Linking Organizational and Field Level Analyses: The Diffusion of Corporate Environmental Practice

Abstract

This paper examines the diffusion of corporate environmental practice in the context of field level dynamics. It builds a conceptual model that makes links between (1) the complex constituency of the institutional field driving environmental concerns, (2) the multiple cultural frames that emerge from that constituency, and (3) the corresponding structural and cultural routines that become enacted within firms. It offers contributions for research in the domains of both environmental practice and institutional theory. For environmental practice, this paper attends to the genesis and diffusion of environmental practice that go beyond individual organization level. For institutional theory, this paper moves beyond the traditional focus on isomorphism and elaborates the processes of field-level dynamics. It shows how field level heterogeneity can occur by depicting inertia, traditionally a phenomenon attributed to the field, as the result of individual organization level dynamics that resist change. The paper concludes with ideas for future research.

The Chinese Government's Formal Institutional Influence On Corporate Environmental Management

“…Governments play a prominent institutional role in CEM practices and are referred to in both institutional and environmental research (e.g., Berman et al 1999;Hoffman 2001;Shrivastava 1995).…”

Is Sustainability Reporting Becoming Institutionalised? The Role of an Issues-Based Field

“…If firms report because they're part of a field or, conversely, they do not because they are not part of a field, we need a clearer picture of those fields. Field definition is problematic, and it has received only scant attention in reporting studies (Hoffman, 2001;Meyer & Scott, 1992;White, 1992 In his early work, DiMaggio (1991) described fields as being groups and individuals that "collectively constitute a recognised area of institutional life" (p. 148). Scott (1995) suggested that they are made up of diverse groups that "partake of a common meaning system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside the field" (Scott, 1995, p. 56).…”

“…Traditionally, institutional studies assumed simple acquiescence to institutional pressure, but its monolithic nature is overstated and assumptions about acquiescence are simplistic (Barreto & Baden-Fuller, 2006). Some institutional theorists suggest managers can resist or manipulate institutional pressure (Hoffman, 2001;Oliver, 1991). They can move between fields and change and re-shape institutional pressure (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011;Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004).…”

Drivers of environmental management in the Brazilian context

“…The institutional context has strong influence over the development of environmental management strategies (Hoffman, 2001). The drivers of environmental practices have been studied from different perspectives, such as market influences from customers, competitors, investors, suppliers, among others, and influences from other institutional agents such as governments, associations or industry groups (Delmas & Toffel, 2004;Hoffman, 2001).…”

“…The drivers of environmental practices have been studied from different perspectives, such as market influences from customers, competitors, investors, suppliers, among others, and influences from other institutional agents such as governments, associations or industry groups (Delmas & Toffel, 2004;Hoffman, 2001). In addition to external drivers, internal drivers include corporate values, employee pressure and management goals (Bansal & Roth, 2000;Buysse & Verbeke, 2003;Sharma & Henriques, 2005).…”