Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How do Universities Make Progress? Stakeholder-Related Mechanisms Affecting Adoption of Sustainability in University Curricula

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical model to explicate stakeholder-related mechanisms that affect university adoption of sustainability in curricula. This work combines stakeholder and institutional theories so as to extend both. By examining change in the university context wherein there is confusion about sustainability adoption, this research adds to previous institutional theory focusing on strongly contested practices, primarily in the for-profit firm setting. Sustainability is a transformational challenge and may be adopted reactively or proactively. Also, stakeholder theory is extended in a mixed profit and non-profit context. Propositions suggest how the extent of embeddedness affects an organizations’ selection of stakeholders, consequently affecting the type of adoption. This facilitates a greater understanding of why two competing definitions of stakeholders may operate. Moreover, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are discussed as affecting adoption in different ways. A responsible leader organization is newly defined and intrinsic motivation is proposed as underlying its choice of the widest set of stakeholders leading to broad, proactive adoption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the Appendix for details about the data in Table 1 including summaries explaining the five indicators of sustainability adoption level (ACUPCC, NWF report card, AASHE (STARS), the Aspen Institute rankings, and Net Impact.

    Hoffman (2001) used Shein’s (1996 definition of occupational communities as, “groups of constituencies that cut across organizations and share common language, perspectives, and assumptions about the nature of business (Schein 1996)” (Hoffman 2001, p. 136).

References

  • Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 10, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proactive and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reactive?show=0&t=1331419181.

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & M. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. (2009). Education for climate neutrality and sustainability: Guidance for ACUPCC Institutions, Boston.

  • Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. A., & Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, D., & Nie, R. (2010). Creating value in transnational higher education: The role of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 701–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broder, J. M. (2011, December 11). Climate talks in Durban yield limited agreement. New York Times.

  • Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). The self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 599–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, B. (2008). Motivation in virtual teams: Lessons from virtual worlds. Leading Virtually. Accessed March 18, 2010, from http://www.leadingvirtually.com/?p=23.

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, D. E. (2010). Power and Influence: The embeddedness of nations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, D. E. (2011). Cliques and capitalism: A modern networked theory of the firm. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Paola, M. (2011). Easy grading practices and supply-demand factors: Evidence from Italy. Empirical Economics, 414, 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1983). State expansion and organizational fields. In R. H. Hall & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Organization theory and public policy (pp. 147–161). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt, S. (1968). Social institutions: The concept. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 14, pp. 409–421). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrikant, G. (2009, September 11). Harvard and Yale report losses in endowments. New York Times.

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13.

  • Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Future. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. A. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttenplan, D. D. (2011a, May 29). Debating the merits of university rankings. New York Times.

  • Guttenplan, D. D. (2011b, November 14). Questionable science behind academic rankings. New York Times.

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. (2003). First-mover advantages in new product adoption. Economic Theory, 21(1), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., & Baum, J. A. C. (1995). Cognitive sources of socially constructed competitive groups: Examples from the Manhattan hotel industry. In W. R. Scott & S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations: International and longitudinal studies (pp. 15–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, D. (2010, February 1). You think we’re rankings-obsessed? Inside Higher Ed.

  • Lee, H., Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., & Schomburg, A. (2000). Timing, order and durability of new product advantages with imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2, 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 388–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 657–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (1998). Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/imitation? Strategic Management Journal, 19(7), 683–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1988). Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 9, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensal, H. (1960). Innovation, integration and marginality: A survey of physicians. American Sociological Review, 25, 704–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities: A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1000–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J., Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. T. (1982). The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abilities: A test of the related attributes hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oremus, W. (2012, January 20). Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Canada? Is Our neighbor to the North becoming a Jingoistic Petro-State? Slate.com Accessed March 31, 2012, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/01/canadian_tar_sands_is_our_neighbor_to_the_north_becoming_a_jingoistic_petro_state_.single.html#comments.

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C., & Fidler, B. (2005). A new theory of educational change: Punctuated equilibrium: The case of the internationalisation of higher education institutions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, S., & Levy, D. L. (2012). Corporate perceptions of climate science: The role of corporate environmental scientists. Business & Society, 51(1), 31–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, M. A., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Networks, transaction costs, and the persistence of interfirm ties: The New York apparel industry, 1985 to 1995. Embeddedness and Corporate Change in the Global Economy, 79–104.

  • Sanders, W. M. G., & Tuschke, A. (2007). The adoption of institutionally organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Pablo, A. L., & Vredenburg, H. (1999). Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: The importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shils, E. (1975). Centre and periphery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 361–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (1988). Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 668–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tello, S. F., & Yoon, E. (2008). Examining drivers of sustainable innovation. International Journal of Business Strategy, 8(3), 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Post and Courier. (2009, June 7). Clemson’s rankings fixation. .

