Appendix C
Business Decisions and the Environment: Significance, Challenges, and Momentum of an Emerging Research Field

Andrew J. Hoffman

INTRODUCTION

Over the past four decades, the concept of corporate environmentalism was born and redefined through multiple iterations. Driven by major environmental events such Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Cuyahoga River fire, Love Canal, Bhopal, the Exxon Valdez spill, the Brent Spar controversy, and many others, conceptions of corporate environmentalism as regulatory compliance in the 1970s gave way to newer management conceptions of “pollution prevention,” “total quality environmental management,” “industrial ecology,” “life-cycle analysis,” “sustainable development,” “environmental strategy,” “environmental justice,” and others. The media focus of these conceptions expanded from air and water in the 1970s to hazardous waste, remediation, toxics, right to know, ozone, global warming, acid rain, solid waste, chlorine phase out, and environmental racism today. And with each conception came greater complexity for understanding the intersection of business activity and environmental protection. In particular, empirical data since the 1980s has raised questions about whether environmental protection and economic competitiveness can, at times, be complimentary (i.e., Sarokin, Muir, Miller, and Sperber, 1985).

Concurrent with this evolution in corporate practice has been the emergence of academic research focused on business decision making, firm behavior, and the protection of the natural environment. Among the academic sciences this is a relatively new field, coming into being only in the early 1980s with articles addressing the overlap between business strategy



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Appendix C Business Decisions and the Environment: Significance, Challenges, and Momentum of an Emerging Research Field Andrew J. Hoffman INTRODUCTION Over the past four decades, the concept of corporate environmentalism was born and redefined through multiple iterations. Driven by major environmental events such Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Cuyahoga River fire, Love Canal, Bhopal, the Exxon Valdez spill, the Brent Spar controversy, and many others, conceptions of corporate environmentalism as regulatory compliance in the 1970s gave way to newer management conceptions of “pollution prevention,” “total quality environmental management,” “industrial ecology,” “life-cycle analysis,” “sustainable development,” “environmental strategy,” “environmental justice,” and others. The media focus of these conceptions expanded from air and water in the 1970s to hazardous waste, remediation, toxics, right to know, ozone, global warming, acid rain, solid waste, chlorine phase out, and environmental racism today. And with each conception came greater complexity for understanding the intersection of business activity and environmental protection. In particular, empirical data since the 1980s has raised questions about whether environmental protection and economic competitiveness can, at times, be complimentary (i.e., Sarokin, Muir, Miller, and Sperber, 1985). Concurrent with this evolution in corporate practice has been the emergence of academic research focused on business decision making, firm behavior, and the protection of the natural environment. Among the academic sciences this is a relatively new field, coming into being only in the early 1980s with articles addressing the overlap between business strategy

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities and the environment (i.e., Royston, 1979, 1980) and, later, with the formation of research consortia such as the Greening of Industry Network (Fischer and Schott, 1993) and the Management Institute for Environment and Business (now part of the World Resources Institute). What began as a modest offshoot of management research has grown into a maturing area of study within the management sciences. It is now possible to step back and view the state of this field in terms of where it has been and where it is going. In this appendix I consider what is distinct about existing research in business decision making and the environment and consider future directions in which the field is going. CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTALISM AS AN EMPIRICAL DOMAIN The past century has witnessed unprecedented economic growth and human prosperity. Global per capita income has nearly tripled (World Business Council on Sustainable Development, 1997), average life expectancy has increased by almost two-thirds (World Resources Institute, 1994), and people are significantly more literate and educated than their predecessors. Many of these improvements in the quality of life have been driven by the accomplishments of industry. Advancing developments in medicine, materials, transportation, communication, and food production have all emerged from the industrial sector. But, since the 1960s, society has begun to question some of the assumptions around the treatment of the environment as (1) an endless source of resources and (2) a limitless sink for wastes. This has resulted in both an appreciation that corporate activity is the source of environmental problems, but also more recently that industry can also be the solution. This is the area in which research in managerial decision making has the most to offer. Industry as a Problem In 2000 private worldwide consumption expenditures reached more than $20 trillion, an increase of more than fourfold since 1960 (in 1995 dollars) (Starke, 2004). To fuel this consumption, industry consumes vast amounts of material resources, and rates will increase. Between 1990 and 2000, sales of the largest 100 transnational corporations increased 50 percent to $4.8 trillion (World Resources Institute, 2001). And 50-75 percent of the annual resource inputs to industrial economies overall become wastes within a year (World Resources Institute, 2000a). This industrial activity has had and will continue to have critical impacts on the natural environment. For example: The global rate of deforestation averaged 9 million hectares per

