1

Social Sustainability implementation in the Bangladeshi

Apparel Industry: Isomorphism, Diffusion, Decoupling

and change in Institutional Logics due to Environmental

Shocks

Fahian Anisul Huq (f.huq@lancaster.ac.uk)

Lancaster University Management School, U.K.

Dr Mark Stevenson

Lancaster University Management School, U.K.

Dr Marta Zorzini

Lancaster University Management School, U.K.

Abstract Most social sustainability studies are from the developed country buying firm perspective and

lack theoretical underpinning. We examine the implementation of social sustainability in the

apparel industry of Bangladesh using institutional theory, investigating how institutional

pressures exerted by actors, e.g. developing country suppliers, NGOs and trade bodies,

impact the diffusion of socially sustainable practices; and, how changes in institutional logics

affect implementation. Preliminary findings reveal, for example, that conflicts between the

social and (traditionally dominant) economic logic impact implementation. Although the

economic logic is still prevalent, the social logic is gaining in importance, leading to more

effective diffusion of practices.

Keywords: Social Sustainability, Apparel Supply Chain, Institutional Theory.

Introduction

On the 24th of April 2013, the Rana Plaza building that housed five Bangladeshi apparel

factories making clothes for Western brands collapsed, killing 1,129 people. This was by far

the deadliest disaster in the history of the apparel industry and followed shortly after the

November 2012 fire at the Tazreen factory – also supplying major Western buyers – that

killed approximately 110 workers. Tragic events such as these have led to increased public

scrutiny, with Western buying firms being increasingly held responsible for the social

sustainability of their upstream supply chain partners. Adverse publicity as a result of socially

unsustainable practices has caused lasting damage to brands and revenues; and, it has created

increased stakeholder expectations – exerting pressures on Western apparel buying firms to

have acceptable supply chain-wide social sustainability standards (Klassen and Vereecke,

2012).

The environmental aspect of sustainability has been studied extensively, but the social

discourse has only recently joined the mainstream supply chain management literature

(Carter and Rogers, 2008). Even though social sustainability becomes a more critical

management concern when dealing with distant developing country suppliers, most previous

2

studies have been conducted in the context of developed country buyers (Ehrgott et al.,

2011). Very few contributions have incorporated multiple stakeholders and, surprisingly,

studies accounting for the views of developing country suppliers and their workers are even

more scarce. There is a knowledge gap concerning how institutional actors influence the

extent of a firm’s pursuit of social sustainability and exert institutional pressures, especially

in response to environmental shocks or jolts, such as the aforementioned Tazreen factory Fire

and Rana Plaza collapse. There is also a gap concerning how environmental shocks impact

the dominant logics and decision making practices in a given context.

In response to the clear practical and academic importance of this topic, we propose the

following research questions:

RQ1. How are the key institutional actors in the apparel industry exerting pressures on: (a)

suppliers, to diffuse socially sustainable practices into their organisations; and (b)

buyers, to diffuse socially sustainable practices into their relevant supply chains.

RQ2. How are the institutional logics in the apparel industry changing in response to

environmental shocks and affecting the implementation of social sustainability in the

apparel industry?

Institutional Theory

Institutional theory provides an overarching framework to guide how organisations respond

to a combination of both internal and external pressures from actors within their institutional

field or environment; and, as the pattern of conducting socially responsible business evolves,

organisations converge on a set of homogeneous business practices (Dimaggio and Powell,

1983, Grewal and Dharwadkar, 2002, Zsidisin et al., 2005). Much like a legal precedent, this

will eventually become the legitimate way of organising a socially sustainable supply chain

(Meyer and Rowan, 1977, Zucker, 1987). Institutional theory asserts that these so-called

isomorphisms occur through mainly normative, coercive, and mimetic pressures (Dimaggio

and Powell, 1983, Grewal and Dharwadkar, 2002), as described below.