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Benjamin, G. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 213–248.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

With thanks, I would like to acknowledge the kind support of Mary Gentile and Kate McKone-Sweet of Babson College, Irene Henriques of the Schulich School of Business, Mike Toffel of the Harvard Business School and the editors of the Journal of Business Ethics and all the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF, Canada

    Deborah E. de Lange

Authors
  1. Deborah E. de Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah E. de Lange.

Appendix

Appendix

More details explaining the data in Table 1, Summary of University Sustainability Adoption Indicators in Three University Cluster Areas, is provided here, by column name.

University Cluster Area. A geographic area containing a set of nearby universities. Each cluster has a listing of all of the top ranked (FT Global MBA rankings) universities (termed “elite”) in the area and another set of five other relatively major universities randomly chosen to represent the non-elites since they are not ranked.

University. This is the particular university for which the rankings and sustainability engagement level is being examined.

Financial Times Global 100 MBA Rankings 2011. The following link provides rankings explanations: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/193b2de8-27af-11e0-a327-00144feab49a.html#axzz1iF8CCx7t (accessed online January 1, 2012). “To take part in the FT ranking, schools must have run a full-time MBA for four years and graduated their first class at least three years ago. (Classes must have 30 or more students.) European or US schools must be accredited by international bodies such as AACSB International, Equis or the Association of MBAs…Three main areas are analyzed: alumni salaries and career development, the diversity and international reach of the school and its MBA, and the research capabilities of each school.”

Five Indicators of Sustainability Adoption Level:

  1. (1)

    ACUPCC (American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment) 2011. The lead supporting organization of the ACUPCC is Second Nature http://www.secondnature.org/, an organization focused on sustainability in education. However, the Steering Committee is the main governing body and is made up of university presidents and chancellors in the US who are volunteers. The ACUPCC is not a US government organization but comes across as either a government initiative or an accreditation body through its formality. To read the Text of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, see http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment (accessed online January 1, 2012) for more details. The text recognizes climate change and, therefore, that higher education must lead in the generation of the related knowledge and in education. Some universities have joined the ACUPCC at the Leadership level and this includes multi-levels within it. All US universities that are signatories are required to publicly report. The ACUPCC website emphasizes the importance of remaining in good standing.

  2. (2)

    National Wildlife Federation Report Card (NWF) 2008. The NWF report card is only for US universities. “The purpose of Campus Environment 2008 is to explore the extent to which college and university leaders’ value environmental performance and sustainability and are putting these values into practice.” See the executive summary of the 2008 report card found at: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/ExecutiveSumFinal.ashx (accessed January 1, 2012 online). “Based on their survey responses, this report identifies campuses having exemplary programs in specific areas and also recognizes those with the greatest number of exemplary programs” (NWF 2008).

  3. (3)

    AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education) (STARS—Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System). The STARS manual’s introductory letter by Geoff Chase, Chair, Board of Directors, AASHE, found at the link, below, is the best short explanation of the STARS program. Aside from explaining the AASHE STARS approach, it also highlights the normative responsibility of academia to engage in sustainability, as discussed in this research. [STARS 2011 Manual accessed January 1, 2012] The following is some additional information from the frequently asked question section of the STARS website (https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/faqs/ratings-and-credits.html, accessed January 1, 2012). STARS rating levels include: STARS Reporter—no scores are made public, STARS Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. “Each STARS Rating is an indication of sustainability leadership. … STARS Ratings are achieved by institutions that have successfully completed a STARS submission and have earned the score that corresponds to a particular STARS Rating level.” (STARS 2012). http://www.aashe.org/files/documents/STARS/stars_1.1_administrative_update_one_technical_manual.pdf.

  4. (4)

    Aspen Institute—Beyond Grey Pinstripes MBA Rankings. These are sustainability rankings for universities world-wide and a description can be found at: http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/ranking/methodology (accessed online January 1, 2012). Note that these rankings only include sustainability in MBA education and research and there is no credit for operational sustainability improvements. Four “raw score” metrics for each school, include: (1) Availability of Relevant Courses (20 %), (2) Student Exposure (25 %) to content, (3) Relevant Courses on Business Impact (30 %), and (4) Faculty Research (25 %) (Aspen Institute 2012).

  5. (5)

    Net Impact. Net Impact produces the Business as Unusual: The Student Guide to Graduate Programs 2011. See http://netimpact.org/ for more information. “Net Impact is an international non-profit organization with a mission to inspire, educate, and equip individuals to use the power of business to create a more socially and environmentally sustainable world” (Business as Unusual 2011). Each university profile in the Business as Unusual guide provides a description of the sustainability of the school in terms of its curriculum, student activities and other factors. A school having a Net Impact chapter will be profiled in the guide. The most active chapters are assigned a gold or silver star by Net Impact.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Lange, D.E. How do Universities Make Progress? Stakeholder-Related Mechanisms Affecting Adoption of Sustainability in University Curricula. J Bus Ethics 118, 103–116 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1577-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1577-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation