Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:39:12.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Exogenous Drivers of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

Sanjay Sharma  and
Pramodita Sharma
Sanjay Sharma
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Pramodita Sharma
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Get access

Summary

The two main exogenous drivers that have been examined in the environmental strategy literature are institutional and stakeholder influences. Drawing upon the institutional theory, organizations and natural environment and the family business literature the chapter develops insights into institutional influences and logics driving strategy in family firms. Drawing upon our primary data from the winery industry, it examines whether or not institutional forces will have a different influence on environmental sustainability strategies of family-owned firms as compared to non-family firms. Next, beginning with the foundational arguments of stakeholder theory including classification of stakeholders and their influences on a firms’ environmental strategy, the chapter argues that noticeably absent from the environmental sustainability strategy literature is a key stakeholder for family firms- the family. Based on this literature review and insights from our primary data, the chapter developd arguments about the influence of different stakeholders on family versus non-family firms, and how these influences are likely to impact the environmental sustainability strategy of these firms.

Keywords

Institutional influencesStakeholder influencesInstitutional entrepreneurshipStakeholder engagement
Type
Chapter
Information
Patient Capital
The Role of Family Firms in Sustainable Business
 , pp. 57 - 97
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arora, S. and Cason, T. N. 1998. Do community characteristics influence environmental outcomes? Evidence from the toxics release inventory. Journal of Applied Economics, I(2): 413–453.Google Scholar
Arts, B. 2002. “Green alliances” of business and NGOs: New styles of self-regulation or “dead-end roads”? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9: 26–36.Google Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, doi:10.1177/ 0894486511435355.Google Scholar
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2013. Necessity as the mother of “green” inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 891–909.Google Scholar
Bettinelli, C. 2011. Boards of directors in family firms: An exploratory study of structure and group process. Family Business Review, 24(2): 151–169.Google Scholar
Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A. 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5): 453–470.Google Scholar
Carney, M. 2005. Globalization and the renewal of Asian business networks. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 337–354.Google Scholar
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2012 (November): 1153–1173.Google Scholar
Chirico, F., Backman, M., Bau, Klaesson, J. and Pittino, D. 2018. Local embeddedness and rural-urban contexts for business growth in family versus non-family firms. Academy of Management Proceedings.Google Scholar
Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 863–878.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.Google Scholar
Craig, J. and Moores, K. 2010. Strategically aligning family and business systems using the balanced scorecard. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2): 78–87.Google Scholar
Davis, G. and Greve, H. 1997. Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 1–37.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A. and Toffel, M. W. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1027–1055.Google Scholar
Delmas, M., Russo, M. V. and Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2007. Deregulation and environmental differentiation in the electric utility industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 189–209.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A. 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35: 91–119.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A. and Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2010. Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 575–601.Google Scholar
Desjardins, M. 2018. Under Pressure or Fairly Valued? The Effects of Security Analyst Coverage on Firm Investment Horizon. Paper presented at the Eighth Gronen Research Conference, Almeria, Spain, June 13th to 16th.Google Scholar
Dieleman, M. and Sachs, W. M. 2008. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in emerging economies: How the Salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto’s crony regime. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1274–1300.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Zucker, L. (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Culture, pp. 3–22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19: 252–284.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.Google Scholar
Dyer, G. W. Jr. 2003. The Family: The Missing Variable in Organizational Research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(4): 401–416.Google Scholar
Dyer, G. W. Jr. and Whetten, D. 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: Evidence from S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(6): 785–802.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74.Google Scholar
EPA1. www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/index.html (accessed October 31, 2012).Google Scholar
Evan, W. and Freeman, R. E. 1983. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Beauchamp, T. and Bowie, N. (eds.), Ethical Theory in Business, pp. 75–93. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fogel, K. 2006. Oligarchic family control, social economic outcomes, and the quality of government. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 603–622.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pittman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 233–236.Google Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191–205.Google Scholar
Goodrick, E. and Salancik, G. R. 1996. Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and Cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 1–28.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and DeCastro, J. 2012. The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 1–79.Google Scholar
Gray, W. 1987. The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA, and the productivity slowdown. American Economic Review, 77: 998–1006.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, S. 2013. Retailers split on contrition after Bangladesh factory collapse. April 30. The New York Times online edition.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. and Sharma, S. 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 7–18.Google Scholar
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. 1999. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 89–99.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J. and Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–139.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. 1997. From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. 2002 Institutional evolution: The case of the semiconductor industry voluntary PFC emission reduction agreements. In Hoffman, A. J. and Ventresca, M. J. (eds.), Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, pp. 291–310. Berkley, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., Peterson, S., Portnoy, P. and Stavin, R. 1995. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33: 132–163.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. D. and Zandbergen, P. A. 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 1015–1052.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A. and Greening, D. W. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 564–576.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–437.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. and Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–221.Google Scholar
Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. 2002. Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5): 399–415.Google Scholar
Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. 2006. Stakeholder performance and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 145–159.Google Scholar
King, A. 2007. Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: A transaction costs perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 889–900.Google Scholar
King, A. A. and Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 698–716.Google Scholar
King, A., Lenox, M. and Terlaak, A. 2005. The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1091–1106.Google Scholar
Kolk, A., van Tulder, R. and Kostwinder, E. 2008. Business and partnerships for development. European Management Journal, 26: 262–273.Google Scholar
Kotlar, J. and De Massis, A. 2013. Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6): 1263–1288.Google Scholar
LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54: 471–517.Google Scholar
Lenox, M. J. 2006. The role of private, decentralized institutions in sustaining industry self-regulation. Organization Science, 17(6): 677–690.Google Scholar
Livesey, S. M. 1999. McDonald’s and the environmental defense fund: A case study of a green alliance. The Journal of Business Communication, 36: 5–39.Google Scholar
Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T. B 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 657–679.Google Scholar
Majumdar, S. K. and Marcus, A. A. 2001. Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 170–179.Google Scholar
Marcus, A. A. 1988. Implementing externally induced innovations: A comparison of rule-bound and autonomous approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 235–256.Google Scholar
Melin, L. and Nordqvist, M. 2007. The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: The case of family business. Strategic Organization, 5: 321–333.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. 2005. Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.Google Scholar
Morck, R. and Yeung, B. 2004. Family control and the rent seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28: 391–409.Google Scholar
Murillo-Luna, J., Garces-Ayerbe, C. and Rivera-Torres, P. 2008. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1225–1240.Google Scholar
Mustasich, S. 2017. Bordeaux’s St. Emilion mandates sustainable viticulture. Wine Spectator, November 9. www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/St.-Emilion-Mandates-Sustainable-Viticulture.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. and Radoynovska, N. 2016. Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14(4): 287–309.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pressures. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.Google Scholar
Parada, M. J., Nordqvist, M. and Gimeno, A. 2010. Institutionalizing the family business: The role of professional associations in fostering a change of values. Family Business Review, 23(4): 355–372.Google Scholar
Philips, R. A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1): 55–66.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1991. America’s greening strategy. Scientific American, 264: 168.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C. 1995. Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, 73: 120–134.Google Scholar
Reay, T., Jaskiewicz, P. and Hinings, C. R. 2015. How family, business and community logics shape family firm behavior and “Rules of the Game” in an organizational field. Family Business Review, 28(4): 292–311.Google Scholar
Rondinelli, D. and London, T. 2003. How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17: 61–76.Google Scholar
Russo, M. V. and Fouts, P. A. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 534–559.Google Scholar
Sarkis, J. 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11: 397–409.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sharma, P. 2001. Stakeholder management concepts in family firms. Proceedings of the International Association of Business and Society Annual Meetings, Sedona AZ, 254–259.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. 2014. Competing for a Sustainable World: Building Capacity for Sustainable Innovation. UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. 2005. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 159–180.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. 1998. Proactive environmental responsiveness strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 729–53.Google Scholar
Sharma, S., Vredenburg, H. and Westley, F. 1994. Strategic bridging: A role for the multinational corporation in Third World Development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(4): 458–476.Google Scholar
Soleimanof, S., Rutherford, M. W. and Webb, J. W. 2018. The intersection of family firms and institutional contexts: A review and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 31(1): 32–53.Google Scholar
Stafford, E. R. and Hartman, C. L. 1996. Green alliances: Strategic relations between businesses and environmental groups. Business Horizons, 39: 50–59.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional logics. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C. and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of organizational Institutionalism, pp. 99–128. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, W. J. V. and Ras, P. J. 2006. The challenge of greening global product chains: Meeting both ends. Sustainable Development, 14: 245–256.Google Scholar
Wassmer, U., Paquin, R. and Sharma, S. 2012. The Engagement of Firms in Environmental Collaborations: Existing Contributions and Future Directions. Business & Society, published online on March 28, 2012. Printed November 2014, 53(6):  754–786.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1994. Weber: Political writings. In Lassman, P. (ed.), trans. Ronald Speirs, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Chapter xvi. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, L. T. 1973. Economic man and engineering man: Choice of technology in a low-wage country. Public Policy, 21: 319–342.Google Scholar
Wijen, F. 2014. Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 309–323.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline (accessed October 27, 2013).Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Oviatt, B. M. and Minyard, K. 1993. Effects of corporate ownership and board structure on corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 336–340.Google Scholar
Zellweger, T. and Nason, R. 2008. A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family Business Review, 21: 203–216.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×