Coercive pressures are those exerted by powerful organisations within the network,

alongside cultural or societal pressures. Mimetic pressures occur when an organisation, due

to uncertainty, mimics the actions of successful competitors in the industry. Finally,

normative pressure is associated with professionalisation, primarily the growth of formal

education and professional networks (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983, Scott, 1987). A wide

range of actors are likely to influence the creation of new types of institutions, comprising of

critical exchange partners, such as buyers, suppliers, shareholders, regulatory organisations,

professional and trade associations, special interest groups, the general public and customers,

to even socio-economic norms and belief systems (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983, Eisenhardt,

1988, Hoffman, 2001, Scott, 2008).

Even though institutional theory has been identified as a valuable tool for OM research

(Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004) – offering important insights into the adoption of various

SCM practices (Kauppi, 2013) – empirical work that adopts it is virtually absent in

sustainable SCM (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). Institutional theory asserts that firms adapt and may

implement new initiatives to gain legitimacy within society itself (Boxenbaum and Jonsson,

2008). Institutional analyses may answer questions about how social choices are fashioned,

facilitated and directed. Researchers have underlined the significance of social

interconnectedness within institutional theory: “institutionalization is better viewed as the

social process by which individuals come to accept a shared definition of reality” (Scott,

1987, p. 496).

Pressures to be socially sustainable are now originating from a complex and expanding

web of constituents, including NGOs, trade associations, trade unions, competitors, investors,

3

governments, local communities and the media – particularly the internet – each of which is

altering the definitions of legitimate socially sustainable behaviour. When such multiple

interest groups have a stake in defining legitimate corporate action, it becomes a central

concern for managers to develop appropriate corporate strategy, especially during periods of

change, instability, and uncertainty (Hoffman, 2001). This is increasingly important in the

apparel industry at this time, as the industry is in a state of flux, and resides at the cross-roads

of its journey towards greater sustainability. After recent high profile social failures, which

we refer to as triggering events, the ‘eyes’ of the world are on the developed world’s buyers

and their suppliers. They need to be seen to be responsive to the interests of external social

actors in order to gain legitimacy amongst their current and future stakeholders.

The institutional field is establishing new socially sustainable standards, and the emergent

institutions – both in terms of developed world buyers and third-world suppliers – will need

to reflect on these evolving perceptions in their core business strategy in order to be viewed

by external parties as complying or exceeding in terms of their social sustainability. This

means firms must devote increasing resources towards social sustainability initiatives in a

way that also simultaneously satisfies their economic objectives (Porter and Kramer, 2011).

Thus, by adopting institutionally defined socially sustainable policies, both the buyer and

supplier firms will be able to create legitimacy to operate in the eyes of their external

stakeholders.

Isomorphism and Decoupling

Institutions can be defined as ‘historical accretions of past practices and understandings that

set conditions on action through the way in which they gradually acquire the moral and

ontological status of taken-for-granted facts which, in turn, shape future interactions and

negotiations’ (Munir and Phillips, 2005, p: 1668). Institutionalization is the process by which

a pattern of action becomes the norm and becomes embedded in an organisation, or in the

industry, or society (Green, 2004). A central idea of institutional isomorphism is that as more

and more organisations conform to socio-cultural prescriptions to gain legitimacy, it leads to

the diffusion of socially rationalised organisational practices in that field (Meyer and Rowan,

1977, Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). However, more recent research using institutional theory

has found that institutional pressures do not always lead to isomorphism – in some cases they

can lead to heterogeneous responses (Bala and Venkatesh, 2007, Bhakoo and Choi, 2013),

which can be in various forms including compromise, avoidance, defiance and manipulation

(Oliver, 1991). Others like Meyer and Rowan (1977) have suggested that, sometimes, firms

respond to institutional pressures through only a superficial conformity, i.e. a firm might

formally adopt a practice, but within the organisation the actual practices are not

implemented. This ‘decoupling point’ arises when adaptations to institutional pressures

contradict internal efficiency needs (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) or because firms fail to

consider local circumstances and practical realities (Scott, 2008). Although the phenomena of

decoupling is a well-recognised organisational response (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008),

according to Greenwood et al. (2011) more in-depth scrutiny is required, particularly on the

motivations behind decoupling, on the conditions under which organisations can continue to

decouple their structures from their practices and on the longer-term implications of

decoupling.

Institutional Logics and Environmental Shocks

A relatively new approach to institutional theory is the institutional logic method of analysis,

which helps us understand the influences of societal-level culture on the cognition and

behaviour of individual and organisational actors (Dimaggio, 1997). Alford and Friedland

(1985) were the first to coin the term ‘institutional logics’ and conceptualised it as a set of

4

material practices and symbolic constructions that constitute an institutional order's

organising principles that are available to organisations and individuals to elaborate

(Friedland and Alford, 1991). Thornton and Ocasio (1999, p. 804) further refined the

definition as “the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions,

values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material

subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality”. Thus,

logics provide a means of understanding the social world and prescribe guidelines on how to

function in it in order to gain legitimacy from institutional actors (Greenwood et al., 2011).

Society is constructed of several institutional logics that are symbiotic and yet also

contradictory (Friedland and Alford, 1991, Greenwood et al., 2011). For example, western

societies are said to be comprised of six major societal sectors: the market, the corporation,

the professions, the family, the religions, and the state (Friedland and Alford, 1991).

Organisational fields are rarely subject to a single dominant logic and typically face multiple

logics that may be in competition if not in conflict (Friedland and Alford, 1991, Thornton et

al., 2005, Lander et al., 2013). This new approach differs from a traditional isomorphism

approach by highlighting that institutional pressures can lead to heterogeneous responses

when contending logics co-exist (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008). For example, the logics of

science, i.e. open publication and the pursuit of knowledge and commercial logics i.e.

exploitation of research results exist together in university academic science departments but

promote different behaviours (Greenwood et al., 2011). Similarly, in accounting firms there

exists the professional logic where the emphasis is to protect public interest by verifying the

legitimacy of client financial statements and the commercial logic of profit maximisation,

which under certain conditions might result in conflicting actions (Thornton et al., 2005). The

institutional logic approach helps explain how separate fundamental societal belief systems

affect the cognition and behaviour of individuals and organisations (Tan and Wang, 2011);

and, conversely, how institutional logics change over time, influenced by economic and

social structural changes (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999).

The traditional focus, while using the institutional theory lens, has been on explaining

organisational similarities based on institutional conditions. But, more recently, the emphasis

has been on the role of institutional actors in transforming institutions (Lawrence and

Suddaby, 2006). Of particular interest is the concept of institutional entrepreneurs, introduced

by Dimaggio (1988) and referring to individual and organisational actors that command key

strategic resources or other forms of power to influence institutionalized rules. According to

Beckert (1999), these entrepreneurs have significant influence on the evolution of institutions

by using their resources to support existing institutions or by destroying established taken-

for-granted rules, since they are reflective and can envision alternate and more profitable

actions. When contradictory logics exist simultaneously and the dominant institutional logic

does not comprise an efficient solution for the organisation, it might lead to a decoupling of

practices (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Incompatible prescriptions from multiple institutional

logics can also lead to institutional tension and complexity (Thornton et al., 2005, Greenwood

et al., 2011). In such situations, self-interested institutional entrepreneurs are able to exploit

old logics and create new ones, eventually triggering institutional changes (Dimaggio, 1988).

Environmental jolts or significant historical events can also cause a shift or de-legitimise pre-

existing institutional logic structures (Thornton et al., 2005), thereby creating opportunities

for institutional entrepreneurs to re-evaluate the costs and benefits of existing institutional

practices (Sine and David, 2003). Therefore, we can argue that environmental shocks caused

by the Tazreen Fire and the Rana Plaza collapse in the Bangladeshi apparel industry will act

as catalysts for such institutional change.

