Factors that Motivate Developments in

Environmental Management: An Approach to

Institutional Theory
Patricia Calicchio Berardi, José Carlos Barbieri. Getulio Vargas Foundation

CONTACT

Name: Patricia Calicchio Berardi

E-mail: patricia.berardi@terra.com.br

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pollution is the main cause of high environmental impacts, causing damages to society, fauna and
vegetation as it degrades and jeopardizes the environment. In addition, it is fundamental to consider
the use and wasting of natural resources deriving from goods production which is aimed at
expanding itself as it seeks to increase markets, therefore increasing the consumption of goods.
Industrial organizations are seen as the main culprits for contributing to and worsening these
problems. However, as social and environmental variables are being included in the management of
corporate activities, special practices are found to be adopted in order to prevent pollution, increase
efficiency and decrease the use of natural resources. The main purpose of this research was to study
industrial companies in the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul for the factors
that contribute the most to develop forward-oriented programs in order to promote changes that tend
to an evolution in management, or to determine if these companies are only focusing on isolated
measures as a response to legal pressure. The investigation was conducted using a survey and, later,
Factor Analysis through Principal Components in order to find the most relevant variables; then,
Multiple Linear Regression was used as a means to determine the evolution of environmental
management, its major driving factors and the perception of managers regarding pressures faced,
according to the principles of Institutional Theory. We were able to find that companies have
evolved in a positive way with regard to understanding environment in management activities in the
last few years. Moreover, coercive pressure is a relevant factor for companies both in Rio de Janeiro
and Rio Grande do Sul. However, the environment is still not treated in a structured, systematic way
by these companies.

Keywords: Cleaner Production, Industrial Solid Waste, Environmental Management, Institutional

Theory.

INTRODUCTION

There are several reasons and motives that lead companies to seriously try to decrease their
environmental impacts: regulatory pressures, interest in accessing new markets and investments,
commercial barriers, among many others (Henriques & Sadorsky 1996, Christensen & Nielsen
1996, Sharma & Nguan 1999, King & Lenox 2002, Souza 2002, Buysse & Verbeke 2003, Brio &
Junqueira 2003, Delmas & Toffel 2004). Among the stages of evolution for companies with special
practices are: firstly, responsiveness to regulatory pressures (Hunt & Auster 1990, Viegas &
Fracasso 1998, King, 2000), which is focused on the end of the production process with waste
treatment; in the following stage, focus is on the whole process, involving decreased resource use,
the search for alternative resources, higher efficiency, greater understanding of every impact
throughout the process, making this a stage of prevention understanding; finally, the most advanced
stage is that of proactiveness, which involves not only the company but its production chain
partners into systemic, interorganizational rethinking. Empirical evaluations indicate that companies
still seem to be in the initial responsive stage (Hunt & Auster 1990, Maimon 1994), while a small
part of them would have managed to reach the proactive stage (Neder 1992, Viegas & Fracasso
1998, Sanches 2000, Corazza 2003, Rohrich & Cunha 2004).

Companies in the intermediate stage of prevention do understand that in order to improve their
performance in prevention programs – based on cleaner production and greater contribution to
sustainable development – it is not enough to include new technologies or have programs focus the
process; a broader change would be necessary, in the sense of engaging technical personnel,
managers, senior management and leading the culture of the company into absorbing new concepts
(Hart 1995, Russo & Fouts 1997, Warren, Ortolano & Rozelle 1999, Winn & Angell, 2000).

Studies indicate that managers do not have an aligned perception regarding the environmental
regulations that sometimes represent threats or opportunities, besides the diverging findings
regarding the influence of regulation on the contribution to management stages (Sharma & Nguan
1999, Rugman & Verbeke 2000, Clemens, Bamford & Douglas 2008, Porter & Kramer 2011). In
Brazil, given the recent enacting of the Solid Wastes Act in 2010, it seems necessary to advance
rapidly in order to promote solutions in compliance with legal requirements and to contribute to the
issues of sustainable development. It is worth noting that it has taken 20 years for this law to be
enacted, during which there was some pressure to prevent it from happening. The reason is that
many companies and corporate entities saw it as a threat, with cost increases that would not be
passed along to customers.

