness
of platform organizations in especially two ways.
One way pertains to the variety of features that constitute differentplatform types. Transaction
platforms (also referred to as marketplaces), for instance, enable users to exchange or
temporally access resources (e.g., Airbnb, eBay) and to contract services on the spot (e.g.,
Uber, TaskRabbit) (Cusumano, Gawer, & Yoffie, 2019; Kornberger, Pflueger, & Mouritsen,
2017). Innovation platforms, especially operating systems like Apple’s iOS, provide a
modular infrastructure for collaborative innovation and are the fundament of large-scale
ecosystems (Cutolo & Kenney, 2020; Fink, Shao, Lichtenstein, & Haefliger, 2020; Jacobides,
Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018). With the change in connectivity brought about by the advent of
mobile and social media technologies (e.g., social buttons, social plugins), another breed of
platforms emerged. These data platforms focus on the structuring of social behaviour into
standardized user interactions (i.e., liking, scrolling, swapping, rating) to produce data and
foster connectivity (Alaimo & Kallinikos, 2017; Koutroumpis, Leiponen, & Thomas,

1
2020).Initially confined to the work of social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
TripAdvisor), the affordances of connectivity and behavioural visibility brought about by data
platforms now cut across sectors (Kolb, Dery, Huysman, & Metiu, 2020; Leonardi & Treem,
2020) and organizational boundaries (Thorén, Ågerfalk, & Rolandsson, 2017; Vaast, 2023).
Large platform organizations such as Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft tend to operate multiple
platforms, which has fuelled their growth and turned them into global players that exert strong
control over digital information and communication(Zuboff, 2022).
The second way pertains to the distinct modalities in which platform organizations govern
users. Scholars identified the relevance of algorithms and interfaces in re-organizing
membership and collective action rules (Chen, Tong, Tang, & Han, 2022; Gawer, 2021;
Reischauer & Mair, 2018), showcasing that users are governed by standardizing interactions,
controlling behaviour, and promoting evaluative practices (de Vaujany, Fomin, Haefliger, &
Lyytinen, 2018; Kellogg, Valentine, & Christin, 2020; Kornberger et al., 2017). Some
platform organizations were even found to nurture organized immaturity – the erosion of the
individual’s capacity for the public use of reason – to avoid user resistance and have a strong
governance regime (Harracá, Castelló, & Gawer, 2023).
This body of research has yielded rich explanations on what makes platform organizations a
distinct and novel form of organizing and how they govern users. What is far less understood
is the role of platform organizations in societal change. Recent studies in three domains
within management theory have yielded initial insights on this relationship.
One group of scholars examined the link between institutional change and platform
organizations (Boon, Spruit, & Frenken, 2019; Frenken, Vaskelainen, Fünfschilling, &
Piscicelli, 2020; Gawer & Phillips, 2013; Gegenhuber, Logue, Hinings, & Barrett, 2022; Mair
& Reischauer, 2017; Uzunca, Rigtering, & Ozcan, 2018), providing first ideas of how
platform organizations create, redefine, and weaken cognitive, normative, and regulative
structures and practices that stabilize social behaviour (Scott, 2001). For instance, Alaimo
(2022) showed how a platform organization specializing in automatized real-time exchange of
information transformed the links between a fields’ institutions and practices. Other studies
found out that platform organizations communicatively drive change by championing
alternative discourses and frames, such as public interest and entrepreneurship (Gurses,
Yakis-Douglas, & Ozcan, 2022), which increasingly leads to a “digital colonization” of
industries such as health care or education in which platform-based ways of organizing were
absent before (Ozalp, Ozcan, Dinckol, Zachariadis, & Gawer, 2022). In this regard, platform
organizations act as skilful cultural entrepreneurs that often enjoy high status amongst users
and stakeholders (Sasaki, Ravasi, & Micelotta, 2019).
A second line of research has studied the relationship between change of knowledge
paradigms and platform organizations. Organizational and information systems scholars alike
have a longstanding interest in examining the organizing and disorganizing power of
information technologies, and how they reframe knowledge, mediate affects, and carry
specific rationalities (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000; Orlikowski, 2000). Some of these
discourses have taken new currency in the world of platform organizations (Alaimo &
Kallinikos, 2022; Beyes, Chun, Clarke, Flyverbom, & Holt, 2022; Kornberger et al., 2017).
These studies point out that data infrastructures and various digital artifacts make visible the
world in new ways, leading to the emergence of novel practices within and across
organizational boundaries as well as increase the potential of disorganization (Alaimo, 2022;
Power, 2022; Ratner & Plotnikof, 2021; Saifer & Dacin, 2021). As they construct what can be
seen and known, platform organizations promote novel paradigms of knowing that, in turn,
set the conditions for new forms of organizing (Alaimo & Kallinikos, 2021). For example,
Gümüsay, Raynard, Albu, Etter, and Roulet (2022) found that particular technological

