Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:38:37.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Forces and Environmental Management Strategy: Moderating Effects of Environmental Orientation and Innovation Capability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Yuanfei Kang  and
Xinming He
Yuanfei Kang
Affiliation:
Massey University, New Zealand
Xinming He*
Affiliation:
Durham University, UK
*
Corresponding author: Xinming He ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the mechanisms through which firm capabilities moderate the impact of institutional forces upon firms’ adoption of environmental management strategy (EMS). Viewing the limitations of the institutional perspective in explaining the heterogeneity in firms’ EMS, we suggest that an important source of variation is the idiosyncratic capabilities of the firm in acquiring and allocating resources. Based on the strategic response theme of institutional theory and the resource-based view, we argue that the influence of institutional forces on EMS is contingent on the presence of environmental orientation and innovation capability. Using data collected from China, we test these notions. Our empirical results suggest that both environmental orientation and innovation capability positively moderate the effect of institutional forces on firm's EMS. By demonstrating how institutional forces and firm capabilities interact with each other, we enhance our understanding of how firms succeed in developing EMS.

摘要:

摘要:

本文分析企业能力如何调节制度因素对企业采纳环境管理战略的影响。鉴于制度理论在解释企业间环境管理战略差异性方面的局限, 我们提出, 导致企业间环境管理战略差异的一个重要原因, 是企业在获取和配置资源方面能力的差异。基于企业对于制度因素的战略对应的理论, 以及企业资源理论, 我们提出, 外在制度因素对于企业环境管理战略的影响, 要受到企业环境导向以及企业创新能力这两个企业内在因素的调节。以对中国企业的问卷调查为实证基础, 本文检验了这些假设。实证研究结果表明, 企业环境导向以及企业创新能力都能正向调节外在制度因素对企业环境管理战略的影响。通过展示外在制度因素与企业内在因素的相互影响作用, 本文的研究深化了对与企业采纳环境管理战略的机制的理解。

संस्थागत शक्तियां व पर्यावरण प्रबंधन रणनीति: पर्यावरणीय अनुकूलन तथा नवोत्पादन का नियंत्रक प्रभाव

हमने उन प्रक्रियाओं का विश्लेषण किया है जो पर्यावरण प्रबंधन रणनीति पर संस्थागत शक्तियों का प्रभाव सीमित करती हैं. फर्म की पर्यावरण प्रबंधन रणनीति में वैविध्य को समझने में संस्थागत परिप्रेक्ष्य की सीमा को देखते हुए हम यह मत रखते हैं कि वैविध्य का एक विशिष्ट स्रोत फर्म की संसाधन प्राप्ति व वितरण की विशिष्ट क्षमता है. संस्थागत सिद्धांत की रणनैतिक प्रतिक्रिया विषयवस्तु तथा संस्थागत परिप्रेक्ष्य के आधार पर हमारा यह मत है की संस्थागत शक्तियों का प्रभाव पर्यावरणीय अनुकूलन व नवोत्पाद क्षमता की उपस्थिति पर निर्भर है. चीन से उपलब्ध आंकड़ों के आधार पर हमने इस अभिप्राय की जांच की. हमारे परिणाम यह दिखाते हैं कि पर्यावरणीय अनुकूलन व नवोत्पादन क्षमता पर्यावरण प्रबंधन रणनीतियों पर संस्थागत शक्तियों के प्रभाव को सकारात्मक रूप से नियंत्रित करते हैं. संस्थागत शक्तियों व फर्म क्षमताओं की अन्तः क्रियाओं को दिखाकर हम फर्म की पर्यावरण प्रबंधन से सफलता के प्रति समझ बढ़ाते हैं.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

SUMÁRIO: Examinamos os mecanismos através dos quais as capacidades da firma moderam o impacto das forças institucionais sobre a adoção pelas empresas de estratégia de gestão ambiental (EMS). Vendo a limitação da perspectiva institucional para explicar a heterogeneidade na EMS das empresas, sugerimos que uma importante fonte de variação é a capacidade idiossincrática da empresa em adquirir e alocar recursos. Com base no tema de resposta estratégica da teoria institucional e da visão baseada em recursos, argumentamos que a influência das forças institucionais na EMS depende da presença de orientação ambiental e capacidade de inovação. Usando dados coletados da China, testamos essas noções. Nossos resultados empíricos sugerem que tanto a orientação ambiental quanto a capacidade de inovação moderam positivamente o efeito das forças institucionais sobre a EMS da empresa. Ao demonstrar como as forças institucionais e as capacidades da empresa interagem umas com as outras, aumentamos a compreensão de como as empresas são bem-sucedidas ao desenvolver EMS.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Институциональные силы и стратегия экологического управления: Влияние взаимодействия экологической ориентации и инновационной способности

