Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 85–95 | Cite as

When One Size Does Not Fit All: A Problem of Fit Rather than Failure for Voluntary Management Standards



Voluntary management standards for social and environmental performance ideally help to define and improve firms’ related capabilities. These standards, however, have largely failed to improve such performance as intended. Over-emphasis on institutional factors leading to adoption of these standards has neglected the role of firms’ existing capabilities. External pressures can drive firms to adopt standards more than their technical capacity to employ them. This can lead to problems of “fit” between institutional requirements and a firm’s existing capabilities. We describe a conceptual model that considers the impact of an interaction between a firm’s institutional requirements and its existing capabilities on standards failure. We suggest solutions that align institutional requirements to appropriate governance forms as a means to improve standards success. We contribute to theory by describing the role of firms’ internal capabilities to the success of voluntary management standards and the reliability of self-regulation generally.


Voluntary standards Institutional theory Operational capabilities Social and environmental performance 


  1. Akerlof, G. (1970). The markets for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansari, S., Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, M. L., & King, A. A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1150–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barratt, M., & Choi, T. (2007). Mandated RFID and institutional responses: Cases of decentralized business units. Production and Operations Management, 16, 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bass, S. (2001). Certification’s impacts on forests, stakeholders and supply chains. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  8. Benner, M. J., & Veloso, F. M. (2008). ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: A technology coherence perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs: A three-country comparative study. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 449–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies, a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Claussen, E. (2001). Climate change: Science, strategies and solutions. Arlington: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  14. Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of US environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darnall, N. (2006). Why firms mandate ISO 14001. Business and Society, 45(3), 354–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darnall, N., & Sides, S. (2008). Assessing the performance of voluntary environmental programs: Does certification matter? Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. David, R., & Han, S. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delmas, M., & Keller, A. (2005). Free riding in voluntary environmental programs: The case of the US EPA WasteWise program. Policy Sciences, 38(2–3), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 575–601.Google Scholar
  21. Delmas, M., & Montiel, I. (2009). Greening the supply chain: When is customer pressure effective? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1), 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delmas, M. A., & Terlaak, A. K. (2001). A framework for analyzing environmental voluntary agreements. California Management Review, 43(3), 44.Google Scholar
  23. Dimaggio, P. J., & 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
  24. Entine, J. (1994). Shattered image. Business Ethics, 8(5), 23–28.Google Scholar
  25. Gertner, J. (2007). From 0 to 60 to world domination. New York Times, February 18.Google Scholar
  26. Giovannucci, D., & Ponte, S. (2005). Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. Food Policy, 30(3), 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gold, R., & Casselman, B. (2010). On doomed rig’s last day, a divisive change of plan. Wall Street Journal, August 26.Google Scholar
  28. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic-action and social-structure—the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hargrave, T., & Van de Ven, A. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 986–1014.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes, R., & Wheelwright, S. (1984). Restoring our competitive edge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hicks, R., & Schnier, K. (2008). Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: A dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howard, J., Nash, J., & Ehrenfeld, J. (2000). Standard or smokescreen? Implementation of a voluntary environmental code. California Management Review, 42(2), 63–82.Google Scholar
  35. Ibanez, L., & Grolleau, G. (2008). Can ecolabeling schemes preserve the environment? Environmental & Resource Economics, 40(2), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 525–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingram, P., & Inman, C. (1996). Institutions, intergroup competition, and the evolution of hotel populations around Niagara Falls. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 629–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs, B. W., Singhal, V. R., & Subramanian, R. (2010). An empirical investigation of environmental performance and the market value of the firm. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 430–441.Google Scholar
  39. Jamali, D. (2010). MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jamali, D., & Neville, B. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0830-0.
  41. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. King, A. A., Lenox, M. J., & Terlaak, A. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1091–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitazawa, S., & Sarkis, J. (2000). The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source reduction programs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lenox, M. (2006). The role of private decentralized institutions in sustaining industry self-regulation. Organization Science, 17(6), 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lenox, M., & King, A. (2004). Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McFarland, R. G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Payan, J. M. (2008). Supply chain contagion. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations—formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  54. Montiel, I., & Husted, B. (2009). The adoption of voluntary environmental management programs in Mexico: First movers as institutional entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mueller, M., dos Santos, V., & Seuring, S. (2009). The contribution of environmental and social standards towards ensuring legitimacy in supply chain governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nishitani, K. (2009). An empirical study of the initial adoption of ISO 14001 in Japanese manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  60. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pagell, M., & Gobeli, D. (2009). How plant managers’ experiences and attitudes toward sustainability relate to operational performance. Production and Operations Management, 18, 278–299.Google Scholar
  62. Pil, F. K., & Rothenberg, S. (2003). Environmental performance as a driver of superior quality. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rametsteiner, E., & Simula, M. (2003). Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raynolds, L. T. (2004). The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Development, 32(5), 725–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rivera, J., De Leon, P., & Koerber, C. (2006). Is greener whiter yet? The sustainable slopes program after five years. Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., & Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schaefer, A. (2007). Contrasting institutional and performance accounts of environmental management systems: Three case studies in the UK water and sewerage industry. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 506–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Short, J., & Toffel, M. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simpson, D., Power, D., & Samson, D. (2007). Greening the automotive supply chain: A relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(1), 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tavernise, S. (2011). Mine owners misled inspectors before blast, investigators say. New York Times, June 29.Google Scholar
  75. Taylor, P. (2004). ‘In the market but not of it’: Fair trade coffee and forest stewardship council certification as market-based social change. World Development, 33(1), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taylor, M., Rubin, E., & Hounshell, D. (2005). Regulation as the mother of innovation: the case of SO2 control. Law and Policy, 27(2), 348–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Terlaak, A. (2007). Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 968–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Toffel, M. W. (2003). The growing strategic importance of end-of-life product management. California Management Review, 45(3), 102.Google Scholar
  79. Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal-structure of organizations—the diffusion of civil-service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Waldman, P. (2009). Exxon vs. Obama. Portfolio Magazine, April.Google Scholar
  81. Ziegler, A., & Nogareda, J. S. (2009). Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Research Policy, 38(5), 885–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementMonash UniversityCaulfieldAustralia
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Richard Ivey School of BusinessUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations