Demystifying the Link Between Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Reporting

• Autorzy: David Martin Herold
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In response to the global challenge of climate change, companies increasingly disclose sustainability-related information in form of sustainability reports. These reports, however, vary significantly due to multiple institutional and stakeholder pressures. From an academic perspective, institutional theory links these different outcomes to the influences of competing institutional logics on the field-level, representing institutional complexity on the field-level which is characterised by multiple demands from different stakeholders. Although current literature acknowledges that stakeholder may affect institutional logics, it is limited to categorise stakeholder influences on the firm-level, lacking conceptual clarity. Based on institutional and stakeholder constructs, this paper demonstrates that institutional and stakeholder theory provide, on different levels, a theoretical foundation to examine the influences on sustainability reporting. Various constructs of stakeholder theory and institutional fields as well as their limitations and further classification concepts are identified and discussed. This paper thereby advances the understanding between field-level pressures and firm-level agency and demonstrate that both theories can complement each other when examining the influences on sustainability reporting.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Reporting; Sustainable development; Stakeholders; Institutional economics; Isomorphism; Organisational processes

PL

Raportowanie; Rozwój zrównoważony; Interesariusze; Ekonomia instytucjonalna; Izomorfizm; Procesy organizacyjne

• Czasopismo: Economics, Management and Sustainability
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 3
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 6--19