With the increasing interest in reducing waste production, using less natural resources in a more
efficient way, seeking pollution prevention and an environmental management that combines these
concerns, our main objective is to identify the current stage of the industrial companies in the
manufacturing sector in the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul, and the
driving factors that lead them to adopt special management practices like cleaner production.

Because of constant, increasing social and market demands, companies need to deal with many
complex variables in their daily business routine. The recent pressures for lower environmental
impacts started to pose new challenges to managers, who can either respond in an isolated way, or
they can seek to review their processes and rethink their activities, aiming not only at lower
impacts, but better practices, new technologies, financial gains, thus producing changes in the so far
prevailing model. Resorting to the perspective of Institutional Theory in order to understand how
companies have worked according to managements in cleaner production programs seems an
interesting approach for contributing to and stimulating this field of study, given the relevance of
social-environmental analysis for management theories in Business Management.

BACKGROUND

In the Industrial Revolution days, environmental issues had little relevance in view of both reduced
production scale and low population densities. The pollution from factory chimneys was seen as a
sign of progress. As the years passed, environmental conditions got worse, social consciousness
increased, global discussions from the 1960’s onwards promoted cultural transformations, and the
protection and conservation of the environment became prominent and strongly relevant in the
socio-economic context: pollution from industrial production has come to be seen as an anomaly to
be fought. Until the industrial revolution, nature was to the economic system an apparently
unlimited source of resources and a large waste cesspool. However, with the high levels of global
economy scale and the evidence of nature’s limits, both in terms of resource supply and waste
reception and regeneration, it was more than necessary to revisit concepts and seek new premises in
order to adjust economy and ecology together (Martini Jr., Figueiredo e Gusmão 2005). The
economic growth and the acknowledgement of the diversity of environment impacts, both locally
and globally, entailed reflections about exchange relations, which have come to include
environment concerns in the dynamics of the economic system.

With the new stage of consciousness on environmental problems and the emergence of new
demands for different attitudes, pollution has come to be a subject of interest in companies, under a
more recent view. Companies begun to control their outputs, with an isolated view of ‘end of pipe’,
aiming to capture and treat their pollution before releasing it in the environment, in order to comply
with the legislation. Some companies realized that simply controlling did not seem to be enough,
and begun to work on special practices for their production process, reviewing their production
systems and seeking efficiency in the use of resources. Yet other companies had a glimpse of the
necessity to integrate production and management, giving the environment a strategic position in
their business plan (Hart 1995, Porter & Linde 1995, Shrivastava 1995).

In Brazil, the first phase of industrialization was based on expanding the primary sector of the
economy and on exporting commodities until mid 1930’s, when the Brazilian government begun to
stimulate the formation of an independent national manufacturing industry. In mid 1940’s, many
multinational corporations settled in Brazil, as well as Brazilian large state-owned companies, and
they dominated the industrial operation and development. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, the focus on
economic growth in order to strengthen the country stimulated rural populations to migrate into
urban centers; this process led to higher densities of population, who begun to consume a higher
number of less durable goods, causing an increase in waste disposal. Industrialization, large
infrastructure projects and the exploitation of natural resources in order to meet the demands of
growth and urbanization caused deep degradation to the environment. Shortage of available areas
and the lack of regulation, among others, allowed for a significant increase in water, soil and air
pollution, with severe consequences both to human health and the environment (Gutberlet 2000).

Pollution and waste generation are failures in the process, with inefficiencies and deficiencies in the
product project (Porter & Linde 1995). This perception contributed to the quality revolution in the
1980’s. Consequently, pollution has come to be seen as economic waste, a situation where
resources were not fully or correctly used. Reducing waste at its source and using the waste that is
still being generated brings benefits both in environmental and socio-economic terms, such as
decreasing waste disposal and transportation costs, landfill exhaustion rates, natural resource use
and the environmental risks of these wastes to fauna, vegetation an society as a whole. In many
parts of the world, governments acted in order to contribute to the creation of specific regulation
fighting negative impacts or promoting actions focused on environment. Public authorities adopted
measures through public policies such laws, guidelines, rules and instruments that affected
environmental issues both directly and indirectly.

