In their study on the institutionalization of the Global Reporting Initiative, Etzion and Ferraro conclude that initially, during the equivalence phase, new initiatives might be adopted symbolically. And later, during the contrast and modification phases, new initiatives pursue substantive implementation. Another study by Bansal (2005) on sustainable development shows similar results (Bansal, 2005; Etzion and Ferraro, 2010). According to Etzion and Ferraro, this trajectory of institutionalization may happen when: 1) an initial response to institutional
56
pressures does not intrude organizations’ technical foundation, 2) when it can be pursued superficially, or 3) when it is not costly to implement.
Resonating with Etzion and Ferraro, Campbell (2004), considers that new practices are more likely to be translated when: 1) they agree with adopters’ expectations, 2) they are technically easy to implement and not politically sensitive, 3) and when actors perceive that the cost of implementing is relatively low.
Campbell (2004) also establishes that organizations are more likely to adopt new initiatives and enact them - rather than just adopting them symbolically - when the leaders in the organization are sympathetic and committed to the new initiative; also, when the organization has the financial and administrative capacities required to implement them. These organizational characteristics facilitate the translation process (Campbell, 2004).
Finally, Campbell (2004) considers that new practices are more likely to be translated if they are unclear and ambiguous to potential adopters. For instance, the UNGC is “arguably” ambiguous. It only establishes ten principles. It enables organizations to interpret these principles in different ways depending on organizations’ specific contexts. However, further research is required to understand the translation process better (Boxenbaum, 2006).
57 3.1.12 Summary
Organizational institutionalism provides the theoretical framework guiding this research project. Originally, research based on this approach focused on how organizations’ formal structures became increasingly complex and similar when incorporating institutional elements (Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008). Then, researchers’ interests moved to how and why novel practices spread; and with what consequences for organizations. This line of thinking was initially developed in Scandinavia (Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008).
Diffusion has been the predominant conceptual framework to explain how novel practices are spread (Czarniawska, 2008). However, Scandinavian institutionalism found the concept of diffusion too static. It assumes that new ideas are adopted uncritically; neglecting the mechanisms used by organizations when incorporating new practices. Contrastingly, the concept of translation focuses on the changes a new practice undergoes each time it is implemented in a different context. Translation is concerned with how - apparently homogeneous - organizational forms, become heterogeneous when applied in diverse organizational environments (Boxenbaum and Pedersen, 2009). Although these observations were not new, Scandinavian institutionalism brought them to the center of the argument (Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008).
Czarniawska (2008) compares the translation model with the diffusion model of change. She explains how, in the diffusion model, new initiatives move “without
58
reserve” unless they are confronted with resistance, which is considered a negative factor within the diffusion model (Czarniawska, 2008). On the other hand, within the translation model, resistance is considered a positive factor, through which novel ideas and existing practices meet. Czarniawska (2008) explains how the diffusion model has been more accepted among managers, mainly because it offers the illusion of control, while the translation model opens the door to the unforeseeable; it promises uncertainty and ambiguity in the adoption process.
Recent research on translation has found how actors intentionally try to translate new practices in ways which support their own interest. This stream of research reflects “an agentic line of inquiry within the translation literature in Scandinavian institutionalism”. This “agentic line of inquiry” aligns translation research with the literature on institutional work (Boxenbaum and Pedersen, 2009; p. 193).
An example of this agentic line of inquiry is Boxembaum’s (2006) study of the successful translation of a new practice in two Danish firms. She finds that translators overcome resistance by creatively combining incompatible frames. She concludes that translators select the reframing which would appeal to key players. They make the pragmatic choice of relating the new initiative to existing practices, to obtain resources and achieve a lasting impact. Previous research also states that successful translation requires the foreign initiative to be grounded in legitimate local practices (Hargadon and Douglas, 2001; Lippi, 2000). However,
59
researchers find that the integration of new and existing practices restricts the newly adopted initiative. Sahlin and Wedlin (2008) explain translation as an editing process which is not necessarily open-ended. It follows editing rules which restrict and direct the translation process.
Etzion and Ferraro (2010) further add to our understanding on the dynamics between new and existing institutional practices. They studied the institutionalization of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); and concluded that the institutionalization process is facilitated by analogical thinking, which relates the new initiative to existing practices. However, analogical reasoning can also assert dissimilarities, helping rather than hindering actors’ cognitive processes, and promoting actors’ reflection and re-conceptualization.
In their study, Etzion and Ferraro identified three phases of analogical reasoning: equivalence, contrast, and modification. They explain how the first phase “equivalence” brings legitimacy but also constrains the new initiative. It is led by instrumental logics, as the rationales for adoption focused on establishing a compelling business case instead of highlighting a broader contribution to society. This way of framing constrains the scope of the adopted practice and can lead to superficial adoption (Etzion and Ferraro, 2010).
Then, once the new practice is accepted, attention moves to “contrasts” and “modifications”. These design phases are led by value-rational logics. They invite adopters to analyze the consequences of sustainability reporting and to develop meaningful responses to these new challenges (Etzion and Ferraro, 2010). The
60
impact that new initiatives have on organizations’ daily operations has been a main interest of research in translation. Research now is starting to show the effects of adopted ideas on organizations’ day to day practices. This recent research finds how ceremonial adoption occurs; however, newly adopted ideas have consequences on how practices are identified, assessed and presented. This study concludes that new ideas can contribute to changes within the organization (Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008). Further research is required to better understand the translation process, and the consequences that the adoption of a new initiative brings to organizations’ daily practices (Boxenbaum, 2006).