2
features of social media platforms are interpreted and used in different ways in favour of
particular perspectives, positions, and discourses, while silencing or subordinating others.
A third group of scholars has explored the responses to platform organizationsfrom
established organizations and forms of organizing, such as firms, public administrations, local
and online communities, social movements, standard setting organizations, and interest
groups. One of these responses is to operate an own digital platform with the objective to not
lose ground against challenging platform organizations and to collaborate with others in new
ways (Khanagha, Ansari, Paroutis, & Oviedo, 2022; Logue & Grimes, 2022). Others studies
indicate that established organizations and forms of organizing may respond by taking a
stance against the challengers. For example, interest groups were found to institutionalize new
ways of giving users a say in how work over platforms (Gegenhuber, Schüßler, Reischauer,
&Thäter, 2022). Likewise, local communities may organize protests to reduce platform
offerings in their neighbourhood (e.g., local and virtual protests to reduce Airbnb offerings in
tourist areas) (Cameron & Rahman, 2021; Ricart, Snihur, Carrasco-Farré, & Berrone, 2020).
Scholars also started to examine how organizational members react after platform
organizations enter their space. For instance, Fraser and Ansari (2021) found that the rise of
platforms can cause ambiguous interpretations amongst members, which increases the
chances of internal conflicts.
Despite these advances, our knowledge of the role of platform organizations in societal
changeremains fragmented. Specifically, we know too little about (1) the processes, practices,
and rhetoric through which platform organizations shape and promote new knowledge
paradigms, social orders, power regimes, and culture; (2) how, when, and with what effects
platform organizations alter established organizations and forms of organizing; (3) the
responses of established organizations and forms of organizing to platform organizations, and
(4) the dynamics these responses set in motion.

Objectives and Scope

This special issue aims to generate robust organization theory that advances our
understanding of the various ways through which platform organizations affect societal
change and are shaped by other organizations, organizing, and the organized in business,
politics, and society. Put differently, we aim to explore platform organizations in their societal
context, as opposed to studies of platforms as a close system.
To meet this objective, we invite papers that draw upon and combine insights from
organization and management theory, information systems, innovation and entrepreneurship
research, strategic management, public and non-profit management, management history,
science and technology studies, sociology, organizational behaviour, accounting, public policy
and political science, philosophy, and critical management studies, inter alia. We are open to
all levels of analysis, such as group, middle manager, organizational, ecosystem, industry, and
field level. Papers that theorize at multiple levels of analysis are also welcome. Moreover, we
embrace a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and methods, including
mixed methods and novel approaches.
We envision the special issue to become a forum for papers that collectively bridge academic
boundaries to push the frontiers of platform research by shifting the current debate from the
features and (governance) strategies of platform organizations to the plural ways society and
platform organizations complement and redefine each other. Aside from these aspired
theoretical implications, we believe that our special issue also holds important implications
for practice. While management scholars have provided guidance for the regulation of
platform organizations (Cennamo, Kretschmer, Constantinides, Alaimo, &Santaló, 2023;
Jacobides & Lianos, 2021; Kirchner & Schüßler, 2020), we lack empirically grounded
insights on the role of platform organizations in societal change. Such insights are crucial so

3
that practitioners can undertake more accurate assessments of the impact of platform
organizations and how to organize and push platform organizations that drive positive social
change.

Potential Research Topics

We below outline potential themes and questions that would meet the special issue’s
objective. These themes should be understood as starting points and inspirations. Submissions
should respond to the overall quest to expand our understanding of platform organizations in
their social context and the role of platform organizations in societal change.
● Drivers, forms, and (un)intended consequences of platform-driven societal change: We
invite papers that examine patterns, practices, and processes through which platform
organizations redefine institutions, culture, and knowledge paradigms and revisit the
discourses that have developed around them. Exemplary questions include:
o How do platform organizations create, interfere with, and weaken cognitive,
normative, and regulative structures and practices?
o What is the role of data and digital technologies in reframing processes and practices
of platform organizing and disorganizing?
o How and under which conditions do platform organizations alter cultural frames,
knowledge paradigms, and institutional logics?
o What is the role of social evaluations (e.g., stigma, legitimacy, identification), network
embeddedness, and institutions in how platform organizations grow and decline?
o What are the alternative discourses and frameschampioned by platform organizations?
o How are self-portrayals of platform organizations (e.g., “too big to fail”, “technology
firm”) put forward to convince others that they are a “remedy of all things” (Zilber &
Goodman, 2021), and with what effects?
o How do platform organizations capitalize on crises and field-configuring events?
o What is the role of platforms in the maintenance of social orders?
o How are platform organizations constructing, navigating, and shaping timing norms
and evaluation practices?
o What role do third parties, such as the media or standard-setting organizations, play in
platform-driven societal change?
o What new and alternative forms of organizing are emerging under the label of platform
organizations?
o What is the role of technology in defining the emergence of certain types or forms?
o How and under which conditions do platform organizations shape the emergence,
evolution, convergence, and decline of fields and ecosystems?