CLEANER PRODUCTION

Incorporating clean technologies depends directly on pressure from regulation agencies and the
community, the industry’s investment rate, financing ability and technological development
(Maimon 1994). Preventing waste production and its respective pollution provides greater
opportunities than treating and controlling the wastes produced (Porte & Linde 1995). Pollution
prevention possibly ranks highest in the scale of environment protection, followed by recycling,
treatment and final disposal actions. Moreover, in the perspective of prevention, these later options
are alternatives for dealing with pollutants which, despite efforts, could not be eliminated in the
production process (Oldenburg & Geiser 1997).
The Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) study seems to be in line with the social-
environmental agenda with regards to designing management strategies. Indeed, the necessity of a
pollution prevention approach (P2) is a major driving force which consists in being one stage ahead
of reactions and attempts to respond to requirements of pollutant emission control regulation. At
this point, companies evaluate not just the final moment of production; they actually review
processes that lead to pollution, with a view to mapping them and finding points to be improved,
aiming at reducing emissions, thus focusing on the actual sources of pollution. Since 1990, the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) have encouraged and supported the creation of several National Clean
Technology Centers (CNTL) in several locations around the world. In Brazil, the creation of a
CNTL took place in 1995 in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, where the Brazilian
headquarters for the program was settled; Brazilian partners in this initiative are the Brazilian
Support Service for Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE) and the National Service for Industrial
Training (SENAI) both of which participated by training technical staff with the methods of
UNIDO. The 2002 United Nations Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development that
was held in Johannesburg emphasized, among others, the interrelation between goods consumption
and production, recognizing the inefficiency in the use of natural resources and its consequent waste
production. As a result, there was a global promotion of actions and projects focusing on cleaner
production methods and practices. Brazil signed its adherence to the Conference’s commitments in
2003. SEBRAE, Federations of Industry of several Brazilian states such as Rio Grande do Sul, São
Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Paraíba, Goiás and Piauí (FIERGS, FIESP, FIEMG,
FIRJAN, FIEB, FIEPB, FIEG, FIEPI), the National Confederation of Industry (CNI), CETESB and
several entities promoted the subject. Their purpose was to develop a technical and economic
strategy that was environmentally integrated to companies’ production and service processes,
aiming to decrease environmental costs and aggressions by increasing the efficiency in using raw
materials and resources like water and energy, while decreasing or recycling wastes.

Cleaner production is a permanent, technological strategy that opposes solutions aimed only at
controlling pollution in the end of the production process (Barbieri 2009). Cleaner production aims
to completely eliminate or decrease to a minimum the generation of wastes, seeking changes both in
products and their production processes. This approach contributes directly to sustainability by
reducing raw material consumption in early processing; it affects the production course so that the
process incorporates new, less impacting technologies; it also affects the post-consumption end of
products’ life cycle, so that pollution and impacts are decreased by the correct disposal of wastes.
Because the essence of cleaner production is based on reducing pollution by using natural resources
efficiently and rationally and, therefore, decreasing mindless use and dissipation – all of which are
solutions with less impact from production processes, and therefore greater socio-environmental
benefits, it is worth noting, at this point, its total alignment to the principles of Sustainable
Development.

FACTORS OF CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The literature has a number of studies that seek to identify the several factors that lead companies to
adopt measures focused on socio-environmental issues, i.e., factors that somehow contribute to the
evolution of environmental management: pressures from market and society, Corporate Social
Responsibility, legal regulation, high compliance costs (Hart 1995, Russo & Fouts 1997, Sharma &
Vredenburg 1998, Khanna & Anton 2002, Delmas & Toffel 2004, Lee & Yuan 2008, Bréchet &
Jouvet 2009). A few studies show that companies act reactively to demands (Bansal & Roth 2000,
Porter & Kramer 2006), while other studies investigate the internal and external factors that
pressure companies to adopt environmental measures, often reactively at first, then evolving in
terms of management into higher levels of proactiveness (Neder 1992, Henriques & Sadorsky 1996,
Viegas & Fracasso 1998, Sanches 2000, Corazza 2003, Rohrich & Cunha 2004, Finch 2005).
Others yet analyzed spontaneous initiatives of self-regulation (Christensen & Nielsen 1996, Rohrich
& Cunha 2004, Delmas & Toffel 2008). There are also studies aimed at understanding how
companies faced the pressures for changes in their management, seeing these either as business
threats or opportunities (Donaire 1994, Sharma & Nguan 1999, Winn & Angell 2000, King 2000,
Souza 2002, Brio & Junqueira 2003, Clemens, Bamford & Douglas 2008).