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities year in the 1990s (World Resources Institute, 2001). Global wood consumption has risen by 64 percent since 1961. During that time, half of that consumption was burned as fuel, and commercial logging has cleared more than one-fifth of the world’s entire tropical forest cover. Demand for industrial wood fiber is projected to rise between 20 and 40 percent by 2010 (World Resources Instutute, 1999). Soil degradation has become a major issue on as much as 65 percent of agricultural land worldwide, reducing the productivity of about 16 percent of that cropland, especially in Africa and Central America (World Resources Institute, 2000b). Consumption of fish and fishery products (such as fish meal and fish oils) has risen by 240 percent between 1960 and 2003 and more than fivefold since 1950 (World Resources Institute, 1999). In 1999 the global total fish catch was 4.8 times higher than in 1950. Since that time, industrial fleets have exhausted at least 90 percent of all large ocean predators (such as tuna, marlin, and swordfish) (Starke, 2004). Overall, nearly 25 percent of the world’s most important marine fish stocks have been depleted, overharvested, or are just beginning to recover from overharvesting. Another 44 percent are being fished at their biological limit and are, therefore, vulnerable to depletion (World Resources Institute, 2000b). Demand for food fish is projected to increase by 34-50 percent by 2010, a level of consumption that cannot be met if current production trends continue unchanged (World Resources Institute, 1999). Global use of fossil fuels has increased 4.7 times between 1950 and 2002 (Starke, 2004), such that worldwide emissions of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), have increased to 23 billion metric tons in 1999, an 8.9 percent increase since 1990 (World Resources Institute, 2003). This rise is expected to yield changes in global weather patterns, increases in sea levels, and the migration of vectorborne diseases. Industry as a Solution The above examples illustrate how business activities impact the environment in significant ways. And as these types of environmental degradation continue to grow, companies will experience more and more pressure to find solutions. Although in truth it is industrial society as a whole that causes environmental problems, it is industry that will bear the burden of reducing their severity. Empirically, as the world becomes more globalized, and the impact of industrial and commercial activities become more extreme, no solution to the environmental problems society faces will be solved without the involvement of business. The reasoning for this assertion follows several lines. First, business decisions about what inputs to use and how to manage

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities outputs ultimately determine environmental quality. Therefore, industry often bears the direct cause-and-effect link to environmental problems, such that it is the most vulnerable institution to social and political challenges for change. Second, firms are, in general, the sources of technological evolution within society. As such, in many cases firms best understand the technical trade-offs that innovation choices may involve. Although environmentalists and others may appreciate impacts of systemic change, firms understand the underlying technical and economic aspects of innovative activities. Third, governments no longer possess the full array of resources and knowledge necessary to dictate environmental solutions to business. Many within policy circles now agree that business must become a participant in the environmental regulatory process if sustainable and economically efficient solutions are to be found. And fourth, the power of business organizations to determine the structures of our social, economic, and political activity has grown to such enormous proportions that industry now possesses the most resources both individually and through markets to create more efficient coordinating mechanisms. And indeed, business has been developing solutions to emerging environmental problems with products and services such as alternative mobility systems such as gas-electric hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, or car sharing in urban centers; alternative energy sources such as wind energy, fuel cells, or microturbines; alternative materials such as biomaterials (to replace fossil-fuel-based fabrics such as nylon, polyester, and Lycra) or composite woods to replace large stock timber. Such solutions can best be found when the industrial sector works in concert with other sectors of society (Dietz, Ostrom, and Stern, 2003). As a result, there is a great need for the study of business decision making as part of a social science research agenda. At the core of this agenda are some simple and straightforward questions: What is the relationship between environmental protection and corporate competitiveness? How does this relationship alter the basic elements of corporate management and objectives? How can we anticipate future ideas of the objectives, purposes, and practices of the corporate organization in light of emerging concerns for environmental protection? Scholars within business schools are now striving to understand the implications of these questions. And importantly, they bring a distinct set of capabilities, models, and theories toward answering them. Business Challenges As an empirical domain, corporate environmentalism comprises a blend of characteristics that make it distinct from other pressures with which the firm is familiar, necessitating a distinct research domain. It has many char-

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities acteristics similar to other social issues such as gender equity, affirmative action, or labor relations, although it is also distinct from these issues in several ways. On the other hand, it has technical and economic components that make it similar to other strategic issues such as consumer demand, material processing, or competitive strategy, but again it has differences that require special attention. For the corporate organization and the manager, it is the issue’s ability to merge the social and the technical in its impact on corporate practice that makes environmentalism unique. The Social Dimensions of Corporate Environmentalism On its most fundamental level, environmentalism is a social movement much like gender equity, civil rights, and labor relations. It has constituent groups that lobby for social change on all levels of society. However, the makeup of this constituency is more troublesome for the corporation than that of other social movements. Membership in the environmental movement is indeterminate. In settling issues of labor relations, managers negotiate with workers and union officials. In settling issues of civil rights or gender equity, there are female, minority workers, and national organizations set up to represent them. However, with the environment there are few natural constituency or bearers (Buttel, 1992). A high-quality environment tends to be a public good, which when achieved cannot be denied to others, even to those who resist environmental reforms. For many environmental issues, those who act to protect the environment can expect to receive no personal material benefits (Buttel, 1992). So the firm is left to decide who is a legitimate representative for environmental concerns. Often those representatives are organized environmental nonprofit groups. But the indeterminism of environmentalism also means that it attracts a wide range of supporters cutting across social, economic, and demographic lines. Those representing environmental interests to the firm or to society at large go beyond the nongovernmental organization community. Others, such as employee groups, labor unions, community groups, consumers, environmental activists, investors, insurers, the government, and industry competitors have become active environmental advocates. Even internal managers can become advocates for the environment (Morrison, 1991:18). Interacting with such a wide range of interests has necessitated new structures and internal conceptions of the firm’s organization and purpose. Furthermore, the social issue of environmentalism has a decidedly nonsocial component. More than just a constituency of social advocates, there is also the environment itself to contend with. The prominence and power of environmental change (and in the most extreme case, environmental catastrophes) act as another form of social pressure, placing demands on

