Kurumsal Baskıların Çevresel Uygulamalar ve Firma Performansı Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bir Yeni Kurumsal Kuram Perspektifi

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 393 - 418, 26.01.2021

Mert Gürlek

https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.806511

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın üç temel amacı bulunmaktadır. Araştırmanın birinci amacı, yeni kurumsal kuramdan yararlanarak normatif, zorlayıcı ve taklitçi baskılar olmak üzere üç kurumsal baskının çevresel uygulamalar üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. Araştırmanın ikinci amacı, kurumsal baskılar ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişki mekanizmasını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu amaca yönelik olarak çevresel uygulamaların aracılık rolü incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın üçüncü amacı, kurumsal baskılar ve çevresel uygulamalar arasında meşruiyet motivasyonunun düzenleyici bir rol oynayıp oynamadığını ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma verileri Ankara İlinde faaliyet gösteren sanayi firmalarından elde edilmiştir. Veri analizinde yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre zorlayıcı baskılar çevresel uygulamalar üzerinde anlamlı bir etkiye sahip değilken, normatif ve taklitçi baskılar çevresel uygulamalar üzerinde anlamlı bir etkiye sahiptir. Ayrıca, normatif ve taklitçi baskıların firma performansı üzerindeki etkisinde çevresel uygulamalar aracılık rolü oynarken, kurumsal baskıların çevresel uygulamalar üzerindeki etkisinde meşruiyet motivasyonu herhangi bir düzenleyici role sahip değildir. Sonuç olarak bu araştırmanın kurumsal baskılar, çevresel uygulamalar ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkilere ışık tutmakla beraber meşruiyet motivasyonun düzenleyici rolünü inceleyerek alanyazına katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

Kurumsal baskılar, çevresel uygulamalar, meşruiyet motivasyonu, firma performansı, Sanayi firmaları

The Effects of Institutional Pressures on Environmental Practices and Firm Performance: A New Institutional Theory Perspective

Abstract

This research has three main purposes. The first purpose of the research is to examine the effects of three institutional pressures, namely normative, coercive, and mimetic pressures, on environmental practices by using the new institutional theory. The second purpose of the research is to reveal the relationship mechanism between institutional pressures and firm performance. In this context, the mediating role of environmental practices was examined. The third purpose of the research is to reveal whether the motivation for legitimacy plays a moderating role between institutional pressures and environmental practices. The research data were obtained from industrial firms operating in Ankara Province. Structural equation modeling was used in data analysis. According to the findings, coercive pressures do not have a significant effect on environmental practices, while normative and mimetic pressures have a significant effect on environmental practices. Furthermore, while environmental practices mediate the effect of normative and mimetic pressures on firm performance, motivation for legitimacy does not have any moderating role in the effect of institutional pressures on environmental practices. In conclusion, it is expected that this research contributes to the literature by examining the moderating role of motivation for legitimacy, as well as shedding light on the relationships between institutional pressures, environmental practices and firm performance.

Keywords

Institutional pressures,, environmental practices, motivation for legitimacy, firm performance, Industrial firms