We have already validated through initial exploratory interviews two separate institutional

logics within the phenomenological experience of multiple stakeholders in the apparel

5

industry. The first is the desire to maximise profit, which we refer to as the economic logic;

the second logic – often in opposition to the first – is the imparted need to improve social

standards right through the supply chain. Based on our interviews and historical research,

relevant stakeholders described that, following the many earlier sweatshop scandals in the

1980s and 1990s (e.g. Nike), buyers came under pressure from the media, NGOs and

governments to improve social standards in their suppliers, which led to the formation of the

social logic. The key institutional actors that are likely to play a prominent role in the

diffusion of socially sustainable practices in the apparel sector are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Key Apparel Industry Institutional Actors

Methodology: Multiple Case Study Research

An extensive longitudinal study has been undertaken in Bangladesh, renowned for its

importance to the apparel industry. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, between

2011-2013, which improved the focus of the research and allowed for follow-up questions to

be asked (Van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001, Bryman and Bell, 2007). Longitudinal data was

collected before and directly after the Tazreen fire in November 2012 – the minor

environmental shock, and after the Rana Plaza collapse – the major environmental shock, in

April 2013. A multi-case study approach covering the perspectives of multiple stakeholders,

including Bangladeshi suppliers, developed countries buyers, trade bodies, workers, Non-

Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and trade unions was adopted.

The primary mode of data collection was through interviews. Other methods employed

included factory tours and secondary data collection, e.g. from audit reports and relevant

news articles. To date, face-to-face semi-structured interviews have been conducted across:

Twelve Bangladeshi apparel manufacturers that export to Europe & North America; plus

the Bangladeshi offices of six major UK, US and European brand retailers and one major

6

US Supermarket Retailer with annual apparel, with sales ranging from £2.4bn to £12.3bn

(in 2011).

Other institutional actors interviewed include managers from trade associations, NGOs

and trade unions.

Two worker focus group discussions were also conducted.

Many prior studies have identified individual actors and organisations, such as

governments, trade associations, suppliers, NGOs and employees as being critical to the

process of adopting organisational practices (Hoffman, 2001). But few studies to date have

empirically collected a composite analysis of the field-level effect (Kauppi, 2013). In

response, we will look to combine organisation-level analysis with industry level analysis.

We consider the apparel industry to refer to all central actors in the field, including; suppliers,

buyers, competing firms, regulators, consumer groups and policy makers. In examining RQ1,

the unit of analysis is the buyer and supplier organisations and this core set of cases is

supplemented by evidence from the other stakeholders, NGOs, trade unions & trade bodies.

In the second phase, while investigating RQ2, we will build on and link the individual

analyses that exist, and in doing so, the apparel industry becomes the composite unit of

analysis. The application in context helps us to understand how that particular industry’s

logics affect the diffusion of socially sustainable practices. The industry is considered to be a

relevant boundary for identifying institutional logics since industry actors develop common

identities and values that structure social and economic practices, thereby constituting

commonly understood sets of actions (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999). The interaction of

institutional logics can be focused at the societal level, but the emphasis of this research is on

how institutional logics have changed at the industry level due to recent external

environmental shocks. More specifically, it centres on conducting industry level empirical

research to highlight any shift in institutional logics over time.

Initial Findings

RQ1: Key Institutional Pressures leading to Diffusion of Social Sustainability

Some of our initial findings on the key institutional pressures leading to social sustainability

implementation show that coercive pressures include those by buyers, media, end customers,

NGOs, trade unions, workers and the government. Most prominently, pressure has been

imposed by buyers who now make it mandatory for suppliers to reach certain social standards

in order to be considered for a contract. The buyers themselves are influenced by other

stakeholders – like the media and the expectations of end customers, e.g. in Europe and the

US. In contrast, lesser roles have thus far been played by the government and the

enforcement of regulations has been slack due to the corruption of the government’s labour

agency.

