Journals / Alanya Akademik Bakış / 2021 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

The Effects of Institutional Pressures on Environmental Practices and Firm Performance: A New Institutional Theory Perspective

Kurumsal Baskıların Çevresel Uygulamalar ve Firma Performansı Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bir Yeni Kurumsal Kuram Perspektifi

Pages
393–418
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, it is expected that this research contributes to the literature by examining the moderating role of motivation for legitimacy, as well as shedding light on the relationships between institutional pressures, environmental practices and firm performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research has three main purposes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The second purpose of the research is to reveal the relationship mechanism between institutional pressures and firm performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it is expected that this research contributes to the literature by examining the moderating role of motivation for legitimacy, as well as shedding light on the relationships between institutional pressures, environmental practices and firm performance.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This research has three main purposes. The first purpose of the research is to examine the effects of three institutional pressures, namely normative, coercive, and mimetic pressures, on environmental practices by using the new institutional theory. The second purpose of the research is to reveal the relationship mechanism between institutional pressures and firm performance. In this context, the mediating role of environmental practices was examined. The third purpose of the research is to reveal whether the motivation for legitimacy plays a moderating role between institutional pressures and environmental practices. The research data were obtained from industrial firms operating in Ankara Province. Structural equation modeling was used in data analysis. According to the findings, coercive pressures do not have a significant effect on environmental practices, while normative and mimetic pressures have a significant effect on environmental practices. Furthermore, while environmental practices mediate the effect of normative and mimetic pressures on firm performance, motivation for legitimacy does not have any moderating role in the effect of institutional pressures on environmental practices. In conclusion, it is expected that this research contributes to the literature by examining the moderating role of motivation for legitimacy, as well as shedding light on the relationships between institutional pressures, environmental practices and firm performance.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın üç temel amacı bulunmaktadır. Araştırmanın birinci amacı,yeni kurumsal kuramdan yararlanarak normatif, zorlayıcı ve taklitçibaskılar olmak üzere üç kurumsal baskının çevresel uygulamalar üzerindekietkilerini incelemektir. Araştırmanın ikinci amacı, kurumsal baskılar vefirma performansı arasındaki ilişki mekanizmasını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Buamaca yönelik olarak çevresel uygulamaların aracılık rolü incelenmiştir.Araştırmanın üçüncü amacı, kurumsal baskılar ve çevresel uygulamalararasında meşruiyet motivasyonunun düzenleyici bir rol oynayıpoynamadığını ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma verileri Ankara İlinde faaliyetgösteren sanayi firmalarından elde edilmiştir. Veri analizinde yapısal eşitlikmodellemesi kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre zorlayıcı baskılar çevreseluygulamalar üzerinde anlamlı bir etkiye sahip değilken, normatif ve taklitçibaskılar çevresel uygulamalar üzerinde anlamlı bir etkiye sahiptir. Ayrıca,normatif ve taklitçi baskıların firma performansı üzerindeki etkisindeçevresel uygulamalar aracılık rolü oynarken, kurumsal baskıların çevreseluygulamalar üzerindeki etkisinde meşruiyet motivasyonu herhangi birdüzenleyici role sahip değildir. Sonuç olarak bu araştırmanın kurumsalbaskılar, çevresel uygulamalar ve firma performansı arasındaki ilişkilereışık tutmakla beraber meşruiyet motivasyonun düzenleyici rolünüinceleyerek alanyazına katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRLEK, M. (2022). The Effects of Institutional Pressures on Environmental Practices and Firm Performance: A New Institutional Theory Perspective. Alanya Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 393–418. https://ajindex.com/articles/434751

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. ALI, F., RASOOLIMANESH, S. M., SARSTEDT, M., RINGLE, C. M., & RYU, K. (2018). “An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in Hospitality Research”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1): 514-538.
  2. ANDERSON, J. C., & GERBING, D. W. (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach”. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411–423. Ankara Sanayi ve Teknoloji Il Müdürlüğü (2018). Ankara İl Sanayi Durum Raporu. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/plan-program-raporlar-ve-yayinlar/81-il-sanayi-durumraporlari/mu0603011615, 26.06.2020
  3. ASO, Ankara Sanayi Odası (2019). Firma Rehberi. http://uygulama.tobb.net/UyeBilgiSorgulama/fw_uyeBilgiServisi.do, 23.04.2020
  4. ATINC, G., SIMMERING, M. J., & KROLL, M. J. (2012). “Control Variable Use and Reporting in Macro and Micro Management Research”. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1): 57-74.
  5. BACHMANN, P., & INGENHOFF, D. (2016). “Legitimacy through CSR Disclosures? The Advantage Outweighs The Disadvantages”. Public Relations Review, 42(3): 386-394.
  6. BAGOZZI, R. P., & YI, Y. (1988). “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 74-94.
  7. BANSAL, P., & ROTH, K. (2000). “Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness”. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717-736.
  8. BARON, R. M., & KENNY, D. A. (1986). “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
  9. BELKAOUI, A., & KARPIK, P. G. (1989). “Determinants of the Corporate Decision to Disclose Social Information”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(1): 36-51.
  10. BERRONE, P., FOSFURI, A., GELABERT, L., & GOMEZ‐MEJIA, L. R. (2013). “Necessity as the Mother of ‘Green’inventions: Institutional Pressures and Environmental Innovations”. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8):891-909.
  11. BRAAM, G. J., DE WEERD, L. U., HAUCK, M., & HUIJBREGTS, M. A. (2016). “Determinants of Corporate Environmental Reporting: The Importance of Environmental Performance and Assurance”. Journal of cleaner production, 129:724- 734. BRISLIN, R. W. (1970). “Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research”. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1(3): 185-216.
  12. CAMPBELL, J. L. (2007). “Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility”.