Corporate governance scholars are increasingly interested in firms' social and environmental performance. Empirical research in this area, however, has moved forward in an uncoordinated fashion, producing fragmented and contradictory results. Our paper seeks to address this situation by adopting a fact-based research approach that comprehensively explores the link between corporate governance and environmental performance. Specifically, we aim to understand how the relationships between and among the firm's owners, managers and board of directors influence environmental performance. We are particularly interested in understanding the interactions among these three key sets of actors. In the end, we offer some observations about governance practices and discuss the implications for theory.

We contribute to the literature on firms' responses to institutional pressures and environmental information disclosure. We hypothesize that CEO characteristics such as education and tenure will influence firms' likelihood to voluntarily disclose environmental information. We test our hypotheses by examining firms' responses to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and find that firms led by newly appointed CEOs and CEOs with MBA degrees are more likely to respond to the CDP, while those led by lawyers are less likely to respond. Our results have implications for research on strategic responses to institutional pressures and corporate environmental performance.

Industrial symbiosis (IS) is a collaborative environmental action whereby firms share or exchange by-products, materials, energy, or waste as a way to economically reduce aggregate environmental impact. Research in IS has flourished over the past two decades, and the time is ripe for a coherent review of organizational perspectives on the topic, particularly since the practice of IS is rife with difficulties often attributed to “social” factors. We review the organizational perspectives found in IS literature using a two-dimensional framework considering the antecedents, consequences, lubricants, and limiters of IS assessed through institutional, network/system, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. Our framework highlights what organizational perspectives have been adopted so far and also points to avenues of future scholarship of this unique phenomenon.

SummaryThis paper explores the phenomenon of positive organizational deviance from institutional norms by establishing practices that protect or enhance the natural environment. Seeking to explain why some organizations practice positive environmental deviance while others do not, we locate our inquiry on the board of directors-the organizational body that interprets external issues and guides organizational response. We find a strong correlation between positive deviance and the past environmental experience of board directors and the centrality of the organization within field-level networks. Organizations located on the periphery of the network or whose boards possess a high level of environmental experience are more likely to deviate in positive ways. Our conclusions contribute to multiple literatures in behavioral and environmental governance, the role of filtering and enaction in the process of institutional conformity and change, and the mechanisms behind proactive environmental protection strategies within business.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Inconsistent results in prior work that link environmental strategy to competitive advantage may be due to the empirical difficulties of marrying the theoretical connection between a firm’s resource base and its environmental strategy. The authors contribute to the field by developing a measure that is congruent with the natural resource—based view, a dominant paradigm in this line of work. This article content analyses company reports and secondary data to develop a measure of environmental strategy grounded in the natural resource—based view. They identify six environmental capabilities that form components of a reliable, multidimensional construct of proactive environmental strategy. They also identify a measure of reactive compliance strategy. They verify reliability of their new measure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, establish convergent and discriminant validity via a multitrait, multimethod matrix and demonstrate superior predictive validity of their measure compared to two others commonly used in the literature. In the conclusion, they discuss implications for research and practice.