Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates

Abstract

We use panel data on ISO 9000 quality certification in 85 countries between 1993 and 1998 to better understand the cross-national diffusion of an organizational practice. Following neoinstitutional theory, we focus on the coercive, normative, and mimetic effects that result from the exposure of firms in a given country to a powerful source of critical resources, a common pool of relevant technical knowledge, and the experiences of firms located in other countries. We use social network theory to develop a systematic conceptual understanding of how firms located in different countries influence each other's rates of adoption as a result of cohesive and equivalent network relationships. Regression results provide support for our predictions that states and foreign multinationals are the key actors responsible for coercive isomorphism, cohesive trade relationships between countries generate coercive and normative effects, and role-equivalent trade relationships result in learning-based and competitive imitation.

Cross-listing and the scope of the firm

“…In addition, the diffusion of cross-listing may result from a learning and competitive motivation. For example, Guler et al (2002) focus on the diffusion of the adoption of ISO certification, and argue that not doing so would undermine a firm's competitive position. The diffusion of cross-listing among leading firms in EE may follow a similar informal logic.…”

Signaling without Certification: The Critical Role of Civil Society Scrutiny

“…17 We assign these country average values to companies based on their headquarters location. A company's key stakeholders-including employees, regulators, and investors-tend to be concentrated in its headquarters country, which makes this institutional environment especially influential (Guler, Guillén, and Macpherson 2002). 18 We measure company size using its annual sales, a common approach to capture a company's visibility to its stakeholders (e.g., Cho and Patten, 2007;Elsayed and Hoque, 2010;Hackston and Milne, 1996;Patten, 2002).…”

Dialogue and distributed agency in institutional transmission

“…In our view, this omission is problematic because an institutional template that is not enacted by the members of an organizational field would invariably fail to become an institution at all. This point has tended to be overlooked in the existing literature on institutional theory of diffusion (e.g., Abrahamson 1991;Gooderham, Nordhaug & Ringdal 1999;Guler, Guillen & Macpherson 2002;Ingram & Simons 1995: O"Neill, Pouder & Ruchholtz 1998Strang & Meyer 1993;Tolbert & Zucker 1983). Due to its macro focus, this literature has few means for finely distinguishing between the tactics employed in making practices more "acceptable" (and thereby adoptable) to its recipients.…”