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities our social, political, economic, and technical structures that are unique from any other demands the corporation faces. They focus attention without warning, imposing demands for action and change. While open to social interpretation and enactment (Hoffman and Ocasio, 2001), environmental events force corporations, government, and activists to devote resources and attention to the environmental issue. The Technical Dimensions of Corporate Environmentalism Where issues such as affirmative action and gender equity transcend industries and have little direct affect on production processes or product development, environmentalism has a distinct technical component, directly challenging how corporations handle material resources and produce goods and services. Over the past three decades, the technological demands for corporate environmental responsibility have shifted from removing only visible levels of contaminants from effluent streams to now removing concentrations in the parts per billion range and, at times, parts per trillion. Beyond process emissions, environmentalism also mandates changes in the content of product development. New laws mandating the public disclosure of emission levels and product contents as well as the potential health effects of those chemicals create daunting technological challenges for the firm (Hoffman and Ehrenfeld, 1998). The effects of these demands are not universal. Some industries, such as oil and chemicals, face greater challenges in both the measurement and the control of hazardous emissions. Even within industries, different companies face differential challenges in developing new products, processes, or raw materials in the face of environmental demands. The technical challenges of environmentalism add a new dimension to the strategic landscape, one that will often decide which firms will succeed and which will fail (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Often, firms are required to collect data, initiate change, and develop an understanding of their processes and products at levels that are not considered necessary for traditionally accepted strategic reasons. This is because strategy and technology are socially influenced by constituents outside the firm. Engineers can no longer focus simply on the end-based results of engineering calculations. They must now understand the social, political, economic, and cultural context of their task. Environmentalism signifies a redefinition of both technology and the corporation’s role in developing it. New concepts such as waste minimization, pollution prevention, and product stewardship are finding their way into all aspects of operations, from process design to product development. Beyond conceptions of technology, environmentalism challenges economic conceptions of the firm. Unlike other social issues that deal with equity and the fair distribution of opportunity and wealth, environmental-

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities ism increasingly affects basic business economics, effectively redefining the conceptions of production in industry. Issues such as gender equity or affirmative action will involve some gain or loss to specific individuals within the firm; however, the economic output of industrial activity should remain fundamentally unchanged (Hoffman and Ehrenfeld, 1998). Social issues bear more commonly on issues of sharing what we have, issues of social equity. But environmentalism produces a different outcome. Environmentalism interferes with fundamental economic models of consumption and production, resulting in a net change in efficiency. For example, a recent debate has emerged over the economic impact of climate change controls. Some estimates predict a drain on the gross national product by as much as 3.5 percent if aggressive emission reduction targets are set. Others estimate that modest controls on greenhouse gas emissions would not damage the economy, that the world has significant opportunities to control emissions by making its energy systems and automobiles more efficient. This more efficient use of energy is estimated to increase the gross national product by 1 or 2 percent. Such a debate would not accompany new laws regarding racial or gender equity. For the individual firm, the impact is no less direct. Environmental concerns can cause the elimination of entire product markets, such as those for chlorofluorocarbons, DDT, and dioxin. They can also cause the formation of new markets as they did for Freon substitutes, termed hydrochloro-fluorocarbons, in the wake of the 1987 worldwide ban on chlorofluorocarbon production. Finally, environmental liability has risen to levels that have shaken the basic precepts of corporate risk management. Most notably, the $5 billion in fines and penalties against the Exxon Corporation for the 1989 Valdez spill would have bankrupted many other “smaller” corporations. Regardless, the threat of such large fines has caused most firms to alter their oil transport strategies. In essence, what has evolved is an alteration of the core objectives of the firm and the basic conceptions of production. Shareholder equity may remain the single most important criteria for corporate survival. Yet environmental responsibilities are infiltrating the taken-for-granted beliefs that have previously guided that pursuit. Today, most U.S. companies have a formal system in place for proactively identifying key environmental issues as part of their overall corporate strategy (Morrison, 1991). Environmental strategy incorporates a merger of these social considerations with the technical aspects of corporate operations. CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A RESEARCH DOMAIN The study of business and the natural environment lies at a unique

