IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v8y1999i1p1-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do firms set environmental performance goals?: Some evidence from organizational theory

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Ransom
  • Douglas J. Lober

Abstract

Organizational goal setting is considered a critical strategic first step for corporations as it provides the basis for developing a roadmap for organizational activity as well as guidance for establishing the metrics to measure progress. Yet despite significant research interest in the environmental performance of corporations, environmental goal setting has received little attention. For example, it is not known why firms set environmental goals. Understanding this goal setting behavior is necessary to develop mechanisms to improve organizations' environmental management and performance. This study uses organizational change models of institutionalism, stakeholder management, natural selection, strategic choice and organizational learning to examine why firms set environmental performance goals. First, propositions related to environmental goal setting are developed from the models. The goal setting propositions use the goals of the US EPA's 33/50 programme, a national voluntary pollution prevention effort which aimed for a 33% reduction in releases by 1993 and a 50% reduction by 1995, as a basis for comparison to individual company goal setting. Next, the toxic release reduction goals of the 118 US corporations who set goals are analysed to determine which organizational change model propositions they support. All five models of organizational change examined here–institutionalism, stakeholder management, natural selection, strategic choice and organizational learning–show some promise in explaining corporate environmental goal setting. The combination of these models leads to the following depiction of the motivation for toxic release reduction. Firms will set goals to reduce toxic releases in an effort to respond to regulators and other factors in the institutional and stakeholder environment. This goal setting is likely to be enhanced if it can be more directly tied to economic benefits such as cost savings or if it is chosen by natural selection. This in turn will promote organizational learning with the end result of better environmental and economic performance. These findings provide some empirical evidence on which to base strategies for improving corporate environmental management. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Ransom & Douglas J. Lober, 1999. "Why do firms set environmental performance goals?: Some evidence from organizational theory," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:1-13
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199901/02)8:13.0.CO;2-G
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199901/02)8:13.0.CO;2-G
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199901/02)8:13.0.CO;2-G?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas J. Lober & David Bynum & Elizabeth Campbell & Mary Jacques, 1997. "The 100 plus corporate environmental report study: A survey of an evolving environmental management tool," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 57-73, May.
    2. Doyle, Peter, 1994. "Setting business objectives and measuring performance," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 123-132, June.
    3. Dastmalchian, Ali, 1986. "Organizational resource dependencies and goal orientation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 387-402, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pablo Gomez‐Carrasco & Giovanna Michelon, 2017. "The Power of Stakeholders' Voice: The Effects of Social Media Activism on Stock Markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 855-872, September.
    2. Julie Olivero & Pierre Batteau, 2013. "L'entreprise face aux risques environnementaux : Enquête sur la gestion de 196 établissements industriels dans cinq agglomérations littorales en France," Post-Print hal-02274469, HAL.
    3. Cerin, Pontus & Dobers, Peter, 2001. "What does the performance of the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index tell us?," Sustainable Investment and Corporate Governance Working Papers 2001/1, Sustainable Investment Research Platform.
    4. Judd H. Michael & Ann E. Echols & Steve Bukowski, 2010. "Executive perceptions of adopting an environmental certification program," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(7), pages 466-478, November.
    5. J. Emil Morhardt & Sarah Baird & Kelly Freeman, 2002. "Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 215-233, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip Peck & Knud Sinding, 2003. "Environmental and social disclosure and data richness in the mining industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 131-146, May.
    2. John Ferguson & David Collison & David Power & Lorna Stevenson, 2006. "Accounting textbooks: Exploring the production of a cultural and political artifact," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 243-260.
    3. Mäkelä, Marileena, 2017. "Environmental impacts and aspects in the forest industry: What kind of picture do corporate environmental reports provide?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 178-191.
    4. Collison, David & Ferguson, John & Kozuma, Yoshinao & Power, David & Stevenson, Lorna, 2011. "The impact of introductory accounting courses on student perceptions about the purpose of accounting information and the objectives of business: A comparison of the UK and Japan," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-60.
    5. Beck, A. Cornelia & Campbell, David & Shrives, Philip J., 2010. "Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 207-222.
    6. Purba Rao & Alok Kumar Singh & Olivia la O'Castillo & Ponciano S. Intal & Ather Sajid, 2009. "A metric for corporate environmental indicators … for small and medium enterprises in the Philippines," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 14-31, January.
    7. Ali M Gerged & Christopher J Cowton & Eshani S Beddewela, 2018. "Towards Sustainable Development in the Arab Middle East and North Africa Region: A Longitudinal Analysis of Environmental Disclosure in Corporate Annual Reports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 572-587, May.
    8. Olaf Weber, 2012. "Environmental Credit Risk Management in Banks and Financial Service Institutions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 248-263, May.
    9. Olaf Weber, 2014. "Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(5), pages 303-317, July.
    10. Markus Milne & Rob Gray, 2013. "W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 13-29, November.
    11. Penny Sinclair & Julia Walton, 2003. "Environmental reporting within the forest and paper industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 326-337, September.
    12. Lu Yang & Cindy S B Ngai & Wenze Lu, 2020. "Changing trends of corporate social responsibility reporting in the world-leading airlines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Giuliano Noci, 2000. "Environmental reporting in Italy: current practice and future developments," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 211-223, July.
    14. Soviana, Soviana, 2013. "Framework for Analyzing Community-Based Enterprise (CBE): Literature review of organizational architecture and organizational performance," EconStor Preprints 74719, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Mark Stubbs, 2000. "Action, knowledge and business–environment research: a case for grounded constitutive process theories and a sense of audience," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 24-35, January.
    16. Luluk Muhimatul Ifada & Romlah Jaffar, 2023. "Does Environmental Cost Expenditure Matter? Evidence from Selected Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Matthias S. Fifka & Maria Drabble, 2012. "Focus and Standardization of Sustainability Reporting – A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and Finland," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(7), pages 455-474, November.
    18. Dror Etzion & Fabrizio Ferraro, 2010. "The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of Sustainability Reporting," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1092-1107, October.
    19. J. Emil Morhardt, 2009. "General Disregard for Details of GRI Human Rights Reporting by Large Corporations," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 10(2), pages 141-158, July.
    20. Hafeez, Khalid & Zhang, YanBing & Malak, Naila, 2002. "Determining key capabilities of a firm using analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 39-51, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:1-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.