АННОТАЦИЯ: Мы изучаем механизмы, благодаря которым совокупность способностей фирмы регулирует влияние институциональных сил на формирование стратегии экологического управления (СЭУ) в компаниях. Принимая во внимание ограниченное влияние институциональных сил на разнообразие в корпоративных стратегиях экологического управления, мы полагаем, что важным источником разнообразия являются уникальные способности фирмы в приобретении и распределении ресурсов. На основании принципа стратегического реагирования в институциональной теории, а также ресурсного подхода, мы утверждаем, что влияние институциональных сил на стратегии экологического управления зависит от наличия экологической ориентации и инновационных способностей в компании. Используя данные из Китая, мы проверяем эти предположения. Наши эмпирические результаты показывают, что экологическая ориентация и инновационные способности положительно влияют на воздействие институциональных сил на корпоративные стратегии экологического управления. На примере того, каким образом взаимодействуют институциональные силы и способности фирмы, мы помогаем лучше понять, как компании успешно развивают стратегии экологического управления.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Fuerzas institucionales y la estrategia de gestión ambiental: El efecto moderador de la orientación ambiental y la capacidad de innovación

RESUMEN: Examinamos los mecanismos mediante los cuales las capacidades de la empresa moderan el impacto de las fuerzas institucionales después que las empresas adoptan una estrategia de gestión medio ambiental. Viendo la limitación de la perspectiva institucional para explicar la heterogeneidad de la estrategia de gestión medio ambiental en las empresas, sugerimos que una fuente importante de variación son las capacidades idiosincráticas de la empresa para adquirir y asignar recursos. Con base en el tema de respuesta estratégica de la teoría institucional y de la perspectiva basada en recursos, sostenemos que la influencia de las fuerzas institucionales en la estrategia de gestión medio ambiental depende de la presencia de una orientación ambiental y la capacidad de innovación. Usando datos recopilados en China, probamos estas nociones. Nuestros resultados empíricos sugieren que tanto la orientación ambiental como la capacidad de innovación moderan positivamente el efecto de las fuerzas institucionales en la estrategia de gestión medio ambiental de la empresa. Al demostrar cómo interactúan entre sí las fuerzas institucionales y las capacidades de la empresa, mejoramos la comprensión de cómo las empresas tienen éxito en el desarrollo de la estrategia de gestión medio ambiental.

Keywords

Chinaenvironmental management strategyenvironmental orientationinnovation capabilityinstitutional theoryresource-based view中国环境管理战略环境导向创新能力制度理论资源基础观चीनपर्यावरण प्रबंधन रणनीतिपर्यावरणीय अनुकूलननवोत्पादन क्षमतासंस्थागत सिद्धांतसंसाधनपरक परिप्रेक्ष्यChinaestratégia de gestão ambientalorientação ambientalcapacidade de inovaçãoteoria institucionalvisão baseada em recursosКитайстратегия экологического управленияэкологическая ориентацияинновационная способностьинституциональная теорияресурсный подходChinaestrategia de gestión ambientalorientación ambientalcapacidad de innovaciónteoría institucionalperspectiva basada en recursos
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 577 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 932–968.Google Scholar
Alt, E., Díez-de-Castro, E. P., & Lloréns-Montes, F. J. 2015. Linking employee stakeholders to environmental performance: The role of proactive environmental strategies and shared vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 128 (1): 167–181.Google Scholar
Aragon-Correa, J., Hurtado-Corres, N., Sharma, S., & Garcia-Morales, V. 2008. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86 (1): 88–103.Google Scholar
Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environment environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28 (1): 71–88.Google Scholar
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 502–517.Google Scholar
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., & Dou, Y. 2015. Corporate sustainability development in China: Review and analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115 (1): 5–40.Google Scholar
Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. 2003. Corporate environmentalism: Antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2): 106–122.Google Scholar
Bansal, P. 2005. Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (3): 197–218.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9 (4): 49–61.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J. Jr., & Wright, M. 2011. The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37 (5): 1299–1315.Google Scholar
Berghman, L., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2012. Value innovation, deliberate learning mechanisms and information from supply chain partners. Industrial Marketing Management, 41 (1): 27–39.Google Scholar
Beyer, S. 2006. Environmental law and policy in the People's Republic of China. Chinese Journal of International Law, 5 (1): 185–211.Google Scholar
Blome, C., & Paulraj, A. 2013. Ethical climate and purchasing social responsibility: A benevolence focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (3): 567–585.Google Scholar
Bowen, F., & Aragon-Correa, J. A. 2014. Greenwashing in corporate environmentalism research and practice: The importance of what we say and do. Organization & Environment, 27 (2): 107–112.Google Scholar
Branzei, O., Ursacki-Bryant, T., Verinsky, I., & Zhang, W. 2004. The formation of green strategies in Chinese firms: Matching corporate environmental response and individual principles. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (11): 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (5): 453–470.Google Scholar
Cai, L., Anokhin, S., Yin, M., & Hatfield, D. E. 2016. Environment, resource integration, and new ventures’ competitive advantage in China. Management and Organization Review, 12 (2): 333–356.Google Scholar
Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W., Dai, J., & Lim, M. K. 2016. The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181: 384–391.Google Scholar
Chan, R. Y. K. 2010. Corporate environmentalism pursuit by foreign firms competing in China. Journal of World Business, 45 (1): 80–92.Google Scholar
Chan, R. Y. K., & Ma, K. H. 2016. Environmental orientation of exporting SMEs from an emerging economy: Its antecedents and consequences. Management International Review, 56 (5): 597–632.Google Scholar
Chan, Y. K., He, H., Chan, H. K., & Wang, W. 2012. Environmental orientation and corporate performance: The mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating effect of competitive intensity. Industrial Marketing Management, 41 (4): 621– 630.Google Scholar
Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editor: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2): 178–184.Google Scholar
Child, J., & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1): 95–125.Google Scholar
China Statistical Yearbook. 2010. Beijing: National Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 663–680.Google Scholar
Christmann, P. 2004. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5): 747–760.Google Scholar
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2001. Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 439–458.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37 (1): 39–67.Google Scholar
Cordeiro, J. J., & Tewari, M. 2015. Firm characteristics, industry context, and investor reactions to environmental CSR: A stakeholder theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 130 (4): 833–849.Google Scholar
Cuevo-Cazurra, A., & Genc, M. 2008. Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6): 957–979.Google Scholar
Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. 2006. Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2): 301–320.Google Scholar
Dean, L. M., Lovely, M. E., & Wang, H. 2009. Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? Evaluating the evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 90 (1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (10): 1027–1055.Google Scholar
Dibrell, C., Craig, J., & Hansen, E. 2011. How managerial attitudes toward the natural environment affect market orientation and innovation? Journal of Business Research, 64 (4): 401–407.Google Scholar
Dongguan Statistical Bureau. 2010. Statistical Yearbook of Dongguan. Beijing, China: Statistical Publications.Google Scholar
Economy, E., & Lieberthal, K. 2007. Scorched earth: Will environmental risks in China overwhelm its opportunities? Harvard Business Review, 85 (6): 88–96.Google Scholar
Flammer, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (3): 758–781.Google Scholar
Fowler, F. J. Jr. 1993. Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fu, W., Diez, J. R., & Schiller, D. 2013. Interactive learning, informal networks and innovation: Evidence from electronics firm survey in the Pearl River Delta. Research Policy, 42 (3): 635–646.Google Scholar
Gabler, C. B., Richey, R. G., & Rapp, A. 2015. Developing an eco-capability through environmental orientation and organizational innovativeness. Industrial Marketing Management, 45: 151–161.Google Scholar
Garce´s-Ayerbe, G., Rivera-Torres, P., & Murillo-Luna, J. L. 2013. Stakeholder pressure and environmental proactivity: Moderating effect of competitive advantage expectations. Management Decisions, 50 (2): 189–206.Google Scholar
Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. M. 1997. Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February): 77–90.Google Scholar