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities juncture of the physical and the social sciences, scientific disciplines that seek to understand the behavior of natural ecosystems either as separate entities or in their relation to social systems. The way we understand these systems as separate entities is through the physical sciences of chemistry, toxicology, biology, physics, entomology, and others. In fact, the study of the environment has been on the agenda of the modern physical sciences for long enough that boundary-spanning research specialties like ecology are now recognized areas of research and professional standing. In contrast, attention to the natural environment within the social sciences is relatively preliminary both in research traditions and in professional infrastructure and has few established cross-disciplinary research fields (efforts in this regard are noted in the areas of urban planning, geography, and risk management). Subspecialties in many social science disciplines and associated professional fields such as law, economics, philosophy, theology, ethics, sociology, psychology, and political science do focus on environmentalism, each investigating the linkages between social and environmental systems in its own specialty idiom of characteristic research questions, designs and evidence, and implications. Each of these offers a different vantage point, allowing for a contribution to a complementary synthesis of ideas for explaining social and organizational behavior (Allison, 1971) as it relates to the natural environment. Below is a review of five disciplinary vantage points followed by a discussion in greater depth on how the environment is viewed from the field of business management. This review is not meant to be an exhaustive assessment of the breadth and depth of each discipline. Rather it is meant to highlight some of the influential and potentially productive areas of study as it relates to business activity. It is also an attempt to show the variety of research undertaken in these disciplines as background for the more specific research being conducted within the more focused management disciplines. Perspectives from Economics Scholars within the field of economics cover a variety of topics including the valuation of natural ecosystems and resources, analyses of social costs and benefits, the creation of market mechanisms to alter polluting activities, bounded rationality, the economics of innovation, agglomerated economies, and organizational behavior. Those addressing issues of corporate decision making tend to consider the nature of pollution and the environment with a long-standing set of policy approaches focusing on “market failures” (such as “externalities” and imperfect or asymmetric information about risks) and “public goods.” In this domain, environmental damages that are imposed on downstream or downwind residents or the public at large are often omitted from market prices and thus treated as “free” to the

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities producers and consumers that cause them. Public goods—even essential environmental services for which no markets exist, such as clean air and other “common pool resources”—also are often destroyed because excessive or damaging uses cannot easily be excluded, and each user tends to undervalue them. And many natural assets such as petroleum and ancient forest stocks are priced only at their value in current markets, omitting their potentially greater value as sustainable capital assets. The harm caused by these outcomes is the “consequence of an absence of prices for certain scarce environmental resources (such as clean air and water)” (Cropper and Oates, 1992:675). Left unregulated, economists observe that private firms do not choose “socially efficient” levels of environmental protection (Tietenberg, 1992). They “externalize” these environmental costs and thus avoid paying the full social costs of the environmental damage they cause (Baumol and Blinder, 1985). To provide the needed signals for correcting the market and providing economic incentives for good environmental behavior, economists prescribe the introduction of surrogate prices such as unit taxes, effluent fees, or tradable credits (Hahn and Stavins, 1991). Perspectives from Ethics Scholars in the field of ethics focus on the nature and morality of human conduct. When addressing corporate activity as it relates to the environment, this field focuses on the role of the corporation within society and its responsibilities toward conserving, preserving, and utilizing natural resources. It mixes descriptions of what presently is with prescriptions of what ought to be. It is a normative discovery of human values derived from science, metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy, and judgments of intrinsic values (Hargrove, 1989). Where these fields have traditionally concerned themselves with an account of the goods of culture and of the right and wrong of interpersonal relations between man and man, environmental ethics takes traditional ethics one step forward, acknowledging that humans inhabit natural communities and expanding ethics to consider human responsibility for nature (Holmes, 1988). More specifically, it argues the thesis that human populations, nonhuman animals, and nonsentient nature are all morally considerable. They may not be counted by the same metric, but each counts in moral calculations because each has intrinsic value. Where traditional ethics places man at the center of the moral universe, environmental ethics expands the scope of that universe and man’s place within it (Eliot and Gore, 1983). Of particular importance in this discussion is the place of the corporation—man’s dominant instrument for utilizing natural resources—within the natural environment.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Perspectives from Law When addressing concerns over corporate activity and the natural environment, scholars in the field of law focus on the equitable distribution of rights and liabilities. The legal system is devoted to avoiding or rectifying perceived wrongs that are the result of human or nonhuman action. It is the product of a society’s collective and conflicting values, which are incorporated with scientific knowledge and are reflected in laws. The (American) legal system is built on the foundation of common-law decisions and principles, which is overlain with a later statutory system that attempts to correct the deficiencies of the earlier one. Decisions are the product of logical arguments based on legal precedent and supporting evidence. The focus of these decisions is on the property and personal rights of citizens. These rights include the rights to use the property we own in the manner that we chose; the right to enjoy our own property without unreasonable trouble from our neighbors; and finally, the right we have (or think we have) to a “decent environment” in which to live (Hoban and Brooks, 1996; Revesz, 1997). Over time, longstanding common-law precedents protecting individuals from upstream or upwind polluters were supplanted by judicial doctrines of “reasonable use” that favored industrial polluters; and as environmental damage subsequently increased, new environmental regulatory statutes provided limited substitutes for portions of these early precedents, but often in forms that prescribed costly and rigid (although easily enforceable) end-of-pipe technological controls rather than more efficient performance-based incentives. Perspectives from Business History Historical studies search for explanatory power in events, actions, and stories. Traditional business history studies focus on organizational, cultural, and strategic considerations within organizational decision-making processes, largely defined by the work of Chandler (John, 1997; Galambos, 1970). This work has provided evidence of variable concerns among managers and firms, publics and special constituencies, and governmental actors that dates from at least the mid-nineteenth century (Rosen, 1995, 1997). Standard emphasis among environmental historians has dealt with wilderness, the conservation movement, or the modern environmental movement. But more recently, these fields have begun to merge, identifying concerns at the intersection of business, markets, and environmental change (Cronon, 1991; Hays, 1998; McGurty, 1997; Andrews, 1999). “[F]rustrated with environmental history’s longstanding focus on farms, forests, and wilderness and fortified by a dawning recognition of the much wider scope of the ‘natural,’ many environmental historians have begun to gravi-