Twórcy

autor

David Martin Herold

• Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wien, Austria

Bibliografia

• Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299-331.
• Anderies, J. M, Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 26-41.
• Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93-117.
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
• Bruton, G. D, Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421-440.
• Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q. & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 1-12.
• Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism and ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 211-239.
• Carroll, A. & Buchholtz, A. (2014). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management: Cengage Learning.
• CDP. (2010). Transport Report. Retrieved from London: https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Transport-Report.pdf
• CDP. (2014a). Sustainability Disclosure Project (2014). Retrieved from http://www.cdproject.net/index.asp
• CDP. (2014b). Investor CDP 2014 Information Request - FedEx Corporation. Retrieved from London:
• CDSB. (2014). Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Retrieved from http://www.cdsb-global.org/
• Chiu, T.-K., & Wang, Y.-H. (2014). Determinants of social disclosure quality in Taiwan: An application of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-20.
• Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
• Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality: Do firms respond to economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions. European Accounting Review, 14(1), 1-37.
• D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R.I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 636-661.
• Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
• Demeter, K., Simpson, D., Power, D., & Samson, D. (2007). Greening the automotive supply chain: A relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(1), 28-48.
• 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.
• Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D.M., Fürst, E., & Kummer, S. (2018). Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to Adopt and Where to Start. Logistics, 2(3), 18.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
• Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 122-136.
• Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31-41.
• Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation: Mit Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1983). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Advances in Strategic Management, 1(1), 31-60.
• Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.
• Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521-539.
• Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343-352.
• Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Schiemann, F. (2015). Organizations, climate change, and transparency: Reviewing the literature on Sustainability Disclosure. Organization and Environment, 28(1), 80-102.
• Hassel, L., Nilsson, H., & Nyquist, S. (2005). The value relevance of environmental performance. European Accounting Review, 14(1), 41-61.
• Herold, D. M. (2018a). Has carbon disclosure become more transparent in the global logistics industry? An investigation of corporate carbon disclosure strategies between 2010 and 2015. Logistics, 2(3), 13.
• Herold, D.M. (2018b). The Influence of Institutional and Stakeholder Pressures on Carbon Disclosure Strategies: An Investigation in the Global Logistics Industry, Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University.
• Herold, D. M., & Lee, K.-H. (2017). Carbon management in the logistics and transportation sector: An overview and new research directions. Carbon Management, 8(1), 79-97.
• Herold, D. M., & Lee, K.-H. (2017). The Influence of the Sustainability Logic on Carbon Disclosure in the Global Logistics Industry: The Case of DHL, FDX and UPS. Sustainability, 9(4), 601.
• Herold, D.M., & Lee, K.H. (2017). Corporate environmental responsibility: focus, orientation and significance in the natural resources sector. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 16(4), 254-276.
• Herold, D. M., & Lee, K.-H. (2018). Carbon Disclosure Strategies in the Global Logistics Industry: Similarities and Differences in Carbon Measurement and Reporting. In M. Hossain, R. Halesand T. Sarker (Eds.), Pathways to a Sustainable Economy : Bridging the Gap between Paris Climate Change Commitments and Net Zero Emissions (pp. 87-101). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Herold, D. M., Manwa, F., Sen, S., & Wilde, S. J. (2016). It's the yeast we can do: Untapping Sustainability Trends in Australian Craft Breweries. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 12(2), 82-110.
• Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.
• Hirsch, P. M. (1975). Organizational effectiveness and the institutional environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 327-344.
• Hoffman, A. J., & Ventresca, M. J. (2002). Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives: Stanford University Press.
• Hoffman, A. J. (2004). Climate change strategy: The business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. Ross School of Business Paper.
• Holland, J. (2007). Tools for institutional, political, and social analysis of policy reform: a sourcebook for development practitioners. Retrieved from Washinton, D.C.
• Hrasky, S. (2011). Sustainability footprints and legitimation strategies: symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174-198.
• KMPG. (2014). Corporate sustainability. A progress report. Retrieved from: http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/corporate-sustainability-v2.pdf
• Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: the institutionalization and commensuration of sustainability disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719-745.
• Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994-1006.
• Lai, K.-H., Wong, C. W. Y., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2006). Institutional isomorphism and the adoption of information technology for supply chain management. Computers in Industry, 57(1), 93-98.
• Lee, K.-H., & Herold, D. M. (2016). Cultural relevance in corporate sustainability management: a comparison between Korea and Japan. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 1-21.
• Lee, K.-H., Herold, D. M., & Yu, A. (2016). Small and Medium Enterprises and Corporate Social Responsibility Practice: A Swedish Perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(2), 88-99.
• Lee, K.H., & Herold, D.M. (2017), Cultural Relevance in Environmental and Sustainability Management Accounting in the Asia-Pacific region: A link between cultural values and accounting values towards EMA values. In: Lee, K.H. and Schaltegger, S. (eds), Accounting for Sustainability: Asia Pacific Perspectives (pp.11-37). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3), 457-480.
• Luo, L., Lan, Y.-C., & Tang, Q. (2012). Corporate incentives to disclose sustainability information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 Report. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 23(2), 93-120.
• Maditati, D. R., Munim, Z. H., Schramm, H. J., & Kummer, S. (2018). A review of green supply chain management: From bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework and future research directions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 150-162.
• Matisoff, D. C., Noonan, D. S., & O'Brien, J. J. (2013). Convergence in environmental reporting: assessing the Sustainability Disclosure Project. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(5), 285-305.
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & 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.
• O'Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759-787.
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
• Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
• Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Preble, J. F. (2005). Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Business and Society Review, 110(4), 407-431.
• Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501-518.
• Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351-384.
• Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933-1949.
• Ribeiro Soriano, D., Peris-Ortiz, M., Wagner Mainardes, E., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226-252.
• Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
• Santana, A. (2012). Three elements of stakeholder legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 257-265.
• Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163-176.
• Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1-15.
• Savage, G. T., Dunkin, J. W., & Ford, D. M. (2004). Responding to a crisis: A stakeholder analysis of community health organizations. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 26(3/4), 383-414.
• Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (2012). Sustainability accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 1-16.
• Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2015). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: Legitimacy-or profit-seeking? Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2854-3
• Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In Walter W Powell and Paul J DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164-182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Foundations for organizational science. London: Sage.
• Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427-442.
• Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Sedereviciute, K., & Valentini, C. (2011). Towards a more holistic stakeholder analysis approach: Mapping known and undiscovered stakeholders from social media. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 221-239.
• Selznick, P. (2011). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation: Quid Pro Books.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
• Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35-67.
• Summerhays, K., & De Villiers, C. J. (2012). Oil company annual report disclosure responses to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Journal of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, 18(2), 103-130.
• Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process: Oxford University Press.
• Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. (1993). Innovation and industry development: The case ofcochlear implants. Research on Technologicalinnovation, Management and Policy, 5, 1-46.
• Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
• Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
• Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, K. Shalin-Anderssonand Roy Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 130-147). London: Sage.
• Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. (2002). Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 608-618.
• Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/jems.2018.3-2.1.