References

• Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514-538.
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
• Ankara Sanayi Odası (AS0) (2019). Firma rehberi. http://uygulama.tobb.net/UyeBilgiSorgulama/fw_uyeBilgiServisi.do adresinden 23.04.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Ankara Sanayi ve Teknoloji İl Müdürlüğü (2018). Ankara il sanayi durum raporu. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/plan-program-raporlar-ve-yayinlar/81-il-sanayi-durum-raporlari/mu0603011615 adresinden 26.06.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Atinc, G., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 57-74. Bachmann, P., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 386-394.
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of management journal, 43(4), 717-736.
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Belkaoui, A., & Karpik, P. G. (1989). Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(1), 36-51.
• Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891-909.
• Braam, G. J., de Weerd, L. U., Hauck, M., & Huijbregts, M. A. (2016). Determinants of corporate environmental reporting: The importance of environmental performance and assurance. Journal of cleaner production, 129, 724-734.
• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
• Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
• Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational research methods, 15(3), 413-435.
• Chang, W. J. A., & Huang, T. C. (2005). Relationship between strategic human resource management and firm performance. International journal of manpower, 26(5), 434-449.
• Chauvey, J. N., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 789-803.
• Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of Total SA's Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33-62.
• Chung, J. Y., Berger, B. K., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Developing measurement scales of organizational and issue legitimacy: A case of direct-to-consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 405-413.
• Colwell, S. R., & Joshi, A. W. (2013). Corporate ecological responsiveness: Antecedent effects of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact on organizational performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(2), 73-91.
• Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı (2020). 2872 Sayılı Çevre Kanunu Uyarınca Verilecek İdari Para Cezalarına İlişkin Tebliğ (2020/1) 31. 31 Aralık 2019 tarihli 30995 sayılı Resmi Gazete.
• Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’sa question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic management journal, 20(2), 147-166.
• Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2011). An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard ISO 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 103-132.
• 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.
• Flannelly, K. J., & Jankowski, K. R. (2014). Research designs and making causal inferences from health care studies. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 20(1), 25-38.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Fraj, E., Matute, J., & Melero, I. (2015). Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel industry: The role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tourism Management, 46, 30-42.
• Gilley, K. M., Greer, C. R., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). Human resource outsourcing and organizational performance in manufacturing firms. Journal of business research, 57(3), 232-240.
• Gunarathne, N., & Lee, K. H. (2019). Institutional pressures and corporate environmental management maturity. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 157-175.
• Günel, M. (2017). Kurumsal kuram perspektifinden kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik: İşletmelerin kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik raporlamaları üzerine bir uygulama. Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
• Gürlek, M. (2018). Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun işe adanma üzerindeki etkisinde algılanan dışsal prestijin ve örgütsel özdeşleşmenin aracılık rolü: otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma. Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
• Gürlek, M., & Tuna, M. (2018). Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. The service industries journal, 38(7-8), 467-491.
• Gürlek, M., & Tuna, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: Evidence from the hotel industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 195-208.
• Gürlek, M., Düzgün, E., & Uygur, S. M. (2017). How does corporate social responsibility create customer loyalty? The role of corporate image. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(3), 409-427.
• Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd edition Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Han, M., Lin, H., Wang, J., Wang, Y., & Jiang, W. (2019). Turning corporate environmental ethics into firm performance: The role of green marketing programs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 929-938.
• Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30-37.
• Henseler, J., & Fassott, G ( 2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer, Berlin.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.
• Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency!(and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of management journal, 52(1), 61-85.
• Hoejmose, S. U., Grosvold, J., & Millington, A. (2014). The effect of institutional pressure on cooperative and coercive ‘green’supply chain practices. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 20(4), 215-224.
• Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of management journal, 42(4), 351-371.
• Hsu, C. C., Tan, K. C., Zailani, S. H. M., & Jayaraman, V. (2013). Supply chain drivers that foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 33(6), 656-688.
• Hyatt, D. G., & Berente, N. (2017). Substantive or symbolic environmental strategies? Effects of external and internal normative stakeholder pressures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1212-1234.
• Juárez-Luis, G., Sánchez-Medina, P. S., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2018). Institutional pressures and green practices in small agricultural businesses in Mexico: The mediating effect of farmers’ environmental concern. Sustainability, 10(12), 4461.
• Leonidou, L. C., Christodoulides, P., Kyrgidou, L. P., & Palihawadana, D. (2017). Internal drivers and performance consequences of small firm green business strategy: The moderating role of external forces. Journal of business ethics, 140(3), 585-606.
• Lin, R. J., & Sheu, C. (2012). Why do firms adopt/implement green practices?–an institutional theory perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 533-540.
• López-Gamero, M. D., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2009). The whole relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: Competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. Journal of environmental management, 90(10), 3110-3121.
• Majid, A., Yasir, M., Yasir, M., & Javed, A. (2020). Nexus of institutional pressures, environmentally friendly business strategies, and environmental performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 706-716.
• Masocha, R., & Fatoki, O. (2018). The impact of coercive pressures on sustainability practices of small businesses in South Africa. Sustainability, 10(9), 3032.
• Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., & Testa, F. (2017). Green practices and financial performance: A global outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 340-351.
• Molina-Azorín, J. F., Claver-Cortés, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Tarí, J. J. (2009). Environmental practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner production, 17(5), 516-524.
• Nour S., & Plourde, G. (2019) Pharmacoepidemiology in the Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions. In Editor S.Nour & G. Plourde (Eds.). Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, (pp. 25-65). London, United Kingdom: Academic Press.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Oliver, C. (1997). The influence of institutional and task environment relationships on organizational performance: The Canadian construction industry. Journal of management studies, 34(1), 99-124.
• Ouyang, Z., Wei, W., & Chi, C. G. (2019). Environment management in the hotel industry: does institutional environment matter?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 353-364.
• Özen, Ş. (2002). Bağlam, aktör, söylem ve kurumsal değişim: Türkiye’de toplam kalite yönetiminin yayılım süreci. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (2), 47–90.
• Özen, Ş. (2002). Türkiye’deki Örgütler/Yönetim Araştirmalarinda Törensel Görgülcülük Sorunu. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 5-31.
• PepsiCo (2016). PepsiCo Exceeds Global Water Stewardship Goals.https://www.pepsico.com/news/press-release/pepsico-exceeds-global-water-stewardship-goals08292016 adresinden 21.06.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Phan, T. N., & Baird, K. (2015). The comprehensiveness of environmental management systems: The influence of institutional pressures and the impact on environmental performance. Journal of environmental management, 160, 45-56.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
• Porter, M.E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4), 97–118.
• Porter, M.E., (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific America, 264, 168. https://doi.org/10. 1038/scientificamerican0491-168.
• Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157-1178.
• Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). "SmartPLS 3". Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt.
• Rivera, J. (2004). Institutional pressures and voluntary environmental behavior in developing countries: Evidence from the Costa Rican hotel industry. Society and Natural Resources, 17(9), 779-797.
• Rivera, J., De Leon, P., & Koerber, C. (2006). Is greener whiter yet? The sustainable slopes program after five years. Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 195-221.
• Santos, S., Rodrigues, L. L., & Branco, M. C. (2016). Online sustainability communication practices of European seaports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2935-2942.
• 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.
• Schaltegger, S., & Hörisch, J. (2017). In search of the dominant rationale in sustainability management: legitimacy-or profit-seeking?. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 259-276.
• Schmidt, C. G., Foerstl, K., & Schaltenbrand, B. (2017). The supply chain position paradox: green practices and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(1), 3-25.
• Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative science quarterly,32 (4), 493-511.
• Scott, W. R.( 1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Scott, W.R. (2005). Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research program. In Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. Smith KG, Hitt MA (eds). Oxford University Press: New York; 460–484.
• Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th edition) John Wiley & Sons, NY.
• Singh, N., Jain, S., & Sharma, P. (2014). Determinants of proactive environmental management practices in Indian firms: an empirical study. Journal of cleaner production, 66, 469-478.
• Stat Trek (2020). “Random number generator”. https://stattrek.com/statistics/random-number-generator.aspx , April 10, 2020.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
• Tachizawa, E. M., Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. (2015). Green supply chain management approaches: drivers and performance implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(11), 1546-1566.
• Tate, W. L., Dooley, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Transaction cost and institutional drivers of supplier adoption of environmental practices. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(1), 6-16.
• Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar, E., & Arda, O. A. (2015). Adoption of corporate environmental policies in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 313-326.
• Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar, E., Sahadev, S., Demirbag, M., & Glaister, K. W. (2014). Determinants of voluntary environmental management practices by MNE subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 49(4), 536-548.
• Tsinopoulos, C., Sousa, C. M., & Yan, J. (2018). Process innovation: open innovation and the moderating role of the motivation to achieve legitimacy. Journal of product innovation management, 35(1), 27-48.
• Türkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birliği (TOBB) (2020). Sanayi Sektörü Kapasite Raporu İstatistikleri. https://tobb.org.tr/BilgiErisimMudurlugu/Sayfalar/sanayi-kapasite-raporu-istatistikleri.php adresinden 27.06.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Usakli, A., & Kucukergin, K. G. (2018). Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(11), 3462-3512.
• Vergne, J. P. (2011). Toward a new measure of organizational legitimacy: Method, validation, and illustration. Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 484-502.
• Vignal Lambret, C., & Barki, E. (2018). Social media crisis management: Aligning corporate response strategies with stakeholders’ emotions online. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(2), 295-305.
• Volberda, H. W., van der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdu, A. J. (2012). Contingency fit, institutional fit, and firm performance: A metafit approach to organization–environment relationships. Organization Science, 23(4), 1040-1054.
• Wang, S., Li, J., & Zhao, D. (2018). Institutional pressures and environmental management practices: The moderating effects of environmental commitment and resource availability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 52-69.
• Wang, S., Wang, H., & Wang, J. (2019). Exploring the effects of institutional pressures on the implementation of environmental management accounting: Do top management support and perceived benefit work?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 233-243.
• Wang, Y., Font, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Antecedents, mediation effects and outcomes of hotel eco-innovation practice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 85, 102345.
• Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206.
• Zhu, Q., & Geng, Y. (2013). Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 6-12.
• Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2007). The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance. International journal of production research, 45(18-19), 4333-4355.
• Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2013). Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(2), 106-117.