● Organizational responses to platform organizations and societal change: The rise of

platform organizations prompts reactions by organized collective actors such as firms,
public administrations, local and online communities, social movements, firms, standard
setting organizations, and interest groups. We seek papers that advance theory on how
these established organizations and forms of organizing respond to platform organizations
at multiple levels of analysis, and the consequences of these responses. For instance,
open questions include:
o How do collective actors respond to the organizing logic of platforms?
o Which responses can reduce potentially harmful impact of platform organizations?

4
 o Under which conditions do established organizations respond with what market
responses (e.g., new offerings, geographical expansion) and/or nonmarket responses?
o How applicable are established insights on responses of collective actors, such as the
exit-voice-loyalty framework (Hirschman, 1970), responses to uncertainty (Miller
&Shamsie, 1999), or responses to institutional complexity (Greenwood, Raynard,
Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011; Vermeulen, Zietsma, Greenwood, & Langley,
2016)?
o How and when do responses alter formal structures, processes, practices, and
identities of the responding established organizations and forms of organizing?
o What is the role of digital technologies and social structures in enabling responses?
o What dilemmas and paradoxes do responses to platform organizations cause for whom
and how are they navigated?
o How and when do organizations coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate (Castañer&
Oliveira, 2020) when responding, and how are these arrangements governed and
routinized?
o How are platform organizations reacting to responses directed at them, and with what
effects?

● Member responses to platform organizations and societal change. Responses require

members of established organizations and forms of organizing to act. Amongst open
questions pertaining to the role of member agency in platform-driven change are:
o How do formal and/or informal organizational structures influence how members (not)
take a stance for and against platform organizations?
o What is the role of organizational routines in responding to platform organizations?
o What is the role of sociotechnical arrangements in shaping collective action within
and/or in response to platform organizations?
o How do members navigate the tensions of responding to platform organizations over
time?
o How are responses interrelated across hierarchical levels and communities of practice?
o How can members be included and motivated during long-term responses?
o What is the role of shared cognitions, social practices, values, and emotions in
championing and/or inhibiting responses to platform organizations?
o How and why do members of organizations that respond to platform organizations
change over time?
o What unintended consequences do responses trigger for members and how do they
cope with them?
o How are platform organizations influencing members of competing organizations?

● Politics of platform organizations and power shifts

o How do data and digital technologies reconfigure the politics of platform
organizations? How do they change notions of power and power dynamics in platform
organizations?
o How and under which conditions do firms, public administrations, and civil society
organizations propose and impose alternatives to platform organizations?
o How do platform organizations construct, redefine and/or destroy political discourses?

5
 o What nonmarket strategies do platform organizations pursue and why?
o How do platform organizations interfere with existing notions of markets?
o How do market mechanisms transform due to platforms and platform competition?
o How do platform organizations interfere with entrenched power dynamics and
governance configurations?
o How do they coordinate and govern the interaction between actors in the private
sector, public sector, and civil society, and with what effects?
o How are third parties and/or politics nudged to take actions in support of or against
platform organizations?

