۱- Introduction

۲- Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

۳- Method

۴- Results

۵- Discussion and conclusions

References

Abstract

Drawing on Bansal & Roth’s model of ecological responsiveness, the study investigates how environmental managers’ cognitive framings of sustainability issues and interpretations of field-level contextual factors affect decision-making processes with regard to environmental management system (EMS) internalization. Using data from a survey questionnaire of 457 ISO 14001-certified and EMAS-registered European companies, the research analyses the influence of managers’ perceptions of contextual factors (i.e. environmental issue salience and governmental regulatory incentives) and managers’ cognitive traits (i.e. managers’ environmental concern and cognitive framings of environmental practices) on internalization. The results highlight that, while managers’ perceived stakeholders’ concern for the natural environment directly influences substantive internalization, governmental regulatory reliefs fail to influence the internalization of EMS. Similarly, managers’ environmental concern emerges as an antecedent of internalization, while managers’ adherence to an alignment logic between economic and environmental objectives does not contribute to internalization. Furthermore, the study contributes to the conceptualization of substantive internalization of environmental practices, by highlighting the existence of two distinct dimensions of EMS internalization, i.e. operational and strategic internalization.

Introduction

The last decades have witnessed a rapid increase in the diffusion of certifiable environmental management systems (EMS) in most industry sectors. Since their inception in the 1990s, EN ISO 14001 and the Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) has emerged as the most widely adopted standards for integrating environmental protection policies according to internationally recognised and verifiable guidelines (Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002). Motivations and outcomes of standard-based EMS adoption have attracted considerable interest in management research (Stevens et al., 2012; Boiral et al., 2018; Salim et al., 2018; Álvarez-García et al., 2018). Studies have demonstrated that certified EMS adoption contributes enhancing corporate legitimacy and reputation in the eyes of external stakeholders, by signalling superior environmental commitment, reliability and transparency (Bansal and Hunter, 2003; King and Bruner, 2000; Darnall, 2006; Tambovceva and Geipele, 2011; D’Souza et al., 2019). Similarly, EMS have been praised to enhance companies’ business performance and competitive positioning, when coupled with significant improvements in environmental performance (Darnall et al., 2008; Iraldo et al., 2009; Daddi et al., 2011). However, research has often provided inconclusive results concerning the relation between certified EMS adoption and better environmental performance or more effective environmental practices (Nawrocka and Parker, 2009; HerasSaizarbitoria et al., 2015; Zobel, 2016a,b; Merli & Preziosi, 2018; Poltronieri et al., 2019). Several scholars have indeed underlined that the mere adoption of a standard-based EMS does not necessarily improve environmental performance, as organizations may settle for a superficial or symbolic implementation of the EMS to secure benefits in terms of external legitimacy and reputation (Boiral et al., 2018; Darnall et al., 2008; Testa et al., 2014). The adoption of a certifiable EMS for mere reputational purposes correspond to “symbolic corporate environmentalism”, in case environmental certification is not coupled with the material improvement of environmental performance or more effective environmental management (Bowen, 2014).