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities tate away from the study of pristine environments toward those more thoroughly and unmistakably shaped by human hands” (Rosen and Sellers, 1999:582-583). This refocus on the environmental dimensions of industrial development is evident in recent studies, symposia, and review essays that chart new questions and new collaborations between business historians and environmental historians. This emerging tradition of research focuses on “physical processes by which the stuff of nature—‘raw’ materials—was carved or coaxed out of mountains, forests, and deserts, channeled into factories and squeezed and cajoled into commodities … varieties of ‘waste’ generated by business and customers; … to the effects of resource extraction and use” (Rosen and Sellers, 1999:577). This approach weaves business together with its material and symbolic environments in a seamless web, a basis to bring complex physical, cultural, managerial, technological, and economic connections between business and the environment into better focus and hence to explore business in relation to public policy. Perspectives from Sociology Organizational and sociological study of the interaction between the natural environment and social organization and behavior dates at least from the early 1970s, coinciding with the emergence of environmental activism and social movements in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). This is evident in activity in professional associations, intellectual organizing, and specialty journals. By the mid-1970s, the American Sociological Association, the Rural Sociological Association, and the Society for the Study of Social Problems had all established sections related to environmental sociology (Dunlap and Catton, 1979). To provide an outlet for this growing volume of research, special journal issues were devoted to environmental sociology: Sociological Inquiry (1983), Annual Review of Sociology (1979, 1987), Journal of Social Issues (1992), Qualitative Sociology (1993), Social Problems (1993), Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology (1994) (Hannigan, 1995). Schools increasingly posted position announcements in environmental sociology, and numerous research centers and institutes were established, including targeted funding for dissertations and some postdoctoral funding such as the National Science Foundation program initiatives in the early 1990s on global environmental change. By the late 1980s, reviews of the field identified five areas of scholarship in environmental sociology (Buttel, 1987): (1) new ecological paradigm; (2) environmental attitudes, values, and behaviors; (3) the environ-

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities only at shareholders but also at a range of stakeholders. This raises new questions about the objectives, quality and determinants (country, sector, size, degree of internationalization, multinationality, etc.), and specific drivers (legitimacy, stakeholder management, events) of these reports. Also, it raises challenging questions about the possible liabilities related to disclosing too much or too little information and the extent of accountability and transparency. And finally, new questions about the value and reliability of disclosure in light of recent scandals, (i.e., accusations of “managerial capture”) are gaining greater attention (Kolk, 2003; Kolk and van Tulder, 2004). Finance Shareholders and investors are powerful forces for change within the corporation. In the cause of the environment, they have been wielding that power since the late 1980s both through shareholder voting and directing capital investment. Beginning in 1989, shareholders began to file environmental proxy resolutions in annual board meetings. However, no one has yet been able to demonstrate conclusively that corporate social responsibility boosts shareholder value, and the evidence is at times conflicting (Margolis and Walsh, 2001). Thus, within the finance community, there is research under way to understand the connections between financial and environmental performance as well as the power and influence of the environmental investor. This power can be a single purchasing block, as through green investment funds, or through the market in general as it reacts to environmental events and issues. “Regular” investors have increasingly raised concerns over the financial risk of environmental issues such as climate change at shareholder meetings, exerting pressure on companies to take measures. In 2002 a shareholder resolution sought to reduce the duties of Lee Raymond, chairman and CEO of Exxon-Mobil, because of his position that climate change was not a problem for the company. The resolution got a surprising 20 percent supporting vote. And this is not the only such resolution. In the 2003 proxy season, there were as many as 19 resolutions filed regarding climate change issues, two-thirds of which received more than 20 percent supporting votes, including GE (22.6 percent), American Standard (29 percent), Eastman Chemical Co. (29 percent) and American Electric Power (27 percent), (Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, 2003). Further study is necessary to understand the trajectory and influence of this activity on corporate actions vis-à-vis the environment. This study should address the assessment of environmental liabilities, the development of risk-return profiles, and then the extent to which a company should disclose such results to the investor community and the public at large. In addition, there has been growth of new market-based solutions