Concerns about environmental issues evolved slowly and in different ways among the several
actors: individuals, governments, companies, civilian entities, international organizations, among
others. The first evolution stage was marked by ignorance, neglect or even malicious intent;
environmental practices were restricted to correction, reaction or repression as a response to actions
meant to interrupt such processes. This phase was also marked by fines and penalties as a means of
pollution control. In the following moment, the focus shifted to the generation of impacts. This was
motivated by government measures to prevent pollution and stimulate resource production. This
period is marked by the search for cleaner, more efficient processes and analyses of environmental
impact prior to license granting; these practices spread from local to statewide application.
Generally speaking, actions ceased to emphasize purely responsive or corrective, end-of-process
behaviors. In the most advanced stage, environmental issues acquire a broader dimension, with
impacts felt on a global level, leaving behind the purely ecological view of environmental
degradation. These issues have come to combine social, political, cultural and economic aspects
beyond national borders (Barbieri 2009).

Several empirical studies conducted in the last few years seem to indicate that companies both in
Brazil and around the world suffer several ways of pressure and yet remain in the initial,
responsive/corrective stages regarding environmental management. Therefore, it is worth at this
point to indicate the conduction of more in-depth studies in order to determine how industrial
companies – since they tend to cause major socio-environmental impacts – should be assessed in
terms of their perception of their own positions and attitudes towards environmental management;
moreover, considering current market conditions and the numerous demands from stakeholders,
studies should identify the factors that motivate those positions and attitudes.

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

Institutional Theory focuses on the reproduction or limitation of organizational structures, activities

and routines as a response to the pressure of the State; it also focuses on collective rules or
professional expectations in the institutional environment, offering several paths through which they
react to pressures. It directs the causal impact of government, social and cultural pressures.
Organizations’ responses as well as the stage they reach depend on the institutional pressure to
adapt to prevailing conditions (Oliver 1991).

Constant, external pressures and demands lead organizations to adapt in order to meet such
demands, through which they assume attitudes of greater responsibility towards the environment
(Wood Jr. 1992). In the several ways of thinking that form the field of organizational changes, this
theory states that, in certain cases, companies change to respond to crises where the main elements
considered are technology, social behavior and structures. Other companies, however, see the
change process as a principle of continuous improvement. Changing is seen not only as a necessity,
but as a matter of survival. In this case, however, the necessity for structural changes in
organizations are no longer driven by reasons of efficiency and competition; rather, these changes
are performed so that companies become similar to each other, not necessarily becoming more
efficient (Dimaggio & Powell 1991).

This homogenization is best captured by the concept of isomorphism, in which a restriction process
forces a certain unit to be similar to other units in the same set of environment conditions. “It is a
useful tool to understand the politics and ceremonial that pervade a significant part of modern
organizational life.” (Dimaggio, Powell, 2005, p. 77). The environment outside organizations has
come to determine a few of their characteristics, so it is worth noting two perspectives here: the
environment controls the organizations or the organizations control the environment. New variables
are included: corporate culture and knowledge as well as economic, social and cultural aspects of
the environment, contrarily to the previous focus on material resources, technology and capital.
Companies seek isomorphism, i.e., homogeneity among their structures and actions, as a means to
acquire legitimacy, and this homogeneity is often the result of normative pressures by the State and
other regulatory entities for the enforcement of environmental laws (Dutra & Nascimento 2005,
Sacomano Neto & Truzzi 2002).

