Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:23:00.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Organizational Drivers of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

Sanjay Sharma  and
Pramodita Sharma
Sanjay Sharma
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Pramodita Sharma
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Get access

Summary

This chapter is divided into three sections. 1) Corporate governance (ownership and management) influences; the influence of institutional investors, activist shareholders, and board of directors; the influence of top management teams in non-family firms or the dominant coalition of family firms determines the temporal orientation of key decision makers and the extent to which these decision makers identify with the firm. 2) The firm's strategic responses to market forces and regulatory influences. The relationship between firms’ generic and sustainability strategies and the impact of these strategies on a firms’ financial performance. 3) The importance of organizational capabilities that enable firms to achieve a balance between their economic and environmental performance. Family firms in which the controlling owners strongly identify with their family business and share a vision of corporate sustainability and long-term stewardship, are more likely to develop organizational capabilities needed to undertake a PES. In turn, such family firms will more likely enjoy positive performance on financial as well as socioemotional dimensions important to their dominant coalition.

Keywords

OwnershipGovernanceTop Management TeamDominant CoalitionsTemporal OrientationFamily IdentitificationMarket and Competitive StrategiesThe Natural Resource-based ViewEnvironmental CapabilitiesFamilinessStewardshipFamily IdentityThe Contingent Natural Resource-Based View
Type
Chapter
Information
Patient Capital
The Role of Family Firms in Sustainable Business
 , pp. 98 - 149
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackoff, R. L. 1970. A Concept of Corporate Planning. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S.-W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17–40.Google Scholar
Adner, R. and Helfat, C. E. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1011–1025.Google Scholar
Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M. and Rupp, D. E. 2006. Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance, 14(3): 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research on Organizational Behavior, pp. 263–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, L. M. and Bateman, T. S. 2000. Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 548–570.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. and Reeb, D. 2004. Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 209–237.Google Scholar
Aragón-Correa, A. 1998. Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5): 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragon-Correa, J. A. and Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent natural-resource based view of proactive environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 71–88.Google Scholar
Arregle, J., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G. and Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 73–95.Google Scholar
Balderjahn, I. 1988. Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17, 51–56.Google Scholar
Bansal, P. 2003. From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5): 510–527.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32: 1231–1241.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 2001. Is the resource based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26: 41–56.Google Scholar
Basco, R. and Rodriguez, M. J. P. 2009. Studying the family enterprise holistically: Evidence for integrated family and business systems. Family Business Review, 22: 82–95.Google Scholar
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berchicci, L., Dowell, G. and King, A. A. 2012. Environmental capabilities and corporate strategy: Exploring acquisitions among us manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1053–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2013. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 891–909.Google Scholar
Berrone, P. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2009. Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 258–279.Google Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R. and Larraza-Kintana, M. 2010. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1): 82–113.Google Scholar
Bhat, V. N. 1992. Strategic planning for pollution reduction. Long Range Planning, 25: 54–61.Google Scholar
Bluedorn, A. C. 2000. Time and organizational culture. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M. and Peterson, M. F. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, 117–128. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bluedorn, A. C. 2002. The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experiences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. O., Helland, E. and Smith, J. K. 2006. Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5): 855–877.Google Scholar
Buzzelli, D. 1991. Time to structure and environmental policy strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, March-April, 17–20.Google Scholar
Carney, M. 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 249–265.Google Scholar
Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C. and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2012 (November): 1153–1173.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. 1966. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (2nd ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. and Litz, R. 2004. Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28: 335–354.Google Scholar
Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 663–680.Google Scholar
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. and Sharma, P. 1999. Defining family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1): 19–39.Google Scholar
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L .P. and Rau, S. 2012. Sources of heterogeneity of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6): 1103–1113.Google Scholar
Coffey, B. S. and Fryxell, G. E. 1991. Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6): 437–444.Google Scholar
Coffey, B. S. and Wang, J. 1998. Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14): 1595–1603.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. R. and Sharma, P. 2016. Entrepreneurs in every generation: How successful family businesses develop their next leaders. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Coombs, J. E. and Gilley, K. M. 2005. Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9): 827–840.Google Scholar
Cordano, M. and Frieze, I. H. 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 627–641.Google Scholar
Craig, J. and Dibrell, C. 2006. The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 19(4): 275–288.Google Scholar
Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G. and Amarapurkar, S. S. 2009. Family capital of family firms: Bridging human, social, and financial capital. Family Business Review, 22(3): 199–215.Google Scholar