Submitting your paper

Please submit your manuscript through the journal’s online submission system
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies). You will need to create a user account if you do
not already have one, and you must select the appropriate Special Issue at the “Manuscript
Type” option. The Special Issue Editors handle all manuscripts by standard policies and
procedures for Organization Studies; they expect authors to follow the journal’s submission
guidelines https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/OSS). You can submit your
manuscript for this Special Issue between February 1 and February 28, 2025. For
administrative support and general queries, you may contact Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing
Editor of Organization Studies, at [email protected] and John Kokkonakis, Assistant
Managing Editor, at [email protected].
References
Alaimo, C. (2022). From people to objects: The digital transformation of fields. Organization Studies,
43(7), 1091-1114. doi:10.1177/01708406211030654
Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2017). Computing the everyday: Social media as data platforms. The
Information Society, 33(4), 175-191. doi:10.1080/01972243.2017.1318327
Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2021). Managing by data: Algorithmic categories and organizing.
Organization Studies, 42(9), 1385-1407. doi:10.1177/0170840620934062
Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Organizations decentered: Data objects, technology and
knowledge. Organization Science, 33(1), 19-37. doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1552
Beyes, T., Chun, W. H. K., Clarke, J., Flyverbom, M., & Holt, R. (2022). Ten theses on technology and
organization: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 43(7), 1001-1018.
doi:10.1177/01708406221100028
Boon, W. P. C., Spruit, K., & Frenken, K. (2019). Collective institutional work: The case of Airbnb in
Amsterdam, London and New York. Industry and Innovation, 26(8), 898-919.
doi:10.1080/13662716.2019.1633279
Cameron, L. D., & Rahman, H. (2021). Expanding the locus of resistance: Understanding the
co-constitution of control and resistance in the gig economy. Organization Science, 33(1),
38-58. doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1557
Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among
organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic
literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965-1001. doi:10.1177/0149206320901565
Cennamo, C., Kretschmer, T., Constantinides, P., Alaimo, C., & Santaló, J. (2023). Digital platforms
regulation: An innovation-centric view of the EU’s digital markets act. Journal of European
Competition Law & Practice, 14(1), 44-51. doi:10.1093/jeclap/lpac043
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022). Governance and design of digital platforms: A
review and future research directions on a meta-organization. Journal of Management, 48(1),
147-184. doi:10.1177/01492063211045023
Cusumano, M., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of
digital competition, innovation, and power. Harper Business.

6
Cutolo, D., & Kenney, M. (2020). Platform-dependent entrepreneurs: Power asymmetries, risks, and
strategies in the platform economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 584-605.
doi:10.5465/amp.2019.0103
de Vaujany, F.-X., Fomin, V. V., Haefliger, S., & Lyytinen, K. (2018). Rules, practices, and information
technology: A trifecta of organizational regulation. Information Systems Research, 29(3),
755-773. doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0771
Fink, L., Shao, J., Lichtenstein, Y., & Haefliger, S. (2020). The ownership of digital infrastructure:
Exploring the deployment of software libraries in a digital innovation cluster. Journal of
Information Technology, 35(3), 251-269. doi:10.1177/0268396220936705
Fraser, J., & Ansari, S. (2021). Pluralist perspectives and diverse responses: Exploring multiplexed
framing in incumbent responses to digital disruption. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102016.
doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102016
Frenken, K., Vaskelainen, T., Fünfschilling, L., & Piscicelli, L. (2020). An institutional logics
perspective on the gig economy. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 66, 83-105.
doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20200000066005
Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative
framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239-1249. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006
Gawer, A. (2021). Digital platforms’ boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and
digital interfaces. Long Range Planning, 54(4), 102045. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045
Gawer, A. (2022). Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organizational forms
of the digital age. Innovation: Organization and Management, 24(1), 110-124.
doi:10.1080/14479338.2021.1965888
Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s transformation
to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1035-1071. doi:10.1177/0170840613492071
Gegenhuber, T., Logue, D., Hinings, C. R., & Barrett, M. (2022). Institutional perspectives on digital
transformation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 83, 1-32.
doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000083001
Gegenhuber, T., Schüßler, E., Reischauer, G., & Thäter, L. (2022). Building collective institutional
infrastructures for decent platform work: The development of a crowdwork agreement in
Germany. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 79, 43-68.
doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000079004
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional
complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317-371.
doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590299
Gümüsay, A. A., Raynard, M., Albu, O., Etter, M., & Roulet, M. (2022). Digital technology and voice:
How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization. Research in the Sociology
of Organizations, 83, 57-85. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000083003
Gurses, K., Yakis-Douglas, B., & Ozcan, P. (2022). Digitalization versus regulation: How disruptive
digital communication technologies alter institutional contexts through public interest framing.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 83, 133-166.
doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20220000083006
Harracá, M., Castelló, I., & Gawer, A. (2023). How digital platforms organize immaturity: A
sociosymbolic framework of platform power. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3), 440-472.
doi:10.1017/beq.2022.40
Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: A critique and reappraisal of
neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21(4), 697-720.
doi:10.1177/0170840600214002
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and
states. Harvard University Press.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic
Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276. doi:10.1002/smj.2904
Jacobides, M. G., & Lianos, I. (2021). Regulating platforms and ecosystems: An introduction.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(5), 1131-1142. doi:10.1093/icc/dtab060
Kellogg, K., Valentine, M., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of
control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174

