Political strategies of regulated organizations as functions of context and fear

Abstract

c Summary Data from representative privately owned profit-making, privately owned non-profit and publicly owned non-profit organizations are used to determine dizerences in influence strategy and whether organizational context (e.g. size, dependence) and fear are significant explanatory variables for variation in influence strategies across industries. Extending Po wer-dependence theory ' to conditions of vertical interdependence bet ween regulated organizations and regulatory agencies, the present study finds support for the hypotheses that context has a signifcant positive effect on in formation based influence strategies, but no signipcant effect on pressure strategies of influence. Further, fear of government retaliation is found to be related negatively to information based influence strategies and related positively to pressure strategies. Implications for further theoretical development and private and public policy are drawn.

Stakeholder marketing: a definition and conceptual framework

“…In that sense, organizations depend on their environments" (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978, p. 258). In this context, customers supply the firm with sales revenues, employees with labor, suppliers with raw materials and other inputs (e.g., Porter 2008), shareholders with capital (e.g., Day and Fahey 1988), communities with natural resources (e.g., Porter and Kramer 2006), and regulators with funds and access to markets (e.g., Birnbaum 1985). The firm's dependence on these environmental actors for such critical resources provides those actors power over the firm (e.g., Frooman 1999).…”

Changing environmental strategies over time: An empirical study of the steel industry in the United States

“…While the literature on political strategies is not as developed as that of management strategies, it is growing quickly (Allison, 1971;Alpin and Hegarty, 1980;Birnbaum, 1985;Elsbach and Sutton, 1992;Hillman and Hitt, 1999;Pfeffer, 1981;Post, 1978;Schwenk, 1988;Sutton and Callahan, 1987).…”

Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis

“…Researchers have identified and measured a variety of strategies and tactics that firms employ to resist the public policy process (Birnbaum 1985;Hillman et al 2004;Meznar and Nigh 1995). Some of the commonly used tactics perceived to be effective at proactively reducing government regulation of business include making campaign contributions, lobbying policy makers, preparing technical reports, engaging in letter writing and media campaigns, and providing expert testimony, among others (Aplin and Hegarty 1980;Baron 2005;Birnbaum 1985;Kraft and Kaminiecki 2007).…”

“…Some of the commonly used tactics perceived to be effective at proactively reducing government regulation of business include making campaign contributions, lobbying policy makers, preparing technical reports, engaging in letter writing and media campaigns, and providing expert testimony, among others (Aplin and Hegarty 1980;Baron 2005;Birnbaum 1985;Kraft and Kaminiecki 2007). More recently, establishing environmental and social protection self-regulation initiatives has become a common tactic that may be used by business seeking to preempt the adoption of new more stringent protective policies and regulations (Darnall and Sides 2008;Gibson 1999).…”