Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 103–116 | Cite as

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

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

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.

Keywords

Adoption Institutional theory Responsible leader organization Stakeholder theory Universities Sustainability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. (2009). Education for climate neutrality and sustainability: Guidance for ACUPCC Institutions, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broder, J. M. (2011, December 11). Climate talks in Durban yield limited agreement. New York Times.Google Scholar
  12. Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). The self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, B. (2008). Motivation in virtual teams: Lessons from virtual worlds. Leading Virtually. Accessed March 18, 2010, from http://www.leadingvirtually.com/?p=23.
  14. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
  15. de Lange, D. E. (2010). Power and Influence: The embeddedness of nations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Lange, D. E. (2011). Cliques and capitalism: A modern networked theory of the firm. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Paola, M. (2011). Easy grading practices and supply-demand factors: Evidence from Italy. Empirical Economics, 414, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Fabrikant, G. (2009, September 11). Harvard and Yale report losses in endowments. New York Times.Google Scholar
  25. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13.Google Scholar
  29. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Future. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guttenplan, D. D. (2011a, May 29). Debating the merits of university rankings. New York Times.Google Scholar
  36. Guttenplan, D. D. (2011b, November 14). Questionable science behind academic rankings. New York Times.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoffman, A. J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jensen, R. (2003). First-mover advantages in new product adoption. Economic Theory, 21(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Lederman, D. (2010, February 1). You think we’re rankings-obsessed? Inside Higher Ed.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. March, J. G. (1988). Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 9, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marquis, C., Glynn, M., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.Google Scholar
  57. Mensal, H. (1960). Innovation, integration and marginality: A survey of physicians. American Sociological Review, 25, 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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.
  64. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rothenberg, S., & Levy, D. L. (2012). Corporate perceptions of climate science: The role of corporate environmental scientists. Business & Society, 51(1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schein, E. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shils, E. (1975). Centre and periphery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  86. Tello, S. F., & Yoon, E. (2008). Examining drivers of sustainable innovation. International Journal of Business Strategy, 8(3), 164–169.Google Scholar
  87. The Post and Courier. (2009, June 7). Clemson’s rankings fixation. .Google Scholar
  88. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waldman, D. A., & Benjamin, G. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. White, H. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 213–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations