Chance or genius?: A garbage can exploration of the institutionalisation of sustainability reporting in the Netherlands



Download 260.13 Kb.
Page6/7
Date09.11.2016
Size260.13 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Conclusion


In this study I have analysed the institutional trajectory of Dutch sustainability reporting using the lexicon of the garbage can model and its emphasis on the independent existence, and occasional simultaneity, of a multiplicity of participants, problems, and solutions around choices. Exploring this model within an institutional perspective suggests the importance of so-called historical contingencies and collective institutional entrepreneurship. To be sure, I do not claim that institutionalisation and change necessarily resemble a garbage can. Rather, this lens makes it possible to analyse a phenomenon from a different angle and thus functions as a sensitizing tool that allows us to see things differently and stresses often neglected aspects. It highlights historical contingencies, collectivity and the importance of serendipity, timing and context rather than the relatively neat and teleological assumptions of institutionalisation and change prevalent in many studies. This enabling role of chancelike contingencies opens up space for institutional work of a plurality of actors. Whereas I do not deny the importance of strategic and intentional actors, I reduce their importance and add to the mix the influence of the oftentimes uncoordinated activities of a wide range of actors.

Taken together, a first contribution of this study is that it has challenged the assumption of intentionality and purpose present in many institution entrepreneurship studies (Czarniawska, 2009). This has made them look overly linear and mechanistic (Blackler & Regan, 2006). By drawing on the garbage can model I have highlighted the importance of historical contingencies for processes of institutionalisation and change (see e.g. Aldrich, 2011; Czarniawska, 2009) arguing they are not teleological deterministic processes. As we are hard wired to connect means and ends and assign purpose to events, sometimes justly so, integrating the assumptions of the garbage can more explicitly in institutional accounts asks us “to give up a tidy world in which problems imply solutions over which participants exercise choice, and to replace it with a world in which participants, problems, choices, and solutions each have the capacity to connect to any of the others” (Cohen et al., 2012: 22). This study has made a start with that by stipulating the importance of historical contingencies and suggesting their role as a possible enabling factor of institutional change. This may enhance our understanding of institutionalisation and change, in particular in the case of pluralistic practices linked to complex social problems in relatively emerging, uncertain and heterogeneous fields where cause-effect relations remain unclear.

A second, related, contribution is that I offer an empirical account of more collective distributed agency (e.g. Delbridge & Edwards, 2008; Dorado, 2005; Wijen & Ansari, 2007) that challenges the individualised portrayal of agentic institutional actors. The garbage can lexicon provides an insightful framework for analysis as it highlights the collective aspects and how boundedly rational as well as temporally and contextually constrained actors muddle through the institutional trajectory. I have specified the considerable complexities of an institutional process over the course of more than two decades and shown the multiplicity of actors involved and the related changes in choice moments involving various problems and solutions. The garbage can thus provides a potentially insightful instrument in unpacking the various aspects that can help to explain the collective action involved in many complex institutional processes over time and how this process combines unintended actions with more strategic work in the wake of changes in the constellation of the field.

This research provides several opportunities for future research. First studies could usefully investigate the relation between institutional theory and the potential of integrating garbage can thinking into existing models in more detail. Studies could look at enabling factors. For instance, it could be helpful to compare the potential of the garbage can in various fields. For example, mature vs. emerging fields, heterogeneous vs. homogenous fields or lowly institutionalised vs. highly institutionalised ones. As briefly discussed, it could be expected that depending on the nature of the field integrating garbage can thinking into institutional analyses holds more or less promise. Similarly, the nature of what gets institutionalised may also affect the appropriateness of using a garbage can inspired analysis. Practices that are more or rather less complex or differences in degrees of contestation may be interesting facets. Second, an interesting avenue for further research could be to compare the usefulness of the garbage can for different phases of institutionalisation. That is, can we expect to see differences when comparing creating new institutions, maintaining existing ones or destructing old ones. Third, both institutional studies as well as garbage can theorising are relatively silent about issues of power and politics. Institutional processes include power inequalities and political considerations though and neither do garbage can processes happen in a power vacuum. Appreciating and further unpacking the power dimensions of both processes may provide interesting research opportunities. This could in particular be helpful in peeling down the interplay between institutional actors and how problems and solutions get defined and/or chosen and thus exactly how the interplay between problems, solutions, choices and collective actors takes shape.


    1. References


Adams, C. A., & Kuasirikun, N. 2000. A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. European Accounting Review, 9(1): 53–79.

Aldrich, H. 1999. Organizations evolving. London: Sage.

Aldrich, H. E. 2011. Heroes, villains, and fools: Institutional entrepreneurship, NOT institutional entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1(2): 1–4.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 247–271.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2013. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128–152.

Anand, N., & Watson, M. R. 2004. Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 59–80.

Ansari, S. M., & Phillips, N. 2011. Text me! New consumer practices and change in organizational fields. Organization Science.

Barley, S. R. 2008. Coalface Institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 491–518. London: Sage.

Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies, 18(1): 93–117.

Battilana, J. 2006. Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5): 653–676.

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. 2009. How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 65–107.

Beckert, J. 1999. Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5): 777–799.

Blackler, F., & Regan, S. 2006. Institutional reform and the reorganization of family support services. Organization Studies, 27(12): 1843–1861.

Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. 2012. From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 483–530.

Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. 2009. The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2): 182–200.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods (2nd edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 1–25.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 2012. “A Garbage can Model” At Forty: A Solution that Still Attracts Problems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 36: 19–30.

CorporateRegister.com. 2013. 2013 Global Winners: Experienced stakeholders judge the world’s leading CR reports. London.

Czarniawska, B. 2009. Emerging institutions: pyramids or anthills? Organization Studies, 30(4): 423–441.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 43–56.

De Rond, M., & Thietart, R. A. 2005. The structure of serendipity. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/working_papers/2005/wp0507.pdf, August 9, 2013.

De Rond, M., & Thietart, R. A. 2007. Choice, chance, and inevitability in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5): 535–551.

Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. 2007. Reflections on developments in institutional theory: Toward a relational approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(2): 191–205.

Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. 2008. Challenging conventions: Roles and processes during non-isomorphic institutional change. Human Relations, 61(3): 299–325.

DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2): 147–160.

Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3): 385.

Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.

Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty First Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.

Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of Sustainability Reporting. Organization Science.

Evers, C. W. A., Mantz-Thijssen, E. L., & Van der Woerd, K. F. (Eds.). 1991. Milieumanagement in stappen. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen.

Fligstein, N. 2001. The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of 21st century capitalist societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. 2011. Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1): 1–26.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2007. Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 28(7): 957–969.

Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2002. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196–214.

Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research policy, 32(2): 277–300.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. 2008. Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 1–46. London: Sage.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27–48.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. The Academy of management journal, 45(1): 58–80.

Hafkamp, W. A., & Molenkamp, G. C. 1990. Tussen droom en daad: over uitvoering en handhaven. In Commissie Lange Termijn Milieubeleid van de Centrale Raad voor de Milieuhygiene (Ed.), Het milieu: denkbeelden voor de 21ste eeuw. Zeist: Kerckebosch.

Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 198–217. London: Sage.

Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. 2000. The project of rationalization: a critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21(4): 697–720.

Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 351–371.

Hubbard, G. 2009. Unsustainable Reporting. Presented at the CR Debates, London.

Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 1015–1052.

Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The Institutionalism of Organizational Analysis: 143–163. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kolk, A. 2004. A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and significance. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1): 51–64.

Kolk, A. 2005. Environmental Reporting by Multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or Divergence? Management International Review, 45(1): 145–166.

Kolk, A. 2010. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business.

KPMG. 2011. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2011. Amsterdam.

KPMG. 2013. KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. Amsterdam.

Lambooy, T. E., & Hordijk, R. M. 2012. De tijd is rijp voor integrated reporting. Tijdschrift voor jaarrekeningenrecht, 2(3): 104–113.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of management review, 24(4): 691–710.

Larrinaga-González, C. 2007. Sustainability reporting: insights from neo-institutional theory. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability: 150–167. London: Routledge.

Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & De Jong, M. 2010. The Contested Politics of Corporate Governance: The Case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business & Society, 49(1): 88–115.

Levy, D. L., & Scully, M. 2007. The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Power in Contested Fields. Organization Studies, 28(7): 971–991.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2): 79–88.

Lindblom, C. E. 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6): 517–526.

Locke, K. D. 2001. Grounded theory in management research. London: SAGE.

Lomi, A., & Harrison, J. R. 2012. The Garbage can Model of Organizational Choice. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 36: 3–17.

Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. 2007. New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization studies, 28(7): 993–1012.

Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. 2003. Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1): 71–104.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2013. Organizing processes and the construction of risk: A discursive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 231–255.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 657–680.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1984. The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. The American political science review, 734–749.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International organization, 52(4): 943–969.

McAdam, D. 1982. Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. 1972. The Limits to Growth: a Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library.

Meyer, A. D., Brooks, G. R., & Goes, J. B. 1990. Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5): 93–110.

Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R., & Elms, H. 2008. Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. The Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 750–770.

Molenkamp, G. C. 1995. De verzakelijking van het milieu: onomkeerbare ontwikkelingen in het bedrijfsleven (Beauchez.). Den Haag.

Morris, A. 1981. Black southern student sit-in movement: An analysis of internal organization. American Sociological Review, 46(6): 744–767.

Olsen, J. P. 2001. Garbage cans, new institutionalism, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 95(1): 191–198.

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455–476.

Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., Dean, T. J., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2010. The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management, 36(4): 974–1010.

Padgett, J. F. 2013. Book Review Essay: Recycling the Garbage Can Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3): 472–482.

Peirce, C. S. 1978. Pragmatism and Abduction. In C. Hartshorn & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers: 180–212. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. 2007. Opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial capabilities and bricolage: Connecting institutional theory and entrepreneurship in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 313–320.

Quack, S. 2007. Legal professionals and transnational law-making: A case of distributed agency. Organization, 14(5): 643–666.

Rao, H. 1998. Caveat Emptor: The Construction of Nonprofit Consumer Watchdog Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 912–961.

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2005. The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3): 351–384.

Rommetveit, K. 1976. Decision making under changing norms. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations: 140–155. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. 2000. Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. . 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222–247.

Sociaal-Economische Raad. 2000. De winst van waarden. No. 00/11. Den Haag: SER.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Tilly, C. 1978. From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative science quarterly, 28(1): 22–39.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1996. The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies: 175–190. London: Sage.

Tweede Kamer. 1989. Bedrijfsinterne Milieuzorg - Notitie. No. 20633, nr 3. Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal.

Tweede Kamer. 1993. Bedrijfsinterne Milieuzorg - Standpunt naar aanleiding van de tussenevaluatie bedrijfsinternemilieuzorgsystemen 1992. No. 20633, nr 5. Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal.

Van der Kolk, J. 1988. Milieumanagement in bedrijven. ’s-Gravenhage: TRN Groep/Volder & Vis.

Van Tulder, R., & Van der Zwart, A. 2003. Reputaties op het spel. Utrecht: Het spectrum.

VNO-NCW. 1987. Environmental protection in companies. The Hague.

Weik, E. 2011. Institutional Entrepreneurship and Agency. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(4): 466–481.

Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. 2013. Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 307–336.

Wijen, F., & Ansari, S. 2007. Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1079–1100.

Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. 2008. Organizational Fields: Past, Present and Future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 130–147. London: Sage.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Report for the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations.

Yin, R. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th editon.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.



Zilber, T. B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 234–254.
Table 1 Overview of interviewees

Actor group

Number of interviewees

Actor group

Number of interviewees

Public sector

12

Reporting firms

25

Civil society

24

Academics

6

Investment community

13

Professional services firms

26

Table 2 Overview of data sources

Type of data

Detail of source

Quantity

Data analysis

Interviews with field informants

Interviews with firms, civil society, investors/raters, consultants, accountants, policy officials, academics.

94 interviews (approx. 100 hours)

Transcribed interviews, analysed and coded the material. Through iterative analysis of data and literature the garbage can model surfaced and the data was analysed along its main tenets

Secondary material

Newspaper articles of Dutch press, consultancy reports, NGO studies, government legislation and reports; investor statements

3100 pages

Contextual reading, field familiarization, background for interviews. Enhanced credibility and further validation of interpretations



Table 3 Summary of sequence of events

Time period

Participants

Problems

Solutions

Choice opportunities

Environmental management systems

(<1990)


Firms

Civil society/NGO’s

Government

Consultants



Lack of trust

No access to firm data


How to improve environmental monitoring/control?


How to generate revenue?

Showing care through management
Publicly available data
Management system

New regulation and/or tools to consult on



Introduction EMS

Reporting aspect of EMS


Conducive climate for EMS

Introduction EMS



Crisis and emerging( soft) law

(1990-2000)




NGO’s

Firms

Government

Investors



Firms unaccountable for degradation environmental
State and NGO pressure; legitimacy and trust issues
Lack of transparency and compliance
Financial consequences of sustainability aspects

Reporting legislation

Reluctant start with reporting

Legislation on reporting
Transparency of firms CSR risks


Agenda 21 and Environmental Protection Act
Threat of legislation and Brent Spar

Environmental Protection Act


Brent Spar

Politics, emerging guidelines and luck

(2000-2004)




Firms

GRI

Investors

Consultancies

SER


How and what to report?

Vacuum of authoritative reporting guideline

Which CSR have financial impact?
How to get more revenue?
What is CSR?


Support for guidelines
Developing guidelines

Corporate transparency


Guidelines as a tool to consult on
Publication of report

SER report and GRI

Zeitgeist for reporting asking for direction

Accounting scandals

Introduction GRI and SER report


Request for report

Further mainstreaming of reporting

(2004>)



Firms

Consultants



Ministry of Economic Affair

How to show you are doing well on sustainability?
How to generate revenue?
How to improve transparency cheaply?

High position on rankings, awards etc.
Consulting on benchmarks
Transparency Benchmark

Introduction of benchmarks, rankings, indices.
Introduction of benchmarks etc..
Political pressure


Download 260.13 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page