Environmental strategies as automorphic patterns of behaviour

Abstract

This article is based on a study of three companies, i.e. Volvo, The Body Shop and Tarkett, focusing on their development of environmental strategies. Using a drama metaphor, the empirical case indicates in detail how Tarkett has been strategically able to handle increasing environmental demands. The study also demonstrates that Tarkett depends on itself in its relationship with other actors in its organizational field, and that this influences the interplay between the actors. The article concludes that the three studied companies have adopted different strategies for managing environmental demands, and that the strategy each has used involves a specific sense of 'dependency'. The strategies are explained by institutional automorphism, which means that the companies imitate themselves, employing strategies similar to those they have previously used when tackling other changes in their organization fields.

Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact on environmental strategies and practices

“…Apart from the above forces of 'pragmatic legitimacy', environmentally oriented actions could also be driven by forces of 'moral legitimacy' (Suchman, 1995). Therefore, the framework further expands the theoretical aspect of institutional isomorphism by adding a moralistic force that could drive fi rms to adopt green practice rather for the 'good of its stakeholders' (Schwartz, 2006;Wood, 1991). The following paragraphs present the literature supporting the motivational dimensions as well as constructs measuring corporate environmental strategy and green practices.…”

“…In order words, the company values of ethically motivated fi rms emphasize 'idealization' rather than 'rationalization' in deciding the best course of action related to environmental management (Bansal and Roth, 2000). As a result of such an emphasis on idealization, ethically motivated fi rms choose innovative as well as proactive courses of action (see, e.g., Schwartz, 2006;Sharma et al, 1999).…”

“…On the other hand, regulatory agencies also (1) act as a coercive force by sending a clear signal of their endorsement of environmental practices and (2) facilitate adoption by reducing costs linked to adoption and by providing technical assistance (Bansal, 2005;Delmas and Toffel, 2004;DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Recognizing its primal importance, many researchers have subsequently studied the infl uence of enforced legislation and regulations on the environmental practices of fi rms (e.g., Delmas and Toffel, 2004;Lawrence and Morell, 1995;Schwartz, 2006).…”

“…During the last decade, researchers concerned with environmental responsiveness have tried to investigate the reason behind why fi rms respond to environmental issues (Bansal and Roth, 2000;Hoffman, 2001;Hunt and Auster, 1990;Schwartz, 2006;Sharma et al, 1999). Mostly, it was found that fi rms adopted ecologically responsive practices to merely meet legislative requirements and accordingly engage in only those activities that are mandated.…”

Motives, opportunities, and risks for private sector investment in protected areas with international importance: evidence from German companies

“…Cost savings are especially important for the manufacturing industry in which energy and waste reduction are crucial in cutting overall production costs (Epstein and Roy 2001;Hahn and Scheermesser 2006). Regarding legislative drivers, the environmental performance of a company is influenced by government control and by the pressure from norms and regulations (Delmas and Toffel 2004;DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Schwartz 2009) such as legislation on mandatory carbon and biodiversity offsets (Alvarado-Quesada et al 2014;Goldstein and Gonzalez 2014) or codes of conduct in buyer-supplier relationships (Pedersen and Andersen 2006). Furthermore, not only existing regulation encourages corporate responsibility.…”