MÉTODO POR CALCULADORA

This section revisits the advances in institutional theory that have been made in the organisational study literature. It is motivated to do so because the organisational study literature has widely applied institutional theory for more than 30 years, and has made

71

significant progress theoretically (Scott, 2008). Several approaches in organisational studies attempt to bridge organisational field level and organisational level analysis in order to explain variations in organisational response to institutional pressures. For example, Oliver (1991, p.146) argues that institutional theory accommodates interest seeking, active organisational behaviour when organisational responses to institutional pressures and expectations do not assume passivity and conformity across all institutional conditions. Organisations respond strategically to those pressures and manage legitimacy in the interests of continuity and prosperity (Oliver, 1991; Suchman, 1995).

Empirical studies testing Oliver’s ideas have considered company characteristics including: size, industry, ownership identity, professional membership, and inter-company connections as the measure of institutional factors that influence company decision-making (Clemens & Douglas, 2005; Goodstein, 1994; Ingram & Simons, 1995). Those studies provide early empirical support to the bottom-up influence of company characteristics on institutional pressures on a company. The limitations of those studies are evident in the under-specification of field level processes, and in the separation of individual organisation and orgnisational field as distinct entities (Levy & Rothenberg, 2002). However, interpretation of the concept of orgnisational field in general is vague (Scott, 2002).

Hoffman (1999) developed institutional theory by proposing that an organisational field can form around a central issue (environmental/climate-change reporting). This brings together various field constituents (actors) with disparate purposes. Individual organisational populations (or classes of constituencies) exist within an organisational field and hence interact with institutions in the field. Individual organisational populations (or classes of constituencies) may have differing positions on the three aspects of institutional elements—regulative, normative and cognitive (see Chapter 2). Scott (1991) explained this influence of individual organisational populations manifests in institutions including rules (regulative), norms (normative) and beliefs (cultural cognitive) that describe the organisation’s ‘perceived reality’ and explain individual organisation’s choice. Thus, a firm’s action is a choice from a narrowly defined set of legitimate options determined by the group of actors (constituents) comprising the firms’ organisational field.

72

According to Hoffman (1999), field formation is not a static process; new forms of debate emerge in the wake of triggering events that cause a reconfiguration of field membership and/or interaction patterns. An event that instigates institutional change can potentially take different forms (including: milestones, catastrophes and legal/administrative incidents). The ‘uncertainties created by these events lead organisations to experiment and to go beyond established practice’, which may eventually lead to new institutional arrangements. Hoffman (1999) argues, and empirically examines, the coevolving nature of the organisational field centred on corporate environmentalism and institutions. The evolving organisational fields result in changing configurations of institutions at the organisational field level, which has led to the situated institutions. Thus, organisational fields are richly contextualised spaces where disparate organisations involve themselves with one another to develop collective understandings regarding matters of importance (Jamali & Neville, 2011; Wooten & Hoffman, 2008). The three institutional aspects—regulative, normative and cognitive—are connected, and are empirically indistinct from one another (Hoffman, 1999; Scott, 2008; Zeng et al., 2012).

To address the under-specification of field level process, Hoffman and Ventresca (2002) further develop the concept of an issue-based organisational field. They explain that a field is an ‘empirical trace’ that can include ‘constituents such as government actors, critical exchange partners, intermediaries in the value chain, professional and trade associations, policy entrepreneurs, regulatory bodies, and organised public opinion evident in consumer or other organised interests’. All of these constituents ‘interact and contend in the definition of the broader field logic’. To understand company heterogeneity within an institutional context, organisational level analysis ‘complements and extends field level analysis. The value of such dual specification is clear’—it directly redresses the over-socialised view that depicts recipients of field level influence as a homogenous collection of organisational actors, each behaving according to a social script designed by the social environment (pp. 5–10). Hoffman and Ventresca (2002) argue that the interaction between a firm and field is neither unidirectional nor separate from interpretation and enactment processes. Field influences are not uniformly understood by participants within the field; organisational level dynamics can filter and alter institutional demand (pp. 11–12).

73

Organisational level dynamics point to the moderating role (Delmas & Toffel, 2011) of individual organisational populations (see Chapter 2 for the definition of ‘organisational population’) formed by company characteristics interacting with the field level influences. Many individual populations (or classes of constituencies) exist within an organisational field. Hence, one way of identifying differing positions on the three aspects of institutional elements—regulative, normative and cognitive—is by company characteristics. Field level competition influences institutional beliefs and perceptions, but these are situated within individual organisations or populations of organisations (Scott 1998; Hoffman, 1999). Therefore, ‘the form of organisational response is as much a reflection of the institutional pressures that emerge from outside the organisation as it is the form of organisational structure and culture that exist inside the organisation’ (Hoffman, 2001, p. 137).

Jamali and Neville (2011) extend institutional theory to analyse convergence versus divergence of CSR in a developing country (Lebanon). Their findings highlight the usefulness of multi-level institutional analyses. Levy and Rothenberg (2002) adopt Hoffman’s (1999) view on the issue-based organisational field. They develop three explanations for variations in corporate responses to climate change: first, institutional discourses and practices do not pass across organisational boundaries undisturbed. Each company interprets the institutional environment through a unique lens, a product of its history, organisational culture and market positioning. Second, organisations often operate within ‘multiple, overlapping institutional fields’. They belong to various industry associations or national cultural and regulatory contexts, which create divergent pressures on organisations. Organisations are situated in complex, fragmented fields with ‘imprecise boundaries, providing repertoires of practices and discourses within which they can exercise some agency and choice’. Third, even a single organisational field can sustain multiple competing discursive forms (pp. 176–177).

The above arguments support the bottom-up influence of individual organisations on institutions at organisational field level.

74