Institutionalism tries to explain why organizations adopt specific sets of institutional forms,
procedures or symbols, focusing particularly on the diffusion of these practices. According to
Delmas and Toffel (2004), Institutional Theory emphasizes the importance of regulatory, normative
and cognitive factors affecting the choices for specific organizational practices beyond technical
efficiency concerns, through legitimacy processes and the tendency to institutionalized
organizational structures and procedures. These authors state that Jennings and Zandbergen were
the first to use Intuitional Theory in 1995 to explain the adoption of environmental and management
practices, and that primary pressures derive from coercive, regulatory forces. Other stakeholders
such as customers and final consumers, local communities and non-government, as well as mimicry
competitors, can also pressure for and influence the adoption of environmental practices. Delmas
and Toffel (2004) stressed the necessity for other empirical studies in order to verify not only
coercive, but also normative pressures for organizational environmental strategies.

As for isomorphism, it can be coercive, mimetic or normative. Coercive isomorphism results from
formal or informal pressures that are felt as coercion, persuasion or even a sort of invitation to
participate in a certain arrangement; on occasions, the resulting organizational change is perceived
as a direct response to governmental orders, as with pollution control for environmental regulation
compliance, or even with tax or legal obligations (Hoffman 1999, Dimaggio & Powell 2005).
Therefore, coercive isomorphism represents the pressures for conformity with standards, regulations
and other rules.

In view of the above, the adoption of cleaner production by manufacturing companies can be better
explained in light of Institutional Theory, in order to find which stage the studied companies are on,
what are their managers’ perceptions, how internal developments take place, whether their
programs represent actual changes in management and, finally, whether management responses in
these manufacturing companies are oriented towards legitimacy and isomorphism as a means for
institutionalization (Meyer & Rowan 1977, Oliver 1991, Wood Jr. 1992, Maimon 1994, Asthon,
Luque & Ehrenfeld 2002, Dimaggio & Powell 2005, Sacomano Neto & Truzzi 2005, Goulart 2005,
Delmas & Toffel, 2008).

PURPOSE

The main focus of this study is to determine what are the factors the influence environmental
management in manufacturing companies in the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande
do Sul in light of Institutional Theory.

In Brazil, the conducts and activities considered harmful to the environment make infractors,
whether natural or legal persons, liable to both administrative and penal sanctions, regardless of
damage compensation, as established in the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. The
Environmental Crimes Act, enacted 10 years later, defined both environmental crimes and their
corresponding penalties. However, some legal framework was still necessary with regard to the
problem of solid wastes. A bill foreseeing its regulation was kept in political debate for 20 years.
Several attempts were articulated to prevent its passing in detriment of a greater benefit, as it
harmed the interests of specific groups, particularly packaging manufacturers and major packer
companies. Act #12,305 of August 2010 establishes the National Policy for Solid Wastes (PNRS),
integrated to the National Policy for the Environment (PNMA); it provided the regulatory
framework on solid wastes management in Brazil. However, it requires a series of changes and new
conformations in the systems thus far adopted by companies, consumers and the society in general.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA DESCRIPTION

The questionnaire was structured based on the studies by López-Gamaro, Molina-Azorin & Claver-
Córtes (2010) and Cordeiro, Zhu & Sarkis (2009); it was translated and validated by 4 specialists
and 3 peers. 38 questions were divided in 6 blocks, then entered into SurveyMonkey system, and
were later sent to the respondents base. The block division was as follows: Block 1, 5 questions on
Comand and Control Laws; Block 2, 5 questions on Spontaneous Rules; Block 3, 5 questions on
Management View; Block 4, 8 questions on Organizational Aspects; Block 5, 8 questions on
Technical Aspects; and Blocks 6 and 7, 7 questions on Isomorphisms. Our sample selection sought
to study medium and large manufacturing companies (over 100 employees) in the Brazilian states
of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul. For this study, 321 companies were listed based on their
corporate register at Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro (FIRJAN); another 850 companies
were listed based on their corporate register at Federation of Industries of Rio Grande do Sul
(FIERGS). With regard to the first base, we were able to contact prospective respondents through
telephone, while contact with the second base was conducted only through electronic means. As a
result, 108 respondents were actually surveyed in Rio de Janeiro, and 72 in Rio Grande do Sul,
totaling 180 responses. Of this total, 10 responses were rejected since they were not in accordance
with the focus of the research (companies were smaller than the intended size or not operating in the
manufacturing sector). The analysis techniques used in this research were descriptive analysis,
factor analysis through principal components and multiple linear regression. For our base of 170
responses, the first validation of the questionnaire indicated for each block a Cronbach’s alpha as
follows: Block 1 – Cronbach’s alpha = 0.638; Block 2 - Cronbach’s alpha = 0.628; Block 3 -
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.592; Block 4 - Cronbach’s alpha = 0.902; Block 5 - Cronbach’s alpha =
0.892; Block 6 - Cronbach’s alpha = 0.807. Hair et al (2009) consider alpha values of 0.6. as
acceptable. It is understood here that the evolution of environmental management in companies is
related to legal issues, external pressures and the degree to which companies are engaged in
adopting spontaneous rules. Therefore, blocks 3, 4 and 5 are characterized by policies and practices
deriving from management views with regard to pressures exercised by factors indicated in blocks
1, 2 and 3. We proceeded in order to determine how would be the principal components deriving
from the 21 variables/questions from blocks 3, 4 and 5. These blocks are defined as the formers of
Environmental Management Evolution (Y) which will be explained by the other blocks, i.e., 1, 2
and 6 (X). In other words, the following formulation was sought: the evolution of environmental
management is given in function of external and internal pressures by laws and spontaneous rules
and by isomorphism.

Multicollinearity was analyzed through Matrix of Correlation of variables Y and X, as well as

through Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which tests statistically significant correlations between
variables in the matrix of correlation. This test presented the following results: KMOY = 0.886 and
KMOX = 0.667, with a significance in Y of 0.01 and with a significance in X < 0.001, both
satisfied for this analysis. In the test, 4 principal components were formed for variables Y (Table 1)
with 63.16% of total variance explained, and 5 principal components for variables X (Table 2) with
65.34% of total variable explained. Factors of Y were named as follows: FY1 – Organizational
Aspects; FY2 – Technical Aspects; FY3 – Management View; and FY4 – Strategic Actions. For
factors in X: FX1 – Coercive Isomorphism; FX2 – External Stakeholders Pressure; FX3 – Mimetic
and Normative Isomorphism; FX4 – Legal Pressure for Better Processes; and FX5 – Operational
Change.

In order to verify the relationship between factors of Y and factors of X, multiple linear regression
was used, considering the four factors of Y with the five factors of X (Table 3). This regression
model was used because there were more than 2 independent variables. The equations and
respective R2 are shown below:

a. F1Y = 0.332 F1X + 0.332 F2X + error R2 = 31.1%

b. F2Y = 0.331 F1X + 0.222 + error R2 = 17.5%
c. F3Y = -0.355 F2X + 0.284 F3X + error R2 = 24.7%
d. F4Y = 0.258 F1X + error R2 = 16%

CONCLUSION

The objective of this research was to study how companies faced the several pressures they are
subject to as a result of environmental questions in light of the principles of Institutional Theory,
and to determine whether the management responses of manufacturing companies are guided by the
pursuit of legitimacy and isomorphism as a means for institutionalization. Through the construction
of factors for variables X, factor F1X and factor F3X represent coercive isomorphism and mimetic
and normative isomorphism, respectively. Using the analysis conducted on the equations from the
multiple linear regression, we found that managers do promote their management policies and
practices (F1Y, F2Y and F4Y) because they feel pressured by both local and external laws (for
export companies) since coercive isomorphism is present in 3 of the 4 equations. With regard to
management view, the mimetic and normative isomorphism manifests itself contrarily to the
evolution of environmental management, and it was not perceived as a form of pressure for
companies in the market.

The findings of this research reinforce the position of Carvalho, Vieira and Lopes (1999) that
legitimacy and isomorphism are guided by the regulation element, in a utilitarian logic aimed at
serving cost-benefit interests. This is also the opinion of Dutra & Nascimento (2005) and Sacomano
Neto & Truzzi (2002), who present organizations’ homogeneity as deriving from regulation in order
to comply with the legal standards of environmental legislation. According to the study of Zucher
(1987) about Institutional Theory, this response is in line with the approach to environment as an
institution, which places the drive for institutionalization outside the organization.

