Having discussed normative and coercive pressures exerted on the construction supply chain which could aid or inhibit the diffusion of low carbon innovation, the findings were scoured for evidence of mimetic isomorphic pressure. There was a lack of significant evidence in the findings suggesting that mimetic pressure was particularly impactful on supply chain
176 outcomes. The structure does not allow for mimetic pressure to be particularly effectual when encouraging widespread uptake of new methods and strategies, primarily due to compartmentalisation (Cheng et al., 2001). The structure provides no stimulation for collaboration and communication and companies are able to shield new developments (Cheng, et al., 2001; Kornelius and Wamelink, 1998). In turn, the reticence of the supply chain makes it difficult for imitation to occur. Imitation is required for the diffusion of innovation; people view success and wish to emulate it (Rogers, 1971).
The diffusion of innovation advocates the importance of relationships in spreading novel concepts (Rogers, 1971; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). The imitation factor however cannot be overlooked as the current format of construction projects dictates that relationships are short- term (Songip et al., 2013). Short term relationships affect information sharing and retention which is arguably held in place by current supply chain structures. In order for diffusion to take place an innovation must occur and others must try to rival the success through implementing the same systems or products (Rogers, 1971). As more people adopt a new concept a critical mass is reached, the point at which enough people are using the product in order for it to sustain itself (Mahler and Rogers, 1999). At this point the risk of implementation is reduced; the imitation factor can aid the development of a product as each individual in the system makes their own adoption decisions (Gouws and Rheede van Oudtshoorn, 2011). Decisions on adoption are highly likely to be influenced by other companies (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Cao, Li and Wang, 2014). The imitation factor could provide a useful tool for the diffusion of new products (Markus, 1987; Mahler and Rogers, 1999) which could occur through supply chain actors working in close proximity.
The above examples provide evidence of the usefulness of using both institutional theory and diffusion theory in conjunction. Isomorphic pressures can only illustrate the power of the institution and how it affects the way industries behave. It does not address how these pressures can impact on the diffusion of innovation or how these pressure barriers can be overcome. A defining factor of diffusing novel concepts is collaboration and influential relationships. The impact that institutional pressures have on collaboration in the construction industry and the effect this has on the diffusion of innovation is explored below.
5.6 Collaboration
A case for creating increased collaborative networks with regards to low carbon decision making has been a product of the literature and empirical data in this research. Influential
177 relationships through collaboration have been shown to facilitate support for low carbon decision making practices (Persson and Orlander, 2004). Communication flow among supply chain actors is considered essential for the diffusion of low carbon strategies and information management in construction projects (Coelho and Novaes, 2008; Singh, et al., 2011; Jeffrey, 2009). Collaborative relationships across supply chains between organisations have been proven to progress with increased information exchange (Zhang and Dhaliwal, 2009). It can be argued that the level of communication is dictated firstly by client engagement and secondly the supply chain structure which are institutional coercive pressures faced by construction companies. The data highlighted that collaborative processes were impacted primarily by mimetic pressures but evidence of normative and coercive pressures were also found.
The empirical findings highlighted that it is not justifiable to suggest that the construction industry does not collaborate as those within in the industry stressed that it does occur, and a lack of involvement was frowned upon. It was expressed however that this engagement was often at a minimum and in line only with what was expected, indicating the impact of normative pressures on the collaborative process. Current collaborative expectations were indicative of normative institutional pressure, as often those involved in construction projects will not go beyond expectations or social norms. A similar attitude towards carbon emissions was also found. These pressures would need to be overcome in order to apply collaboration to CO2 data sharing. Collaboration in the context of emissions however could be seen as a
standard progression, due to the high level of data requirement for calculation (Fay and Trelaor 1998; Liu et al. 2012; Dixit et al. 2012).
As sustainability or CO2 analyses are generally carried out retrospectively via technological
means, collaboration is not a requirement for analysis (Poudelet et al., 2012). The social norm is to complete analyses via mathematical methods which act as normative institutional pressures, inhibiting the development of collaboration. By not providing the necessity for increased collaboration, a barrier to diffusion has formed as those who require carbon calculation will simply use currently available methods for ease. Collaboration traditionally occurs at a minimal level and only frequently at the very beginning of a project (Basbagill et al., 2013). In order to provide a method of engagement for carbon emissions throughout the project the expansion of communicative processes must occur.
178 The notion of joint working could be an important factor in the development and diffusion of low carbon processes. Although dismissed by some as an unrealistic and idealised idea, some forward-thinking sustainability-focussed firms are seeking to implement sustainability as best practice via joint working, which has proven to be successful. Examples of this have been found in public-private sector collaboration projects which have used novel procurement methods to group the best skills and resources from both sectors for infrastructure projects (Adetola et al., 2011). The acknowledgement of the benefits of skill sharing has led to the emergence of public Private partnerships (PPP) (Li and Akintoye, 2003). A further example can be found with the implementation of Environmental Product Declarations at Tata Steel (Tata Steel, 2012; Jervis, 2015).
