Impact of Institutional Distance on Environmental and Social Practices in Host Countries: Evidence from International Construction Companies

The influence of state ownership on environmental proactivity: An institutional perspective of international firms

“…Moreover, our findings are in line with some arguments in the literature which suggest that efforts to change existing institutional practices may be further activated when differences between firms and corporate agents are higher (Drogendijk & Holm, 2012; Lee et al, 2021; Park & Xiao, 2021; Schwens et al, 2011; Siegel et al, 2013); that is to say, corporate agents abroad will intensify their efforts when they identify institutionalized practices as very different from their own. As such, substantial differences in legitimacy pressures might lead firms to be motivated or obliged to comply with institutional demands by adopting certain environmental practices in distant host markets (Ko et al, 2021; Ye et al, 2022). Thus, when institutional differences are further pronounced due to the international expansion taking place in countries with more different environmental profiles, such pronounced differences may activate SOEs to further increase their actions and influence on improving green practices abroad.…”

“…Finally, a firm's expansion into new international markets often entails environmental institutional distances due to the cultural differences in green practices that exist between the firm's home and host country (Aguilera-Caracuel et al, 2013;Ko et al, 2021;Ye et al, 2022).…”

“…Finally, a firm's expansion into new international markets often entails environmental institutional distances due to the cultural differences in green practices that exist between the firm's home and host country (Aguilera‐Caracuel et al, 2013; Ko et al, 2021; Ye et al, 2022). Indeed, the management literature supports the finding that a larger dissimilarity between institutional standards in the home and host market implies further pronounced differences between the legitimacy of local practices and institutional requirements abroad (Beugelsdijk et al, 2018; Dau et al, 2022; Reus & Lamont, 2009; Wei et al, 2020), leading to potential conflicts in a firm's strategic choices and practices derived from such cultural distance (Drogendijk & Holm, 2012; Lee et al, 2021; Schwens et al, 2011; Siegel et al, 2013).…”

Management control practices for the sustainability transformation in the European construction industry

“…Due to similar legal/institutional framework conditions (Directive 2014/95/EU; Directive 2022/2464/EU; Whitley, 1999;Matten and Moon, 2008;Liao et al, 2018;Ye et al, 2020;Ye et al, 2022), we focused on the largest construction companies by revenue within the EU included in the Deloitte's global ranking, resulting in a sample of 39 companies. UK construction companies included in the sample pertain to the period preceding the country's exit from the EU.…”

“…To address this research gap, a qualitative content analysis of 39 sustainability reports published by the largest construction companies in the European Union (EU) was conducted. As engagement toward sustainability is strongly shaped by the institutional environment (Matten and Moon, 2008;Liao et al, 2018;Ye et al, 2020;Ye et al, 2022), an examination of companies acting under similar conditions makes sense. Regarding SD, the EU can be seen as a pioneer.…”