7
Khanagha, S., Ansari, S., Paroutis, S., & Oviedo, L. (2022). Mutualism and the dynamics of new
platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3),
476-506. doi:10.1002/smj.3147
Kirchner, S., & Schüßler, E. (2020). Regulating the sharing economy: A field perspective. Research in
the Sociology of Organizations, 66, 215-236. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X20200000066010
Kolb, D. G., Dery, K., Huysman, M., & Metiu, A. (2020). Connectivity in and around organizations:
Waves, tensions and trade-offs. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1589-1599.
doi:10.1177/0170840620973666
Kornberger, M., Pflueger, D., & Mouritsen, J. (2017). Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for
platform organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60, 79-95.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2017.05.002
Koutroumpis, P., Leiponen, A., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2020). Markets for data. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 29(3), 645-660. doi:10.1093/icc/dtaa002
Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform ecosystems as
metaorganizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3),
405-424. doi:doi.org/10.1002/smj.3250
Leonardi, P., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in
the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12),
1601-1625. doi:10.1177/0170840620970728
Logue, D., & Grimes, M. (2022). Platforms for the people: Enabling civic crowdfunding through the
cultivation of institutional infrastructure. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 663-693.
doi:10.1002/smj.3110
Mair, J., & Reischauer, G. (2017). Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: Institutional
research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy organizations. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 11-20. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023
McIntyre, D., Srinivasan, A., Afuah, A., Gawer, A., & Kretschmer, T. (2021). Multisided platforms as
new organizational forms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 566-583.
doi:10.5465/amp.2018.0018
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1999). Strategic responses to three kinds of uncertainty: Product line
simplicity at the hollywood film studios. Journal of Management, 25(1), 97-116.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500105
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying
technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
doi:doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
Ozalp, H., Ozcan, P., Dinckol, D., Zachariadis, M., & Gawer, A. (2022). “Digital colonization” of
highly regulated industries: An analysis of big tech platforms’ entry into health care and
education. California Management Review, 64(4), 78-107. doi:10.1177/00081256221094307
Power, M. (2022). Theorizing the economy of traces: From audit society to surveillance capitalism.
Organization Theory, 3(3). doi:10.1177/26317877211052296
Ratner, H., & Plotnikof, M. (2021). Technology and dis/organization: Digital data infrastructures as
partial connections. Organization Studies, 43(7), 1049-1067.
doi:10.1177/01708406211053200
Reischauer, G., & Mair, J. (2018). How organizations strategically govern online communities:
Lessons from the sharing economy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 220-247.
doi:10.5465/amd.2016.0164
Ricart, J. E., Snihur, Y., Carrasco-Farré, C., & Berrone, P. (2020). Grassroots resistance to digital
platforms and relational business model design to overcome it: A conceptual framework.
Strategy Science, 5(3), 147-291. doi:10.1287/stsc.2020.0104
Saifer, A., & Dacin, M. T. (2021). Data and organization studies: Aesthetics, emotions, discourse and
our everyday encounters with data. Organization Studies, 43(4), 623-636.
doi:10.1177/01708406211006250
Sasaki, I., Ravasi, D., & Micelotta, E. (2019). Family firms as institutions: Cultural reproduction and
status maintenance among multi-centenary shinise in Kyoto. Organization Studies, 40(6),
793-831. doi:10.1177/0170840618818596
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.): Sage.

8
Thorén, C., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Rolandsson, B. (2017). Voicing the puppet: Accommodating unresolved
institutional tensions in digital open practices. Organization Studies, 39(7), 923-945.
doi:10.1177/0170840617695358
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. P. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison
of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy.
Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248-272. doi:10.5465/amd.2016.0153
Vaast, E. (2023). Strangers in the dark: Navigating opacity and transparency in open online
career-related knowledge sharing. Organization Studies, 44(1), 29-52.
doi:10.1177/01708406211058647
Vermeulen, P. A. M., Zietsma, C., Greenwood, R., & Langley, A. (2016). Strategic responses to
institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 277-286. doi:10.1177/14761270166759
Zilber, T. B., & Goodman, Y. C. (2021). Technology in the time of Corona: A critical institutional
reading. Information and Organization, 31(1). doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100342
Zuboff, S. (2022). Surveillance capitalism or democracy? The death match of institutional orders and
the politics of knowledge in our information civilization. Organization Theory, 3(3).
doi:10.1177/26317877221129290