Mimetic pressures on suppliers include competition for orders and skilled labour. For

example, the Managing Director of Supplier 2 stated that: “As an industry, we have a

tremendous shortage of workers ... If we are not socially compliant, the workers won’t come

to our factory or we won’t retain them. Competition to get workers amongst the factories is

forcing us to be compliant”. Surprisingly, there are repeated incidences of negative pressures

being exerted by competitors on the suppliers who are leading the field in social sustainability

implementation to refrain from doing more than the norm that exists in their local industrial

belt.

Finally, more educated personnel, an increased education level of owners/managers, and

the continuous development of trade bodies are leading to increased normative isomorphism.

For example, BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association), the

7

main Bangladeshi apparel trade body, is playing a growing and influential role by inspecting

suppliers to ensure that children are not employed in the factories and they also run

workshops to help suppliers improve their social standards. Gradually, a better trained

workforce, able to deal with social compliance is being created, while a more educated

second-generation of entrepreneurs/managers is coming into the industry. This is resulting in

a more positive attitude towards social issues within the Bangladeshi apparel business

community, and beyond.

RQ2: Change in Institutional Logics in Response to Environmental Shocks

As indicated by our interviews and the trade literature, the traditional ideology of the industry

was founded on the economic logic of maximising profits via cheaper labour and capital

costs, but now, the social logic is gaining in prominence. Our findings show that there have

always been conflicts between these two logics, even prior to recent catastrophic events,

which, historically have affected the diffusion of socially sustainable practices. Furthermore,

before the Rana Plaza disaster, the clear prevalence of the economic logic was exemplified by

comments by Supplier 2’s Deputy Managing Director: “It is a buyer’s market ... buyers are

taking advantage of price wars between supplier factories. But if they buy cheap from

Bangladesh, then the benefits to the workers and society will also be cheap.” He claimed that

by failing to share costs or increase retail end-user prices, buyers were not considering the

long term viability of the suppliers or, indeed, how improved standards could be maintained.

Yet Buyer 1’s Supply Chain Manager felt that the prices they were paying were fair and

could lead to improvements in social sustainability that could also allow suppliers to be

economically sustainable. He questioned: “If they are not making a profit, then how are they

running their factories?” Benefits in terms of greater bargaining power were reported by

Supplier 4, but even this supplier complained about having to bear the costs of implementing

social sustainability.

The interplay of institutional logics have not been analysed previously in global supply

chains, where the added complexity of dealing with different socio-cultural setting arise, for

example. The evidence from the case studies show that the home grown institutional logics

of Western buyers does not align with those of developing country suppliers. Our findings

demonstrate that in such complex settings, the successful diffusion of social sustainability in

the SC depends upon conflicting industry logics, e.g. social logic dictates that child labour

should be removed; but the removal of child labour from apparel suppliers has not only

resulted in a loss of earnings but has simply diverted it to other, less regulated and more

hazardous industries like the construction industry. Therefore, in terms of the diffusion of

social sustainability, such initiatives don’t always provide the intended result There are many

instances of these type of trade-offs, not only between dimensions of social sustainability e.g.

economic vs. social, but also within single dimensions, e.g. social vs. social.