Gavronski, I., Paiva, E. L., Teixeira, R., & de Andrade, M. C. F. 2013. ISO 14001 certified plants in Brazil–taxonomy and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39: 32–41.Google Scholar
Gebauer, H. 2011. Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (8): 1238–1250.Google Scholar
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2): 186– 192.Google Scholar
Glavas, A., & Mish, J. 2015. Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms: Going over old or breaking new ground? Journal of Business Ethics, 127 (3): 623–642.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1): 317–371.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., & Kumar, V. 2013. Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior performance. Journal of World Business, 48 (3): 311–320.Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. G., Grosse-Dunker, F., & Reichwald, R. 2009. Sustainability innovation cube – A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (04): 683–713.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4): 986–1014.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. 2011. A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37 (5): 1464–1479.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. 2003. Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17 (2): 56–69.Google Scholar
He, X., Brouthers, K. D., & Filatotchev, I. 2013. Resource-based and institutional perspectives on export channel selection and export performance. Journal of Management, 39 (1): 27–47.Google Scholar
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. 1999. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of management Journal, 42 (1): 87–99.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4): 351–371.Google Scholar
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. 1990. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kim, N., Moon, J. J., & Yin, H. 2016. Environmental pressure and the performance of foreign firms in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (3): 475–490.Google Scholar
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industrial self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's Responsible Care Program. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 698–716.Google Scholar
Lai, W. H., Lin, C. C., & Wang, T. C. 2015. Exploring the interoperability of innovation capability and corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 68 (4): 867–871.Google Scholar
Lannelongue, G., Gonzalez-Benito, O., & Gonzalez-Benito, J. 2014. Environmental motivations: The pathway to complete environmental management. Journal of Business Ethics, 124 (1): 135–147.Google Scholar
Li, D. Y., & Liu, J. 2014. Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 67 (1): 2793–2799.Google Scholar
Lin, Z., Peng, W. M., Yang, H., & Sun, S. L. 2009. How do networks and learning drive M&As? An institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (10): 1113–1132.Google Scholar
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1): 114–121.Google Scholar
Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. 2010. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45 (4): 357–366.Google Scholar
Liu, N., Tang, S. Y., Lo, C. W. H., & Zhan, X. 2016. Stakeholder demands and corporate environmental coping strategies in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 165 (1): 140–149.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Feng, T., & Li, S. 2015. Stakeholder influences and organization responses: A case study of corporate social responsibility suspension. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3): 469–491.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Guo, J., & Chi, N. 2015. The antecedents and performance consequences of proactive environmental strategy: A meta-analytic review of national contingency. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3): 521–557.Google Scholar
Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. 2014. The role of new forms of work organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147 (Part A): 147–160.Google Scholar
Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Brunton, G., & Li, W. 2010. Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (3): 419–436.Google Scholar
Majumdar, S. K., & Marcus, A. A. 2001. Rules verses discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1): 170–179.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., Jackson, S. E., & Li, Y. 2015. Building sustainable organizations in China. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3): 427–440.Google Scholar
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., McGrath, P., & Claudy, M. 2015. Going above and beyond: How sustainability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sustainability supply chain practice adoption. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20 (4): 434–454.Google Scholar
Martin-Tapia, I., Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Rueda-Manzanares, A. 2010. Environmental strategy and exports in medium, small and micro-enterprises. Journal of World Business, 45 (3): 266–275.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33 (2): 404–424.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. 2014. The effect of ISO 14001 on environmental regulatory compliance in China. Ecological Economics, 105: 254–264.Google Scholar
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. 2006. Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (1): 63–73.Google Scholar
Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Ozanne, L. 2010. The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm's performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (2): 279–298.Google Scholar
Meyer, K., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S., & Peng, M. 2009. Institutions, resources and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (1): 61–80.Google Scholar
Mittal, V. K., & Sangwan, K. S. 2014. Development of a model of barriers to environmentally conscious manufacturing implementation. International Journal of Production Research, 52 (2): 584–594.Google Scholar
Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M. D., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. 2015. The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: A mixed methods study in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 50: 41–54.Google Scholar
Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. 2009. Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (8): 909–920.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, S., Herrmann, P., & Perez, P. D. 2011. Domestic mindsets and early international performance: The moderating effect of global industry conditions. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (5): 510–531.Google Scholar
Nath, P., & Ramanathan, R. 2016. Environmental management practices, environmental technology portfolio, and environmental commitment: A content analytic approach for UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 171 (3): 427–437.Google Scholar