Darnall, N. and Jr. Edwards, D. 2006. Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 301–320.Google Scholar
David, P., Bloom, M. and Hillman, A. J. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1): 91–100.Google Scholar
Davis, P. S. and Harveston, P. D. 1999. In the founder’s shadow: Conflict in the family firm. Family Business Review, 12(4): 311–323.Google Scholar
Dean, T. J. and Brown, R. L. 1995. Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: Initial evidence and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 288–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K. and Gupta, S. 2006. The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32(3): 329–342.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A. and Montes-Sancho, M. J. 2010. Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 575–601.Google Scholar
Delmas, M. A. and Toffel, M. W. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1027–1055.Google Scholar
Desjardins, M. 2018. Under Pressure or Fairly Valued? The Effects of Security Analyst Coverage on Firm Investment Horizon. Paper presented at the Eighth Gronen Research Conference, Almeria, Spain, June 13th to 16th.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E. and Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 517–554.Google Scholar
Jr. Dyer, W. G. and Whetten, D. A. 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, November 30(6): 785–802.Google Scholar
Egri, C. P. and Herman, S. 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 571–604.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–1121.Google Scholar
Elkington, J. 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, Winter: 90–100.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G. 2005. Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’s development. Organization Science, 16(6): 599–617.Google Scholar
Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M. M. and Lansberg, I. 1997. Generation to Generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. and Krause, T. S. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20: 874–907.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Takacs, K. H., Nunez-Nickel, M. and Jacobson, K. J. L. 2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 106–137.Google Scholar
Graves, S. B. and Waddock, S. A. 1994. Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 1034–1046.Google Scholar
Greening, D. W. and Gray, B. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 467–498.Google Scholar
Habbershon, T. G. and Williams, M. L. 1999. A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms, Family Business Review, 12(1): 1–22Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20: 874–907.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. and Ahuja, G. 1996. Does it pay be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5: 30–37.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. and Sharma, S. 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 7–18.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 997–1010.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D. and Luce, R. A. 2001. Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business & Society, 40(3): 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. B. and Auster, E. R. 1990. Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review, 31(2): 7–18.Google Scholar
Hoy, F. and Sharma, P. 2010. Entrepreneurial Family Firms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P. and Angelidis, J. P. 2003. Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(4): 393–401.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R. and Stavins, R. N. 1995. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33: 132–163.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A. and Greening, D. W. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 564–576.Google Scholar
Judge, W. Q. and Douglas, T. J. 1998. Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35: 241–262.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–292.Google Scholar
Kammerlander, N., Dessi, C., Bird, M., Floris, M. and Murru, A. 2015. The impact of shared stories on family firm innovation. Family Business Review, 28(4): 332–354.Google Scholar
Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. 2006. Stakeholder performance and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 145–159.Google Scholar
Kell, G. and Lacy, P. 2010. Sustainability a priority for CEOs. Business Week, 25 June. www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jun2010/ca20100624_678038.ht (accessed September 16, 2015).Google Scholar
Kellermanns, F. W. and Eddleston, K. 2004. Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3): 209–228.Google Scholar
Kellermanns, F. W., and Eddleston, K. 2006. Corporate venturing in family firms: Does the family matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 809–830.Google Scholar
Klassen, R. D. and McLaughlin, C. P. 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42: 1199–1214.Google Scholar
Klassen, R. D. and Whybark, D. C. 1999. The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 599–615.Google Scholar
Kolk, A. 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and Environment, 17(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Kolluru, R. V., ed. 1994. Environmental Strategies Handbook, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Lansberg., I. 1999. Succeeding Generations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Leana, C. R. and Van Buren, H. J. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: 538–555.Google Scholar
Levy, D. L. 1995. The environmental practices and performances of transnational corporations. Transnational Corporations, 4(1): 44–67.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W. and Vaughn, M. 2008. Family orientation: Individual-level influences on family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21(2): 127–138.Google Scholar
Luoma, P. and Goodstein, J. 1999. Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 553–563.Google Scholar
Lyman, A. R. 1991. Customer service: Does family ownership make a difference? Family Business Review, 4(3): 303–324.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. M. K. 2009. Does corporate investment drive a “race to the bottom” in environmental protection? A reexamination of the effect of environmental regulation on investment. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6): 1297–1318.Google Scholar
Magretta, J. 1997. Growth through global sustainability: An interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro. Harvard Business Review, 75(1): 78–88.Google Scholar
Mahoney, L. S. and Thorne, L. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57: 241–253.Google Scholar
Marcus, A. A. and Geffen, D. 1998. The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 1145–1168.Google Scholar
Marcus., A. A. and Nichols, M. L. 1999. On the edge: Heeding the warnings of unusual events. Organization Science, 10: 482–499.Google Scholar
McEvily, B. and Marcus, A. 2005. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1033–1055.Google Scholar
