Substantive or Symbolic Environmental Strategies? Effects of External and Internal Normative Stakeholder Pressures

Abstract

Different forms of stakeholder pressures drive different environmental strategies in organizations. This article differentiates between internal and external normative stakeholder pressures to test their potentially unique effects on environmental strategies. The findings suggest that internal, normative stakeholder pressures primarily drive substantive commitments to environmental practices, reflecting an internalized, voluntary commitment to the natural environment and dedication to environmental leadership by the firm. External, normative pressures instead primarily drive symbolic commitments to environmental practices, aimed at managing the image of the organization to establish and reinforce an appearance of commitment to the natural environment. This novel perspective accounts for the institutionally plural contexts of organizations and their environments, in which internal pressures directly drive substantive environmental commitments and external pressures drive symbolic responses. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Unleashing the Power of Networks: Shareholder Activism, Sustainable Development and Corporate Environmental Policy

“…Finally, Hyatt and Berente () found that internal stakeholder pressures often primarily drive substantive commitments to environmental practices, whereas external pressures primarily drive symbolic commitments to environmental practices. Because shareholders have the unique position of being both internal (e.g.…”

Green Knowledge Sharing, Stakeholder Pressure, Absorptive Capacity, and Green Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms

“…Liao and Tsai () suggested that stakeholder pressure consists of two primary sources: environmental regulations, which refer to regulations enacted by governments to protect or improve the environment, and green customer needs, which describe the market demand for green products and services. Stakeholder pressure is identified as an important external contextual factor that influences the performance impacts of green knowledge sharing (Hyatt & Berente, ). However, existing findings are inconsistent, ranging from a positive effect (Liao & Tsai, ; Tsai & Liao, ) to no effect (Zhu & Zhu & Sarkis, ), indicating that the mediating mechanism through which the benefits of green knowledge sharing transform into green innovation remains to be identified.…”

EMERGING DISCOURSE INCUBATOR: Cross‐Sector Relations in Global Supply Chains: A Social Capital Perspective

“…Third, a supply chain perspective helps us understand how an environmental NGO selects commercial organizations to be held accountable (e.g., extended producer responsibility; Hickle, ) for hotspots, or to collaborate with to drive change via market mechanisms (e.g., eco‐certifications). SCM scholars have begun to take account of the pressures exerted, or opportunities provided, by civil society stakeholders such as environmental NGOs on organizations to improve supply chain practices with respect to environmental impacts as well as a host of social impacts (Hyatt & Berente, ; Sarkis, Gonzalez‐Torre & Adenso‐Diaz, ; Wolf, ). While traditionally these environmental NGOs operated from an activist perspective, many now go beyond activism to collaboratively engage corporate actors in supply chains in building awareness and identifying impacts for improvement and in some cases helping firms to implement more sustainable practices (Hyatt & Johnson, ; McDonald & Young, ; Meixell & Luoma, ).…”