The findings highlight a leaning towards joint working in order to implement low carbon decision-making. One of the core failings found was the inability to share information and the institutional pressures that prevent those in the supply chain from progressing together i.e.
‘I think there's a lot of good work going on. A lot of people are pushing forward with it.’ (Mechanical and electrical engineer, supply chain position 3)
[BIM] ‘That's what we're thinking of having … it is helping with the collaboration between all parties…not every company is on the same learning curve as what others are, not at the same point in the learning curve..’ (Mechanical and electrical engineer, supply chain position 3)
Collaborative processes were found to generate mimetic pressure throughout the construction supply chain. The pressure to behave in similar ways to others could encourage collaborative processes, inspiring others to share information on carbon data (Love et al., 1999; Cheng et al., 2001; Love et al., 2004). Additionally, the implementation of innovative low carbon products provides greater possibilities of diffusing novel low carbon concepts throughout the supply chain. If pressures were placed on supply chain actors to implement low carbon strategy via collaborative processes, mimetic pressures could become highly relevant for diffusion (Rogers, 1971).
Through greater collaboration, success can be viewed and others will endeavour to seek the same success in order to remain legitimate through socially constructed systems (Barreto and Baden-Fuller 2006). Mimetic pressures felt through collaborative systems could potentially speed up the process of the diffusion of innovation as new systems or strategies could reach greater numbers of people quickly (Rogers, 1971). The benefits of collaboration are already widely acknowledged in supply chain literature but not necessarily specific to carbon
179 analyses (Lin et al., 2002; Cheng et al., 2001; Love et al., 2004). The application of the benefits of collaborative processes in construction could form an essential component of integration and information management (Coelho and Novaes, 2008; Singh et al., 2011). The implementation of collaborative networks in construction projects could heighten the impact of mimetic pressures as new models create uncertainty (Prue and Devine, 2012). Uncertainty could encourage supply chain actors to seek involvement in new systems in order to maintain legitimacy, particularly if the success of a project is viewed. The critical success factor for collaboration and its application to low carbon strategy is its use from the conception of construction projects. Participants were mindful of the potential for the early implementation of collaborative processes as illustrated below:
‘It's better if all projects … all parties in the project are involved at an early stage so they can have that input and collaborate between each other.’ (Mechanical and electrical engineer, supply chain position 3)
Implementing a collaborative platform whereby supply chain actors are involved in collaboration processes from the commencement of the project has been promoted as a solution for increasing collaborative networks. If a viewed collaboration platform was integrated on projects, other supply chain actors would feel inclined to ensure they were giving and receiving all of the required information to maintain legitimacy. Numbers conforming would increase as a network of peers develops (Haunschild, 1993). Mimetic and normative pressures encourage the diffusion of low carbon innovation as success is acknowledged and new concepts are proliferated through fear of losing legitimacy. Mimesis occurs until pressures to conform become normative as collaboration becomes the social norm. The following quotations illustrate the influence of visual success in the implementation of innovative processes:
‘I do like the collaboration kind of world because you do build partnerships up, you do see … other people’s ideas come forward…if you've got that collaboration … that true collaboration in there and you're listening to people’s ideas, you're listening to people that view things slightly differently, then you can get to a good solution.’ (Client, supply chain position 6)
Increased collaboration was found to have a positive effect on the whole construction process. In collaborative systems the implementation of new ideas could be tested and shared thus reducing risk (Toole, 1998). The reduction of risk is an important component of the diffusion of innovation. If perceived risks are reduced, greater numbers of people are much
180 more likely to take on new strategies and products. Individuality of supply chain actors inhibits collaboration which restricts the possibility of others viewing success (Crowley and Karim, 1995). In closer proximity, there is greater opportunity for mimetic influence as supply chain actors strive to become valid players in construction projects.
The implementation of network supply chains could increase collaborative networks exerting greater mimetic pressures on the supply chain, acting as a driver for change and diffusing new concepts and strategies through the encouragement of greater adoption (Cheng et al., 2001; Greenwood and Hunings, 1996). A networked system could eliminate competition drivers, determined by individual jurisdictions, opening up the channels of communication and shared responsibility which are all essential factors for innovation diffusion (Rogers, 1971). Network approaches embrace cohesiveness, communication and flexibility which could aid the diffusion of low carbon decision making strategies at low cost, without the need for intensive technological investment (Love et al., 1999; Cheng et al., 2001; Love et al., 2004).