Table 3 Co-occurrence configuration of ESA Factors

Literature review and theoretical model | 49

2.4. ESA Factors

Research on ESA factors has resorted to different theoretical concepts as lenses to understand ESA. It can be said that such theories explain how firms adopt environmental strategies as a way to deal with uncertainty, achieve a competitive advantage or address societal needs. Specifically, the Institutional Theory has been used to explain how external and stakeholder pressures can lead firms to adopt similar environmental strategiesas a way to seek legitimacy (M. Delmas & Toffel, 2004; Sarkis, 2003). Resource Based View (RBV) has been used to explain how firms adopt different environmental strategies by using their business models and capabilities in order to achieve environmental and economic benefits. Finally, CSR in alignment with the concept of Cognitive Frames has been used to illustrate the role of managers in ESA. Relying on these theoretical perspectives, the ESA influencing factors analyzed in the present research are, respectively, business context, business model and manager’s perspective (See Table 3. Co-occurrence configuration of ESA Factors).

Table 3. Co-occurrence configuration of ESA Factors Strategies

Factors Compliance

Green processes

Green products development Green systems References

Business context

Business model

Manager´s perspective

Regulation Social license Green industry Parent company Green markets Community Green markets Hoffman, (2001) & Genc, (2013) Earnhart, (2017)

Stable Stable Dynamic Transformative

Boons, (2009) Compliance Profits Profits Citizenship Carroll, (1999)

• Business context

Business context plays an important role in the adoption of strategies by firms, because of the external constraints and norms that institutions impose on corporations and that are translated into the technical attributes that drive the way companies operate” (Bhimani et al., 2016)). Multiple pressures such as performance rewards, pressure for conformity and social

50 | Carlos Fúquene Retamoso

penalties combine as a driving force on the decisions and practices of firms (D´Andrade, 1984). Furthermore, “firms operate within a social framework of norms and values about what constitutes an appropriate behavior” (Oliver, 1997) as a way to gain legitimacy (Sayed et al., 2017).

Institutionalization emerges as a means to promote a norm within a social system such as the adoption of environmental strategies (Zhu et al., 2013). For example, in the case of export companies in emerging economies (Christmann & Taylor, 2001), institutionalization occurs according to the demands of foreign customers (Zhu & Sarkis, 2004), international laws and foreign competitor practices (Christmann & Taylor, 2001). Institutional pressure also occurs locally (Zhu et al., 2013) through national laws and regulations (Zhu et al., 2005), social license from communities (García-Rodríguez et al., 2013) and individual customer pressures (Henriques & Sadorsky, 2006).

The institutional pressures mentioned above occur through the influence of coercive, mimetic, and normative sources, as explained below (see Table 4: Characteristics of isomorphic sources):

• Coercive sources come from the pressures exerted on organizations by governments through regulation (Ying, 2010). Regulation is a major pressure for corporate decisions and a key factor for the adoption of environmental strategies (Ying, 2010). Regulation (or the threat it represents) drives the adoption of environmental strategies toward compliance (Earnhart, 2017). When there is coercive pressure to adopt a specific practice, firms are more likely to do it.

Hendry & Vesilind (2005) state that “sustainability at its simplest level is practiced to comply with the law”. These authors also affirm that, under regulation, organizations meet environmental standards to avoid punishment.

(Abdelzaher & Abdelzaher, 2017) documented that the advance of environmental regulations in recent years have resulted in the standardization of environmental practices across supply chain. Nevertheless, literature on institutional theory have also found that institutional voids may facilitate supply chain corruption practices as a mechanism to by-pass sustainability standards. Furthermore, one strategy to overcome corruption practices could be related to perform “substantive and not symbolic adoption of environmental practices through collaboration and empowerment along the supply chain” (Silvestre et al., 2020).

Literature review and theoretical model | 51

In addition to regulations, social license is becoming increasingly important for guiding or stimulating adoption of environmental strategies due to the pressure exerted by local communities (Earnhart, 2017; Saleem & Gopinath, 2014) on the specific regions where firms operate (García-Rodríguez et al., 2013). Specifically, some researchers have found that organizations in specific business sectors with superior financial returns use available resources to implement environmental strategies in response to pressure from communities (Saleem & Gopinath, 2014). Additionally, Lee & Lounsbury (2015) examined how the “community logic, operationalized as differences in conservative and liberal political ideology, amplified or dampened the influences of state and market institutional logics in shaping firms’ toxic waste emissions” prevention and/or management practices.

Examples of this pressure occur in commodity-based businesses such as mining or the oil & gas industry. According to the World Bank, an increasing number of local communities are exerting pressure on firms, for them to clean up their impacts on ecosystems (Rooij, 2010). As a consequence, communities assume an important role in the control of companies located in distant zones where formal institutions of the State are basically absent (García-Rodríguez et al., 2013).

Cultural expectations and mass media add coercive pressures by reporting on firms with poor environmental performance (Bansal, 2005). Cultural expectations are taken as tacit rules for the proper environmental behavior of a company (Saleem & Gopinath, 2014). Examples of strategies driven by green coercive mechanisms include substitution of restricted materials and pollution control practices such as effluent and residue treatments (Martínez de Anguita, et al, 2008). In addition to coercive pressures, firms face pressures because of the uncertainties of the markets. In response to uncertainties, firms implement safety strategies by imitating practices used by others in their industrial sectors.

• Mimetic sources originate from successful competitors in the market, anchor companies in supply networks (Van Hoof & Thiell, 2014;

Zhu & Geng, 2013) and parent companies (Zhu & Geng, 2013). The above mentioned sources play a role when organizations imitate other practices to learn new ways to increase their own success, resulting, for example, in sustainable purchase and customer cooperation practices (Zhu & Geng, 2013).

52 | Carlos Fúquene Retamoso

Mimetic pressures occur in organizations that share similar business contexts and resources, thus leading to parallel strategies (Haveman, 1993). Imitation includes environmental strategies and best practices implemented by successful competitors (Vejvar, et al, 2017) and headquarters as a way to increase business success (Zhu & Geng, 2013).

While uncertainties may constitute a driving force under mimetic isomorphism, organizational fields introduce the standardization of activities through normative pressures. Furthermore, supply networks have been used as channels to mobilize the adoption of environmental practices, mainly in economies where firms face weak institutions in their environment (Srivastava et al., 2021).

• Normative sources come from environmental standardization (Christmann & Taylor, 2002) across organizational fields and professional associations (Cyert & March, 1963). While the State acts as a coercive force, organizational fields introduce the standardization of activities through values and norms. Cyert and March (2004) have emphasized the normative dimension of decisions beyond diffusion sources exposed by other theorists. The emphasis on normative pressures introduces a prescriptive dimension into social life, together with a comparison of standardized structures and behaviors (Scott, 2008).

Normative pressure occurs when companies regulate themselves and go beyond compliance to adopt environmental strategies (Christmann & Taylor, 2002). Specifically, “current concerns about ecological issues have become so strong that firms are changing their practices to be more environmentally responsible” (Hendry & Vesilind, 2005). Furthermore, such pressures can also be exerted by” powerful customers that put pressure upon supplier organizations to comply with specific sustainability requirements” (Moxham & Kauppi, 2014; Tate et al., 2011). Eco-design is an example of strategies driven by normative pressures (Zhu & Liu, 2010) as well as the adoption of ISO 14001 (Delmas, 2009). Additional examples of environmental strategies driven by normative pressures include the implementation of CSR programs (Huimin & Ryan, 2011).