When do threats mobilize managers for organizational change toward sustainability? An environmental belief model

Abstract

In pursuit of counteracting today's environmental problems, corporate management will have to implement organizational changes factoring in sustainability, which is why it is important to understand exactly what leads managers to initiate these changes. It has been established that managers' personal values are critical for their behavior and that threats to these values can mobilize managers to change their actions. However, when confronted with environment-related threats, managers may face value conflicts and various tensions between their aim to implement sustainable changes and their desire to fulfill business requirements of their job positions. Only recently have researchers begun to investigate the underlying beliefs that may lead managers to initiate organizational change toward sustainability. Borrowing theoretical assumptions from the domain of health psychology (from the well-established health belief model), the present conceptual article develops an environmental belief model that specifies when exactly threats lead managers to initiate organizational change. The environmental belief model proposes that environment-related threats trigger change (i) when managers believe that their firms are susceptible to these threats, (ii) the threats are considered as serious for the company, (iii) the perceived benefits of the change outperform (iv) the perceived barriers, and when there is (v) an external cue (e.g., an information campaign). All these propositions are supported with empirical findings from business contexts. Besides theoretical advancement on the role of environmental threats as precipitators of organizational change, the model provides guidance on how to frame environment-related threats that will mobilize managers for organizational change toward sustainability.

Strategic motives and performance implications of proactive versus reactive environmental strategies in corporate sustainable development

“…Researchers subscribing to regulation‐based motive believe that the main driver of corporate environmental activities is the existing regulatory structures that provide minimum standards to govern such activities. In view of the substantial investments involved in ecologically responsible activities, these researchers further contend that firms are not eager to go green unless regulations force them to do so (Kump, 2021). To avoid penalties associated with violating environmental regulations and to minimize environmental investments, firms driven by regulation‐based motive are tempted to meet only the regulatory minimum when it comes to corporate sustainable development (Fairchild, 2008).…”

The climate resilience cycle: Using scenario analysis to inform climate‐resilient business strategies

“…The response options differ in the two resilience domains: In the stability domain, responses will focus on the operational level of a (Börjeson et al, 2006) to guide the selection of reference scenarios specific entity scope (e.g., production location or processes and supply chain). The aim is to resist or recover as soon as possible from the physical or transitional impacts and maintain the companies' opera- (Kump, 2021). As these different capabilities, processes and outputs for the two domains may create tension within organisations (Linnenluecke, 2017;Song, 2021), the composition of the scenario teams should be aligned with the targeted resilience domain and response options.…”

“…The responses in the two domains are built upon different organisational process and capabilities: robustness requires planning and control processes and plan‐do‐check‐act capabilities, whereas transformation requires R&D, innovation capabilities and personal belief of managers about the benefits of change and sufficient low barriers on the path of action (Kump, 2021). As these different capabilities, processes and outputs for the two domains may create tension within organisations (Linnenluecke, 2017; Song, 2021), the composition of the scenario teams should be aligned with the targeted resilience domain and response options.…”

The impact of financial tools in environmental degradation management: the relationship between Co2 emission and ESG funds

“…In the other hand, sustainability requires that the emissions of the businesses are below an acceptable limit. Therefore, changing the emission values of businesses requires major changes in their current production strategies (Kump, 2021). At this point, the Paris Agreement aims to force businesses to act more responsibly for the public interest with new climate policies.…”