With regard to isomorphism and legitimacy as a means for institutionalization, our research with
companies in the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul found that the respondent
companies are guided by the coercive element, and that environmental regulations, both domestic
and in import countries, are a relevant factor to their forms of management. We found our research
to be in line with the studies of Delma & Toffel (2004) and Alperstedt, Quintella & Souza (2010).
The findings of this research are also related to those of Cordeiro, Zhu & Sarkis (2009) with regard
to the strong international influence in the conduction of environmental management.

We can affirm that the medium and large manufacturing companies in the Brazilian states of Rio de
Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul that responded the questionnaire are still in the initial stages
concerning environmental management evolution, and that the most relevant driving factors are
domestic or foreign (for export companies) regulatory pressures, i.e., coercive isomorphism and,
with a lower emphasis, the external pressures from stakeholders – such as clients, competition,
suppliers or professional entities – that form the mimetic and normative isomorphism.
REFERENCES

Alperstedt, G. D., Souza, L.R. & Quintella, R. H. (2010): Estratégias de gestão ambiental e seus
fatores determinantes: uma análise institucional. Revista de Administração de Empresas RAE 50
(2).

Andrade, J. C. S., Marinho, M. M. O. & Kiperstok, A. (2001): Uma política nacional de meio
ambiente focada na produção limpa: elementos para discussão. Bahia Análise & Dados 10 (4).

Ashton, W., Luque, A. & Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2002): Best practices in cleaner production promotion
and implementation for smaller enterprises. Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) and InterAmerican
Development Bank (IADB).

Bansal, P., Roth, K. (2000): Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of Management Journal 43 (4).

Barbieri, J. C.(2009). Desenvolvimento e meio ambiente. As estratégias de mudanças da Agenda 21.

Vozes, Petrópolis.
Bréchet, T. & Jouvet, P. (2009): Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution
abatement options. Ecological Economics 68.

Brio, J. Á. & Junqueira, B. (2003): Influence of the perception of the external environmental
pressures on obtaining the ISO 14001 standard in Spain industrial companies. International Journal
of Production Research 41 (2).

Buysse, K. & Verbeke, A. (2003): Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholders management

perspective. Strategic Management Journal 24 (5).

Carvalho, C. A., Vieira, M. M. F. & Goulart, S. (2005): A trajetória conservadora da teoria

institucional. Revista de Administração Pública RAP 39 (4).

Christensen & Nielsen, E. H. (1996): Implementing environmental management systems in Danish

industry: Do we go beyond compliance? Eco-Management and Auditing 3.

Clemens, B., Bamford, C. E. & Douglas, T. J. (2008): Choosing strategic responses to address
emerging environmental regulations: Size, perceived influence and uncertainty. Business Strategy
and the Environment 17.

Corazza, R. I. (2003): Gestão Ambiental e mudanças da estrutura organizacional. Revista de

Administração de Empresas Eletrônicas RAE-eletrônica 2 (2).

Cordeiro, J. J., Zhu, Q. & Sarkis, J. (2009): International and domestic pressures and Chinese
organizational responses to greening. The Academy of Management Proceedings - Annual Meeting
Proceedings: Green Management Matters.

Delmas, M. & Toffel, M. W. (2004): Stakeholders and Environmental management practices: An

institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment 13.

Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1991). In: Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (2005): A gaiola de ferro revisitada: isomorfismo institucional e

racionalidade coletiva nos campos organizacionais. Revista de Administração de Empresas RAE
45 (2).

Donaire, D. (1994). Considerações sobre a influência da variável ambiental na empresa. Revista de

Administração de Empresas RAE 34 (2).

Dutra, C. J. C. & Nascimento, L. F. (2005): Teorias organizacionais e o dilema ambiental: um

tratamento para a mudança organizacional? Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa
RECADM 4 (2).

Dutra, C. J. C. & Nascimento, L. F. (2007): Em busca de melhores bases estratégicas para

estratégias em P+L. In: IX ENGEMA Encontro Nacional sobre Gestão Empresarial e Meio
Ambiente.

Finch, N. (2005): The motivations for adopting sustainability disclosure. MGSM Working Paper n.
2005-17. University of Sidney.
Gutberlet, J. (2000) Sustainability: a new paradigm for industrial production. International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education 1 (3).

