Multi-dimensional struggles in the greening of industry: A dialectic issue lifecycle model and case study

Caetano C.R. Penna, Frank W. Geels
2012 Technological forecasting & social change  
This paper aims to make two conceptual contributions to the greening of industry literature. Firstly, we propose that the greening process can be conceptualized as an issue lifecycle dynamics with multi-dimensional struggles between 'greening' pressures and industry response strategies. To capture the endogenous dynamics, we develop a Dialectic Issue LifeCycle model with five phases, which conceptualize how these struggles play out over time. Secondly, we propose that issue lifecycle dynamics
more » ... e also influenced by (external) alignments with contextual field-level developments. This proposition accommodates the notion that industries not only face 'green' issues but also other relevant pressures. We apply the model to a historical case study: air pollution problems and responses from American automakers . The case study presents a good match with the first three phases of the model, but shows deviations in the fourth and fifth phase, which are due to: a) decreasing pressure from public opinion; b) limited spillovers from air pollution to consumer demand; c) rise of competing issues; and d) strong resistance from the car industry. The findings underline that the greening of industry cannot be fully understood by looking only at the focal issue (e.g. air pollution). Broader developments in industry and external contexts also need to be taken into account. framing, is still ongoing [4, 5] . The second debate was about the determinants of corporate greening, which gave rise to two research strands. The first strand identified lists of (static) factors [6-8], which range from external factors such as environmental policy, consumer demand and media attention to organizational factors such as leadership style, corporate ethics and resources (technical, financial, organizational). The second strand developed prescriptive phase models in which industrial firms moved from noncompliance to compliance to pro-active 'green' positions, depending on changes in CEO attitudes and socio-psychological characteristics [1, 9, 10] . The last two research strands received criticisms in the late 1990s. The first strand was criticized for a "failure to attribute degrees of importance to the identified influences" [7] (p. 195). The second strand was criticized for: a) an internalistic focus on firms and CEO attitudes [11], b) adhering to a linear model with deterministic progression through stages [12] , c) prescriptive advocacy and moralistic bias [13] . In the third phase, scholars began addressing interactions between industry-internal processes and external contexts [12, 14] . To develop multi-dimensional understandings, scholars also began mobilizing insights from wider theoretical traditions such as evolutionary and institutional perspectives, organization theory and innovation studies [2, 12, 15] . Hoffman and Ventresca [16] proposed an organizational field approach which focuses on the "complex evolution of ideas, resources, social structures, and practices as organizational process that takes shape in broader, increasingly institutionally structured policy fields" (p. 2). The greening of industry was increasingly studied as a longitudinal process that involves corporate strategy, public debate and dialogue, political conflict as well as technical and economic dimensions. To address the political, cultural, economic, technical and business dimensions, Kallio and Nordberg [13] recognize that the greening of industry literature has moved towards "a more multiform theoretical base". They also contended that: "What is still clearly missing is synthetic research orientation and general models and theories that could be used for framing the 'big picture' and the 'big questions' of corporate greening" (p. 446). This paper aims to fill that gap by addressing the following question: how can we understand the greening of industry as a longitudinal process with multiple interacting dimensions? To answer that question, we make two contributions. The first contribution is the development of a Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model. This new model conceptualizes environmental problems (e.g. air pollution, climate change, acid rain) as social issues that emerge and develop over time. 1 Building on issue lifecycle theory, we distinguish several phases to capture the longitudinal characteristic of greening processes. To conceptualize multi-dimensional interactions, we suggest that issue life cycles progress through struggles between industries and other field-level actors. As the issue progresses through subsequent phases, different actors become involved in the struggles. Because industries are the focal actor, we conceptualize these struggles as dialectical interactions between 'green' pressures and industry response strategies. The DILC-model conceptualizes how these struggles play out over time on cultural, political, economic, technological and business dimensions. The second contribution is based on the recognition that the green 'focal' issue is only one of the pressures an industry faces. To understand the greening of industry, it is not sufficient to analyse the internal drivers of issue lifecycles (i.e. the dialectic struggles and interactions). It is also crucial to analyse alignments between the issue life cycle and broader fieldlevel developments (other pressures and industry responses). To elaborate this point, we build on an existing triple embeddedness framework (TEF) of industries. Our model has a processual focus and works within a sociological tradition that looks at actors, their perceptions, strategies, resources, moves and countermoves. Industries are seen as embedded in organizational fields, where they interact with government actors, critical exchange partners, intermediaries in the value chain, professional and trade associations, regulatory bodies, and organized public opinion [17] . Industries, which we simplify here to populations of firms and their branch organizations, share certain characteristics ('industry regime'), but differ in specific strategies. The paper pays less attention to other industry actors such as employees, shareholders, knowledge intensive business services, banks, distribution chains, test agencies etc. While our 'big picture' framework builds on the organizational field approach to include various external contexts of industries, it also incorporates endogenous strategies such as technological innovation, corporate strategy, and political activities. Our model suggests that it is the interaction between external pressures and endogenous response strategies that drives the evolution of 'green' issues.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.09.006 fatcat:i2qq6zg64jfitjipppdyddbt6u