McKendall, M., Sanchez, C. and Sicilian, P. 1999. Corporate governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board structure on environmental violations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7(3): 201–223.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E and Snow, C. C. 1978. Organization Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. 2005. Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Milliken, F. J. 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12: 133–143.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.Google Scholar
Nehrt, C. 1996. Timing and intensity effects of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 535–547.Google Scholar
Nehrt, C. 1998. Maintainability of first mover advantages when environmental regulations differ between countries. Academy of Management Review, 23: 77–97.Google Scholar
Neubaum, D. O. and Zahra, S. A. 2006. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: the moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32(1): 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C. and Shaw, J. C. 2008. Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6): 949–969.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1991. America’s green strategy. Scientific American, April: 168.Google Scholar
Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. 1995. Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, Sept–Oct: 120–134, 196.Google Scholar
Post, J. E. 1991. Managing as if the Earth mattered. Business Horizons, 34(4): 32–38.Google Scholar
Post, J. E. and Altman, B. W. 1992. Models of corporate greening: How corporate social policy and organizational learning inform leading-edge environmental management. In Post, J. E. and Preston, I. E. (eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, pp. 3–30. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Priem, R. L. and Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22–40.Google Scholar
Purser, R. E., Park, C. and Montuori, A. 1995. Limits to anthropocentrims: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 20: 1053–1089.Google Scholar
Ramus, C. A. and Steger, U. 2000. The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee “Ecoinitiatives” at Leading-Edge European Companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 606–625.Google Scholar
Rondinelli, D. A. and London, T. 2003. How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1): 61–76.Google Scholar
Roome, N., 1992. Developing environmental management strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1: 11–24.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. 1998. Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 363–375.Google Scholar
Russo, M. V. and Fouts, P. A. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 534–559.Google Scholar
Salvato, C., Chirico, F. and Sharma, P. 2010. A farewell to the business: Championing exit and continuity in entrepreneurial family firms. Entrepreneurial and Regional Development, 22: 321–348.Google Scholar
Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sharfman, M. P. and Fernando, C. S. 2008. Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 569–592.Google Scholar
Sharma, P. and Irving, G. 2005. Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1): 13–33.Google Scholar
Sharma, P. and Sharma, S. 2011. Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2): 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S. 2014. Competing for a Sustainable World: Building Capacity for Sustainable Innovation. Greenleaf Publishing, UK.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 681–697.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. 2005. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 159–180.Google Scholar
Sharma, S, Pablo., A. and Vredenburg, H. 1999. Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: The role of issue interpretation and organizational context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 87–109.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 729–753.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. 1994. CASTRATED environment: GREENING organizational studies. Organization Studies, 15: 705–726.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. 1995a. Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20: 118–137.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. 1995b. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 183–200.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. 1995c. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 936–960.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P. and Kennelly, J. J. 2013. Sustainability and place based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26(1): 83–101.Google Scholar
Sirmon, D. G. and Hitt, M. A. 2003. Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27: 339–358.Google Scholar
Slawinski, N. and Bansal, P. 2012. A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11): 1537–1563.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. L. and Bierman, L. 2009. Family capital, family business, and free enterprise. Family Business Review, 22(3): 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, R. L., Goodpaster, K. E., Hedberg, P. R. and Yu, A. 2009. The family point of view, family social capital, and firm performance. Family Business Review, 22(3): 239–253.Google Scholar
Stanwick, P. A. and Stanwick, S. D. 1998. The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance and environmental performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2): 195–204.Google Scholar
Stanwick, P. A. and Stanwick, S. D. 2001. CEO compensation: Does it pay to be green? Business Strategy and Environment, 10: 176–182.Google Scholar
Tapies, J. and Ward, J. L. 2008. Family Values and Value Creation: The Fostering of Enduring Values within Family-Owned Businesses. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tokarczyk, J., Hansen, E., Gree, M. and Down, J. 2007. A resource based view and market orientation theory examination of the role of “familiness” in family business success. Family Business Review, 20(1): 17–31.Google Scholar
Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. 1994. It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, May–June: 46–52.Google Scholar
Walls, J. L., Berrone, P. and Phan, P. H. 2012. Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33: 885–913.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Dewhirst, H. D. 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 115–123.Google Scholar
Ward, J. J. 1987. Keeping the Family Business Healthy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ward, J. J. 1991. Creating Effective Boards for Private Enterprises: Meeting the Challenges of Continuity and Competition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ward, J. L. 2005. Unconventional Wisdom: Counterintuitive Insights for Family Business Success. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Webb, E. 2004. An examination of socially responsible board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8(3): 255–277.Google Scholar
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171–180.Google Scholar
Zott, C. 2003. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 97–125.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×