Nederhof, A. J. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15 (3): 263–280.Google Scholar
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation? Harvard Business Review, 87: 1–10.Google Scholar
Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.Google Scholar
Orsato, R. 2006. Competitive environmental strategies: When does it pay to be green? California Management Review, 48 (2): 127–143.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E. R. G., & Gwozdz, W. 2014. From resistance to opportunity-seeking: Strategic responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility in the Nordic fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 119 (2): 245–264.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275–296.Google Scholar
Peng, M., Wang, D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institutional-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 920–936.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavior research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.Google Scholar
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate sustainability. Harvard Business Review, December: 78–92.Google Scholar
Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., & Boisot, M. 2010. Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The impact of formal institutional voids. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (3): 441–467.Google Scholar
Qi, G. Y., Zeng, S. X., Tamb, C. M., Yin, H. T., Wu, J. F., & Dai, Z. H. 2011. Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in China: Rethinking on stakeholders’ roles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (11): 1250–1256.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, A. G., Vermeulen, P. A., Meeus, M. T., & Zietsma, C. 2015. I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (1): 85–110.Google Scholar
Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. 2005. Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (4): 582–593.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institution and organization (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sharma, A. I., & Iyer, G. R. 2012. Resource-constrained product development: Implications for green marketing and green supply chains. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: 559–608.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 681–697.Google Scholar
Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Shu, C., Zhou, K. Z., Xiao, Y., & Gao, S. 2016. How green management influences product innovation in China: The role of institutional benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (3): 471–485.Google Scholar
Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Hult, G. T. M. 2006. The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (12): 1221–1231.Google Scholar
Spring, M., & Araujo, L. 2013. Beyond the service factory: Service innovation in manufacturing supply networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 (1): 59–70.Google Scholar
Su, H. C., Dhanorkar, S., & Linderman, K. 2015. A competitive advantage from the implementation timing of ISO management standards. Journal of Operations Management, 37: 31–44.Google Scholar
Sun, J., Wang, F., Wang, F., & Yin, H. 2015. Community institutions and initial diffusion of corporate social responsibility practices in China's banking industry. Management and Organization Review, 11 (3): 441–468.Google Scholar
Taherparvar, N., Esmaeilpour, R., & Dostar, M. 2014. Customer knowledge management, innovation capability and business performance: A case study of the banking industry. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18 (3): 591–610.Google Scholar
To, W. M., & Tang, M. N. F. 2014. The adoption of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in Macao SAR, China: Trend, motivations, and perceived benefits. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 25 (2): 244–256.Google Scholar
Tost, L. P. 2011. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36 (4): 686–710.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varadarajan, R. 2017. Innovating for sustainability: A framework for sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1): 14–36.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
World Bank. World development report 2007: Development and the next generation. Washington, DC: World Bank 2007.Google Scholar
Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. 2012. Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (7): 655–676.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Liu, J., Hansson, L., Zhang, K., & Wang, R. 2011. Implementing stricter environmental regulation to enhance eco-efficiency and sustainability: A case study of Shangdong Province's pulp and paper industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (4): 303–310.Google Scholar
Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. 2008. The impact of market orientation and strategic HRM on firm performance: The case of Chinese enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6): 980–995.Google Scholar
Wei, Z., Shen, H., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2017. How does environmental corporate social responsibility matter in a dysfunctional institutional environment? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 140 (2): 209–223.Google Scholar
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Wu, T., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, Y. J., & Goh, M. 2014. Aligning supply chain strategy with corporate environmental strategy: A contingency approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 147 (Part B): 220–229.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. 2011. Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29 (6): 577–590.Google Scholar
Ye, F., Zhao, X., Prahinski, C., & Li, Y. 2013. The impact of institutional pressures, top managers’ posture and reverse logistics on performance: Evidence from China. International Journal of Production Economics, 143 (1):132–143.Google Scholar
Yee, W. H., Tang, S. Y., & Lo, C. W. H. 2016. Regulatory compliance when the rule of law is weak: Evidence from China's environmental reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26 (1): 95–112.Google Scholar
Yuan, L., Pangarkar, N., & Wu, J. 2016. The interactive effect of time and host country location on Chinese MNCs’ performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 51 (2): 331–342.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Wang, W., & Wang, S. 2014. Environmental performance evaluation of implementing EMS (ISO14001) in the coating industry: Case study of a Shanghai coating firm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64: 205–217.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q., Cordeiro, J., & Sarkis, J. 2013. Institutional pressures, dynamic capabilities and environmental management systems: Investigating the ISO 9000–Environmental management system implementation linkage. Journal of Environmental Management, 114: 232–242.Google Scholar