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities to reducing environmental impacts—for example, the U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions permit market (Tietenberg, 2002). A similar market is developing in the European Union. The dynamics and success of these markets provide new areas of interest for finance researchers. Government Policy While legal standards have achieved impressive gains in environmental protection and wildlife conservation since the 1960s (Easterbrook, 1995), some argue that the methods they employ are out of date with contemporary environmental problems and that such standards are becoming increasingly inefficient in achieving emerging environmental goals. Existing standards and enforcement programs are perceived to be too rigid and restrictive to foster the type of private innovation (rather than mere compliance) that is required to identify and implement solutions that are both environmentally and economically sustainable (Schmitt, 1994). Believing that we are rapidly approaching the point of diminishing returns on command-and-control environmental regulation, many see the existing policy regime as possibly the greatest obstacle to continued environmental improvement. Some look to the roles of subsidies (often perverse) in inefficiently protecting existing industries against environmentally and economically preferable innovations and the roles of a wide range of other policies in encouraging or retarding competitive evolution of businesses toward more environmentally sustainable performance levels (not to mention the improvement of environmental performance of public sector business units themselves). These phenomena become topically acute as industries are restructured through changes such as deregulation (i.e., the utility industry). On another level, new governance models are under investigation that will help mobilize private investment and innovation in environmental initiatives. Some are looking at the more recent phenomena of self-regulation (such as the Global Reporting Initiative or the Forest Stewardship Council) (Prakash, 2002). While maintaining a solid foundation of government regulation upon which to build new forms of innovative policies, others are looking to alternative regulatory programs that employ a negotiated form of compliance tailored to the needs and potentialities of individual organizations and environmental contexts. This new approach is “characterized by a new kind of legal self-restraint … [which] restricts itself to the installation, correction, and redefinition of democratic self-regulatory mechanisms” (Teubner, 1983:239). Cooperative environmental policy fundamentally reconfigures the role and objectives of both oversight agencies and the regulated community. Instead of mandating environmental policy, regulators seek out the input and participation of other parties with site-specific