Conflicting logics – such as described above – between buyers and suppliers in the apparel

supply chain lead to heterogeneous responses to institutional pressures and increase the

tendency to decouple. For example, we have found evidence that most firms are only

superficially abiding with institutional pressures to be socially sustainable. For example, the

Deputy Managing Director of one supplier stated: “Buyer 4 [a major US Supermarket

retailer] only allows 8-hour shifts with 2 hours overtime per day. But it is not possible to

conform to this standard in the peak season and workers want more overtime as they get

double the basic rate. If we only gave the workers 48 hours of overtime per month, they

would leave and go elsewhere ... So, unfortunately, we have to maintain 2 timesheets. The

buyer and its auditors are aware of this but decide to turn a blind eye.” One set is shown to

buyers/auditors, which complies with regulations; and one is used to pay workers. It was also

claimed in suppliers 2 and 4 that the workers participate in this mock compliance willingly as

8

it is in their interests if they want to retain overtime. This tendency is more evident among reluctant late adopting businesses, rather than

proactive early adopters, indicating heterogeneous responses.

Our analysis further shows that in terms of social sustainability implementation, the environmental shocks are motivating institutional

entrepreneurs to reformulate current institutional logics and thus foster institutional change. Even though the economic logic still dominates,

there is evidence that the environmental shocks or jolts have caused a significant change in social structures and economic forces; and the social

logic – with its emphasis on taking care of the society in which the firm operates in such a way that future generations are not negatively affected

– is gaining in importance, leading to better diffusion of social sustainability in the apparel supply chain.

Figure 2 –Implementation of Socially Sustainable practices: Isomorphic Pressures, Diffusion, Decoupling & change in Institutional Logics due

to Environmental Shocks

Environmental

Shocks

Socially

Sustainable

Practices Implementation Diffusion Mimetic

Normative

Coercive

Barriers to

Institutional

Pressures

Decoupling:

Mock compliance/Cheating by Suppliers

Over-looking of faults (insincerity) by

Buyers

Lack of Enforcement/Corruption by

Government agencies

Cultural & Socio-Economic incompatibility

with Western CoCs

Lack of SC Visibility

Confrontational Relationships with auditors

Disparity in multiple buyer CoCs

Isomorphic

Pressures

9

Conclusion

Most prior studies on social sustainability have been in the context of developed countries,

and focused, almost exclusively, on the perspective of the buying firm. This research

contributes to the available literature, for example, by adding to our understanding of the

developing country supplier perspective; dyadic relationships have also been investigated.

We also explored the viewpoints of other stakeholders, both internal to the supply chain and

beyond. We have used institutional theory in the field of social sustainability, where

theoretical lenses have thus far been used sparingly. The research remains ongoing, but

institutional theory is proving to be a useful lens for understanding the diffusion of social

sustainability practices.

Once complete, this research is expected to provoke further work that builds on our

intended contributions. In summary, our research: is a study of a complex supply network in

a dynamic, global environment; employs multiple stakeholder perspectives; is a longitudinal

study conducted in a challenging developing country context; is theory-driven research;

topical and not only practically important for managers but also of social importance to

multiple stakeholders. Currently, we are unpacking and analysing the data by transcribing

each case and coding the dataset with the support of qualitative data analysis software

(NVivo).

References Alford, R. R. and Friedland, R. (1985), Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy, Cambridge

University Press,

Bala, H. and Venkatesh, V. (2007), "Assimilation of Interorganizational Business Process Standards",

Information Systems Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 340-362.

Beckert, J. (1999), "Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and

Institutionalized Practices in Organizations", Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 777-799.

Bhakoo, V. and Choi, T. (2013), "The Iron Cage Exposed: Institutional Pressures and Heterogeneity across the

Healthcare Supply Chain", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. (2013) No. pp.

Boxenbaum, E. and Jonsson, S. (2008), "Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling. The Sage Handbook of

Organizational Institutionalism. Sage Publications Ltd", in GREENWOOD, C. O., SUDDABY, R. &

SAHLIN, K. (Ed.), SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

Carter, C. R. and Rogers, D. S. (2008), "A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving

toward New Theory", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No.

5, pp. 360-387.

Dimaggio, P. (1997), "Culture and Cognition", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 No. pp. 263-287.

Dimaggio, P. J. (1988), "Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory", in ZUCKER, L. G. (Ed.), Institutional

Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 3-22.

Dimaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983), "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective

Rationality in Organizational Fields", American sociological review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.

Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L. and Carter, C. R. (2011), "Social Sustainability in Selecting Emerging

Economy Suppliers", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 99-119.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988), "Agency-and Institutional-Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales

Compensation", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 488-511.

Friedland, R. and Alford, R. (1991), "Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and Institutional

Contradictions", in POWELL, W. & DIMAGGIO, P. (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis. University Of Chicago Press, 232-263.

Green, S. E. (2004), "A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp.

653-669.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R. and Lounsbury, M. (2011), "Institutional Complexity

and Organizational Responses", The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 317-371.

Grewal, R. and Dharwadkar, R. (2002), "The Role of the Institutional Environment in Marketing Channels",

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 82-97.

Hoffman, A. J. (2001), "Linking Organizational and Field-Level Analyses: The Diffusion of Corporate

Environmental Practice", Organization & Environment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 133-156.

10

Kauppi, K. (2013), "Extending the Use of Institutional Theory in Operations and Supply Chain Management

Research: Review and Research Suggestions", International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1318-1345.

Ketokivi, M. A. and Schroeder, R. G. (2004), "Strategic, Structural Contingency and Institutional Explanations

in the Adoption of Innovative Manufacturing Practices", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,

pp. 63-89.

Klassen, R. D. and Vereecke, A. (2012), "Social Issues in Supply Chains: Capabilities Link Responsibility, Risk

(Opportunity), and Performance", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 103-

115.

Lander, M. W., Koene, B. a. S. and Linssen, S. N. (2013), "Committed to Professionalism: Organizational

Responses of Mid-Tier Accounting Firms to Conflicting Institutional Logics", Accounting, Organizations

and Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 130-148.

Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006), "Institutions and Institutional Work", in CLEGG, S. R., HARDY, C.,

LAWRENCE, T. & NORD, W. R. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies. 215.

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977), "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and

Ceremony", American journal of sociology, Vol. No. pp. 340-363.

Munir, K. A. and Phillips, N. (2005), "The Birth of the 'Kodak Moment': Institutional Entrepreneurship and the

Adoption of New Technologies", Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1665-1687.

Oliver, C. (1991), "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes", The Academy of Management Review, Vol.

16 No. 1, pp. 145-179.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2011), "The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value", Harvard business review, Vol.

89 No. 1-2, pp. 63-77.

Scott, W. R. (1987), "The Adolescence of Institutional Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32 No.

4, pp. 493-511.

Scott, W. R. (2008), "Approaching Adulthood: The Maturing of Institutional Theory", Theory and Society, Vol.

37 No. 5, pp. 427-442.

Sine, W. D. and David, R. J. (2003), "Environmental Jolts, Institutional Change, and the Creation of

Entrepreneurial Opportunity in the Us Electric Power Industry", Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 185-

207.

Tan, J. and Wang, L. (2011), "Mnc Strategic Responses to Ethical Pressure: An Institutional Logic Perspective",

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 373-390.

Thornton, P. H., Jones, C. and Kury, K. (2005), "Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations:

Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing", in JONES, C. & THORNTON, P. H. (Ed.),

Transformation in Cultural Industries (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 23). Emerald

Group Publishing Limited. 125-170.

Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. (1999), "Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in

Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958‐1990", American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 801-843.

Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2007), "The Moderating Effects of Institutional Pressures on Emergent Green Supply

Chain Practices and Performance", International journal of production research, Vol. 45 No. 18/19, pp.

4333-4355.

Zsidisin, G. A., Melnyk, S. A. and Ragatz, G. L. (2005), "An Institutional Theory Perspective of Business

Continuity Planning for Purchasing and Supply Management", International journal of production research,

Vol. 43 No. 16, pp. 3401-3420.

Zucker, L. G. (1987), "Institutional Theories of Organization", Annual review of sociology, Vol. 13 No. pp. 443-

464.