Hair Jr. J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. & Tatham, R. (2009). Análise multivariada de
dados. Bookman, Porto Alegre.

Hart, S.L. (1995): The natural-resource-based-view of the firm. Academy of Management Review
20, 986-1014.

Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. (1996): The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An

empirical approach. Journal of environmental Economics and Management 30.

Hoffman, A. J. (1999): Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical
industry. The Academy of Management Journal 42 (4).

Hunt, C. B. & Auster, E. R. (1990): Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap.
Sloan Management Review.

Khanna, M. &; Anton, W. R. Q. (2002): Corporate environmental management: Regulatory and

market-based incentives. Land Economics 78 (4).

King, A. (2000): Organizational response to environmental regulation: punctuated change or

autogenesis? Business Strategy and the Environment 9 (4).

King, A. & Lenox, M. (2002): Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management
Science 48 (2).

Lee, C. & Yuan, C. (2008): Environmental regulation with green technology innovation using
supply chain integration. Northeast Decision Sciences Institute Proceedings 28 (30).

Lober, D. J. (1998): Pollution prevention as corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Organizational

Change Management 11 (1).

López-Gamero, M. D. & Molina-Azorín, J. F. & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010): The potential of

environmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmental management,
competitiveness and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 18.

Maimon, D. (1994): Eco-estratégia nas empresas brasileiras: realidade ou discurso? Revista de

Administração de Empresas RAE 34 (4).

Martini JR.,L. C., Figueiredo, M. A. G. & Gusmão, A. C. F. (2005). Redução de resíduos

industriais como produzir mais com menos. Aquarius, Rio de Janeiro.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977): Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology 83 (2).

Neder, R. T. (1992): Há política ambiental para a indústria brasileira? Revista de Administração

de Empresas RAE 32 (2).

Oldenburg, K. U. & Geiser, K. (1997): Pollution prevention and…or industrial ecology? Journal of
Cleaner Production 5 (1-2).
Oliver, C. (1991): Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review
16 (1).

Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2006): The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility. Harvard Business Review, Dec.

Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011): Creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash
a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Fev.

Porter, M. & Linde, C. (1995): Toward a new conception of the enviromnent-competitiveness

relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (4).

Rohrich, S. S. & Cunha, J. C. (2004): A proposição de uma taxonomia para análise da gestão
ambiental no Brasil. 2004. Revista de Administração Contemporânea RAC 8 (4).

Rugman, A. M. & Verbeke, A. (2000): Six Cases of Corporate Strategic Responses to

Environmental Regulation. European Management Journal 18 (4).

Russo, M.V. & Fouts, P.A. (1997): A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3).

Sacomano Neto, M. & Truzzi, O. M. S.(2002): Perspectivas contemporâneas em análise

organizacional. Gestão e Produção 9 (1).

Sanches, C. S. (2000): Gestão ambiental proativa. Revista de Administração de Empresas RAE 40

(1).

Sharma, S. & Nguan, O. (1999): The biotechnology industry and strategies of biodiversity
conservation: The influence of managerial interpretations and risk propensity. Business Strategy
and the Environment 8.

Sharma, S. & Vredenburg, H. (1998): Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the
development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal
19 (8).

Shrivastava, P. (1995): Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic

Management Journal 16.

Souza, R. S. (2002): Evolução e condicionantes da gestão ambiental nas empresas. REAd Edição
Especial 8 (6).

Viegas, C. & Fracasso, E. M. (1998): Capacidade tecnológica e gestão de resíduos em empresas de

calçados do Vale do Sinos: estudo de dois casos. Revista de Administração Contemporânea RAC 2
(2).

Warren, K. A., Ortolano, L. & Rozelle, S. (1999): Pollution prevention incentives and responses in
Chinese firms. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19.

Winn, M. I. & Angell, L. C. Towards a process of corporate greening. Organization Studies 21 (6).

Wood JR., T. (1992): Mudança organizacional: uma abordagem preliminar. Revista de

Administração de Empresas RAE 32 (3).
Zucker, L. G. (1987): Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology 13.