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities knowledge about the nature of environmental problems they encounter. Through the strategic steering of networks (DeBruijn and Heuvelhof, 2000), potentially innovative solutions are developed to resolve environmental problems. These may include regulated private sector organizations, nonprofit organizations, scientific communities, local and state governments, community organizations, and others. Through negotiation among these interested parties, corporations gain the flexibility to define which emission sources to control through site-specific compliance strategies that achieve broadly defined objectives (Schmitt, 1994). Cooperative environmental policy strives to reward proactive companies for seeking competitive advantage through environmental innovation beyond regulatory standards (Fiorino, 1999). In that direction, the U.S. government has introduced a host of voluntary programs that are designed to foster collaboration between government agencies and regulated entities on the development of innovative, beyond-compliance environmental management solutions. The objective of such programs is compelling: to uncover ways for regulated entities to save money and achieve higher environmental protection standards than are guaranteed by existing regulations. Unfortunately, adoption of these programs has been slow. More research is necessary for understanding this new form of regulatory activity. CONCLUSION In today’s business environment, annual costs for pollution control in the United States have risen nearly 600 percent since 1972, reaching levels equal to roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. As a result, companies are working on ways to devote resources toward environmental initiatives in a way that satisfies their economic objectives. They need a way to translate environmental issues into a form that they can understand and manage. Environmental protection, as an issue of corporate concern, has become much more complex and requires a more sophisticated view to be managed effectively. To treat environmental and business issues as separate and distinct leaves the business manager at a strategic disadvantage, unable to efficiently recognize the reality of a changing society—one that will demand ever greater corporate responsibility for protecting the environment. And this is an area where academic research can offer a contribution. But even more so, research into managerial decision making and the environment has implications for activists who now recognize that, to improve environmental conditions in today’s world, they need to understand how to change the behavior of business; it also has implications for policy makers who need to understand how to incorporate business thinking into policy development so as to foster the most effective and efficient response from business.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities And, in closing, it must be noted that research into corporate environmental behavior is now transitioning into new areas regarding sustainable development. The shift represents an expansion and augmentation rather than a change in focus within the research agenda. But although the concept of sustainable development has clearly entered the lexicon of corporate dialogue, the integration into business practice and research has far to go. Much research is needed in understanding how this concept will emerge, what it means, and where it is going. The existing and emerging research agenda on environmental issues has much to offer in shedding light on the triple bottom line of sustainable development: economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity (Elkington, 1998). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to acknowledge and thank those who provided assistance on earlier drafts of this appendix: Brad Allenby, Richard Andrews, Garry Brewer, Bruce Clemens, Mary Gentile, Eric Hansen, Andy King, Ans Kolk, Ted London, Jennifer Nash, Ken Peattie, Steve Percy, Nigel Roome, Naomi Soderstrom, Ed Stafford, and Paul Stern. This work was supported by the Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Environmental Management Institute at the University of Michigan. REFERENCES Allison, G. 1971 Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Andreason, A. 1995 Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development and the Environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Andrews, R. 1999 Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Andrews, R., N. Darnall, D.R. Gallagher, S.T. Kevner, E. Feldman, M. Mitchell, D. Amaral, and J. Jacoby 2001 Environmental management systems: History, theory, and implementation research. Pp. 31-60 in Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals? C. Coglianese and J. Nash, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Aragón-Correa, J.A., and S. Sharma 2003 A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review 28(1):71-88. Bansal, P., and K. Roth 2000 Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):717-736.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Barney, J. 1991 Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1):99-120. Baumol, W., and A. Blinder 1985 Economics: Principles and Policy. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Beck, U. 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, England: Sage. Berman, S., A. Wicks, S. Kotha, and T. Jones 1999 Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42:488-506. Bloom, P., and G. Gundlach, eds. 2001 Handbook of Marketing and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Botkin, D. 2004 Our Natural History: The Lessons of Lewis and Clark. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Buttel, F. 1987 New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 13: 465-488. 1992 Environmentalism: Origins, processes, and implications for rural social change. Rural Sociology 57(1):1-27. Catton, W., and R. Dunlap 1980 A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 20(1):15-47. Clarke, S., and N. Roome 1999 Sustainable business: Learning action networks as organizational assets. Business Strategy and the Environment 8(5):296-310. Clarkson, M. 1995 A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20:92-117. Colby, M. 1991 Environmental management in development: The evolution of paradigms. Ecological Economics 3:193-213. Cronon, W. 1991 Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2003 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang. Cropper, M., and W. Oates 1992 Environmental economics: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 30:675-740. DeBruijn, J., and E. Heuvelhof 2000 Networks and Decision Making. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Lemma. Delmas, M. 2002 The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and in the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences 35(1):91-119. Delmas, M., and A. Terlaak 2001 A framework for analyzing environmental voluntary agreements. California Management Review 43(3):44-63. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. Stern 2003 The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(12):1907-1912.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Dunlap, R., and W. Catton 1979 Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 5:243-273. Easterbrook, G. 1995 A Moment on the Earth. New York: Viking. Egri, C., and S. Herman 2000 Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):571-604. Eliot, R., and A. Gore, eds. 1983 Environmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Elkington, J. 1998 Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line for 21st Century Business. Oxford, England: Capstone. Fiorino, D. 1999 Rethinking environmental regulation: Perspectives on law and governance. Harvard Environmental Law Review 23(2):441-469. Fischer, K., and J. Schott, eds. 1993 Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications. Washington, DC: Island Press. Flannery, B., and D. May 2000 Environmental ethical decision making in the U.S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):642-662. Fligstein, N. 1997 Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist 40(4):397-405. Fombrun, C., and M. Shanley 1990 What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33:233-258. Friedman, R. 2000 When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Journal of Industrial Ecology 3(4):15-19. Frosch, R., and N. Gallopoulos 1989 Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American 144:144-152. Galambos, L. 1970 The emerging organizational synthesis in American history. Business History Review 44(Autumn):279-290. Gentile, M. 2002 What Do We Teach When We Teach Social Impact Management? (Business and Society Program Discussion Paper IV.) New York: Aspen Institute. Gladwin, T., J. Kennelly, and T. Krause 1995 Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20(4):874-907. Hahn, R., and R. Stavins 1991 Incentive-based environmental regulation: A new era from an old idea. Ecology Law Quarterly 18(1):1-42. Hannan, M., and J. Freeman 1977 The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82: 929-964. Hannigan, J. 1995 Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. London, England: Routledge.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Hargrove, E. 1989 Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hart, S. 1995 A natural-resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 20(4):986-1014. Hays, S. 1998 The future of environmental regulation. Pp. 109-114 in Explorations in Environmental History: Essays. S. Hays and J. Tarr, eds. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hoban, T., and R. Brooks 1996 Green Justice: The Environment and the Courts. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hoffman, A. 2001 From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 2003 Linking social systems analysis to the industrial ecology framework. Organization & Environment 16(1):66-86. Hoffman, A., and J. Ehrenfeld 1998 Corporate environmentalism, sustainability and management studies. Pp. 55-73 in Environmental Strategies for Industry: The Future of Corporate Practice, N. Roome, ed. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hoffman, A., and W. Ocasio 2001 Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science 12(4):414-434. Holmes, R. 1988 Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Howard-Grenville, J., and A. Hoffman 2003 The importance of cultural framing to the success of social initiatives in business. Academy of Management Executive 17(2):70-84. Hunt, C., and E. Auster 1990 Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review 31(2):7-18. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility 2003 Companies, Resolutions and Status: 2002-2003 Season. Available: http://www.iccr.org/shareholder/proxy_book03/03statuschart.php [February 16, 2005]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1990 Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jennings, P., and P. Zandbergen 1995 Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review 20(4):1015-1052. John, R. 1997 Elaborations, revisions, dissent: Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.’s “The Visible Hand After Twenty Years.” Business History Review 71(Summer):151-200. Kassinis, G., and N. Vafeas 2002 Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal 23:399-415. King, A., and M. Lenox 2000 Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):698-716. 2001 Does it really pay to be green: An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(1):105-116.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Kolk, A. 2003 Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment 12:279-291. Kolk, A., and R. van Tulder 2004 Internationalization and environmental reporting: The green face of the world’s leading multinationals. Research in Global Strategic Management 9:95-117. Krupp, F. 1990 Win/win on the environmental front. EPA Journal 16(5):30-31. Kumar Naj, A. 1990 Industrial switch: Some firms reduce pollution with clean manufacturing. The Wall Street Journal December 24:A1. Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, England: Verso. Lawrence, A., and D. Morell 1995 Leading-edge environmental management: Motivation, opportunity, resources and processes. Pp. 99-126 in Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, J. Post, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lawrence, T. 1999 Industrial strategy. Journal of Management 25(2):161-188. Lober, D. 1996 Evaluating the environmental performance of corporations. Journal of Managerial Issues 8(2):184-205. London, T., and D. Rondinelli 2003 Partnerships for learning: Managing tensions in nonprofit organizations’ alliances with corporations. Stanford Social Innovation Review 1(3):28-35. Lovins, A., L. Hunter Lovins, and P. Hawken 1999 A road map for natural capitalism. Harvard Business Review 77(4):145-158. Margolis, J., and J. Walsh 2001 People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company’s Social and Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy, M. Zald, P. Lange, R. Bates, E. Comisso, P. Hall, J. Migdal, and H. Milner 1996 Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. McGurty, E. 1997 From NIMBY to civil rights: The origins of the environmental justice movement. Environmental History 2:301-323. Mohr, L., D. Eroglu, and P. Ellen 1998 The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs 32(1):30-55. Morrison, C. 1991 Managing Environmental Affairs: Corporate Practices in the U.S., Canada and Europe. New York: The Conference Board. Nash, J. 2002 Industry codes of practice: Emergence and evolution. Pp. 235-252 in National Research Council, New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, T. Dietz and P. Stern, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Ottman, J. 1998 Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Peattie, K. 1999 Trappings versus substance in the greening of marketing planning. Journal of Strategic Marketing 7(2):131-148. Porter, M., and C. van der Linde 1995 Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73(5): 120-134. Prakash, A. 2002 Factors in firms and industries affecting the outcomes of voluntary measures. Pp. 303-310 in National Research Council, New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, T. Dietz and P.C. Stern, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Purser, R., C. Park, and A. Montuori 1995 Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm. Academy of Management Review 20(4):1053-1089. Ramus, C., and U. Stegner 2000 The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):605-626. Revesz, R. 1997 Foundations of Environmental Law and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. Rondinelli, D., and T. London 2003 How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive 17(1):61-76. Roome, N. 1998 Implications for management practice, education, and research. Pp. 259-276 in Sustainability Strategies for Industry, N. Roome, ed. Washington, DC: Island Press. Rosen, C. 1995 Businessmen against pollution in late nineteenth century Chicago. Business History Review 71(Fall):351-397. 1997 Industrial ecology and the greening of business history. Business and Economic History 26:123-137. Rosen, C., and C. Sellers 1999 The nature of the firm: Towards an ecocultural history of business. Business History Review 73(Winter):577-600. Roy, M. 1991 Pollution prevention, organizational culture and social learning. Environmental Law 22:188-251. Royston, M. 1979 Pollution Prevention Pays. London, England: Pergamon. 1980 Making pollution prevention pay. Harvard Business Review 58(6):6-27. Sarokin, D., W. Muir, C. Miller, and S. Sperber 1985 Cutting Chemical Wastes. New York: INFORM. Schlegelmilch, B., G. Bohlen, and A. Diamantopoulos 1996 The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Marketing Journal 30(5):35-55. Schmidheiny, S. 1992 Changing Course. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Schmitt, R. 1994 The AMOCO/EPA Yorktown experience and regulating the right thing. Natural Resources and Environment (Summer):11-13, 51. Schnaiberg, A., and K. Gould 1994 Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: Worth Publishing. Sefcik, S., N. Soderstrom, and C. Stinson 1997 Accounting through green colored glasses: Teaching environmental accounting. Issues in Accounting Education 12(1):129-141. Sexton, K., A. Marcus, W. Easter, and T. Burkhardt, eds. 1999 Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Sharma, S. 2000 Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):681-697. Shrivastava, P. 1995 The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review 20(4):936-960. Smart, B. 1992 Beyond Compliance. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Starik, M., and A. Marcus 2000 Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal 43(4):539-546. Starik, M., and G. Rands 1995 Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(4):908-935. Starke, L. 2004 State of the World 2004: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Stead, E., and J. Stead 1995 Management for a Small Planet. London, England: Sage Publications. Teubner, G. 1983 Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law and Society Review 17: 239-252. Tietenberg, T. 1992 Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. 2002 The tradable permits approach to protecting the commons: What have we learned? Pp. 197-232 in National Research Council, The Drama of the Commons, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E.U. Weber, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Times Mirror 1995 The Environmental Two Step: Looking Forward, Moving Backward. New York: Times Mirror Magazines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Industrial Ecology and EPA: Report on the EPA Industrial Ecology Workshop. Workshop Organizing Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

OCR for page 200
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Weizacker, E., A. Lovins, and H. Lovins 1998 Factor Four: Doubling Wealth—Halving Resource Use: A Report to the Club of Rome. London, England: Earthscan. Wernerfelt, B. 1989 A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2):171-180. World Business Council on Sustainable Development 1997 Exploring Sustainable Development: WBCSD Global Scenario. London, England: World Business Council on Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute 1994 World Resources, 1994-1995. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999 Critical Consumption Trends and Implications: Dedgrading Earth’s Ecosystems. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 2000a Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from Industrial Economies. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 2000b World Resources, 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 2001 Understanding the Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 2003 World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, Voice, and Power. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.